mtalavera wrote:Just out of curiosity, why do you wish this to be Acqua? I am all for the Acqua line of products and have purchased quite a few, but I am also very satisfied with the Nebula libraries and like both options.
I mix in two distinct stages that I think of as the 'technical mix' and the 'creative mix'. I don't think this is uncommon. I am perfectly satisfied using Nebula for things like consoles, tapes, pres and such that are, in my mind, a pre-mix set of activities that are bounced or frozen. This is the 'technical mix'. For the 'creative mix', I much prefer the workflow provided by Acqua. One plugin with everything at my fingertips.
I just don't want to use Nebula for EQ or compression. It negatively influences my enjoyment of performing a mix. No offence to anyone involved, whether it be Acustica, Tim or any happy users, it is just a personal preference and nothing more. That is also not to say that I am not personally impressed with what has been done. I am! It's just not for me. This may change with Nebula 4, depending on where the technology goes.
richie43 wrote:For the pennies Tim is charging right now for this there is no reason for it to be anything different from what it is! But you know how I feel about that topic....I personally prefer using Nebula to Acqua any time I can.
Yes, I agree actually... Please don't take this as a vote against developing things for Nebula. When I wrote "I wish this was an Acqua plugin", I didn't mean to imply "I wish this was not Nebula programs". It would have been better for me to write "I wish is was being released both as Nebula programs and an Acqua VST so that there are options for everyone". Like Silk.