Login

SPLITH vs CLASSC

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby darren » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:30 am

I understand that the 'SPLITH' mode operates by using two methods, one on the transient portion and the other for the tail of the model.

In your practical experience is it worth running in the SPLITH mode as a default and if so, why does Nebula default to the CLASSC mode?

Is there some history here? Is the CLASSC mode now somehow inferior to SPLITH.. somewhat deprecated?

What are the pros/cons of each method?
User avatar
darren
User Level X
User Level X
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby jorismak » Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:19 pm

Nebula doesn't default to a mode as far as I know.

The library you load into it is set (by default) to a certain mode by the library-developer.

And as a rule, you should not touch it (they did their tests if it sounds OK or not).

Remember I explained in some other thread that there are two algorithms? FREQD and TIMED? And that TIMED maybe better but requires more processing?

Well, (correct me if wrong somebody) SPLITH mode allows the developer to use both. Normally (specially for reverbs) they use SPLITH to apply 'TIMED' algorithm to the initial part of the effect, and then switch to FREQD mode for the long tail a program might have. That way you have high-quality TIMED mode for the start and most important part, and FREQD mode for the stuff after.

For short programs like preamps / EQs and stuff, it might be that the developer set the mode to CLASSIC because they don't have to work in hybrid, they can have the whole program TIMED / FREQD mode.


So to me, the same rule applies here as in your other thread about tweaks: Yes, go ahead and play with it. But I don't see the point, since those parameters are set by the library developers and they know better what they are doing and can compare it to the original sampled device :).
jorismak
Member
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:49 am

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby Cupwise » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:57 pm

no you shouldn't use splith all the time.
splith mode is mostly as jorismak described, but also:
a) you can't use smooth2 smoothing when using splith, because each use an extra kernel (this is why 10k programs say 11k, it's not because they actually have 11 sampled kernels, but 10 and then one for smoothing or splith), and only one of them can be used at a time because they share that kernel, or something.
b) you need smoothing for pretty much anything with dynamics, except for longer reverbs because they use longer program rates where smoothing isn't necessary
c) so that means that splith mode is only something you can use with programs without dynamics, like most EQs, because they don't need smoothing
d) i'm not sure but i don't think you can use it with reverbs, or at least not ones over 100ms


but so basically, if you take a preamp or compressor or any program that's not using splith, and set it to use splith, chances are pretty high you are going to be getting artifacts. unless it's something without dynamics, like the vast majority of equalizers.
Cupwise
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:03 am

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby darren » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:05 pm

Thanks for the guidance.
User avatar
darren
User Level X
User Level X
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby flaviusr » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:44 pm

Normally (specially for reverbs) they use SPLITH to apply 'TIMED' algorithm to the initial part of the effect, and then switch to FREQD mode for the long tail a program might have.


c) so that means that splith mode is only something you can use with programs without dynamics, like most EQs, because they don't need smoothing
d) i'm not sure but i don't think you can use it with reverbs, or at least not ones over 100ms


:? Confused

It would be nice to have a table with all kinds of categories like reverb, EQ, consoles, etc.. and general good setup for PROGRATE, DSPBUFFER, TIMED FREQD MODES, for the best sound possible in a good machine, that is possible?

Sorry beginner user :)

Thanks

F
Dual boot /LGA 2011 /i7 3820 /32 GB /GA-X79S-UP5 / osX 10.9.5 - Win 10
Mac Book Pro 2.4 Ghz / 8 Gb / osX 10.9.5
Prism Sound Lyra 2 - RME-Fireface UCX - Octamic XTC
Pro Tools 12.5 Cubase 8.5 Reaper 5.25 Wavelab 9 Ozone 7 Nebula Server Ultimate
User avatar
flaviusr
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:35 pm
Location: Brasil

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby jorismak » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:36 pm

I also said in my post (and in others about certain Nebula settings) that stuff like this is set by the person who has done the sampling / made the library.

If you want to know the best sound: Leave it alone. That's how the person who made the library intended it and released it as such.

If you're curious what it all means and want to test, by all means go ahead. But generally you just shouldn't touch the parameters to get the best sound out of a library.
jorismak
Member
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:49 am

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby flaviusr » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:49 pm

I'm afraid that some programs settings are made for better performance, or in between performance/quality.

Other point is about the evf (peak, RMS) setting, some times the default is not the best sonically speaking...

I just start to think about the deepest points in Nebula, I think a table with examples and explanations about the theory behind the choices would be very helpful.

Thanks

F
Dual boot /LGA 2011 /i7 3820 /32 GB /GA-X79S-UP5 / osX 10.9.5 - Win 10
Mac Book Pro 2.4 Ghz / 8 Gb / osX 10.9.5
Prism Sound Lyra 2 - RME-Fireface UCX - Octamic XTC
Pro Tools 12.5 Cubase 8.5 Reaper 5.25 Wavelab 9 Ozone 7 Nebula Server Ultimate
User avatar
flaviusr
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:35 pm
Location: Brasil

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby Cupwise » Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:23 am

dynamic programs should not use splith, they should use either classic with freqd or timed and have smooth2 smoothing. without smooth2 smoothing the program will almost surely cause artifacts.

nondynamic programs like eqs can use splith because they dont need smooth 2 smoothing. they can also use classic with either freqd or timed. timed is always best quality, but uses more cpu. splith is mid quality, and freqd lowest (but still really good, and the differences are really subtle anyway).

its that simple.

by default, eq programs usually or always use splith. by default dynamic programs never use splith (and shouldn't). you could change an eq from splith to either classic with freqd or timed, but you would want to make sure the program rate doesn't change because if it does, that could also lead to artifacts. so the safest thing would be to just leave it on splith. you should never change a dynamic program from classic to splith. ever. but again, safest thing is to just leave this stuff alone.
Cupwise
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:03 am

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby flaviusr » Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:45 am

Thank's for the guidance, really appreciate.

F
Dual boot /LGA 2011 /i7 3820 /32 GB /GA-X79S-UP5 / osX 10.9.5 - Win 10
Mac Book Pro 2.4 Ghz / 8 Gb / osX 10.9.5
Prism Sound Lyra 2 - RME-Fireface UCX - Octamic XTC
Pro Tools 12.5 Cubase 8.5 Reaper 5.25 Wavelab 9 Ozone 7 Nebula Server Ultimate
User avatar
flaviusr
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:35 pm
Location: Brasil

Re: SPLITH vs CLASSC

Postby RJHollins » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:01 pm

Question ...

With regard to TIMED settings, I recall that there was issue with setting both EVEN and ODD to TIMED settings was a problem.

Is this still the current case ?

If not, what version of Nebula was this corrected/fixed ?

Thanks
i7-5820k, MSI X99A Plus, 16 GIG Ram, Noctua NH-D14, Win-7 Pro [64-bit], Reaper-64

NVC [Nebula Virtual Controllers]
RJHollins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:53 pm

Next

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests