The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Nebula must have Saturation Plugins
Old 15th June 2015
  #1201
Lives for gear
 

No, I'm not about that "extra harmonics with TIMED". Phase response itself will be distorted if the impulse will be truncated too short (with phasey ripple if no windowing was used) and won't be very accurate/faithful to hardware. TIMED allows only very short impulses, otherwise takes down CPU. Average EQ impulse requires around 2000 samples for 100% transparency (50 ms on 44.1k). With TIMED, anything higher than 5 ms will freeze DAW, which is not enough.

This testing wasn't completely in vain, because it's a good way to study hardware frequency/impulse/harmonic response. Hardware devs aren't publishing such precise specs (and impulses). After Nebula library, you know what to expect from hardware, unlike emulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
That's good then. Pultec reverb, lol. Which CDSM library has it?
AlexB PoolTeQ library on 96k is one with "reverb". CDSM library/Acqua plugin is called Cooltec and fine.

Impulse response screenshot:
http://imgur.com/ei6Jjkv.png

A few smaller impulses below -72 db after main. Normal EQ impulse (and 44.1 version) has just one big impulse fading to noise.
Old 15th June 2015
  #1202
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringo_mod View Post
AlexB PoolTeQ library on 96k is one with "reverb". CDSM library/Acqua plugin is called Cooltec and fine.
Right, I got you on the Poolteq. Oh, thanks for the impulse graph.

I was wondering about the "CDSM spike", is it only on the libraries you mentioned a few pages ago? I work at 96k too. Good to hear almost all libraries test fine all the way up to 96k.

Your points about Timed seem well-reasoned. And the devs generally recommend Freqd anyway.
Old 15th June 2015
  #1203
Lives for gear
 

Ah ... the 50mS shows up often when using 44.1K . I've not tried testing TIMED at 96k, but would think the impulses would be relatively sized larger, so that makes sense.

I don't believe I have enough computer horsepower to consider testing at 96k.

I used TIMED [mostly with Preamps, or consoles] if/when I do. IF I do, I would only change the 1st 'clean' kernel, as changing the Even/Odd harmonics is usually not worth the massive CPU hit. [monitoring hi resolution in Mastering Suite].

The TIMED decision is very preset dependent. Using it is NOT always better ... it would be easier if this was a 'universal' method, but through my extended listening/analysis/comparisons, this is only MY conclusion for my own work. YMMV.
Old 15th June 2015
  #1204
Lives for gear
 

Encountered some minor spikes, like 0.3-1 dB but never such a high. Not tested every preset on all settings, this would have taken forever.
Indeed, TIMED is generally used on preamp type libraries (not EQ or reverbs) which requires shorter impulses. Generally, the lower the filter, the longer the impulse. For example, Butterworth 18 dB/oct HPF/LPF at 10 Hz fades away after 12000 samples, the same HPF at 440 Hz requires only 700 samples! (on 44.1k).

Long impulses are the most important for bottom. I'd preferred much longer HPF impulses on AlexB SSL EQ, though they work reasonably well even truncated a little short.
Old 15th June 2015
  #1205
Lives for gear
 

yeah ... finding the balance between ultra-quality and usability [CPU/RAM] is one of the decisions that every Dev faces. [given current computer specs].

There have been plenty of requests for a near-zero latency versions of Acquas/Neb. The first of these are in the pipeline, while others ask for off-line massive processing. At the moment, a product must be practical to have a chance of success in the marketplace. The more that is understood, the better to appreciate the difficulty. The push and desire is coming from all directions ... including the Developers.
Old 15th June 2015
  #1206
Deleted User
Guest
Great info guys. I will experiment with switching to Timed (at least the first kernel) on preamp/console libraries at 96k.
Old 16th June 2015
  #1207
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins View Post
yeah ... finding the balance between ultra-quality and usability [CPU/RAM] is one of the decisions that every Dev faces. [given current computer specs].
In the case I mentioned, more size/quality. Nebula can truncate impulses and most libraries does not use full length by default. And in the case of FFT convolution, CPU consumption does not grow as much with impulse size as with time domain (direct) convolution.
Old 5th July 2015
  #1208
I used timed on consoles didn't hear a big difference, might've actually sounded a bit worse.. I only use it for eq's but i don't use preamps in nebula so maybe it's worth a try there
Old 5th July 2015
  #1209
There's a lot of stuff on here written 2 weeks ago that I would like to respond to but I can't quote you all. I can say that firstly I only use timed for EQ's. That's only where I hear a difference, (which sounds GREAT by the way). I don't ever mix in timed. It's not possible. Your computer will explode. You mix in freqd and then you switch to 50ms or 60ms timed when you're ready to bounce, and then you offline bounce. EQ wise it will always sound better. You switch all 3 arrows to 50ms or 60ms timed. It will take forever though so if you don't have time or patience it's not for you. Try it out. Also wanted to say that I've used GEQ and Songtec in 96khz timed and they sound awesome regardless of whatever 'ringing' or whatever you claim they have. I'd rather have ringing that nobody can hear and awesome quality than no ringing and mediocre algo quality.

Oh also I don't have PT open right now but I think in the MAST page there's a setting called quality that you gotta change to 5. And one more thing, Alexb's Modern Logic EQ is so unstable for me, anyone else have this problem??
Old 5th July 2015
  #1210
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
in the MAST page there's a setting called quality that you gotta change to 5.
Please provide a link to this claim.

From all the years working with NEBULA, we have never changed this 'quality' parameter. In fact, I recall many discussions of this to NOT change this. The reason .... it does not do what one thinks it does.

Now, if some dramatic alteration to the Nebula engine has transpired that we beta-testers have not been informed of, I'd be please to be corrected. Thus I ask for a documentation link to illustrate/educate.

thank-you
Old 5th July 2015
  #1211
Lives for gear
 

Just to be very clear on the 'Quality' setting, or ANY settings on the 'master' page.

A quote from one of the experienced AA testers:
Quote:
regarding the quality parameter in mast page:

"Guru extra information: Do not change this parameter never. In Nebula GUI the factory value is 1."

this is from the explanation of internal nebula parameters from support.
set it back to 1 and leave it alone.
this could actually lead to less quality ...

if you do not exactly know what you are doing, leave the mast page parameters in guru mode alone.
(dsp buffer experimentation is pretty safe )
Old 5th July 2015
  #1212
Lives for gear
I agree with RJ...mostly. To be fair, VNXT does suggest changing the quality to 5 on their reverbs (among a few other changes). But that is the only dev that I have seen mention the Quality parameter being changed. I think reverbs in general are different beasts in nebula.
Old 5th July 2015
  #1213
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by richinmusic View Post
I agree with RJ...mostly. To be fair, VNXT does suggest changing the quality to 5 on their reverbs (among a few other changes). But that is the only dev that I have seen mention the Quality parameter being changed. I think reverbs in general are different beasts in nebula.
Hi richinmusic,

I've just looked through VNXT documentation [that I have], and do not see any mention of changing the 'Quality' parameter.

From the manual:
Quote:
These no-compromise programs are heavy for CPU because of high quality, long tail and
distorions kernels.
If You want to limit CPU, you have to limit program – that means limit tail ( in NEBULA go to
KERN page > change FREQ D parameter and click SAVE) or limit kernels (KERN page >
KERNELS parameter change from „0 Max” to „1 Clean” or „2 <1st>” ).
If You don`t hear full tail lenght go to Nebula MAST page and check *L FREQD parameter
(increase it), click SAVE and reload Nebula.
If You have any problems with loading programs when You are not working 96khz – go to
MAST page and change increase RATE CNV to min 6000 (i suggest max 9000).
As stated in the manual, due to the demands these reverb presets require, they offer mod suggestions that look to provide more usability at the expense of sonic quality.

The only point I'd make ... the GURU page is hidden by default. When needed, it is available for modification. One needs to be certain what each parameter does AND how it interacts with other parameters.

