Login

Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby hopsing » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:10 am

hopsing wrote:That sounds all pretty interesting. Fwiw, I once tried to do the sample rate conversion of the emt 140 programms to 44,1Khz in NAT and to verify the results I nulled two Instances of Nebula. Up to 2,5 seconds of reverb tail I could null the NAT converted and the Nebula converted programms completly (In Logic audio). Longer reverb tails were cut by NAT, but that seems to be a known bug of NAT.
So I was under the impression, that Nebula calculates reliably if all the variables are the same.
Tobias

ok, tried it again, this time with alexb vintage black eq and it was far from nulling :D The EMT 140 is different in that regard, obviously, but really driven hard it shows that behaviour, too.
hopsing
User Level I
User Level I
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby jelmet » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:19 am

Isn't NOT NULLING good?
The great thing about Nebula is the "dynamic convolution" or whatever is it called...
If it's dynamic, it shouldn't null... in my line of thought...
User avatar
jelmet
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:11 pm
Location: Montreal, QC - Canada

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby ngarjuna » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:24 am

jelmet wrote:Isn't NOT NULLING good?
The great thing about Nebula is the "dynamic convolution" or whatever is it called...
If it's dynamic, it shouldn't null... in my line of thought...


Arguably, it's neither good nor bad. A pseudo-random number generator is only as good as it seems.

Personally, I think the one in Nebula seems just right: sure, it doesn't null but at values that are far from audibly significant. So yeah, that seems good to me.

But just in general? No, the idea that just because something is different each pass isn't inherently a good thing (I would suggest, if anything, it's much more likely to not be a good thing in just a purely general sense when repeatability is such an important factor).
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby Mercado_Negro » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:18 am

ngarjuna wrote:the idea that just because something is different each pass isn't inherently a good thing (I would suggest, if anything, it's much more likely to not be a good thing in just a purely general sense when repeatability is such an important factor).


Agreed. It isn't good in most cases but, apparently, in this case it is just about right since the differences are barely noticeable (actually I'd say it's only perceptible under a high level of concentration which is way beyond the scope of creativity and creation).
i7 3770k :: Asus P8H77-V LE :: 16Gb DDR3 @1600MHz :: Geforce GT 520 :: OCZ-Vertex 128Gb :: WD Black Series 1Tb and Green Series 1Tb :: F*******e Liquid56 :: REAPER 64bit and StudioOne 64bit (both latest versions) :: Win 10 64bit
User avatar
Mercado_Negro
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:30 am

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby giancarlo » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:47 am

hopsing wrote:
hopsing wrote:That sounds all pretty interesting. Fwiw, I once tried to do the sample rate conversion of the emt 140 programms to 44,1Khz in NAT and to verify the results I nulled two Instances of Nebula. Up to 2,5 seconds of reverb tail I could null the NAT converted and the Nebula converted programms completly (In Logic audio). Longer reverb tails were cut by NAT, but that seems to be a known bug of NAT.
So I was under the impression, that Nebula calculates reliably if all the variables are the same.
Tobias

ok, tried it again, this time with alexb vintage black eq and it was far from nulling :D The EMT 140 is different in that regard, obviously, but really driven hard it shows that behaviour, too.


again, it happens because sometimes equalisers are sampled statically (really most of times). Anyway you could sample an equaliser dynamically if you want.
About "longer reverb tails", there is no any bug in nat on this side. You should increase SPACE parameter and use a proper template.
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby giancarlo » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:50 am

fuseburn wrote:Sure, but the differences nebula provides aren't derived from the original hardware.


no it's part of sampling process
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby giancarlo » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:54 am

Mercado_Negro wrote:
fuseburn wrote:Sure, but the differences nebula provides aren't derived from the original hardware. Otherwise all the samples from digital units wouldn't show these differences, but they do. So the effect seems to be artificial and therefore unneeded - at least imo ;-) Best solution would be to have that particular behaviour optional.

