The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Nebula R2R in same league as UAD Studer A800 plugin?
Old 23rd December 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by olivialand View Post
Something I'm hearing from the responses so far is that if I'm going to go with Nebula, I should get the Nebula Pro 3. If I were to do that, and combine it with R2R, my cost savings over the UAD Studer plug would diminish. Getting the UAD plug alone without investing in another card, and then just bouncing or freezing the processed tracks, would cost only $100 more than the Neb Pro 3 + R2R option. And with UAD's convenience factor, it looks like that might be the way to go.
You get the same sound with nebula 2 and 3 pro. If you're ok with freezing/bouncing it shouldn't matter much which you use. Also as SWAN808 commented, you can always upgrade when you save money. I've been using nebula 2 for years heh

But again as SWAN808 commented, don't focus on nebula just for tape. Today I finished a master and yesterday the client sent me a well known ME's master as reference.

I know the engineer in person and besides stems (when needed), he's all analogue. It would simply be impossible to get close enough to that referance sound ITB if I didn't use API eq for nebula (bought from alexb).

Without it, loud masters sound too much "in your face".
Old 24th December 2010
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
however Nebula is a different process and does not seem to choke or degrade the signal...anyways - it can be heard in all the tests that were done by Plec in the UAD forums...the results speak for themselves...
Plec's test is not valid, and Plec himself has already admitted his mistake. UAD A800 is not intended to use on the mix bus. Yes, UAD sounded bad on those tests, but does anyone use 2 tracks of 2" 24 trk tape machine for the master bus? It will make sound just bad. Plec's test has only proved that UAD can emulate this hard fact more correctly than Nebula.

Although I'm not a Nebula hater and I even use Nebula for a few things, the posts from Nebula believer like this always draw my attention, because it is super-biased and it is not telling the truth at all. And it is quite obvious that this poster have never used UAD A800 for himself.

Nebula chokes and degrades the signal like any other digital or analog processing. How someone can believe that Nebula is the only signal processor on the earth that is completely transparent? Also, many of Nebula users know that Nebula has a weakness for emulating non linear behavior of comp or tape. I think Nebula has a bright future, but Nebula technology is still immature and it has its own limitations, as Nebula speaks for itself.
Old 24th December 2010
  #33
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
Plec's test is not valid, and Plec himself has already admitted his mistake. UAD A800 is not intended to use on the mix bus. Yes, UAD sounded bad on those tests, but does anyone use 2 tracks of 2" 24 trk tape machine for the master bus? It will make sound just bad. Plec's test has only proved that UAD can emulate this hard fact more correctly than Nebula.

Although I'm not a Nebula hater and I even use Nebula for a few things, the posts from Nebula believer like this always draw my attention, because it is super-biased and it is not telling the truth at all. And it is quite obvious that this poster have never used UAD A800 for himself.

Nebula chokes and degrades the signal like any other digital or analog processing. How someone can believe that Nebula is the only signal processor on the earth that is completely transparent? Also, many of Nebula users know that Nebula has a weakness for emulating non linear behavior of comp or tape. I think Nebula has a bright future, but Nebula technology is still immature and it has its own limitations, as Nebula speaks for itself.
I respect your opinion but I don't agree...heh
Old 24th December 2010
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eveken View Post
I respect your opinion but I don't agree...heh
That's OK. I was not intended to change mind of Nebula believers. I was just trying to inform non-Nebula users about my realistic aspects of Nebula.
Old 24th December 2010
  #35
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
That's OK. I was not intended to change mind of Nebula believers. I was just trying to inform non-Nebula users about my realistic aspects of Nebula.

The best way is to try by users themselves......
Old 24th December 2010
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eveken View Post
The best way is to try by users themselves......
Agreed. I think many people will find it useful for many things, if he can overcome its interface... it is a different story, though. I'm not against Nebula itself, I'm against those propagators who misinform upon their groundless belief.
Old 24th December 2010
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
Plec's test is not valid, and Plec himself has already admitted his mistake. UAD A800 is not intended to use on the mix bus. Yes, UAD sounded bad on those tests, but does anyone use 2 tracks of 2" 24 trk tape machine for the master bus? It will make sound just bad. Plec's test has only proved that UAD can emulate this hard fact more correctly than Nebula.

