The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Nebula must have
Old 3rd October 2020 | Show parent
  #10621
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cupwise View Post
absolutely. and i'll say that to this day i think those bundles of his where it includes all of his stuff for one price, is probably easily the best deal for the money in nebula. a small chunk of money gets you a huge range of preamps, various other color/tone programs, and some eq stuff, but again it's a huge range of stuff. kind of crazy how little he charges for that. definitely qualifies as a 'must have' for anyone who has nebula.
Well said.

azzimov skins makes listening and making critical decisions fun and easy for old programs that used to use finder for each program....I didn't look at those then because browsing was a burdon.

Can't wait for the HO mics.
Old 3rd October 2020 | Show parent
  #10622
Gear Maniac
I'm a hardcore UAD, dmg, Kush, waves, Soundtoys and softube user. I have heard about Acustica for years but was always deterred by their website.
Many people are saying Nebula is better sounding than Aqua. Is this true? I'm looking for channels to use on my tracks after editing, before I send to the mixing engineer. Where is the best place to start?
I want plugins that I can use to test and compare with my UAD API Vision, Neve 88, SSL channel, LA2A and 1176 mainly.
Old 3rd October 2020 | Show parent
  #10623
Gear Addict
 
MrChick's Avatar
 

API = Pink
Neve 88 = Lime
SSL = Sand
Tim Petherick has La2 and 1176 libraries for Nebula (N4) though there isn’t trials.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10624
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrChick View Post
API = Pink
Neve 88 = Lime
SSL = Sand
Tim Petherick has La2 and 1176 libraries for Nebula (N4) though there isn’t trials.
Okay thank you, will take note of this. Just about to check the Amethyst3, M4 Magenta 5 and Lime trials. Do you think Nebula is better sounding? I'll like to understand why, is the tech is different?
Old 4th October 2020
  #10625
Lives for gear
 
Andy McGroarty's Avatar
Hi guys, just wanted to share a wee trick with you. The other day to i was trying to get a virtual Rhodes to come to life, so in Logic i set up a dual mono instance of Nebula with Tim P's Pulse Tremelo library. One side square pulse the other side tri pulse with slightly different timings, it created this cool effect that really brought the Rhodes to life.

Def recommend this library it was recently updated as well: https://www.timpetherick.co.uk/downloads/pulse-trem/

Aaaand it's only £4.80 with the current 20% off!

Then pair it with his SCS library, really breathes life into virtual instruments.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10626
Lives for gear
 
Andy McGroarty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicminister187 View Post
I'm a hardcore UAD, dmg, Kush, waves, Soundtoys and softube user. I have heard about Acustica for years but was always deterred by their website.
Many people are saying Nebula is better sounding than Aqua. Is this true? I'm looking for channels to use on my tracks after editing, before I send to the mixing engineer. Where is the best place to start?
I want plugins that I can use to test and compare with my UAD API Vision, Neve 88, SSL channel, LA2A and 1176 mainly.
Hopefully someone more savvy than me will chime in, but as i recall the main difference between Acquas and Nebula is that in order to move beyond the single instances of Nebula compromises are made with Acquas in order to have ease of use, cpu etc. Whereas with Nebula you still are getting an compromised sound. Another consideration is that each developer, incl AA have different techniques for how they sample and deliver the goods.

The problem that you face is that the full Nebula does not have a demo, your only access into the Nebula world is the free Nebula player, there are some great libraries available and you can demo them at not cost through Aquarius, but none of the plugins you want to compare exist in the Nebula player world.

I hope that helps and yeah, hopefully someone more qualified will chip in as well.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10627
Lives for gear
 
Will The Weirdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy McGroarty View Post
I hope that helps and yeah, hopefully someone more qualified will chip in as well.
Let me take a swing at this.

To begin with, we must understand a few basic things about Nebula technology.

It's dynamically sampling hardware using a form of ultrasound, thus turning voltage into 1's and 0's but with the ability to capture real harmonic content.

Because it's sampling hardware, there is a developer signal chain involved in the process. Each developer determines their power source, cables, and A/D converters. This has an end effect on the library's sound.

When Nat samples hardware the library developer sets the number of harmonic layers captured, in Nebula that is the number of kernels. The more kernels the more CPU load, but the more kernels per library the more analogue harmonics, the more analog harmonics within the dynamic signal the closer in sound to the hardware. Cutting kernel layers has become a compromise for some developers to reduce CPU hit.

