NEBULA makes me doubt myself !! Missing something??

[dikkiedik]

hi,

first of all, please this isn't supposed to be a pro/con nebula rant. don't let it turn into one! tnx

i'm a bit at a loss with some of the supposed best nebula libraries around and i start to doubt that (regarding the great reviews i read everywhere) i may be missing out on something crucial here...

i'm a happy nebula user. lately i decided to get into the whole "console emulation + R2R + tape boost" game, and to be honest, i find myself running in circles.


CONSOLES:
i tested extensively with AlexB's MBC, MLC and CLC consoles. mostly using nebulaman to render my tracks to -18RMS (temporarily), also doing live sessions in Logic

TAPE:
the R2R tape bundle of cdsoundmaster, NAGtape and Sa810tape from Rhythminmind

TAPE+:
the Tapebooster plus bundle of cdsoundmaster


my findings are mixed and i cannot find a satisfactory result.

1) CONSOLES: i HEAR differences yes, but my feeling is that my sound loses some of its punch, lows and clarity, it gets dulled out a bit. also my sterefield seems to suffer some

2) R2R: i struggle to find some tape that doesn't give me harsh highs OR doesn't remove the low punch of my floor toms, bass and kick

3) TAPE+: biggest question for me of all contenders. yes there's this boost as soon as you put a 1 or 2db tape+ in your chain, but level matched (RMS) afterwards my euphoria is gone...

that brings me to my point that in the process i often have the feeling to have found something good and powerful, but after rendering my track, and level matching (RMS) the songs for BLIND A/B comparison 90% of the time i choose my unprocessed render as my favorite.

i know what people will say. use your ears! they don't lie. i'm sure they don't, but i get the feeling that i'm somehow not getting the results one can have with this software (maybe the stubbornness that i paid for all these programs ?) ...

i also know all music is different, and that it's not really possible to point out what i could be doing wrong here, but maybe someone with the same finding can react? or someone can prove me wrong by giving a step by step walk-through of how THEY setup their chains (including all details/levels) so i can give that a try?

i know about the importance of gain staging, especially with nebula. i put a lot of time in reading about the best ways to set up and all the pitfalls of beginning users...

thanks for reading this rant. i have been at it for a month now and thought it was time to put my pride aside and ask for help ...

thanks so much!

cheers

Dikkie

[djanthonyw]

I processed an old track I did with Nebula today.

Here is the before: http://soundcloud.com/monophonic-records/ruslan-a-m-o-s-and-anthony

Here is the after:
Download Ruslan, A.M.O.S. and Anthony Webster - Refuse (Original Mix).mp3 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

[dikkiedik]

Originally Posted by djanthonyw

I processed an old track I did with Nebula today.

Here is the before: http://soundcloud.com/monophonic-records/ruslan-a-m-o-s-and-anthony

Here is the after:
Download Ruslan, A.M.O.S. and Anthony Webster - Refuse (Original Mix).mp3 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

thanks for sharing!
to be honest. yes the nebulized version is louder, gives you the feeling you have more impact uppon listening it for the first time. but i downloaded both, level matched them to -20 RMS with soundgrinder Pro, and blind testing >>> the original has better bass/kick warmth and punch.

please try for yourself!! it's quite obvious. i know we're aiming for a decent loudness in most mixes but i want the focus on what's best for the whole sound at the start of mixing!

[Finnish]

I'm in the nebula wagon but I haven't done much music/mixing lately and I'm still in the beginning point with nebula. But the last time I was testing different tapes with vocals I must say the sound got beefed up just wonderfully. I'm still struggling with optimal levels (I'm aiming for -18) to get the most out of libraries but I must say, nebula IS good..

[djanthonyw]

Originally Posted by dikkiedik

thanks for sharing!
to be honest. yes the nebulized version is louder, gives you the feeling you have more impact uppon listening it for the first time. but i downloaded both, level matched them to -20 RMS with soundgrinder Pro, and blind testing >>> the original has better bass/kick warmth and punch.

please try for yourself!! it's quite obvious. i know we're aiming for a decent loudness in most mixes but i want the focus on what's best for the whole sound at the start of mixing!

Hi, I have done this and there are still differences, obviously the differences can be subjective.

[dikkiedik]

with vocals I must say the sound got beefed up just wonderfully

i believe that! it's more in the lows and punchier/transient area that i find i'm coming short.

if i prerender my tracks before i start mixing in a console > tape > tapeplus fashion, and i compare my original track, i feel that the instruments that suffer the most are the drums and the bass.

warm low end of my bass is gone and the punch and oomph of my toms, floor and kick seem to shy away

on several other tracks (acoustic guitars for example, especially with some nebula equalizers i am more than pleased!)

dikkie

[gussyg2007]

I never use nebular for low end ..it always seem to break up real fast
polishing with mids and highs is a joy !!!

[dikkiedik]

Originally Posted by gussyg2007

I never use nebular for low end ..it always seem to break up real fast
polishing with mids and highs is a joy !!!

that's interesting, because the console and tape(plus) programs together are advertised as a great way of emulating an analog chain flow, that you're supposed to render all your tracks with before continuing with your mix..

one would expect that the lows should not be allowed to suffer in such a scenario, given that you treat your whole song's tracks like this... !

[djanthonyw]

Originally Posted by dikkiedik

thanks for sharing!
to be honest. yes the nebulized version is louder, gives you the feeling you have more impact uppon listening it for the first time. but i downloaded both, level matched them to -20 RMS with soundgrinder Pro, and blind testing >>> the original has better bass/kick warmth and punch.

please try for yourself!! it's quite obvious. i know we're aiming for a decent loudness in most mixes but i want the focus on what's best for the whole sound at the start of mixing!

Try this one.

Download Ruslan, A.M.O.S. and Anthony Webster - Refuse (Original Mix).mp3 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

[Mercado_Negro]

I don't think you'd lose low end with the MLC or CLC, it's quite the opposite, actually. Transients are "enhanced" which may probably confuse your sense of "depth" and "solid bottom end". I can hear how the MLC IL4 program extends the low end and "tightens" it a bit on kick drums, for example. I use that program for kick drums, toms and basses all the time (the MLC IL2 is also very good for kick drums because it "defines" their attacks a bit more than the MLC IL4). I used to use the CLC but I completely replaced it about a year ago for the MLC and I've never looked back (it's actually my go-to Nebula console which I only replace with the VBC when I need more punch... BUT this VBC does really thins things out in expense of this punch so you have to be careful with it).

While I was writing this I thought about checking this MLC IL4 against the dry signal with Voxengo SPAN:



Green = MLC IL4
Orange = Dry

Now, tapes are a different matter in Nebula. You have to find the right combination to make things work and this takes time and experience with all different programs. Don't worry about RMS matching, harmonics always increase the perceived loudness of the source and that's inevitable. Having said that, I don't use any Nebula tape on kick drums because they sacrifice low end in expense of punch (I've also experienced the same with a couple of real machines I've worked with), and that's something I can get away with and add later with compressors (with active HP filters). I'm not sure if this is also the case with all tape machines but I'm pretty sure it is because they do some sort of compression/limiting which sacrifices a bit of low end. The TapeBooster+ programs are complex and you need to know exactly what you want before adding them to your tracks. For example, I use the TapeBoost96Med2 in 90% of cases because it's always worked for me and I haven't had enough time to get used to the rest of the programs of this library. To be honest I rather use the Tube Booster library than the TapeBooster+ but that's just me. I've learned with Nebula that I get better results when I process stuff right there in my project, it doesn't matter if I have to do it 2 tracks at a time, the whole "pre-mixing render" paradigm doesn't get along with me. If you know where you're going to (after listening a rough mix like 30 times), and you know your programs, then it should be fairly easy to get what you want by processing a couple of tracks at a time and freezing.

Cheers

[dikkiedik]

I used to use the CLC but I completely replaced it about a year ago for the MLC and I've never looked back

my findings were also in favor of the MLC,
especially IL2 and IL6 appealed to me

While I was writing this I thought about checking this MLC IL4 against the dry signal with Voxengo SPAN:

could be an interesting thing to see for myself on my own mixes, never thought of that...

Don't worry about RMS matching, harmonics always increase the perceived loudness of the source and that's inevitable

it's the only way i f have the feeling i get a 'fair' comparison, ... but if it's only perceived loudness it means that you're able to mix/master hotter than normal right? or am i seeing this wrong?

If you know where you're going to (after listening a rough mix like 30 times), and you know your programs, then it should be fairly easy to get what you want by processing a couple of tracks at a time and freezing

yeah i understand. i have the feeling i'm still battling my way into nebulaland, and it's an energy/time consuming thing. although i love the results when something works! if it comes together it comes together wonderfully! i already got the hang of it with vocals and acoustic guitars, after nebula they hardly require any additional processing anymore ...

thanks for sharing!

dikkie

[Andygo]

Also recomend you to try Preamp Colour Suite by Alex. You can find there some great low enders)

[djanthonyw]

I just did this mix mainly with nebula.

Mixoff - Indie pop/rock

[dikkiedik]

i'm currently experimenting with the tips given in this thread so far,
hope to have the results soon...

[Andygo]

Originally Posted by dikkiedik

i'm currently experimenting with the tips given in this thread so far,
hope to have the results soon...

Will be interesting to know your findings and conclusion!

[Tui]

The hype surrounding Nebula on GS is a mystery to me personally. I tried the demo, and non of the offerings made individual tracks or entire mixes sound better, but rather cloudy, distant, glassy, all of which is typical for convolution-based processes (only EW's Spaces seems to avoid these shortcomings).

I've found, with software it's the same as with hardware: The really good stuff makes your music sound better without much effort or tweaking, it just works.

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by Tui

The hype surrounding Nebula on GS is a mystery to me personally. I tried the demo, and non of the offerings made individual tacks or entire mixes sound better, but rather cloudy, distant, glassy, all of which is typical for convolution-based processes (only EW's Spaces seems to avoid these shortcomings).

I've found, with software it's the same as with hardware: The really good stuff makes your music sound better without much effort or tweaking, it just works.

1 - Nebula is not convolution, it's based on volterra series math.
2 - It does what you said, the problem is you tried the demo and, in my opinion, the libraries in the demo don't show what Nebula is capable of. Not even a bit.

[Lawrence Sanchez]

Originally Posted by dikkiedik

...that brings me to my point that in the process i often have the feeling to have found something good and powerful, but after rendering my track, and level matching (RMS) the songs for BLIND A/B comparison 90% of the time i choose my unprocessed render as my favorite.

I actually have found this to be the case with quite a few plugins. Sonnox Inflator comes to mind. After level matching and blind comparisons, I hear almost no difference at all. Seems all that's happening is the song is louder and that's it.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

Nebula is not convolution, it's based on volterra series math.

Nebula uses convolution.

"Nebula’s convolution technique is based on ‘Diagonal Volterra Kernels’; in effect, tiny instantaneous snapshots of real-world effects. It processes lots of these kernels at once, and then, rather like a wavetable synth, can scroll through an array of slightly different waveforms to morph them, using a ‘vector engine’ controlled by LFOs, envelopes and so on."

Acustica Audio Nebula

[Finnish]

Originally Posted by Tui

The hype surrounding Nebula on GS is a mystery to me personally. I tried the demo, and non of the offerings made individual tracks or entire mixes sound better, but rather cloudy, distant, glassy, all of which is typical for convolution-based processes (only EW's Spaces seems to avoid these shortcomings).

I've found, with software it's the same as with hardware: The really good stuff makes your music sound better without much effort or tweaking, it just works.

Demo libraries are quite lame. 3rd party libraries, a different game...

NAG tape, CDSoundmaster, Alex B.. Now those are something else!

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by Tui

Nebula uses convolution.

"Nebula’s convolution technique is based on ‘Diagonal Volterra Kernels’; in effect, tiny instantaneous snapshots of real-world effects. It processes lots of these kernels at once, and then, rather like a wavetable synth, can scroll through an array of slightly different waveforms to morph them, using a ‘vector engine’ controlled by LFOs, envelopes and so on."

Acustica Audio Nebula

I should've been more detailed in my response, sorry. I meant the type of convolution used by EW's Spaces is 100% different than Nebula's. Nebula doesn't use the "common" convolution people are used to, it's based on a whole different concept/theorem which is very good to approximate results to non-linear systems.

[gussyg2007]

If you can't here what nebular is doing ,then maybe it's time to hang your fiddle in the roof ...or take up golf

[dikkiedik]

hey friends ! told you not to make it a pro/con nebula rant.
haha. i know how easy it is to get drawn into a thing like that.

on to my findings!
armed with the tips, ideas and a occasional analiser plugin i sat down this morning to thoroughly test some methods for my upcoming album.

as i stated in my earlier posts i have been half at lost with nebula for some time now. i own some of the best 3rd party libraries but couldn't make anything work 100%.

well, this is what i have to say now

1) forget batch rendering en masse
2) check everything that you do, rms-leveled in blind abc tests
3) be honest
4) little goes a long way

1) every track, every instrument is gonna have a chain that supports it best in that particular song. saying that AlexB CLC console with an R2R stu15a-10 with a Tape+1dB rendered on all your tracks is gonna improve everything i find hard to believe. i GOT results, but, divided tracks into categories

2 & 3) speak for themselves. DON'T FOOL YOURSELF

4) the subtle changes of different vectors on top of each other (console/tape/tapeboost/preamp/tube/tubeboost etc etc) come slowly to life if you find a chain that supports it. if you put thoses chains together, and treat the mix busses right (with proper gainstaging!) with more console power your track will come to life.


all in all i can say i understand the debate about nebula. i today had the first moment that i could say >> hey, this SOUNDS better, i will use less eq en compressing to get things to where they should be.

it's time consuming to learn, to get the feel, but i think i'm over the biggest hurdle. and it feels good

now time for a break! and i will use nebula extensivly on the whole album.
but i have time...

tnx everyone for chiming in!

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by dikkiedik

1) every track, every instrument is gonna have a chain that supports it best in that particular song. saying that AlexB CLC console with an R2R stu15a-10 with a Tape+1dB rendered on all your tracks is gonna improve everything i find hard to believe. i GOT results, but, divided tracks into categories

You got it!

Yeah, process each track right there, live, then render/freeze. Batch processing is too dangerous. You can organize your recordings/media files, though. Put all bass media files in a folder, then all your guitars media files in another and so on and go batch-processing them, folder per folder. I think that might work if you know exactly how your programs are gonna react.

[Finnish]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

You got it!

Yeah, process each track right there, live, then render/freeze.

Won't take much of your time and you're done, move on