Another Nebula SSL vs ITB Test for you

Ermz

Ermz

¯\(°_o)/¯
Apr 5, 2002
20,370
32
38
37
Melbourne, Australia
www.myspace.com
This is for you guys that requested I get this shoot-out back up. Apologies about the other one being taken down, but the band requested no uploads of their material, so I had to find something else to use.

That something else has come along in the form of the track Ola has posted up here for people to mix.

Now I did this mix entirely ITB, with no analogue gear being used whatsoever this time. It's purely a comparison of just how much of an improvement/analoguization (nice, they should get me to write the dictionary) Nebula can provide to plain ITB.

The basic procedure was to apply Alex B's SSL Line programs to all of the individual tracks in the mix. After this I put his bus programs across the drums, bass, guitars and master bus.

There is a Waves SSL Bus Comp following Nebula on the master bus for glue, and an iZotope Ozone limiter for quick volume.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/285689/Forum/OlaTrack-ITB.mp3

vs

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/285689/Forum/OlaTrack-Nebula.mp3
 
So, only 4 instances of nebula? A brittle quality present on the ITB mix (that I probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise) is gone on the Nebula mix.

Now where's my wallet? I'ma go buy me some AlexB programs... :)
 
Only 4 real-time instances, yes. However his line programs were rendered offline on all the audio tracks. The issue is that if you reduce Nebula's latency enough to not totally bog down your session its CPU demands become humongous. I can barely get through a mix at 44kHz with my i7 anymore. It's already time for an upgrade.
 
IMO it's perfect for such a comparison because it shows how well both styles of working would hold up until the end of the process. Sometimes processing a mix a certain way can give a deceptively large sound that just eats up headroom and causes you to lose volume on the master. This way you can hear how the saturation can in fact increase perceived end volume.

I'm amazed at how it works. Nebula actually removes transient detail from the source material, but that, coupled with its soft saturation creates this impression of a much larger sound. So the ITB is in fact actually more 'perfect', cleaner and more full of detail, yet it sounds worse. Great stuff. All my opinion of course, everyone is free to make up their own mids.
 
I already said it in the previous test, but since I have been completely ignored, I am going to say it again.;)
The nebula has more high end excitement and a bit more compression.
That's what mild saturation do. No magic here.
Does it make it better? Not necessarily imvho. Your choice.
 
Burny, I think we all know what saturation does. The interest so far for me is that not a single person I've shown these tests to has preferred the ITB version. There is no saturation plug-in available ITB that I've found which can just be put across every track/bus on a preset and instantly make the entire mix sound larger, smoother, livelier and also make more efficient use of headroom. If someone can point me to another, I'd be happy to try it, because Nebula's processing and memory demands are extensive - though one might see that as the correlation between why it sounds superior to just about any plug-in available for saturation and EQ duties.
 
Ermz said:
IMO it's perfect for such a comparison because it shows how well both styles of working would hold up until the end of the process. Sometimes processing a mix a certain way can give a deceptively large sound that just eats up headroom and causes you to lose volume on the master. This way you can hear how the saturation can in fact increase perceived end volume.

I'm amazed at how it works. Nebula actually removes transient detail from the source material, but that, coupled with its soft saturation creates this impression of a much larger sound. So the ITB is in fact actually more 'perfect', cleaner and more full of detail, yet it sounds worse. Great stuff. All my opinion of course, everyone is free to make up their own mids.
Click to expand...

Our own mids?
What frequency, boss?:D
 
I can definitely hear Nebula working it's magic on the mix. I can hear that slight loss of transient detail you speak of, but everything really does sound bigger and slightly wider, as well as a touch smoother and it's definitely worth trading a tiny bit of transient detail for all those extra benefits.
Would definitely like to hear this in a mix with vocals too.
 
You definitely will, Harry. I'm working on an actual proper work project with Nebula at the moment - an alternative/rock type thing, so the benefits of the saturation really come into play.

@Burny: I think the main thing is that mixing 'into' these programs is a lot easier than just straight mixing. They soak up errant transients for you, and just round everything off. It's a lot more fun than just straight mixing, if you know what I mean. Doesn't take as long to get 'that sound', because you don't have to mess with a compressor on every bus soaking up loosness, and this just feels more natural to boot.

@Morgan: I do but by and large it's a different thing. It does tube/tape saturation, and with varying parameters. These programs are more 'set and forget' light transistor/summing type saturation. It's a much more subtle, yet ultimately musical and intuitive thing. Having said that I still use the mix saturator with the tape 3 setting often as per Plec's recommendation. It has salvaged more than a few poor guitar tracks for me, and definitely has its place in a mix.
 
Sounds really cool dude, and I definitely hear the difference, though IMO I think you might have gone a touch overboard with some of the Nebula saturation, as there are aspects of it I prefer, but once everything kicks instrument-wise in the Neb version, I feel like I hear a bit more unpleasant woofing and sorta "gurgling" from the bass (and a bit from the kick as well), probably exacerbated by the fact that IMO the bass is just a bit too loud. Everything sounds really fantastic though, what kick was this? (and exactly how much EQ'ing? I've been experimenting with kick samples recently and it seems like they all just need such an absurd amount of cutting between 100-250 Hz, oy)

Also, where can I find these AlexB commercial programs? Substantial googling and hunting on the Acusticaaudio site yielded no results (though I did find the dude's website, but it seems like the only programs he has links to on there are the inferior free versions :Smug: )
 
Ermz said:
Only 4 real-time instances, yes. However his line programs were rendered offline on all the audio tracks. The issue is that if you reduce Nebula's latency enough to not totally bog down your session its CPU demands become humongous. I can barely get through a mix at 44kHz with my i7 anymore. It's already time for an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Overclock it to 4ghz dude! :kickass:
 
I would Kev, but the astounding heat this room is containing most days is almost frying the CPU on stock clock! Remember, I live in the southern hemisphere, it's almost the middle of summer and the entire room is FULL of thick layers of insulation, with no air con.

@Marcus: I agree with the bass comment there. In fact the track was mixed with Nebula only applied to the drums and master bus. So it goes to figure that the mix was crafted in a way for the bass to sound 'normal' with no saturation at all. Once Nebula was added everywhere, things started to go a little indistinct. Great observation - it's definitely one that came to mind early on. The trick is to mix through Nebula from the get-go I think, across all significant busses, applied to all tracks. There are no 'degrees' of saturation beyond applying it to less busses. It is just a plain preset setting, meant to emulate the amount of saturation - you cannot, to my knowledge, dial more or less. The reason I only applied it minimally during the mix was to see whether an in-between approach would work best to maintain the clarity that metal demands, crossed with the pleasant sound of the smoothing saturation. I'm still experimenting, but it might seem like avoiding bass altogether would be wise at this point.

It seems like Alex B isn't distributing the programs on his site for the time being. Not sure what's up there.

Also, the kick was a bit of a hybrid I put together for another project. Contains around 4 or 5 kicks from memory. After that was done, I took a Curve EQ from Randy's kick on the Nickelback stuff and applied as much of it as sounded right. Now it's a stock sample I have tucked away. I figure over time I'll build my own collection rather than just slap on singular samples as I have in the past.
 
Thanks Marcus, truth be told I'm surprised you like the general sound of it all. I'm not actually sure I do! It's all a bit unfinished and experimental, but I had to get back to the paid work, so no chance to finish it up properly yet. Does the job for the comparison though. At the very least I'm grateful you finally dig one of my kick sounds :lol:

Good luck with it, enditol. I hope you have a hell of a PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ermz
ITB vs Nebula SSL Shoot-out - Commercial Rock
Replies
36
Views
6K
Practice Room
Mesa4x12er
M
O
SSL!!
Replies
3
Views
495
Practice Room
OpenWound
O
Ermz
DBX 160VU Test (Outboard vs ITB compression)
Replies
58
Views
6K
Backline
Straight Shooter
S
Ermz
Heavy Ermz Mix
Replies
54
Views
3K
Practice Room
Ermz
E
Ermz
Mastering with Nebula (Hard Electronic)
Replies
0
Views
412
Practice Room
Ermz
E
Top Bottom
Back