Because this technology samples hardware there is different files sizes that are captured. So a compressor or EQ will sample a shorter time than a reverb, the file sizes vary. The longer the file the more CPU hit because in real time your CPU applies the sampled file at the proper dynamic level with the harmonic kernels to users selected audio file. So a reverb with a 3 second tail takes a huge CPU amount vs. a compressor with a tiny 100 ms sampled file. The CPU hit adds up quick here as a 3 second files x 10 dynamic layers with 7 kernel layers each means your CPU is jumping between a lot of files in real time, 4 channels of heavy reverb will can bring a modern CPU to it's knees. Developers developed processes to shorten file lengths, this caused other problems and compromises were work out here too.

In Nebula there can be only one program running at a time.

Developers must also truncate and clean up each file when making the library. The best developers fine tune and tweak their libraries to sound as close to the hardware, sometimes taking months per library. This attention to detail process is developer dependent. The best developers asked for added Nebula capabilities over the years and some even developed other non Nebula programs and techniques to deliver the best tuned libraries.

So the biggest complaints with Nebula were that it was CPU intensive, ran one program at a time, and had a bad workflow as Nebula was a basic wrapper with an utilitarian GUI.

When AA left it's original community manifesto and became a company looking to profit from it's IP, they set about to solve the 3 major problems of workflow, CPU, and single instance. AA understood to be successful as a company they would have to solve those 3 problems, and they set out and developed Acqua's. AA worked hard to find a middle ground per Acqua where they balanced the 3 issues, but that had a cost.

So the Acqua's today are compromised Nebula technology to allow the end user a much improved workflow, CPU, and multi-instance experience. This has allowed AA to benefit greatly as their technology offers a real competition with the plateaued algorithmic technology.

The only downside to the Acqua compromise is sound. In every way but sound quality Acqua's are very superior to Nebula. Many of us still use Nebula despite the drawbacks because of the sound quality.

I hope this better explains it.

Last edited by Will The Weirdo; 4th October 2020 at 03:51 PM..
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10628
Gear Addict
 
SteDal's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy McGroarty View Post
Hopefully someone more savvy than me will chime in, but as i recall the main difference between Acquas and Nebula is that in order to move beyond the single instances of Nebula compromises are made with Acquas in order to have ease of use, cpu etc. Whereas with Nebula you still are getting an compromised sound. Another consideration is that each developer, incl AA have different techniques for how they sample and deliver the goods.

The problem that you face is that the full Nebula does not have a demo, your only access into the Nebula world is the free Nebula player, there are def some great libraries available and you can demo them at not cost through Aquarius, but none of the plugins you want to compare exist in the Nebula player world.

I hope that helps and yeah, hopefully someone more qualified will chip in as well.
Correct.

I'm chiming in just to stress an important, sometimes forgotten technical fact: the basic audio engine behind Nebula (or rather N4, as it is called nowadays) and the Acqua line of plugins is exactly the same. Both routinely undergo the same revisions and are updated concurrently.

The main difference lays in the fact that with Acquas you're utilizing several N4 instances at the same time through a single GUI.
Acqua technology allows also some optimizations, so that CPU load and memory footprint are a bit smaller than what you'd have loading the same number of separate instances of N4.

There's no other technical constraint for a developer building Acqua libraries rather than N4 programs, except, of course, the need of balancing performance and CPU cost. It's actually the same code, soundwise as well.

As for the rest, as you correctly write, each developer, be it official or unofficial, employs different sampling techniques and organize the programs in his/her specific way, which IMHO adds variety and appeal to the entire catalogue.
Old 4th October 2020
  #10629
Lives for gear
 
ceejay's Avatar
H. Olonga Microphone Collection + N4 Skin


H. Olonga Microphone Collection + N4 Skin
The most large and complete Nebula Mics library.


A true microphone virtual museum, H.Olonga Mic collection provides vast variety of mics, from modern classics, to vintage, to rarest ancient microphones from the dawn of audio recording.
Previously commercial HO MICS library, now it's free for everyone, thanks to Henry Olonga, veteran Nebula developer. Please donate Henry's for his hard job and generosity here.

Library split into two skins: Modern and Vintage.

MODERN = 23 mics (71 programs)


VINTAGE = 37 mics (55 programs)


"Why i need sampled mics ?", you ask.
Use virtual mics for refreshing dull vocal recordings, bring-to-life VST instruments, create virtual stereo mic-ups, guitar DI reamping, building your own amplification chain, re-toning instruments, simulating different colors, combining it with Slate / Townsend / KlangFormer mics... Only your imagination is a limit. Own EQ curves it brings to the table are very smooth and natural. The ability to click through and find the best mic for your instrument is great for the workflow.
More detailed tips of how to use this lib included in the PDF manual, thanks to my FB friends / Patrons advices.

This new skin will greatly reduce the time investment of choosing the best combo!

Download library + skins here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/42358854

I M P O R T A N T:
SKIN CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR PATRONS ONLY
ACCESS FOR NON-PATRONS FROM OCTOBER 20st
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10630
Lives for gear
 
Will The Weirdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceejay View Post
The most large and complete Nebula Mics library.
Another amazing skin Ceejay.
It would be great to see the HO preamps with a skin too.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10631
Lives for gear
 
ceejay's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will The Weirdo View Post
Another amazing skin Ceejay.
It would be great to see the HO preamps with a skin too.
His "Mojo" series you mean ? Yeah, i'll include it to the next voting poll!
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10632
Lives for gear
 
Will The Weirdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceejay View Post
His "Mojo" series you mean ? Yeah, i'll include it to the next voting poll!
Both his Mojo and his preamps should be included.
Old 4th October 2020
  #10633
cqd
Gear Maniac
 

I don't suppose anyone has a way that works to get these skins working with the AAX version?
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10634
Lives for gear
 
ceejay's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqd View Post
I don't suppose anyone has a way that works to get these skins working with the AAX version?
These skins is Nebula 4 and 3 VST2/3, AU, AAX skin, MAC and PC fully compatible.
Old 4th October 2020
  #10635
Lives for gear
 
B Elgin's Avatar
 

RE: differences between Acquas, Nebulas, and any libraries in general

In addition to everything mentioned above, there are a few other things that contribute to differences among the AA Acquas and 3rd-party Nebula libraries of various developers:

Supported sample rates - the choices here seem to be use NAT to create fresh samples at each individual rate (extremely time-consuming, but should yield ideal results) or sampling everything at one rate (say 96kHz) and using batch SRC to create programs for each other supported sample rate.

Interpolation - with sweepable controls on an EQ for example, it would be unreasonable to move each of the gain, frequency, and bandwidth pots through 100+ sample positions so compromises must be made. NAT can interpolate or morph between samples to give solid estimations of the "in-between" values. The more sampled positions and combinations, the more true to the HW the samples will be. So each developer chooses how much work they want to do here. On the upside, the interpolation allows for continuous control on devices using fixed steps - for example beloved American EQs with 2dB increments. Imagine sampling thousands of combinations on an stereo analog EQ with pots, and then repeating this for multiple sample rates and again for both channels for 'analog stereo'. Ouch. Compromises here are absolutely necessary but each developer chooses how much sanity and energy to trade per library for maximum authenticity (if this is the goal).

Gain staging - A given preamp program or EQ/comp/whatever with sampled harmonics (kernels) will behave similarly to the HW driven at that set sampling level, and with set HW input and output gains. So for example with a sampled British N style preamp, hitting the program harder is not like turning the HW pre gain up from +45dB up to +55dB, but rather keeping it at 45dB and getting closer to whatever maximum input voltage the sampling DA converters push into the gear's input section.

That's why we don't have the ability to go from really clean to completely overdriven realistically in a single program. Developers need to choose what they feel is a good sweet spot with both converter calibration and HW gains. Some developers may choose to repeat the whole sampling process at multiple HW I/O gain settings (like a Driven program), or separately simulate the clipping characteristic to be added at the end of a Nebula chain (Tim P does this).

Conversion 'correction' - Correction is probably the wrong word here, but basically an AD/DA chain includes at least 2 LPFs and any coloration during the conversion process (besides any minute differences from power and cabling, etc). In the early years Acustica developed a tech (STONE, I think it was? Been too long) to basically linearize the frequency and phase response to offset any buildup when chaining multiple instances in a row. For example with 4 bands of EQ and preamp combined from a unit, you'd have most of the HW flavor but also 5 round trips of conversion and 'box tone' in the resulting audio. Some developers picked specific converters by ear or tech measurements to get the result they feel is best, and some developers modified theirs to reduce or eliminate HF rolloff or other detrimental effects of ADDA trip stacking.

