AE's Nebula thread (samples, tests, etc)
- Thread starter AeternusEternus
- Start date
Well the impulse was made in a different session, so the mic position was slightly different - all the same, though, my experience has been that it doesn't have as much fizz as any of the Neb samples, so a clip would be great!
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
'Bro' is actually New Zealand slang! I swear those people are brought up on sheep and some obsession with wanting to make everyone their sibling... If you wanna poke fun of my kangaroo-riding circumstances, feel free to throw a 'mate' or two down my way..
Anywho, it's farkin hot here man. Was over 40 degrees celsius earlier and all those traps I have in here do a great job of insulating the heat, so it doesn't leave my room. Absolutely can't sleep in this climate.
@Francesco: Thank you. I really look forward to hearing it.
Anywho, it's farkin hot here man. Was over 40 degrees celsius earlier and all those traps I have in here do a great job of insulating the heat, so it doesn't leave my room. Absolutely can't sleep in this climate.
@Francesco: Thank you. I really look forward to hearing it.
abyssofdreams
knows what you think.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It is the voicing that is different. What do I mean by that? Simple. The "amount" of frequency response is the same, so if you try to match the EQ between Nebula and a mic'ed cab you'll notice it is almost a 100% match. It is the harmonic content itself that is very different due to the obliged process wit NAT and its million choices to influence the outcome.
I don't know how to describe it any better but maybe you catch my drift.
Basically it is not a frequency X we could post-correct with e.g. HP/LP filters or any scooping/boosting but it is the overall response how the programs react to a preamp signal.
In other words, it does feel more dynamic and 3d, open and whatever but it does not feel like you are playing a cab.
I wouldn't mind for some fizz we could get rid of with some filtering, hell, we have to deal with fizz with real cabs all the time.
Impulses got the way it should respond similar to a cab but are flat and static whereas Nebula is EXACTLY doing the opposite than impulses.
Basically getting the best of both worlds would be what we are looking for and I don't understand why there isn't a way to get the positive effects of impulses into Nebula?
Where is the limitation? NAT/Nebula sound way more complex as far as programming goes but there has to be a way to model a cab any better with it?
I still have high hopes with Nebula, I'm just starting to loose track of this...
It is the voicing that is different. What do I mean by that? Simple. The "amount" of frequency response is the same, so if you try to match the EQ between Nebula and a mic'ed cab you'll notice it is almost a 100% match. It is the harmonic content itself that is very different due to the obliged process wit NAT and its million choices to influence the outcome.
I don't know how to describe it any better but maybe you catch my drift.
Basically it is not a frequency X we could post-correct with e.g. HP/LP filters or any scooping/boosting but it is the overall response how the programs react to a preamp signal.
In other words, it does feel more dynamic and 3d, open and whatever but it does not feel like you are playing a cab.
I wouldn't mind for some fizz we could get rid of with some filtering, hell, we have to deal with fizz with real cabs all the time.
Impulses got the way it should respond similar to a cab but are flat and static whereas Nebula is EXACTLY doing the opposite than impulses.
Basically getting the best of both worlds would be what we are looking for and I don't understand why there isn't a way to get the positive effects of impulses into Nebula?
Where is the limitation? NAT/Nebula sound way more complex as far as programming goes but there has to be a way to model a cab any better with it?
I still have high hopes with Nebula, I'm just starting to loose track of this...
Eh eh eh.... Moonlapse, you don't say so last time. Infact i prepared all the processed tracks and what i find??
That impulses sound like a shit!! they are really only fizz....
abyssofdreams
knows what you think.
By the way Ermz, what the fuck are you doing up at 5 AM...BRO?
hahahahahaha!
this made me laugh so hard the coffee is all over my monitor, keyboard and over my jeans!!
see how defensive he got here
Hahaahahaha, yeah, I thought you'd get a chuckle out of that one Bernhard
And Francesco, I'm starting to lose track of all the different stuff I've made and what was made in what session; I can say that I've made only one impulse with this setup, and I personally really like the sound of it (I don't find it fizzy at all), but later today I'll set up the amp and cab and make a Nebula sample, impulse, and mic'ed clip so you can be certain they're all from the same session. Which template do you suggest I use?
And Francesco, I'm starting to lose track of all the different stuff I've made and what was made in what session; I can say that I've made only one impulse with this setup, and I personally really like the sound of it (I don't find it fizzy at all), but later today I'll set up the amp and cab and make a Nebula sample, impulse, and mic'ed clip so you can be certain they're all from the same session. Which template do you suggest I use?
Hahaahahaha, yeah, I thought you'd get a chuckle out of that one Bernhard
And Francesco, I'm starting to lose track of all the different stuff I've made and what was made in what session; I can say that I've made only one impulse with this setup, and I personally really like the sound of it (I don't find it fizzy at all), but later today I'll set up the amp and cab and make a Nebula sample, impulse, and mic'ed clip so you can be certain they're all from the same session. Which template do you suggest I use?
It's better to try different templates and to choose what is the best result for you.
- Oct 8, 2008
- 601
- 0
- 16
Here's where I stand on this:
No amount of messing with .n2p or .xml files is going to get us any closer to the sound of a real cabinet than we have already gotten. Which isn't necessarily bad. Where PODs and built-in cab sims on various softwares sound bad, impulses and Nebula sound fantastic. Impulses, to me, sound like they're about 6/10 of the way to a real cabinet, and I think that Nebula sounds even better. I'd say we're at 7/10 or 8/10 with Nebula. But there is still the outstanding voicing issue. I assume it's voicing because that hasn't actually been addressed as the problem.
I do appreciate that everyone's on top of this, but new program files and new NAT sessions don't change anything. It'll sound a little better, but a simple notch down with the Doc Fear EQ will get me ten times farther than new programs and NAT sessions.
I've done a few Nebula vs Impulse vs Cab tests that you can find in the OP, and I've got at least 14 Nebula programs with matching impulses. I hope you guys can use these somehow as tools to come to a conclusion, but I'm sure the conclusion will be that either NAT's sampling or Nebula's nature is to just make the cab simulation sound like it does.
Once again, I maintain that Nebula > impulses. But I know that the problem's more deeply rooted than a simple program or session, so I'm not going to make any more programs or impulses until there are some advances. I made a TON of these things so far, and I'll continue to make them later on, because I believe in this program. But I'm not going to make any more if people feel that the fruit isn't sweet enough. I've spent many hours on this so far, and earned many earaches and headaches. I want people to enjoy my efforts, you know?
So, to summarize, I know the capabilities of NAT and Nebula, and I love them. But until I find it capable enough to make everyone else happy, I'm taking a breather.
No amount of messing with .n2p or .xml files is going to get us any closer to the sound of a real cabinet than we have already gotten. Which isn't necessarily bad. Where PODs and built-in cab sims on various softwares sound bad, impulses and Nebula sound fantastic. Impulses, to me, sound like they're about 6/10 of the way to a real cabinet, and I think that Nebula sounds even better. I'd say we're at 7/10 or 8/10 with Nebula. But there is still the outstanding voicing issue. I assume it's voicing because that hasn't actually been addressed as the problem.
I do appreciate that everyone's on top of this, but new program files and new NAT sessions don't change anything. It'll sound a little better, but a simple notch down with the Doc Fear EQ will get me ten times farther than new programs and NAT sessions.
I've done a few Nebula vs Impulse vs Cab tests that you can find in the OP, and I've got at least 14 Nebula programs with matching impulses. I hope you guys can use these somehow as tools to come to a conclusion, but I'm sure the conclusion will be that either NAT's sampling or Nebula's nature is to just make the cab simulation sound like it does.
Once again, I maintain that Nebula > impulses. But I know that the problem's more deeply rooted than a simple program or session, so I'm not going to make any more programs or impulses until there are some advances. I made a TON of these things so far, and I'll continue to make them later on, because I believe in this program. But I'm not going to make any more if people feel that the fruit isn't sweet enough. I've spent many hours on this so far, and earned many earaches and headaches. I want people to enjoy my efforts, you know?
So, to summarize, I know the capabilities of NAT and Nebula, and I love them. But until I find it capable enough to make everyone else happy, I'm taking a breather.