Some parameters are 'simple' in nature [like RATE CNV]. Others are NOT always intuitive [is 5 better than 1 ???].

All this discussion is only to help prevent newcomers from getting sidetracked/distracted or messing up their installation. Who's to say that any of these 'customized' settings [as provided by 3rd party Devs], might not become irrelevant as the Core Engine evolves.?!?
Old 5th July 2015
  #1214
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins View Post
Hi richinmusic,

I've just looked through VNXT documentation [that I have], and do not see any mention of changing the 'Quality' parameter.

From the manual:


As stated in the manual, due to the demands these reverb presets require, they offer mod suggestions that look to provide more usability at the expense of sonic quality.

The only point I'd make ... the GURU page is hidden by default. When needed, it is available for modification. One needs to be certain what each parameter does AND how it interacts with other parameters.

Some parameters are 'simple' in nature [like RATE CNV]. Others are NOT always intuitive [is 5 better than 1 ???].

All this discussion is only to help prevent newcomers from getting sidetracked/distracted or messing up their installation. Who's to say that any of these 'customized' settings [as provided by 3rd party Devs], might not become irrelevant as the Core Engine evolves.?!?
In all due respect RJ, read the entire manual, you missed some parts.... The mods you posted are only the one's to do if you want to sacrifice sonics and gain usability. There are more that increase the sonics and could bring a weaker computer to it's virtual knees, and the quality parameter is suggested to be changed to 5. He also suggests using CUDA, which i still think he is one of the few people to get that going right.
Here is the docs straight from the website, and here is the part I am referring to:

"- To have best possible quality, you can also increase in MAST page (GURU mode on)

QUALITY (5) and RATE CNV to max."

It's farther into the manual, under the heading "Problems/Solutions". In fact, I just checked an older doc of his from 2012, it's in there too.....I am not saying that I agree with modding xml's at all, but like I said, to be fair, a very experienced dev has some info that contradicts what you are recommending and I am just providing info.
Old 5th July 2015
  #1215
Lives for gear
 

Interesting. I had an even earlier manual, so this is an addition.

HOWEVER ....

At this link
• View topic - Nebula Quality Master Page Setting?
You will read SUPPORTS comments:
Quote:
Don't touch it! It is a legacy control that will corrupt your mix-downs, leave at default.
From Enrique:
Quote:
Yes. Legacy tag. Please do not use. We will not support you id you change it.
Old 5th July 2015
  #1216
Lives for gear
There is nothing like conflicting info when both sides know what they are talking about!! I have always had my reverb instances set with this Quality parameter change and have not had a problem. Hmmm.....

Last edited by richinmusic; 5th July 2015 at 10:42 PM..
Old 6th July 2015
  #1217
Lives for gear
 

The 'conflicting info' continues then ... I would think that AA support's answer would be definitive. That is NOT to say that 3rd party Devs might need to alter internal settings to best present of particular library. That is the beauty of using NebulaSetUps too allow custom Nebulas for specific libraries.

What makes me question all this ... WHY would AA release a 'default' setting at the lowest quality setting ??

2. If 5 is indeed the highest 'quality' setting ... would we not expect this information to appear across the AA forum ... multiple times ??? If this differs from the shipped 'default' setting, wouldn't the AA forum members post a major discussion to understand AA's intent to NOT set Nebula to max quality ?

3. We still do NOT know if 5 refers to a higher quality than 1 ? Oh, we may think that it might mean that ... but we don't have AA confirmation.

4. This setting we're talking about ... it is suggested to apply to a specific Reverb library. I've not seen similar setting suggested from CDS for their Reverb presets. Might a Reverb 'quality' be consider in a different sonic light than a source running into a PreAmp or EQ ?? Curiously .... with the hundreds of Nebula libraries created and available, we see no mention of changing the 'Quality' parameter from any of the Dev's that I've read documentation or comments from.

I would be MORE than happy to be entirely wrong about this. If running Nebula at 'default' has yielded the lowest quality [1] ... the jump to 5 would suggest a significant change/improvement. Who would NOT be pleased with this?