Right now it's mostly an obstacle to identify erratic behaviour. You can't prove that it sounds the same as yesterday. I just noticed that for example hitting the RELOAD button changes the sound significantly in some cases (can't really say precisely which cases yet), and the BPM-changes-sound-affair - I'd really love to be able to do scientific tests on that, you know :D , but I can't.


Significant differences? Wow man, when I read your posts I really doubt I can hear well hehe To me those differences are less than a problem when mixing. I've experienced the same thing when mixing OTB so I'm just probably used to it :) Just think you're using hardware and make your life easier, forget about all these tests and have fun. You know, after long periods of mixing sessions I start hearing monsters and ghosts as well. After some years I've learned that nothing sounds the same the next day :lol:



exactly. If hardware is good those differences are small. Infact the effect in alexb consoles is smaller than in original commercial library. Anyway we are speaking about micro fluctuations, for what I know it's something implemented also in other products, for example vcc. If it's not implemented correctly you don't have any summing effect at all, it would be the usual digital boring effect.
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby fuseburn » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:25 am

Hehe, seems like the discussion has drifted a bit towards "is different always better", which is alright.
My take on this is: If it's perfect, don't change it, so ultimately I'd prefer a reconstructable behavior. I don't think that "analog and lively" and "always identical sound/nulls out" are mutually exclusive at all.

I do get that it lies within the sampling process somehow. But, as an extreme example, if I'm offline-sampling (i.e. no converter involved) a non-dynamic-behaving plugin, there's just no reason why the resulting program should sound different at each pass, you know ? :)

But back to the hard facts:
- Could anyone reproduce the halving-values effect with the AHEAD parameter in the MAST page ? Set any value (not necessarily touching AHEAD), "Save", offline-online, AHEAD value is half as big.
- Anymore confirmations that nebula sounds different at different BPM ? Why could THAT be ?
- Any more takers willing to try x64 vs. x86 ?

Well, since we can't do Null tests, we'll have to rely on our ears as it seems ;)
As far as "significant" of subtle differences: The reason why I started this thread is I opened a project and it suddenly didn't feel right anymore, so much that kept me from working on. Opened a 3-day-old backup file and was confirmed - it sounded better. I think there was a nebula-upgrade involved (1.3.467 to 475, x64) but I'm still finding the reason. Currently assuming that 1.3.467 plugin settings aren't being opened correctly with the 1.3.475 plugin. Hence why it sounds much better once you hit RELOAD.

In other words: AlexB's MBC and CLC sounded brilliant before, then they just sounded "weird", not 3D anymore, so ultimately superfluous, not even a nice saturation - better in bypass. And that is by far within the range of "we should look into that" I think ;)
It definitely HAS something to do with AHEAD values, and maybe QUALITY. Also, the x86 version sounded good all the time while the x64 changed in sound (I'm exclusively using N3 Reverb x64 for everything). In the process of trying to get x64 to sound exactly like x86 again, I noticed that I can only come as far as 95% identical. Way bigger difference than 2 renders of same plugins compared to each other, obviously.
User avatar
fuseburn
User Level X
User Level X
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby giancarlo » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:46 am

fuseburn wrote:Hehe, seems like the discussion has drifted a bit towards "is different always better", which is alright.
My take on this is: If it's perfect, don't change it, so ultimately I'd prefer a reconstructable behavior. I don't think that "analog and lively" and "always identical sound/nulls out" are mutually exclusive at all.

I do get that it lies within the sampling process somehow. But, as an extreme example, if I'm offline-sampling (i.e. no converter involved) a non-dynamic-behaving plugin, there's just no reason why the resulting program should sound different at each pass, you know ? :)

But back to the hard facts:
- Could anyone reproduce the halving-values effect with the AHEAD parameter in the MAST page ? Set any value (not necessarily touching AHEAD), "Save", offline-online, AHEAD value is half as big.
- Anymore confirmations that nebula sounds different at different BPM ? Why could THAT be ?
- Any more takers willing to try x64 vs. x86 ?

Well, since we can't do Null tests, we'll have to rely on our ears as it seems ;)
As far as "significant" of subtle differences: The reason why I started this thread is I opened a project and it suddenly didn't feel right anymore, so much that kept me from working on. Opened a 3-day-old backup file and was confirmed - it sounded better. I think there was a nebula-upgrade involved (1.3.467 to 475, x64) but I'm still finding the reason. Currently assuming that 1.3.467 plugin settings aren't being opened correctly with the 1.3.475 plugin. Hence why it sounds much better once you hit RELOAD.

In other words: AlexB's MBC and CLC sounded brilliant before, then they just sounded "weird", not 3D anymore, so ultimately superfluous, not even a nice saturation - better in bypass. And that is by far within the range of "we should look into that" I think ;)
It definitely HAS something to do with AHEAD values, and maybe QUALITY. Also, the x86 version sounded good all the time while the x64 changed in sound (I'm exclusively using N3 Reverb x64 for everything). In the process of trying to get x64 to sound exactly like x86 again, I noticed that I can only come as far as 95% identical. Way bigger difference than 2 renders of same plugins compared to each other, obviously.


OK, tell me if you can reproduce the AHEAD thingy, which is not correct from what I can understand here. BPM should not affect audio, it's a parameter available in the engine but it's used not frequently in templates. I would say only in TMV programs
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Neb 3 Pro and Neb 3 Pro x64 sound different

Postby giancarlo » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:49 am

giancarlo wrote:
fuseburn wrote:Hehe, seems like the discussion has drifted a bit towards "is different always better", which is alright.
My take on this is: If it's perfect, don't change it, so ultimately I'd prefer a reconstructable behavior. I don't think that "analog and lively" and "always identical sound/nulls out" are mutually exclusive at all.

I do get that it lies within the sampling process somehow. But, as an extreme example, if I'm offline-sampling (i.e. no converter involved) a non-dynamic-behaving plugin, there's just no reason why the resulting program should sound different at each pass, you know ? :)

But back to the hard facts:
- Could anyone reproduce the halving-values effect with the AHEAD parameter in the MAST page ? Set any value (not necessarily touching AHEAD), "Save", offline-online, AHEAD value is half as big.
- Anymore confirmations that nebula sounds different at different BPM ? Why could THAT be ?
- Any more takers willing to try x64 vs. x86 ?

Well, since we can't do Null tests, we'll have to rely on our ears as it seems ;)
As far as "significant" of subtle differences: The reason why I started this thread is I opened a project and it suddenly didn't feel right anymore, so much that kept me from working on. Opened a 3-day-old backup file and was confirmed - it sounded better. I think there was a nebula-upgrade involved (1.3.467 to 475, x64) but I'm still finding the reason. Currently assuming that 1.3.467 plugin settings aren't being opened correctly with the 1.3.475 plugin. Hence why it sounds much better once you hit RELOAD.

In other words: AlexB's MBC and CLC sounded brilliant before, then they just sounded "weird", not 3D anymore, so ultimately superfluous, not even a nice saturation - better in bypass. And that is by far within the range of "we should look into that" I think ;)
It definitely HAS something to do with AHEAD values, and maybe QUALITY. Also, the x86 version sounded good all the time while the x64 changed in sound (I'm exclusively using N3 Reverb x64 for everything). In the process of trying to get x64 to sound exactly like x86 again, I noticed that I can only come as far as 95% identical. Way bigger difference than 2 renders of same plugins compared to each other, obviously.


OK, tell me if you can reproduce the AHEAD thingy, which is not correct from what I can understand here. BPM should not affect audio, it's a parameter available in the engine but it's used not frequently in templates. I would say only in TMV programs


1.3.475 is more or less the same version of 1.3.467, apart a couple of crash bug fixes. There will be a difference in 1.3.476 because if audio is louder than +3dB it's muted in a particular way I described. Well you could revert the parameter manually editing the xml file.
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests