richie43 wrote:Giancarlo has cleared this up. he has said on more than one post to use the Nebula Reverb for everything. Latency shouldn't be considered an issue really. Nebula is not intended to be used while tracking, it's more sensible to use it after tracking when you don't need real time zero latency anyway.
OK, in the thread you posted, Giancarlo unequivocally does not say "to use Nebula Reverb for everything." What he says is that it's OK to use it for anything, not that you should use it for everything. That is a very important difference. Do you have any other threads?
You could still be right, but I'm a little worried that we're promulgating wrong answers based on incorrect interpretations of what the devs have said here...
It would be good if Giancarlo or Enrique could chime in.
Search the forum, I know it's there. I have also heard from a few knowledgeable posters here (Ngarjuna, Mercado, Enriquesilveti, Giancarlo) and I'll say it again; the regular Nebula dll seems to be there for the sake of old projects and compatibility. And in the end, use your ears and decide what (if any) sounds better and is a workable solution as far as work-flow and computer capabilities are concerned. All I know is that my mixes recently are much better than my previous mixes, and the "Nebulized" effect is ALMOST exactly what I remember from my analog days. Read this. This is in the FAQ for Nebula.
Go to the "First run and general usability questions" section, question #4. The dll's are actually the same, but the XML file (the settings) are different. Think of it as 2 settings of the same plug. The non-reverb dll has lower latency so greater CPU load. Quality will generally be better using the reverb dll, it says. And as I said earlier, Nebula is rough going if you are trying to track with it, so the main benefit of the non-reverb dll (low latency) is moot. You want to be able to access the most kernels as possible, and this is achieved with the reverb dll.
Yep, richie43 is right on the money, both dll files are actually the same. They just have different names because they use different xml files to get their settings from, that's all. I could call them "The Awesome Beast.dll" and "The Awesome Little Beast.dll" and there shouldn't be any problems as long as they use their own xml files: "The Awesome Beast.xml" and "The Awesome Little Beast.xml", respectively
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
Mercado_Negro wrote:Yep, richie43 is right on the money, both dll files are actually the same. They just have different names because they use different xml files to get their settings from, that's all. I could call them "The Awesome Beast.dll" and "The Awesome Little Beast.dll" and there shouldn't be any problems as long as they use their own xml files: "The Awesome Beast.xml" and "The Awesome Little Beast.xml", respectively
I was hoping you would catch wind of this one! It may have even been you or Ngarjuna that explained this to me at one time. Just curious Mercado; do you use the non-reverb dll for anything or do you have customized xml's for different applications (Mercado Negro's Personalized Awesome Beast)? Also curious as to which dll is the Awesome Beast and which is the Awesome Little Beast....? Thanks Mercado.
dll are the same. Reverb configuration is based on multithreading. When multithreading is not present it's possible the kernerls are truncated. Not bad but this could be a noticeble difference from what's supposed to be, so the target device. Multithreading solves a lot of issues, but due to a large number of synchronization fences, you need larger sample frames, so an higher DSPBUFFER value and asio buffer compared with the other configuration. I use powerful computers, low latencies and reverb version. For low I mean 1024 samples for nebula and for asio
So not meaning to complicate this then, but Giancarlo, is there ever a reason to use the non-reverb dll default configurations if a somewhat powerful computer is being used? I can't see a good reason to not use the reverb dll for everything. Thanks!
giancarlo wrote: For low I mean 1024 samples for nebula and for asio
I can get my asio buffer down to 512 with no stuttering for tracking, but I mix at 1024. My Nebula DSPBUFFER is usually at 2048, but I've never tried to go lower. Is there any reason to try to get the Nebula setting down?