I'm sure everyone here is more than open to Nebula and its approach. We wouldn't have bought the software otherwise. The problem is that there are so many uncertainties at the moment and no structured, rigid way of how to tackle them. We're in a sort of confused state, and the way I personally see it is that:
-The very first thing that needs to be identified is exactly what settings the cabinet sampling folk should be using to create their programs. As noted above, Metaltastic is still unsure, and I'm sure AE also has his doubts.
-The second thing that needs to be identified is what you did to 'optimize' them, so that we can all do it ourselves, without you needing to come in and hold our hands every time, so to speak.
-And finally the third thing that needs to be done after we've taken care of everything on Nebula's end is to compare the programs directly to the real cab.
When I say that I'm getting better results with impulses, it's not out of spite, or to insult you or Nebula. I'm just honest and extremely picky. Most people here can attest to that. I personally hate impulses and how flat and 2 dimensional they sound. I agree that Nebula does sound more dynamic and lively, but at the same time the frequency balance of all the Nebula programs I've tried so far seems skewed in contrast to the impulses. The impulses consistently seem to sound more subdued, dark and somewhat more pleasant. Now once again I don't know whether that's due to how the two different 'sampling' technologies work, or whether it's error on the cab sampling person's part, but it's been thoroughly consistent in all my fooling around and testing.
Perhaps after the cab sampling people get the correct instructions on how to sample the cabs in the best way possible, they can start creating more and more different programs and we can iron out all the kinks ourselves over time. We just need to be told what to do in order to get us started.
!