More on multiple instances - some choose to sample the EQ bands without harmonics and follow the whole thing with a preamp style program with multiple kernels to provide the 'box tone'. Some may prefer to sample the curves with limited harmonics included, which is technically a deviation from the HW sound when stacked together, but may be subjectively sounding great to them.

I/O access points - some developers may open up an EQ, channel strip, compressor, etc and actually take samples from only part of the complete circuit, going for greater accuracy and less noise/color when stacking instances. Others may find it too complex or time consuming and simply sample via the HW's regular ins and outs (or even a patch bay), zeroing or bypassing things that aren't part of the parameter set they're catching. The latter method is much easier and faster but results in accumulated 'box tone' and a slightly less authentic representation of the gear's sonics (doesn't mean it can't still be great though).

Gear mods and variance - some developers may build their own power supplies, re-cap and inspect circuits, or do whatever kind of restoration or tweaky mods they want. Plus, any bit of analog gear will have slight variations between individual units especially vintage units. So a given famous peace of kit will absolutely sound different when different units are sampled at different times, by different people, with different methods.

QC - with potentially thousands of samples for a multi-band EQ library, it is a pretty serious task to ensure there are no 'bad' samples or bands with inverted polarity, etc. Some people take this more seriously than others and are meticulous to check that things are good before release. It's not unreasonable that problems slip through the cracks, especially when programs rely on a lot of interpolation and include multiple sample rates.

Anyway, hope that gives a bit more insight into other potential reasons behind differences in sound and quality. Any developers or Acustica staff, please correct me if I've gotten anything wrong here or missed something...
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10636
cqd
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceejay View Post
These skins is Nebula 4 and 3 VST2/3, AU, AAX skin, MAC and PC fully compatible.
OK..Downloaded the latest skin again just to be sure..
Did as instructed in the pdf..
Got as far as saving the setup, and got a "Save Setup error" saying :
"Error creating AAX setup configuration file"

Edit..Ok..sorted it by setting the AAX setup path to the desktop and then just transferring it to the N$ repository..
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10637
Lives for gear
 
ceejay's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqd View Post
OK..Downloaded the latest skin again just to be sure..
Did as instructed in the pdf..
Got as far as saving the setup, and got a "Save Setup error" saying :
"Error creating AAX setup configuration file"
Check and follow the TROUBLESHOOTING instructions (last manual page) carefully. If still no luck - contact me at PM directly.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10638
cqd
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceejay View Post
Check and follow the TROUBLESHOOTING instructions (last manual page) carefully. If still no luck - contact me at PM directly.
Hey..Yeah, I looked further and set the setup to the desktop and moved it..
Man, it's actually awesome..Nebula was always so finicky for reverbs I never used it..Thank you..
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10639
Lives for gear
 
loji's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by B Elgin View Post

Gain staging - A given preamp program or EQ/comp/whatever with sampled harmonics (kernels) will behave similarly to the HW driven at that set sampling level, and with set HW input and output gains. So for example with a sampled British N style preamp, hitting the program harder is not like turning the HW pre gain up from +45dB up to +55dB, but rather keeping it at 45dB and getting closer to whatever maximum input voltage the sampling DA converters push into the gear's input section.
Yes... but ALSO : the playback engine (N4) decides which sample to apply to the audio input based on the ENV setting. The default in most programs is an RMS based detector. .

Which means, say you sample the Hardware with a DA calibrated to 0dbFS= +18dBu ... with only 3 samples, 6db apart ..

sample 1 = +18dBu/0dbFS
sample 2 = +12dBu/-6dbFS
sample 3 = +6dBu/-12dbFS

those were peak values (dBFS is a peak value)
the RMS detector of the envelop in the playback engine is likely 6, maybe 12 dB lower than peak ..... which means even with a 0dbFS signal going into the program .... it will likely not be triggering the max value sample (sample 1 in this example)

Additionally, there is a input/output pad in the GLOB settings .... to avoid the 'chirp' artifacts that Nebula creates with loud inputs ... most developers lower the input value, and make up unity with the output value ....

This means it's lowering which sample is triggered again.

So if you hit that program with a signal at -6dbFS, it might be only ever triggering the lowest sample, and you're not getting any 'dynamic' harmonics content at all ..


