AE's New Nebula Thread

I can't wait to get some real amp heads into that, seriously.

So for the sake of proper recording keeping:

AE, could you by chance list what processes you went through to create the test tone, and perhaps what options were enabled?

Poida, could you list how you ran the test tone to your rig, with what settings, at what volumes etc.?

This is for the benefit of others who would like to try in light of this success, to hopefully make their lives a little easier. The movement can start right here and it's very exciting!
 
+1

list us some info; do you need a reamp device to send the test tone through your setup?
 
AE, could you by chance list what processes you went through to create the test tone, and perhaps what options were enabled

All I did was load my CS2 session (which has all of the default settings I use), go to the Offline panel, uncheck Sync, and hit Generate. What that does is take the same tone it would use in Online mode, and puts it in WAV form on your harddrive. So instead of NAT playing the WAV, recording the output, AND deconvolving, all it does is give you the WAV so you can process it and bring it back, and all NAT does is deconvolve.

So, that's all. CS2 -> Offline -> Generate. This is the file it generates, and it's the file I sent out to everyone, and when they send it back, all I do is load CS2, go to Offline mode, uncheck Sync, load their recorded file, and hit deconvolve. That's how you have all you have today.

But, that's all with the CS2 default settings. With CS2, I came extremely close, so I stopped moving around too much on it. I kept the settings the same for the most part, and if I found any differences by changing small settings, they were so insignificant that I forget I even did it by now. But that doesn't mean I did everything there was to do, you know? The possibilities are limitless. There are still a lot of settings people can toy with, and I'll dive into that a bit here..



Lemme start by saying that I start with NAT and no session. Giancarlo began helping me while we were still trying to make Nebula match impulses, remember? So when I started trying to do dynamics, I created a cab session from scratch. That's Cab Session 2.

Opening that in NAT gives you pretty much a blank slate. Click into the Expert panel, and I'll go over a few things..

You'll see that I used the template Template_dynamic_1h (10K), seven 15-second sweeps with a 2-decibel variance between them, and only repeat this process once. This is why the test tone WAV file is seven sweeps long and are quieter each time.

Now, what would happened if we used ten 20-second sweeps with a 10-decibel variance each time? I have no idea. But this is a modification to Cab Session 2 that ANYONE can make and try. All you have to do is edit the Length, Repeats, Steps, etc fields in the Expert panel in NAT. If you only edit those things, you'll STILL be using the same test tone, and NAT will analyze and deconvolve them in the SAME way, but there will just be more or less or louder or quieter tones. You will still retain the integrity of the cab programs.

You'll also see that I used Enhanced mode, Mono, and 64-bits. Changing these may give you a different sound, but I'm about 100% confident you'd be taking a step in the wrong direction by doing so because of my workings with Giancarlo. For Kernels, I've set the number at 5, and when I went to 10, I noticed absolutely zero difference except for a file that was twice as large. Maybe it can make a difference to have more or less, but I'm pretty stoked about the sound we're getting now, so I'm cool with it.

I wouldn't even touch anything on the Envelopes tab.

Honestly, that's all there really is to it. If you JUST load CS2, you have exactly the same settings I use for both online and offline sampling. The only changes I would ever make are described above.

+1

list us some info; do you need a reamp device to send the test tone through your setup?

No sir. Reamp boxes are used to change the impedence of the signal from line level to instrument level so the input of your amp can be driven hard. With sine sweeps, you want to BYPASS the preamp section, because it will sound silly and the end result is bad. So, you tap directly into the power section by going into the FX Loop Return. Your power amp (and ANY power amp) is looking for a line level signal (that's what comes from your preamp), so you are perfectly perfect to send a cable from your interface to the FX Loop Return of your amp.

But BE CAUTIOUS. By doing this, you'll PROBABLY be bypassing your master volume, depending on the amplifier of course. What that means for you is that if you just run the sine sweep out into your FX Return, it's probably going to sound like a volcanic eruption in your room. This is NORMAL, and your amp and speakers CAN take it just fine, but you probably don't want to do it that loud. You have two options to turn it down.

If you're sampling offline, you're sending the signal out FROM Cubase or Protools or something. Just turn the sine sweep signal down here on its track properties.

Now, on the Online Sampler, there's a Gain field. What that does is change the output level of the sine sweep(s) in the same way that the volume control on Cubase's track properties will. Generally, you'll get between -50 and -20.
 
So, with that huge post, let me also just say that it's MUCH easier to answer questions directly from this point. Starting with Acustica's tutorials is a good idea, and I know that sampling cabs is a pretty familiar concept with a lot of guys here, but using NAT isn't.

Make sure you test your hardware properly first!
 
Now, what would happened if we used ten 20-second sweeps with a 10-decibel variance each time? I have no idea.


I am not an expert on signal processing, but from what I know the stronger/louder the signal the stronger nonlinearity of the response (sound from the cab) at certain frequencies. This suggest that there should be several sweeps that capture the range where this nonlinearity exists (real and dynamic response, what we need). May be there is something in the NAT tutorial about it. So, the difference between sweeps might be evaluated from this. As the signal weakens the response is linear, so that the difference between sweeps can be increased to capture the response at lower levels say -40 db.
If you are still here and I kind of make sense :lol: I would think we need say 5 sweeps with 1db (0, -1,-2,-3,-4 db) and then 4 with -5 db (-9, -14,-19,-24 db). Total # of sweeps is 9, b/c nebula can use up to 9 kernels.

I will go through NAT tutorials and see how better to make sweeps. May be acusticaaudio can chime in and suggest/correct what way to go.
 
Thanks for the run-down AE. I'm sure it'll be helpful for the others who try.

This one is definitely the best sounding Nebula cab program I've tried. I was initially a bit disappointed to find that the sterile fizz up in the 8k region was still around. It seems that Nebula captures in a way that doesn't retain all of the qualities of the real cab. I found to get around this you need to do some pretty drastic cutting in the 8k region, and a steep roll-off after. When this is sorted you're left with something that actually gives you a fairly nice tone!

I just tried it out with 8505 on a rough tracking mix I have going at the moment and it does the job.

Any ideas on where the 8k issue may be coming from? I believe this is the same 'too much fizz compared to impulses' issue we had months back manifesting itself again.
 
I am not an expert on signal processing, but from what I know the stronger/louder the signal the stronger nonlinearity of the response (sound from the cab) at certain frequencies. This suggest that there should be several sweeps that capture the range where this nonlinearity exists (real and dynamic response, what we need). May be there is something in the NAT tutorial about it. So, the difference between sweeps might be evaluated from this. As the signal weakens the response is linear, so that the difference between sweeps can be increased to capture the response at lower levels say -40 db.
If you are still here and I kind of make sense :lol: I would think we need say 5 sweeps with 1db (0, -1,-2,-3,-4 db) and then 4 with -5 db (-9, -14,-19,-24 db). Total # of sweeps is 9, b/c nebula can use up to 9 kernels.

I will go through NAT tutorials and see how better to make sweeps. May be acusticaaudio can chime in and suggest/correct what way to go.

I really hope someone will have the patience to make a 9 kernel program, just for the sake of it - and I hope it will be some noticable difference.
 
Any ideas on where the 8k issue may be coming from? I believe this is the same 'too much fizz compared to impulses' issue we had months back manifesting itself again.

If I had to guess, I'd say from the cabinet. It might be too much fizz compared to impulses, but it's probably 1:1 with an audio sample.

Nobody takes audio samples though.
 
If I had to guess, I'd say from the cabinet. It might be too much fizz compared to impulses, but it's probably 1:1 with an audio sample.

Nobody takes audio samples though.

Somehow I really doubt that, even without a direct audio comparison. No cab I've ever mic'ed has had fizz of that level in those proportions, up in that frequency range. Nebula is definitely doing something wrong, as the fizz is inherently somewhat harsh and digital sounding. It seems to be bringing out too much higher harmonic content that's unpleasant to the ear. When talking about out-of-the-box un-EQ'd tones, all my best impulses still sound more pleasant.

The Neb tones always need some drastic cuts up around 8k.
 
I don't know, man. If people are still hearing that, I got nothin'. I don't have a checkbox in NAT that says "8Khz -5db" on it.
 
Somehow I really doubt that, even without a direct audio comparison. No cab I've ever mic'ed has had fizz of that level in those proportions, up in that frequency range. Nebula is definitely doing something wrong, as the fizz is inherently somewhat harsh and digital sounding. It seems to be bringing out too much higher harmonic content that's unpleasant to the ear. When talking about out-of-the-box un-EQ'd tones, all my best impulses still sound more pleasant.

The Neb tones always need some drastic cuts up around 8k.

The thing is it could be in normal use you don't get it from a cab, i.e.:

Guitar -> pre-amp -> power amp -> cab

Will react differently than:

Test tone -> power amp -> cab

Especially in regards to the extreme high- and low-end - they will higher amplitudes from the test tone then they'd ever get from a guitar and pre-amp. That's why when you use an impulse you have to high- and low-pass it more severely than you would a mic'd cab (as both the amp and most mics drop off around 10-15kHz).

If you're running that test tone through the cab 7 times, and then performing some kind of averaging on it (which Nebula almost certainly must do in order to create "dynamic" impulses), then you could easily be getting some kind of weird wave superposition. It's also possible that running a 'pure' tone through the speakers results in some kind of natural resonance that you just don't get when you running a 'messy' guitar signal through it - the easiest way to tell with that is to see what speakers the programs are recorded on; if they're all on V30s (for example), then they'd all have the extra energy in the same kind of area (8kHz) - whereas a different speaker might have it somewhere else.

Just out of interest, what kind of cut are you making 8kHz?

Steve
 
The sound I get through Nebula is pretty much the sound I get from micing the cab and my Crate Blue Voodoo amp head. The fizziness is normal and you can get rid of it if you are actually miking the cab by turning the microphone a couple of degrees, but that usually make it lose the "presence" that I like, so I think it's better to cut things with an EQ later on.
 
It works with nebula 2.

here are samples using Marcus DI's
This is TSS/SoloC_V1.12/nebula
poidaobi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=923516&songID=7729386
those are TSS/NickCrow 8505/nebula
AE 57 #6 http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=923516&songID=7729385
Marcus 57 top2 http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=923516&songID=7729384

On all of them HP/LP and cut around 1KHz.


Does anyone have the link or post up Marcus DI's? I cant find them...

Thanks
 
Especially in regards to the extreme high- and low-end - they will higher amplitudes from the test tone then they'd ever get from a guitar and pre-amp. That's why when you use an impulse you have to high- and low-pass it more severely than you would a mic'd cab (as both the amp and most mics drop off around 10-15kHz).

Yes, there you go. The implication here is that the stimulus signal used to 'capture' the cab is perhaps not adequate for our purpose. A guitar signal is not such a broadband input source.
 
Ermz, did you get the weird fizz with all programs (AE, Marcus, Poidaobi) or just one of them? B/c if the nebula algorithm, from what I read now about it, cannot add anything that was not in the original signal? I do not think they have a bug in the deconvolution part, b/c this is where the error might come from.