Made these tonight; I used a 3 kernel distorted pre template (rather than the 10 kernel template as with my last sample; the more kernels, the more distortion modeling, apparently), and this time did one sample of the orange channel and one of the much more bassy and aggressive red channel. Clips will come later, I really don't have the energy right now! But here's the samples, enjoy! (and I already optimized them for CPU usage as Francesco instructed in the last thread)
2nd batch of Nebula samples!
- Thread starter Metaltastic
- Start date
And to be clear, I did the 3 kernel template because I thought it would sound better, not for any economizing reason (though they are a lot smaller) cuz the 10 kernel sample sounded very different from an impulse I made of the same setup (as detailed in the other thread), which led me to believe there was a ton of distortion going on, so toning down the kernel count would help! It certainly sounds good to me with my Wagner scratch tracks, but I don't dare post those again 
Ben Johnson
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Awesome work, even better than the first.
The nebula impulses certainly "feel" much better than static impulses.
The nebula impulses certainly "feel" much better than static impulses.
devouredremains
Matt Van Daele
Well, yes and no - I did re-amp a track through the amp driving the cab, but I didn't have the energy to reamp through the amp's preamp and then send it into the compy for the Nebula treatment; however, that I can do any time, so I will soon (though I'm moving back to my apartment at school tomorrow, so it'll probably have to wait until Tues.)
devouredremains
Matt Van Daele
No problem! Though from my own experience, as well as AeternusEternus in the other threads saying he used a bunch of different templates and got different results for each one, I'm kinda thinking they may not even sound that similar, because of how the sampling process in Nebula affects the power amp/speakers. I think the more important thing is just how they sound in general (I think really good), and you guys can be the judge of that!
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
It's really strange how the different sampling templates affect Nebula's output so much! I was always under the impression that there'd be a generic method that made the cab respond as it would in real life.
I suppose the test is to run it up against the actual cab mic'ed up and see which method gets the closest, most faithful recreation of the real deal.
Thanks again for churning out another one for us!
I suppose the test is to run it up against the actual cab mic'ed up and see which method gets the closest, most faithful recreation of the real deal.
Thanks again for churning out another one for us!
devouredremains
Matt Van Daele
My son will be born in a few weeks so once we all get settled into a routine and the dust settles I'll purchase Nebula + NAT and contribute to the sampling/shootouts/testing. Thanks to Metaltastic and everyone who pitched in for getting the ball rolling!
No doubt man - and there's two, actually
Devouredremains, good luck with your new family member man, and can't wait! Temps, I don't think you'll be disappointed!
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
No doubt man - and there's two, actually
Hey man,
I'm thinking when you get the time, the best way to settle things is by doing that 3-way shoot-out. Real cab, impulse, Nebula, all in the same position and same settings. It'd make for a hell of a thread, and we'd get to see how good it truly is, without any bias or predisposition - just audio.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Also, Francesco if you're reading this, is there any chance that you could put a template specifically for sampling cabs in Nebula in the works? I don't quite understand the concepts myself, but from what I gather there are a few templates and none of them are specific to sampling this kind of thing?
As you can see from this forum's response alone, there is a huge market for this in the recording/guitaring area. We need a tool that can model a cabinet to within an inch of perfection so we can forego their use altogether.
As you can see from this forum's response alone, there is a huge market for this in the recording/guitaring area. We need a tool that can model a cabinet to within an inch of perfection so we can forego their use altogether.
thank you so much for your effort, marcus,
this is something really great happening here!!
the mixes i heard so far sounded amazing, i´m sure that after some testing and getting experience, the creating process of this new nebula impules (Kernels, etc) will getting much smoother.
This is the launch of a new aera in digital cab emulation.
@Francesco,
thank you also so much for your direct support, do already have thought about a special sneap forum group buy discount for your nebula software?
thanks
exoslime
this is something really great happening here!!
the mixes i heard so far sounded amazing, i´m sure that after some testing and getting experience, the creating process of this new nebula impules (Kernels, etc) will getting much smoother.
This is the launch of a new aera in digital cab emulation.
@Francesco,
thank you also so much for your direct support, do already have thought about a special sneap forum group buy discount for your nebula software?
thanks
exoslime
AeternusEternus
Member
- Oct 8, 2008
- 601
- 0
- 16
I don't know if you guys had seen this, but I did an impulse vs Nebula vs actual cab with my first cab sample. You can find it here -> http://www.myspoonistoobig.net/nebtest2.rar
This is a 1960A and an MD421, off-axis angled at the center. Both the impulse and the Nebula program were created from that location, and applied to the same JMP1 line signal. That JMP1 signal was then sent dry into the same power amp used to make the impulse/program, same mic position. The test is dead accurate, except for some volume curiosities.
This is why I use the clean reverb session files in NAT 3. Where my impulse and program sounded very similar, and then very similar to the actual cab, Marcus's program and impulse differ. I think the distortion sessions that Nebula offers are very cool and DO make for awesome sounds (especially as evidenced by several mixes already heard here). They're just not closer to the 1:1 copy I personally am looking for.
We need more people on this.
This is a 1960A and an MD421, off-axis angled at the center. Both the impulse and the Nebula program were created from that location, and applied to the same JMP1 line signal. That JMP1 signal was then sent dry into the same power amp used to make the impulse/program, same mic position. The test is dead accurate, except for some volume curiosities.
This is why I use the clean reverb session files in NAT 3. Where my impulse and program sounded very similar, and then very similar to the actual cab, Marcus's program and impulse differ. I think the distortion sessions that Nebula offers are very cool and DO make for awesome sounds (especially as evidenced by several mixes already heard here). They're just not closer to the 1:1 copy I personally am looking for.
We need more people on this.
abyssofdreams
knows what you think.
abyssofdreams
knows what you think.
thanks for that test!
can you do another one but making it a blind shootout and all with the same levels volumewise?
so far I'd say the amp sounds a lot smoother and lively, has more depth to it. the nebula file does sound better and closer to the real deal than the kefir-one but still has some amp characteristics lacking, it is not so creamy (for lack of a better term...). just my 2c.