Right, you did bust your ass dude, so there should be more than enough comparisons out there. People did contribute for me to get the program, though, so I want them to get their money's worth - anyone who wants any samples or whatnot, you tell me what template to use and I'll use it! But I'm not about to go nuts experimenting with all different templates and stuff, cuz I really don't have much interest in this for my own use (I can just mic my own cab )
)The samples posted in 'nebula audio examples.rar' sound amazing to me, your getting the sound of the cab and mic bigtime. I think it adds so much character from the mic that isn't heard in normal cab miking. It's like a microscope for the mic frequency response on top of the speaker/cab. Could throwing an extra mic at distance help in capturing a more accurate representation?
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
hahahahahaha!
this made me laugh so hard the coffee is all over my monitor, keyboard and over my jeans!!
see how defensive he got here
ohhh... I see how it is. You two in cahoots, eh?
@AE: Your point is very reasonable. You've given this forum much more than anyone is due, in the space of a few days. I suppose since I haven't been on the sampling end, I haven't seen it that way, but yes that was one of my worst fears at the moment. If Nebula can't even capture the spectral characteristics of a cab even as close as an impulse, then unfortunately it's useless to me for the time being.
I'm quite glad you like it all the same, and that other people find its more dynamic and 3d nature to work for them. Unfortunately I need to seat these tones in professional mixes, as absolute cab replacements, so until Nebula is 99% to 100% there tonally I can't make use of it.
@Marcus: Maybe just give yourself a break then. It doesn't seem likely that we'll see any improvements. Perhaps just one final last ditch for the gold is in order though? Perhaps create a program with the most intensive/accurate template NAT 3 has, mic up the actual cab after and just take it from there. Perhaps pass the program onto Francesco and leave it in his hands.
- Oct 8, 2008
- 601
- 0
- 16
Hey, I just had a thought. Is there any effective way we could use two mics in sampling with NAT? Like, use two mics, but have them both mixed together for a mono program?
The reason I ask is phase cancellation. Could we effectively use phase cancellation in a clean way, pre-convolution, to reduce some of the harsh high end?
Or, if that wouldn't work, or if you wanted to use more than two mics, there's another way. One could get a mixer or something, and hook up two or more microphones, and output the mixer to one input on the interface. Then, that one input could be used for mono sampling, AND it could test the offset and get a clean result (hopefully).
Am I on the right track here?
The reason I ask is phase cancellation. Could we effectively use phase cancellation in a clean way, pre-convolution, to reduce some of the harsh high end?
Or, if that wouldn't work, or if you wanted to use more than two mics, there's another way. One could get a mixer or something, and hook up two or more microphones, and output the mixer to one input on the interface. Then, that one input could be used for mono sampling, AND it could test the offset and get a clean result (hopefully).
Am I on the right track here?
You don't need a mixer, if you have noticed after you have finished to sample with nat, it creates a .wav file inside the direcotry you have specified that is the recorded tone that you can deconvolve later in offline mode how many times you want.
So for example you sample 10 times your cabinet with different microphones or with different positions of the same mic and then you have 10 .wav file that you can mix as you want in your sequencer.
After you have generated the mixed tone (mono or stereo as you prefer) you can deconvolve it in offline mode using also different templates without the need to sample it again.
Very simple i think. It could be a very good idea and could bring us to a better emulation.
I wanna only say that i saw how for example Waves or Ik Multimedia mic cabinets (for guitar or for sampling) and they use many microphones of the same model in different positions. So in the case of Nat sampling you don't need many microphones at the same time, you can do step by step only changing the mic model or the mic position or the mic distance.
- Oct 8, 2008
- 601
- 0
- 16
I totally forgot about that. I'll experiment with that a little bit. Thanks!
Ok, if you need support for the offline mode deconvolution, you can contact me on MSN or Facebook. Let me know.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Cool idea, but I can't help but feel that it's a bit of a roundabout way to solve a problem which isn't even induced by those factors. IMO, the only way to get a satisfactory solution is to get Nebula sounding nearly identical to the mic'ed cab, with all other things being even (or as even as possible, at least).
I still wholeheartedly endorse your experiments here though. I hope it turns up something good and usable. Best of luck.
I still wholeheartedly endorse your experiments here though. I hope it turns up something good and usable. Best of luck.