Although I'm not a Nebula hater and I even use Nebula for a few things, the posts from Nebula believer like this always draw my attention, because it is super-biased and it is not telling the truth at all. And it is quite obvious that this poster have never used UAD A800 for himself.

Nebula chokes and degrades the signal like any other digital or analog processing. How someone can believe that Nebula is the only signal processor on the earth that is completely transparent? Also, many of Nebula users know that Nebula has a weakness for emulating non linear behavior of comp or tape. I think Nebula has a bright future, but Nebula technology is still immature and it has its own limitations, as Nebula speaks for itself.
Ok fair enough - UAD A800 would have sounded better if mixed thru and perhaps used differently - but Im sure there will be plenty of UAD users who will use it just as plec did...and at the end of the day - the conditions were the same for both plugins.

I have heard the demos of the A800 but have not used it. However I recently sold my UAD2 card because I grew tired of the hyped plugin sound and the big budget luxury plugins that create it...last time round it was the FATSO which once the hype died down did also have that unconvincing plugin saturation that I also heard in the A800 examples...

Good analogue processing in my experience does not degrade the signal like a digital plugin process...seems to be a common understanding around here but correct me if Im wrong.
In my experience and tests - Nebula saturation does sound much more convincing that any algorithmic produced saturation. It makes sense to me - because Nebula is a series of snapshots of real saturation recorded thru quality converters rather than a mathematic model. Just listening to the 2 saturation examples I posted on the previous page shows a more punchy open saturation that Ive heard from any algorithmic plugin in my opinion its plain to hear. Why does Nebula sound different than most plugins? The technology of course is completely different. But if it sounds the same to you then thats ok - your opinion.

I take you point about the UAD test - and would be happy to re-evaluate it done so the UAD can sound better with Nebula under the same conditions - will be interesting to see...but it was the test that was biased - not my opinion of it - I took it blind THEN drew my conclusions. Despite my opinion about Nebula technology above - I am always welcome to new plugins and solutions that might be better or easier to use as I am well aware of the limitations of Nebula and vocal about them also since the early beta stages...
Old 24th December 2010
  #38
Gear Nut
 

What are your favourite R2R (Nebula) tape programs?
Old 24th December 2010
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Good analogue processing in my experience does not degrade the signal like a digital plugin process...seems to be a common understanding around here but correct me if Im wrong.
Wrong. For example, not a log time ago, analog tape machines were considered to degrade the signal. It was artists and producers that let us realize that this negative effect can be used as a positive effect. Any analog processors degrade the signal. It is you who ultimately decide if particular processing has positive or negative effects. If you believe that "good" analog equipments "always" have positive effects and all digital plugin "except Nebula" have negative effects in any context, it's totally fine. I think it is somewhat uncreative statements, but I have to respect your taste, of course.

Also there is absolutely NO consensus around here regarding what you have just mentioned.

Quote:
In my experience and tests - Nebula saturation does sound much more convincing that any algorithmic produced saturation. It makes sense to me - because Nebula is a series of snapshots of real saturation recorded thru quality converters rather than a mathematic model. Just listening to the 2 saturation examples I posted on the previous page shows a more punchy open saturation that Ive heard from any algorithmic plugin in my opinion its plain to hear. Why does Nebula sound different than most plugins? The technology of course is completely different. But if it sounds the same to you then thats ok - your opinion.
I never said that Nebula and UAD sounds the same. In my previous post, I said that UAD A800 and Nebula R2R sounds completely different each other. I prefer UAD as a realistic tape emulator, though.

I have never heard any analog equipment that saturate like Nebula. I'm not saying UAD's emulation is closer to real analog saturation than Nebula's. They are just different. I hear the sonic signature of UAD processing, and I always hear the sonic signature of Nebula's Volterra Kernel, too. It seems like "the punchiness" you described above is the sonic signature of Nebula, and if it's so, it only means that you consider this "negative" effect of Nebula as a "positive" effect which all "good" analog equipments should have.
Old 24th December 2010
  #40
Gear Maniac
 

I plan on getting uad omni 4k and 50 wonderful plug-ins only going to add ssl combo plug and the struder from there I never plan on buying another plug or bundle may buy another quad card off someone to make my dsp powe stronger 4 plug-in heavy sessions starting off w/great mics,preamp,lynx aurora 8 a/d d/a convert. And dangerous d-box 4 summing and monitoring jbl monior,decent treat room,komplete 7,tascam dm-4800 I SEE My gearlust fade away maybe one high-end outboard compressor I dont see anymore gear being brought I'm going to push myself to use tools I have,learning my equip/hard & soft like the back of my hand like a true mixing/rec. Engineer relying on staples of session plug keeping it simple as well getting creative at times during mixing go what sounds good 4 that track doing christian rap % gospel type of RnB tracking live bass,acoustic,horns is what scares me more worried about getting good source sound
Old 24th December 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
lordnielson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
Nebula chokes and degrades the signal like any other digital or analog processing.
I normally stay out of these as much as possible but the lack of truth in that statement screams to high heaven. There must be something wrong with your hearing or monitoring situation.
Nebula doesn't reproduce everything 100% but to say that it degrades audio at the same level as other plugins is simply not true. Not even close.
Old 24th December 2010
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordnielson View Post
I normally stay out of these as much as possible but the lack of truth in that statement screams to high heaven. There must be something wrong with your hearing or monitoring situation.
Nebula doesn't reproduce everything 100% but to say that it degrades audio at the same level as other plugins is simply not true. Not even close.
I think you just don't hear what I hear from Nebula processing. The truth is Nebula changes signal differently than the other digital processing method. I know exactly what you mean, because I thought the same thing after I bought Nebula. Nebula is good, I think, but it has its own character.
Old 24th December 2010
  #43
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

man I always love these Nebula vs the World threads.
Old 24th December 2010
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
Wrong. For example, not a log time ago, analog tape machines were considered to degrade the signal. It was artists and producers that let us realize that this negative effect can be used as a positive effect. Any analog processors degrade the signal. It is you who ultimately decide if particular processing has positive or negative effects. If you believe that "good" analog equipments "always" have positive effects and all digital plugin "except Nebula" have negative effects in any context, it's totally fine. I think it is somewhat uncreative statements, but I have to respect your taste, of course.

Also there is absolutely NO consensus around here regarding what you have just mentioned.

I never said that Nebula and UAD sounds the same. In my previous post, I said that UAD A800 and Nebula R2R sounds completely different each other. I prefer UAD as a realistic tape emulator, though.

I have never heard any analog equipment that saturate like Nebula. I'm not saying UAD's emulation is closer to real analog saturation than Nebula's. They are just different. I hear the sonic signature of UAD processing, and I always hear the sonic signature of Nebula's Volterra Kernel, too. It seems like "the punchiness" you described above is the sonic signature of Nebula, and if it's so, it only means that you consider this "negative" effect of Nebula as a "positive" effect which all "good" analog equipments should have.
Quote:
Nebula chokes and degrades the signal like any other digital or analog processing. How someone can believe that Nebula is the only signal processor on the earth that is completely transparent?
Here is the issue - you think I am talking about transparency - Im not. Also - we are using the word 'degradation' differently.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of what 'degradation' is. Like you say having the signal coloured by analogue equipment used to be viewed as degradation - now when there is a lot of digital 'clarity' in processing - it is often seen as desirable 'colour' so long as the saturation is of a pleasant quality...In this instance for 'degradation' I am describing a signal loosing presence, punch and clarity.
I think you are referring to a wholescale degradation where any change good or bad qualifies for the term - and is 'degraded'. However personally I dont find that so useful as the term 'degrade' is negative - so its a bit unintuative to have a positive degradation...When I use a nice coloured outboard compressor - I dont think - 'yes lets have some nice degradation'.