These are some of the trade-offs and choices developers must make. You can experiment with this in your programs to hear the difference it makes ...

There is also a transition setting under GLOB. (ie: will it step from sample to sample, or will it curve them)


This isnt' to suggest you should hit Nebula hard to get an 'analog sound' ... the opposite actaully, it tends to work better with lower levels in most programs I've found ... but it helps to illustrate some of the challenges of developing the libraries as a developer. . .
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10640
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy McGroarty View Post
Hopefully someone more savvy than me will chime in, but as i recall the main difference between Acquas and Nebula is that in order to move beyond the single instances of Nebula compromises are made with Acquas in order to have ease of use, cpu etc. Whereas with Nebula you still are getting an compromised sound. Another consideration is that each developer, incl AA have different techniques for how they sample and deliver the goods.
Okay, I understand what you’re saying. So Acquas have some compromises for ease of use. I prefer the Acqua setup but wouldn’t mind using Nebula if it produces better results.
I did try Amethyst 3 and a couple of the free ones and I like what I’m getting from them so far.
Does Nebula have channel strips like Pink4, Gold4, Amethyst3 etc.?
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10641
Lives for gear
 
Cupwise's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will The Weirdo View Post
Let me take a swing at this.
When Nat samples hardware the library developer sets the number of harmonic layers captured, in Nebula that is the number of kernels. The more kernels the more CPU load, but the more kernels per library the more analogue harmonics, the more analog harmonics within the dynamic signal the closer in sound to the hardware. Cutting kernel layers has become a compromise for some developers to reduce CPU hit.
at this point i myself personally probably would not agree with this one point in your post, at least not in general (maybe in some cases it's true). when i first started doing this stuff, a long time ago, i basically assumed this was the case, that more harmonics = just better. but now i don't think it's that simple or even usually the case. so i wouldn't say that cutting the harmonics is always a compromise or that it's just done to reduce CPU. i started doing it because i noticed that with the higher harmonics, in many cases, there's just nothing there if you actually look at the impulses. the harmonic impulse .wav may just have nothing there, the harmonic is under the noise floor. this is especially true of lower dynamic steps when talking about something that was sampled dynamically (most eqs aren't, and that includes their harmonics).

so first i started going into the vectors and weeding out the lower dynamic step harmonics because there was simply nothing there. allowing that to still be included would only increase load times, CPU, and RAM, for no reason. but then a lot of times you can see that even the highest dynamic steps for higher order harmonics, are also so low, if there's anything there at all, that they may be showing up in nebula well below 100dB below the fundamental. or you can analyze the recorded tone sweeps and see that orders above 4 or 5 in some cases just simply aren't there, again below the noise floor. so i started cutting out these harmonic orders entirely.
Old 4th October 2020
  #10642
Gear Maniac
Anyone has an opinion on the best 1073 Nebula program? I have seen some but I cannot compare them to a real 1073. Anyone has done a comparison like that?
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10643
Lives for gear
 
B Elgin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loji View Post
Yes... but ALSO : the playback engine (N4) decides which sample to apply to the audio input based on the ENV setting. The default in most programs is an RMS based detector. .

...

This isnt' to suggest you should hit Nebula hard to get an 'analog sound' ... the opposite actaully, it tends to work better with lower levels in most programs I've found ... but it helps to illustrate some of the challenges of developing the libraries as a developer. . .
Yes these are great points to bring up. I mainly wanted to offer insight as to why some libraries sound better, or at least quite different than others, and why 3rd-party developers may be getting preferable sonic results compared to AA.

I actually forgot to mention about the dynamic resolution of the sampling process. More dynamic steps in the sampling process theoretically leads to more 'organic' or faithful results, at the expense of increased sampling time, larger data packages, and longer loading time per library. Developers have to choose again how much to invest and and what kind of library size and loading times their customer base can deal with.

To be clear I don't have first-hand experience developing Nebula libraries, but I've done beta testing at times, used to be a local reseller and watched the platform grow since basically the beginning - so I feel like I can say some things with "just enough" confidence. Hopefully it's not too far off the mark!

Tweaking programs by ear and comparing detailed measurements against the sampled HW can point in the right direction for optimizing the sample crossfading and level-based selection. Some developers may feel that there's not enough variation between some levels to warrant including them all and strip some out or resample with an adjusted template. Then balance that against adjusted envelopes & smoothing. More trial and error, more analysis, more time invested.

