UAD Studer A800 vs. Nebula R2R & TP+(drums shoot-out)
- Thread starter Plec
- Start date
Melodeath
Moonbow
Well the UAD sounds distorted. Nebula sounds louder, but also the cymbals sound louder int he kit overall - it's harsh but maybe would sound fine in a mix. Original sounded fine. I'd have to hear all three in the mix to decide which sounded best.
It's the Studer, 15ips at -15, program A. For best sound in this case I would've gone with the -10 but the -15 is closer when matching against the UAD Studer. Then just use the TP+ 2db programs from the 44K folder in series until you have the right beef.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
I love how effortless the Nebula programs sound. So much more effective and transparent than straight up limiting to control transients.
Kazrog
Kazrog, Inc.
Actually, I'm really impressed by how much the UAD sample sounds like real tape being pushed too far. It's really spot on, from my experience anyway, primarily with an Otari MTR 90 (not a Studer but still a great unit.) The Nebula example sounds nicely enhanced, but like it was captured based on more conservative settings. Not really a direct comparison, I like each clip in different ways for different reasons, no better/worse here IMO.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
thanks plec
I dont want to start a new thread, but Im new to r2r + tb+. Any recommendation program what should I use on drums,bass,vocal,guitars,etc. Ermz, Plec?
I normally use the Studer 15 ips, -10 on program material, and 30 ips on master bus. 1 to 2dB of TB+ tends to work. The way they're created suggests hitting near 0dBFS with your peaks in order for the programs to work correctly. Not ideal for most mixing situations unfortunately, so you have to do some input boosting and output lowering in order to get them in the ballpark. The library is named and structured in a really unintuitive way.. I literally had to send Plec about 3 e-mails just to get my head around what was going on (since he spoke to the creator directly, after having many of the same questions as I did).
My hope is that one day the programs get updated in a way that's similar to the Alex B libraries, which are much more intuitive.
fistula
Producer/Mixing Engineer
- Jul 18, 2006
- 516
- 1
- 18
hey guys - really dont know what ya are expecting from tape
coz my r2r is in the closet now - no need to record on tape and back anymore
anything i had in my r2r i have now in UAD plug
so if i have what i need - do i care bout something else? course not)
go back to music!
coz my r2r is in the closet now - no need to record on tape and back anymore
anything i had in my r2r i have now in UAD plug
so if i have what i need - do i care bout something else? course not)
go back to music!
What emphasis curve are these examples using?
It sounds like you are comparing Euro v's Yank, hence the difference in the kick. There is a big difference between CCIR and NAB, particularly in LF saturation characteristics.
I'll include this in the A800 layback tonight. It will be CCIR.
@fistula - Played 3 gigs, 2 rehearsals, mixed a live gig and tracked basics for a record in the last week. That's enough music I reckon. Time for some hack science.
It sounds like you are comparing Euro v's Yank, hence the difference in the kick. There is a big difference between CCIR and NAB, particularly in LF saturation characteristics.
I'll include this in the A800 layback tonight. It will be CCIR.
@fistula - Played 3 gigs, 2 rehearsals, mixed a live gig and tracked basics for a record in the last week. That's enough music I reckon. Time for some hack science.
It was the NAB used on the UAD since it lined up better freq. wise with the R2R Studer. Didn't compare them for saturation though.
Just FYI: NAB uses pre and post emphasis pretty dramatically on the lo end. Starting at 100 hz it has a 6db per octave rise so it's up 3db at 50 HZ and 8db at 20hz.
What this means is you have dramatically reduced headroom on the record side so the LF will blow out earlier like the kick has on the UAD example. Presumably UAD have coded this behaviour into the NAB curve.
NAB was developed in the US in the late 40's to make up for the drastic deficiencies in tape characteristics at that time. CCIR/IEC1 is European and uses no LF pre-emphasis so is much more linear.
Anyway, whatever sounds best. Just pointing that out.
Edit: err, now I've listened in the studio and not on laptop speakers I guess the UAD was obviously given a bigger spank too!
For anyone that cares... A friend and I decided to add 10 instances of these same programs on top of the original clip to see what kind of buildup would happen. I was pretty surprised.
Not level matched or anything. I bounced one from my place, my friend bounced one from his. In both instances we just cut the first 8 bars froms Plec's clip and added the instances touching nothing else.
Nebula 10x - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8643460/Nebula10.mp3
UAD 10x - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8643460/UAD10.mp3
Not level matched or anything. I bounced one from my place, my friend bounced one from his. In both instances we just cut the first 8 bars froms Plec's clip and added the instances touching nothing else.
Nebula 10x - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8643460/Nebula10.mp3
UAD 10x - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8643460/UAD10.mp3
Very good info!
The UAD and Nebula were hit both in a way so they would generate as close as possible the same amount of average vs. peak level. Here, the UAD breaks up much earlier then Nebula into ugly distortion. If that's all due to the NAB or not I haven't checked.
Similar threads