Proponents of this change from 'default' may want to provide A/B files that can demonstrate this. This test should also be posted on the AA forum too.

I will not pretend to know all the internal intricacies of Nebula. I have tested many aspects ... but not every possibilities [do not have the time]. With AA 'Support' stating that this is a legacy parameter that should not be changed, should offer some type of indicator.

To be clear ... the ONLY concern is someone new to Nebula thinking they have to specifically alter Nebula for quality, and may jump in without a clue. Obviously, everyone can do as they wish. I would welcome verification to the contrary that's all.

If that proves out ... then AA should be notified that their documentation is then wrong, and all interested should modify their base plugins.
Old 6th July 2015
  #1218
Lives for gear
I've had to call on this 2 days in a row now......

Old 6th July 2015
  #1219
Lives for gear
 

It is funny BOTH times

To further the point [to which we may have no definitive clue] I look at the special testing that I did with TIMED settings. This was purely for my own, personal experimentation and listening evaluation.

My conclusion was mixed. Sometimes I liked ... other times not. Some presets sounded much better [or more to what I wanted to hear], while others showed no improvement or even a sonic that I did not like or want.

This was a long process that I was not hurried with. I did not really expect to find exceptions, so that extended the listening test.

Through the process, though, I began learning what to listen for ... basically training my ear on these unique parameters that previously were generally never available ... so it was a unique, education.

The surprise was that the results were not always the expected, 'oh ... that's better'. It seems very preset dependent. I can general say that PreAmps are usually a very good candidate.

It complicated when changes made to the EVEN and ODD harmonic kernels. There where times that the 'difference' was so subtle that the CPU hit was not worth it.

Now maybe if I was working with multi-tracks, the individual instruments might react in a different manner than my mastering work. To that, IF I do switch to TIMED, it is often only the 1st clean kernels that I change. Yet it it still a case by case.

Is it 'illusion' ? can anyone else hear a diff ? I cannot honestly say that I should be concerned since I can A/B identify. Is it 'better' ... well .... that's why we get the BIG BUCKS [isn't it]

To maybe close on this ... maybe this topic will surface on the AA forum so that all Dev's will be aware and respond if they feel compelled.

Here in an open forum GS ... my concern is limited to the new users or those interested, and repeating statements from GianCarlo and Support that [other than specific changes [dspbuffer, ratecnv, etc] that Nebula is ready without any other mods for quality.

They've open the 'Guru Door', so experimentation is available ... but that should be done with proper knowledge of the functions.

By us both seeing two different instructions ... getting some specific knowledge might be less obvious or intuitive. This can be a distraction at the minimum.

We know there are some pretty smart guys using Nebula ... I'm always trying to learn.
Old 6th July 2015
  #1220
Lives for gear
For the purposes of learning, I repeated the suggestions I have been told. But for the purposes of disclosure, I agree that Nebula is basically designed to work best as-is. That's how 99% of the developers work with it, so how could it make any sense that it will be better if we modify it?
Old 7th July 2015
  #1221
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeing Sounds View Post
Modern Logic EQ is so unstable for me, anyone else have this problem??
MLeQ is rock solid for me. I beleive you're overtweaked something.
I use FREQD mode on everything and impulse lengths maxed out. Haven't noticed any bugs on other mode too.

The only time I caused Nebula crashes is setting DSPBUFFER higher that possible from GUI (32768) on old version. Was trying to reduce CPU use for heavy reverb. Haven't tried this on recent.
Old 7th July 2015
  #1222
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringo_mod View Post
MLeQ is rock solid for me. I beleive you're overtweaked something.
I use FREQD mode on everything and impulse lengths maxed out. Haven't noticed any bugs on other mode too.

The only time I caused Nebula crashes is setting DSPBUFFER higher that possible from GUI (32768) on old version. Was trying to reduce CPU use for heavy reverb. Haven't tried this on recent.
No, it's unstable for me no matter what I do. Even if I use it in econo mode, freqd, factory settings, etc.. 3 instances will bring my CPU to its knees and cause CPU spikes and what not, whereas in other libraries I can run a lot more instances in a more stable environment. I was thinking about deleting it and re-downloading it from AlexB but don't feel like going through that process of submitting it to AlexB and paying a euro or whatever the hell I gotta do.
Old 7th July 2015
  #1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins View Post
Please provide a link to this claim.

From all the years working with NEBULA, we have never changed this 'quality' parameter. In fact, I recall many discussions of this to NOT change this. The reason .... it does not do what one thinks it does.

Now, if some dramatic alteration to the Nebula engine has transpired that we beta-testers have not been informed of, I'd be please to be corrected. Thus I ask for a documentation link to illustrate/educate.

thank-you
This might be what I read. http://acustica-audio.com/phpBB3/vie...5+times#p65220

Quote:
by jorismak » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:51 am

Basically, the way the programs come is how the library-developers want them to sound, and you should leave it at that .

In the master section aren't that special things to improve quality. MAST page is more about getting Nebula to work in the first place, and how to affect it startup-sequence, and if it uses multi-cpu-cores, etc..
There are ways there to _limit_ the quality to save CPU, but by default they are all maxed.

There is a 'quality' thing in the MAST page - default to '1 times' - that should affect quality if put higher. But any recent DAW will inform Nebula of offline rendering and Nebula will turn that quality up automatically. And even then the effect is so subtle. Reaper is the only DAW that I know off (not many ) that you need to tell 'inform plugins of offline rendering state'. Every other DAW I played around with had that by default.
So I guess it depends on your DAW, however since I use PT with Nebula in metaplugin I don't think my 'DAW informs Nebula of offline rendering' so 'Nebula doesn't 'turn that quality up automatically'. Either way, I did my tests and it works for me so.. YMMV.. do your tests and do what works for you.
Old 7th July 2015
  #1224
Lives for gear
 

I'll hesitate to use this quote ... but this:
Quote:
There are ways there to _limit_ the quality to save CPU, but by default they are all maxed.

There is a 'quality' thing in the MAST page - default to '1 times' - that should affect quality if put higher.
My 'hesitation' is only because this does not come from Official Support. The quoted User may very well be accurate/correct.

In reading this quote carefully, it does imply what we've been told by support. Nebula 'ships' at 'max quality'. [minus some buffer and/or timing customizations].

So, if 'Quality' setting is at default 1 [MAX], then we may conclude that 5 is a 'MINIMUM' quality setting. This lower may ease CPU loads.

If REAPER does indeed communicate a 'Render Quality' status, then it's possible that the settings change to 'max quality [1]' for render. This needs to be tested to see which DAW's support this function to be certain.

We should also stay aware that using a 'chainer or wrapper' could break that auto-communication.
Old 8th July 2015
  #1225
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins View Post
We should also stay aware that using a 'chainer or wrapper' could break that auto-communication.
I agree, that's what I was trying to say.

Quote:
In reading this quote carefully, it does imply what we've been told by support. Nebula 'ships' at 'max quality'. [minus some buffer and/or timing customizations].

So, if 'Quality' setting is at default 1 [MAX], then we may conclude that 5 is a 'MINIMUM' quality setting. This lower may ease CPU loads.
And you might be right on that one.

Last edited by Seeing Sounds; 8th July 2015 at 12:11 AM..
Old 9th July 2015
  #1226
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultra171 View Post
Just recently picked up AIR and LAy-2A Mojo from Olonga.. jesus!

Turned out that the LA-2A (never even touched a real one) does EXACTLY what I've been trying to do with EQ's and tapes to my top end. I was f*cking blown away. It sounds NOTHING like, let's say, the LA-2A plugin from T-Racks. Nothing.
And the AIR.. no words. Clarity, shine and width. All with two "simple" plugins. And they're cheap as dirt.

Man I'm so satisfied right now :D

Oh yeah, about the consoles being subtle.. push an aggressive/busy mix through one of the new AlexB consoles, listen for while then bypass.. then tell me it's "subtle"
Does anybody know what is going on with Olonga? Last time I checked his site I could just order something like LAy-2A Mojo a la carte. Now it looks like he is only offering huge bundles and is processing the orders manually.

I'd like to check out the LA-2A for tone on bass tracks in addition to other applications!
Old 9th July 2015
  #1227
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultra171 View Post
The comp demo is pretty aggressive, I'm guessing 4:1 or 8:1 ratio or something.. the "density" in this thing is pretty incredible, it handles the low mids way better than the old SSL programs (they're completely different beasts IK, but still..). I'll be getting the full version eventually but for now, I'm using the demo on my master :D

IMO all these big players sound good (SSL, Neve, API etc.), you can make great sounding stuff with any of these packs.
Yea I am trying out the A5D compressor demo, and it does sound really good! Like you said, it does a great job on the low mids. I am making electronic music, and the track has a loooooooot of punch going through this comp.
Old 15th September 2015
  #1228
Lives for gear
 
soulguitar's Avatar
Hello Nebulanians

Already 1.5 years ago since my last release, so I was hungry again fro a big sampling sessions. I am am currently working on a big Reverb Library, inspired by the algos of 2 very big names in the Digital Reverb industry. The results are stellar.

As always, my sampling comes from a personal need, feeling the lack of a sound I couldn't achieve with "normal" plug-ins. Good Reverberation means good tails ! At the moment apart from Hardware, Nebula is the only tool I see, who can recreate them well through its dynamic impulse sampling, which excells normal Impulse Response based libraries (which can sound sterile and flat, for the lack of another word). And this is what we need finally for depth and 3D mixes at the end.

I am in testing time and will need minimum 100 hours, so don't expect this library to be finished before end 2015/beginning of 2016. I just post here a dry/wet sample of one of my guitar recordings to give a hearing audition. (44.1khz/24bit)

https://soundcloud.com/soulguitar-2/...-nebula-reverb

Of course I will open an official thread, as soon it is the right time, but didn't want to annoy anybody with to much early thread announces

Stay tuned and good inspiration for everybody !

Lars

http://www.thesessionguitarist.com/nebula-programs.html

Last edited by soulguitar; 15th September 2015 at 06:25 PM..
Old 15th September 2015
  #1229
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soulguitar View Post
Hello Nebulanians

Already 1.5 years ago since my last release, so I was hungry again fro a big sampling sessions. I am am currently working on a big Reverb Library, inspired by the algos of 2 very big names in the Digital Reverb industry. The results are stellar.

As always, my sampling comes from a personal need, feeling the lack of a sound I couldn't achieve with "normal" plug-ins. Good Reverberation means good tails ! At the moment apart from Hardware, Nebula is the only tool I see, who can recreate them well through its dynamic impulse sampling, which excells normal Impulse Response based libraries (which can sound sterile and flat, for the lack of another word). And this is what we need finally for depth and 3D mixes at the end.

I am in testing time and will need minimum 100 hours, so don't expect this library to be finished before end 2015/beginning of 2016. I just post here a dry/wet sample of one of my guitar recordings to give a hearing audition. (44.1khz/24bit)

https://soundcloud.com/soulguitar-2/...-nebula-reverb

Of course I will open an official thread, as soon it is the right time, but didn't want to annoy anybody with to much early thread announces

Stay tuned and good inspiration for everybody !

Lars

Nebula Programs - 3rd party libraries - Online Studio Guitar Tracks
That sounds amazing. Can't we get that one now! Just one will do...
Old 15th September 2015
  #1230
Lives for gear
 
soulguitar's Avatar


I was already thinking to get one program for free download, as demo programs with nebula are not possible...
Everything at its time
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
quincyg / Music Computers
754
Dom & Roland / The Moan Zone
10
marshallplexi / Music Computers
6
fingerbeats / Music Computers
10
Patric Noonan / So much gear, so little time
11

Forum Jump
Forum Jump