I'm sure the best devs need to spend a mind-numbing amount of time doing editing and inspection of the sampled data and get really deliberate about kernel lengths, dynamic stepping and rate tweaking - all of which has a pretty big impact on the final sound quality. Others may develop proprietary automated processing to do most of the grunt work and then spot verify results. I'm not totally sure but I would guess AA does this by now. Their dev tools are certainly more sophisticated than anything the 3rd-party devs have access to.

Funny enough, I also know of a few people who swear by super low input levels with Acquas, which may keep dynamic behavior at a minimum and give a very stable sound.

Some EQ programs that omit harmonics may actually have no dynamic action at all, which is really CPU/RAM efficient and still sounds pretty good. Tim's SURGE EQ has no harmonics and I'm not sure the bands have any dynamic sampling from memory.. It's a pretty damn good clean utility EQ anyway.

For compressor envelopes, AFAIK that's handled in a pretty different way than the level-mapped, enveloped, and smoothed sample selection from a NAT preamp-style sampling session. There's even a way to create universal vectors for this, independent of the session sample rate.

AA developed their own new techniques to try and get more accurate dynamic envelope behavior and some way to verify it against the HW samples for faithfulness but I'm not sure about the details. A few of their Acqua compressors still don't sound right to me under heavier reduction and occasionally act unpredictably during wide dynamic range swings. Not sure why but hopefully that can be improved.

AA are big enough now where they have to adjust priorities. From what I can see, far more people have asked for optimizations in file sizes, loading time, metering and control adjustment/GUI latency rather than sonic steps forward for new releases. That's not to say Acustica don't experiment though, as they've had some pretty cool Frankenstein type products combining whole hardware chains or mixing and matching knee and envelope behavior from various compressors with dynamic preamp tones from other gear.

Maybe they could offer a more expensive tier of Acquas with more detailed sampling and QC at the expense of reduced control flexibility, fewer bits of gear per package and heavier CPU/MEM hit.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10644
Lives for gear
 
Cupwise's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by B Elgin View Post
Some EQ programs that omit harmonics may actually have no dynamic action at all, which is really CPU/RAM efficient and still sounds pretty good. Tim's SURGE EQ has no harmonics and I'm not sure the bands have any dynamic sampling from memory.. It's a pretty damn good clean utility EQ anyway.
very few or almost no Nebula EQs have dynamics of any kind, neither in the harmonics, or in the fundamental. having harmonics doesn't mean they have to be dynamic. i'd firmly say the vast overwhelming majority of EQ programs out there, even the ones *with* harmonics, have no dynamics at all. the harmonic impulses are just as 'static' as the fundamental ones.

having dynamics in an EQ is possible but it would require lots of planning and decision making about where to make other compromises. it would also almost always result in loads and loads of impulses in the final program. lets say you have a 1k program with 500 sample position combos (i'm not even sure there's an EQ out there with this many combos sampled in one program.. maybe?). no dynamics. that'd render out to 500 impulses in the program. lets say you add dynamics but only have 2 dynamic steps. so you have one at a higher level and you put the other say 20dB below that. yeah there is a lot of interpolation between there, but it could still give you some sense of 'motion' or 'change'.

you just increased the amount of impulses to 1000. low lets say you want to render it with 5k for four orders of harmonics above the fundamental, and the harmonics will have the two dynamic steps also. now it's 5000. but ideally you'd have more than just two dynamic steps. so let's say you did 'only' 10 steps. now it's 25,000. Nebula will break somewhere around 8,000 impulses in a program, i'm guessing. (and i don't think many programs out there go over 1000)

of course there are other ways of doing it. the above examples are considering that your harmonic structure is such that the harmonics are reacting to the control changes just like the fundamental impulses are. in other words, you get sampled harmonics for every sampled setting combo. combined with dynamics that would lead to the huge impulse count i gave the examples of. BUT you could actually have the harmonics work entirely differently from how the fundamental does, and have a much more simplified harmonic set, where it's always giving you harmonics for a 'no-eq' setup, like a 'pass through' or whatever you'd want to call that. in that case the harmonic impulses never change when you adjust controls (arguably could be a big compromise, depending on the EQ). that could allow dynamics in the harmonics and minimize the end impulse count. the problem with huge count would still exist with the fundamental though, if you had dynamics there, and many sampled control combos in the program. (because again, you're multiplying the sampled positions by however many dynamic steps)

it also costs lots of CPU to do this kind of thing, having adjustable controls and dynamics.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10645
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteDal View Post
Correct.