Anyways my comment wasnt relating to analogue equiptment subjectively improving the sound of 'everything' in 'every' scenario - I was pointing out the difference between running a signal thru good analogue equiptment in general vs a similar digital plugin process. My comments are based around my thoughts on the differences between analogue processing, algorithmic processing and Volterra processing.
I may be mistaken - but there DOES appear to be somewhat of a consensus as to recording thru a good 'front end' into a DAW and doing as much processing OTB as opposed to ITB for this reason. Plugins generally taking away the punch of a signal and masking it. Anyway - whether or not there is a consensus - thats what I have found myself.

However when considering the nature of running full resolution analogue signals thru analogue electronics with their low level saturations and dynamics, versus running 44.1k samplerate digital audio thru a digital simulation - this experience I have had makes logical sense to me.

What Im describing is not a signature of Nebula - but a result of that Nebula program running in Nebula. Nebula doesnt have a 'sound' unless it has a sampled program in it. Its true that Nebula is not able yet to capture 'exactly' the saturation on 'all' levels - but it is quite close.
Im not really interested in the semantic argument about what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' in terms of sound. My comments are about the comparison of analogue saturation vs algorithmic saturation vs Volterra Kernel saturation, and what I have noticed and my opinion on this.

Just as physical modelling of instruments is improving - so are digital algorithmic plugins. However - I would still rather play a well sampled Rhodes than a model because the sampled version - despite limitations - sounds more real to me...just as I would currently rather use the Nebula Neve EQ rather than the UAD one. But Im ok with the Nebula workflow and think its worth it - not everyone is.
Old 24th December 2010
  #45
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Here is the issue - you think I am talking about transparency - Im not. Also - we are using the word 'degradation' differently.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of what 'degradation' is. Like you say having the signal coloured by analogue equipment used to be viewed as degradation - now when there is a lot of digital 'clarity' in processing - it is often seen as desirable 'colour' so long as the saturation is of a pleasant quality...In this instance for 'degradation' I am describing a signal loosing presence, punch and clarity.
I think you are referring to a wholescale degradation where any change good or bad qualifies for the term - and is 'degraded'. However personally I dont find that so useful as the term 'degrade' is negative - so its a bit unintuative to have a positive degradation...When I use a nice coloured outboard compressor - I dont think - 'yes lets have some nice degradation'.

Anyways my comment wasnt relating to analogue equiptment subjectively improving the sound of 'everything' in 'every' scenario - I was pointing out the difference between running a signal thru good analogue equiptment in general vs a similar digital plugin process. My comments are based around my thoughts on the differences between analogue processing, algorithmic processing and Volterra processing.
I may be mistaken - but there DOES appear to be somewhat of a consensus as to recording thru a good 'front end' into a DAW and doing as much processing OTB as opposed to ITB for this reason. Plugins generally taking away the punch of a signal and masking it. Anyway - whether or not there is a consensus - thats what I have found myself.

However when considering the nature of running full resolution analogue signals thru analogue electronics with their low level saturations and dynamics, versus running 44.1k samplerate digital audio thru a digital simulation - this experience I have had makes logical sense to me.

What Im describing is not a signature of Nebula - but a result of that Nebula program running in Nebula. Nebula doesnt have a 'sound' unless it has a sampled program in it. Its true that Nebula is not able yet to capture 'exactly' the saturation on 'all' levels - but it is quite close.
Im not really interested in the semantic argument about what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' in terms of sound. My comments are about the comparison of analogue saturation vs algorithmic saturation vs Volterra Kernel saturation, and what I have noticed and my opinion on this.

Just as physical modelling of instruments is improving - so are digital algorithmic plugins. However - I would still rather play a well sampled Rhodes than a model because the sampled version - despite limitations - sounds more real to me...just as I would currently rather use the Nebula Neve EQ rather than the UAD one. But Im ok with the Nebula workflow and think its worth it - not everyone is.
I think what it comes down to is how it sounds to you on a personal level. Back when I was heavily using Nebula I had several mixes going that had the Alexb consoles and R2R programs all over the mix. At first I thought I really liked the sound and kind of forgot I had Nebula in these mixes. Later on I was revisiting the mixes and found that I liked it better when I bypassed all the R2R and console stuff. I don't know if I would call it
degradation or not but they were doing something that tended to clog things up. I've been using the Slate VCC and UAD A800 on a lot of mixes and I still love what they do. I could care less if it doesn't sound like "analog" or that Nebula "technically" should sound better. It just sounds better to "me", and that's what counts.
Old 24th December 2010
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Here is the issue - you think I am talking about transparency - Im not. Also - we are using the word 'degradation' differently.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of what 'degradation' is. Like you say having the signal coloured by analogue equipment used to be viewed as degradation - now when there is a lot of digital 'clarity' in processing - it is often seen as desirable 'colour' so long as the saturation is of a pleasant quality...In this instance for 'degradation' I am describing a signal loosing presence, punch and clarity.
I think you are referring to a wholescale degradation where any change good or bad qualifies for the term - and is 'degraded'. However personally I dont find that so useful as the term 'degrade' is negative - so its a bit unintuative to have a positive degradation...When I use a nice coloured outboard compressor - I dont think - 'yes lets have some nice degradation'.
I don't think you understand my point. I said there is no difference between degradation and desirable color, because they are the same thing which is just devaluated or evaluated by you and the society that you belong to.
Old 24th December 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
lordnielson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
man I always love these Nebula vs the World threads.
That's why you're in every one of them. Good call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
I think you just don't hear what I hear from Nebula processing. The truth is Nebula changes signal differently than the other digital processing method. I know exactly what you mean, because I thought the same thing after I bought Nebula. Nebula is good, I think, but it has its own character.
I think that to a certain extent you just rephrased what I said. In a complete mix with everything happening Nebula saturation doesn't bother me as much as any other plugin I've tried (without exception). It's not 100% hardware. It isn't. I thought you likened it to algorithmic saturation which it doesn't do at all.

I use Nebula mainly for eqs and spring/140 reverb as I get most saturation from my preamp + mc77.
Old 24th December 2010
  #48
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
I think you may want to add VCC to your list if you don't want to spend $2000 for UAD. VCC is not a tape emulation, but R2R does not really sound like a tape anyway. And VCC sounds more analog than Nebula's console emu or R2R.
You couldnt be more far of the mark from my experience. I have them all and Nebula is MUCH more analogue than VCC, which is wether you like it or not another algo based subtle saturation and EQ curve with that plastic plugin sound.
Old 24th December 2010
  #49
Gear Maniac
 
Windshore's Avatar
 

wow, so much passionate rage!

I think the OP's original question is a bit of a wild haring.

You don't have to get a quad. You can purchase the plug to run on any of their cards. I use it on a duo and can run multiple instances with a bunch of other plugs. I can't imagine wanting to drown a mix with more than 3-4 instances.

Buying the UAD gets you a LOT of other high quality plugins as well.

I've got a couple of other "saturation" plugs by other makers and think the Studer plugin offers A LOT of control and variety and is certainly more plugin than I expected. But I use a ton of UAD plugs on everything I do and my mixes sound better for it.

Of course, if you think you would only use the UAD for that one plugin, it would be foolish. If you are wanting to think longer term I don't think you can go wrong with the UAD2 plugs.
Old 24th December 2010
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshalpha View Post
You couldnt be more far of the mark from my experience. I have them all and Nebula is MUCH more analogue than VCC, which is wether you like it or not another algo based subtle saturation and EQ curve with that plastic plugin sound.
Great. I prefer the plastic sound of VCC, and you prefer MUCH more analogue sound of Nebula. To be honest, I'm getting tired of responding each Nebula believer. And I said I was not a Nebula hater, but I start hating Nebula because of those believers...I'm wondering why they are so super-biased...
Old 24th December 2010
  #51
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordnielson View Post
That's why you're in every one of them. Good call.



I think that to a certain extent you just rephrased what I said. In a complete mix with everything happening Nebula saturation doesn't bother me as much as any other plugin I've tried (without exception). It's not 100% hardware. It isn't. I thought you likened it to algorithmic saturation which it doesn't do at all.

I use Nebula mainly for eqs and spring/140 reverb as I get most saturation from my preamp + mc77.

heh Of course it has nothing to do with Nebula fans showing up in every other plugin thread on this board. I like to return the favor.
Old 24th December 2010
  #52
Lives for gear
 
lordnielson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
To be honest, I'm getting tired of responding each Nebula believer.
In other words: you're pissed off that your opinion is being contested. That you can't just say anything and have it cast in stone.
When what you are saying sounds outright wrong to me I will challenge it. I'm sorry it burdens you, but I'm human that way.
Old 24th December 2010
  #53
Lives for gear
 
lordnielson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
heh Of course it has nothing to do with Nebula fans showing up in every other plugin thread on this board. I like to return the favor.
Like this one with Nebula in the title ?
Old 24th December 2010
  #54
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordnielson View Post
Like this one with Nebula in the title ?
Like I said, I like to return the favor. heh
Old 24th December 2010
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morten View Post
What are your favourite R2R (Nebula) tape programs?
I really like the revox on snare. Sometimes with TapeBooster sometimes without. Great for an overly buzzy snare.
Old 24th December 2010
  #56
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordnielson View Post
Like this one with Nebula in the title ?

heh the reason users of Nebula pop up is because it sounds really good. Been using it for over a year now and when it come to EQs. Console Emus and Tape its untoucable by algos no matter what the hype..........although UAD is better than VCC in terms of what it offers verses hype.
Old 24th December 2010
  #57
Gear Nut
 
olivialand's Avatar
 

I've received mixed opinions - including on this thread - about whether there are any sound quality differences between using Nebula 2 and Nebula 3. Is there a definitive answer?
Old 24th December 2010
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaigen View Post
I don't think you understand my point. I said there is no difference between degradation and desirable color, because they are the same thing which is just devaluated or evaluated by you and the society that you belong to.
I understand your point...like I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post

Also - we are using the word 'degradation' differently.

I think you are referring to a wholescale degradation where any change good or bad qualifies for the term - and is 'degraded'.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of what 'degradation' is.

In this instance for 'degradation' I am describing a signal loosing presence, punch and clarity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
I think what it comes down to is how it sounds to you on a personal level. I could care less if it doesn't sound like "analog" or that Nebula "technically" should sound better. It just sounds better to "me", and that's what counts.
Completely fair enough - thats the important thing. Ultimately doesnt matter WHAT technology is used - but how you like the results.

However - that doesnt mean we should not be able to debate our opinions on these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshalpha View Post
heh the reason users of Nebula pop up is because it sounds really good.
Old 24th December 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 
lordnielson's Avatar
 

For the record I never push Nebula in threads because I don't really care what other people use. It doesn't reflect back upon me. I care what I use and how I get from A to B.

To me this just sounded wrong, so I commented.
Old 24th December 2010
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by olivialand View Post
I've received mixed opinions - including on this thread - about whether there are any sound quality differences between using Nebula 2 and Nebula 3. Is there a definitive answer?
From what I understand - the sound is the same - but the workflow is slower and more CPU usage...I found these for you - but you can also ask in the new forum: • Index page

Acusticaudio Forums-viewtopic-difference between Nebula2 - Nebula3 [QST]

acustica audio nebula and mastering?

KVR: Nebula 2 vs Nebula 3?

EDIT: I just remembered - some 3rd party developers require Nebula 3 Pro - at least I know Alex B does....but analoginthebox and cdsoundmaster are ok with Nebula 2 as far as I know...ultimate answer to be safe is to ask in the Nebula forum...as things change over time...
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
scoring4films / So much gear, so little time
109
Jean Doe / Music Computers
673
kasprouch / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
5
Scott Whigham / Gear Shoot-Outs / Sound File Comparisons / Audio Tests
16
Oop / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
5

Forum Jump
Forum Jump