Some of you may remember the fairly large set of threads we had here in the past regarding the use of Nebula for cabinet simulation. A large chunk of us were very adamant and hopeful - so much so that we chipped in to buy Marcus (Metaltastic) a copy of Nat2 and Nebula 3.
The tests didn't fare quite as well as most of us had hoped and the idea was eventually abandoned after all the threads crawled to a halt with no new developments.
So, coincidentally whilst browsing a convolution reverb thread on Gearslutz I came across one of the developers at Acusticaudio. As the discussion developed I made mention of Nebula and our inability to get convincing cabinet simulations with it in the past.
Here is what the developer had to say in regards to my recital of the experience:
Do any of you guys that tried capturing your cabs with Nat have anything to add here?
I've invited zaphod to this thread to hopefully share some more insights with us and understand what went wrong and where.
The tests didn't fare quite as well as most of us had hoped and the idea was eventually abandoned after all the threads crawled to a halt with no new developments.
So, coincidentally whilst browsing a convolution reverb thread on Gearslutz I came across one of the developers at Acusticaudio. As the discussion developed I made mention of Nebula and our inability to get convincing cabinet simulations with it in the past.
Here is what the developer had to say in regards to my recital of the experience:
zaphod said:Something is wrong in what you did.
The sampler:
If you limit to 1 kernel/no dynamic you get an impulse response. Nat calculates it @64 bit, which in general is not possible using other deconvolvers (64 bit deconvolution is not supported by all other developers). We support a long testtone, till 60 seconds or even more. So you should get a better result and a better S/N ratio.
Papers said that this testtone is the best one even for sampling outdoor.
The player:
Nebula engine is in general better than the one provided by other developers (convolvers) for several reason: for example the early tail could be played by direct convolution, which has a greater precision than FFT. FFT is calculated @64 bit with best accuracy (no speed optimizations), several algorithms are provided.
If you add harmonics you'll get harmonics. If you add the dynamic variable you add this dimension and so on.
Do any of you guys that tried capturing your cabs with Nat have anything to add here?
I've invited zaphod to this thread to hopefully share some more insights with us and understand what went wrong and where.