I'm chiming in just to stress an important, sometimes forgotten technical fact: the basic audio engine behind Nebula (or rather N4, as it is called nowadays) and the Acqua line of plugins is exactly the same. Both routinely undergo the same revisions and are updated concurrently.

The main difference lays in the fact that with Acquas you're utilizing several N4 instances at the same time through a single GUI.
Acqua technology allows also some optimizations, so that CPU load and memory footprint are a bit smaller than what you'd have loading the same number of separate instances of N4.

There's no other technical constraint for a developer building Acqua libraries rather than N4 programs, except, of course, the need of balancing performance and CPU cost. It's actually the same code, soundwise as well.

As for the rest, as you correctly write, each developer, be it official or unofficial, employs different sampling techniques and organize the programs in his/her specific way, which IMHO adds variety and appeal to the entire catalogue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will The Weirdo View Post
Another amazing skin Ceejay.
It would be great to see the HO preamps with a skin too.
These posts were really helpful. Thank you guys. I understand now where the comprise is but my question now is - how much is this compromise sonically based on your experience? Is it much of a difference?
Secondly, can anything from Nebula replace Pink4, Gold4, Amethyst3 and the other strips? I’m ready to pull the trigger on either Nebula4 or (2) Acqua plugins. Where should I begin? I need analog sounding plugs, preferably something I can use across most of my instruments.Thanks.
Old 4th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10646
Gear Addict
 

The new mic library skin by CeeJay is the greatest thing made since the beginning of time. I have spoken, and it is so.
Old 5th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10647
Lives for gear
 
Will The Weirdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicminister187 View Post
These posts were really helpful. Thank you guys. I understand now where the comprise is but my question now is - how much is this compromise sonically based on your experience? Is it much of a difference?
Secondly, can anything from Nebula replace Pink4, Gold4, Amethyst3 and the other strips? I’m ready to pull the trigger on either Nebula4 or (2) Acqua plugins. Where should I begin? I need analog sounding plugs, preferably something I can use across most of my instruments.Thanks.
I'm Nebula biased, with that said the Nebula libraries for API and Neve in my testing are closer to hardware than the Acqua equivalent.... but they are single instance libraries while the Acqua's are easier to use and prettier. Sound is everything to me so I'm using a hybrid approach teaming the best of Nebula with hardware and sprinkling a bit of Acqua's in there when needed.

One thing to consider is the vast amount of Nebula libraries, especially with verbs, filters, mics, preamps, and distortion possibilities.
Old 5th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10648
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will The Weirdo View Post
I'm Nebula biased, with that said the Nebula libraries for API and Neve in my testing are closer to hardware than the Acqua equivalent.... but they are single instance libraries while the Acqua's are easier to use and prettier. Sound is everything to me so I'm using a hybrid approach teaming the best of Nebula with hardware and sprinkling a bit of Acqua's in there when needed.

One thing to consider is the vast amount of Nebula libraries, especially with verbs, filters, mics, preamps, and distortion possibilities.
Okay sounds good. Thank you. I think I’ll begin with Nebula 4 based on the consensus.

Last edited by musicminister187; 5th October 2020 at 01:13 AM..
Old 5th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10649
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceejay View Post

H. Olonga Microphone Collection + N4 Skin
The most large and complete Nebula Mics library.


Download library + skins here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/42358854

I M P O R T A N T:
SKIN CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR PATRONS ONLY
ACCESS FOR NON-PATRONS FROM OCTOBER 20st
Great job, Max!!!
Old 5th October 2020 | Show parent
  #10650
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicminister187 View Post
I’m ready to pull the trigger on either Nebula4 or
It goes on sale about twice a year. Maybe Black Friday ?

I paid full price a few years ago, before there even were sales at AA....and I don't regret it at all.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 275 views: 47862
Avatar for Deleted d195ea3
Deleted d195ea3 8th June 2020
replies: 26556 views: 2748571
Avatar for Andy McGroarty
Andy McGroarty 24 minutes ago
replies: 915 views: 126361
Avatar for brockorama
brockorama 8th December 2018
replies: 56 views: 6750
Avatar for Notheorem729
Notheorem729 15th February 2019
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…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump