AE's Nebula thread (samples, tests, etc)

[AeternusEternus]

I've got a number of small points I wish to speak on.

1) I'm glad people are appreciating the care with which I've prepared these programs and impulses. I document as much as I see necessary.

2a) Maybe it's the fact that I've only ever recorded guitars in a bedroom with, at most, mild acoustic treatment, but I think the Nebula sounds are fantastic so far. I don't hear a horrible high end fizz that everyone's talking about. Line 6 POD units have a horrible high end fizz.

2b) Please keep in mind that I'm recording into a Presonus Firestudio, which has XMax preamps. These are not necessarily the best preamps in town.

2c) I've inherently sampled with my presence knob on my power amp at about 50-60%. I'll try lowering it.

4) It is possible to edit the 10-minute .wav recordings and THEN run them through the offline NAT 3 process. I could simply try to notch down the high end, possibly with the Doc Fear EQ, and see what happens. In fact, I think I will do that in a few minutes.

5) Francesco, I really want to know what you're finding out about the fizz everyone's trying to tame. I'm going to do some more recordings today, and if the problem is with Nebula's settings, then I can sample as usual. If the problem with the fizz is in the NAT 3 sampling, it's not something I can undo. If you can sign on MSN, that would be great.

6) sup

 

[noarin]

AeternusEternus, could you try some of Francesco's different templates and compare?

 

[AeternusEternus]

AeternusEternus, could you try some of Francesco's different templates and compare?

You bet your mother fucking ass I can. But, I have to find out if this "fizz" is caused by the NAT 3 templates/sessions, or if it's caused by Nebula itself. Because I'm not interested in recording for another 4 hours with a nasally-ass SM57 if all I'm going to hear at the end of it is "Okay guess what this NAT session fixes all the fizz so use this from now on."

 

[AeternusEternus]

Okay guys, help me structure this. I've got the following:

1960AV (Marshall 4x12 slant with Vintage 30s)
Audix I5
Shure SM57
Sennheiser E906 (optional)

How should I sample it? Ideally, I wanted to just showcase the 57 and I5, and had planned on the bottom right speaker.

-Which speaker?
-Which mic positions?
-How far away should the microphones be for each one?

The session files I use will be determined soon.

 

[noarin]

You bet your mother fucking ass I can. But, I have to find out if this "fizz" is caused by the NAT 3 templates/sessions, or if it's caused by Nebula itself. Because I'm not interested in recording for another 4 hours with a nasally-ass SM57 if all I'm going to hear at the end of it is "Okay guess what this NAT session fixes all the fizz so use this from now on."

good point.. I totally understand!
I would suggest you wait putting X hours into all this stuff until we get as close to a real cabinet as possible with different templates/NAT settings/Nebula settings. It would suck if you'd have made countless nebula programs with methods that proved to be inferior to what we are testing now if you catch my drift?

 

[abyssofdreams]

Aeternus, the sm57 is a great mic, I do not share your impression of it
However, really digging all your dedication, thank you so far!

As for the fizz... it is the general upper mids and highend that sounds more digital and unnatural, fizzy might not be the best term, I'd say uncontrollably harsh and grating, generally unpleasant sounding but on your own clips this effect is way less obvious than on others yet still present. I don't know where it is coming from, certain types of gear might play a significant role here too but that's purely speculation from my pov.

 

[AeternusEternus]

Okay, so, here's what's up.

Five session files:

-Original Cab Clean (10 min) - Labeled as ORG (original)
-Cab Dynamic Clean (8 min) - Labeled as CDC (cab dynamic clean)
-Cab Not Dynamic Clean (1 min) - Labeled CNC (cab notdynamic clean)
-Cab Dynamic 3-kernel (8 min) - Labeled as CD3 (cab dynamic 3kernel)
-Cab Not Dynamic 3-kernel (1 min) - Labeled as CN3 (cab notdynamic 3kernel)

Three takes of each:

-1 = 50% presence on power amp
-2 = 25% presence on power amp
-3 = 0% presence on power amp

Plus the impulses.

---

Uploading as I go, and I'll update the original post when I'm done.

The first three are non-dynamic. This is a straight up, dynamic-free, linear vs. linear test. Three impulses, three Nebula new Clean Cab files, and three Nebula new 3-kernel cab files. This is a much more fair test than the tests we've done before, because it's linear impulse against linear Nebula program, and analyses of these files are very important. I'm creating the dynamic programs right now, because they take the longest.

-1960AV SM57 linear impulses
-1960AV SM57 Nebula, Cab Clean Not Dynamic
-1960AV SM57 Nebula, Cab 3-Kernel Not Dynamic

Edit: Check the OP for the rest.

2dit: At least, it WOULD be a good test if the impulses had come out right. I messed something up somehow.

 

[AeternusEternus]

All done homies. Check the OP.

And I can't tell a difference between any of the dynamics. I also can't tell a difference between the non-dynamics. Honestly, I don't think that the kernels make much of a difference when it comes to cab modelling.

I can appreciate the depth the dynamic programs, I feel better playing them. I also don't think the presence knob made much of an impact on the overall program tone. Ah well. I really wanna know what Francesco says about the fizz or whatever it is.

I'm probably going to continue to use the Original Clean Cab, and to drop the number of cycles on it to take a little less time, since in the end, it takes the least amount of tweaking to get to a good sound. The difference between it and the other dynamic models is negligible.

 

[noarin]

hmm.. interesting results.. I like your nebula programs with the 57 overall the best.. not sure yet what to think of all the differences..

I hope Francesco can give us the lowdown on the fuzz issue..

 

[Ermz]

Hey Francesco, do you by chance have any updates on the fizz situation?

We're all waiting with baited breath..

 

[kev]

Just thought i'd drop in and say hi, and thanks for the level of work thats gone into this. I also eagerly await Francesco's presence back in this thread Maybe his presence can remove the prescence which will be a very nice present!

 

[Acusticaudio.net]

Hey guys, i'm preparing all the programs made by Aeternus. In some hours I will post a .rar containing only n2p files of the presets of cabinets of Aeternus. So simply you could copy them inside your nebulatemprepository/programs folder.

They are enhanced versions, more stable, more optimized and without the fuzz problem, i don't hear it anymore.

 

[abyssofdreams]

wow

 

[Metaltastic]

Hey guys, i'm preparing all the programs made by Aeternus. In some hours I will post a .rar containing only n2p files of the presets of cabinets of Aeternus. So simply you could copy them inside your nebulatemprepository/programs folder.

They are enhanced versions, more stable, more optimized and without the fuzz problem, i don't hear it anymore.

Do you think you could do the same for one/all of mine?

 

[Metaltastic]

Maybe his presence can remove the prescence which will be a very nice present!

FACEPALM

 

[Acusticaudio.net]

Do you think you could do the same for one/all of mine?

Yes of course, but i can't find all your programs, where are they?

 

[Metaltastic]

Well I only made 4, but I posted the links to them on the previous page in this thread; here they are again:

10 Kernel Sample of the Recto Orange Channel

3 Kernel Samples of the Recto Orange and Red channels (1 each, 2 total)

Sample of the Recto Orange channel using the clean cab template you (Francesco) posted a few days ago

 

[Acusticaudio.net]

Ok then i will post a unique .rar containing yours and the others of Aeternus.

 

[noarin]

wow.. ace!

 

[Ermz]

Sounds promising. Provided they do sound better, is there any chance we can get the information on how to de-fizz our own programs?