I have been following this thread and at this point wanted to do an assumption check: 1) Is there a repeatable problem? 2) Can it be isolated to nebula, a preset, a nebula or preset setting, the audio file, or some combination, or something else? 3) If there is a problem and the problem is understood is there a resolution, or is it considered not necessary to have a resolution? Just Curious...
the real question is: did you experience it? Latest version of our audio engine is 1.3.492. It means the engine didn't change, last version was released in 2011. We have thousands of customers and hundred of thousands of users; when a new audio issue is generated we receive around 1000 emails. It means it is not something new, so I think a limitation of the architecture. So the answer is: in such case, no, we will not fix it reasonabily. There are issues reported and we are upgrading the engine, but it is an improvement, not a bug fix. Each architecture has its own limitations. For example if you tune a melody using melodyne sometimes you get artifacts, it does not mean the engine is bad, it is a limitation that maybe in the future will be addressed, maybe coding a new workaround for something which could not be done using the original method.
If it is a bug we'll fix it (but a bug!). For bugs it is better if you use the ticket system though. Just to be clear, a bug happens on a particular pc or sequencer, while the same tracks on a different pc get a different (and correct) result
I know that my answer sometimes doesn't look good, but you should think we have a general purpose engine which is processing more than 20.000 different programs. A program is a preset, but it is really close to a computer program. When we change or fix something we break something else which is relying on the same engine. So improvements are obviously slow, because we should take in account impacts on the whole library (and the old songs you are loading). For example, if we "fix" something and you upgrade nebula your loaded song could be different from your beloved ones, which is not good at all even if the sound is improved. Think a bit about it.
OK, thanks Mr. G. - I didn't know if the situation was fully understood and who might be exposed to a potential issue. I don't seem to have the problem myself and have never noticed it with any of my audio or commercial nebula presets (50GB of libraries by now) or Nebula 3 Pro versions.
The problem is there, it is glairing and in your face.
The fact that it was not acknowledged up until now made me question the listening skills and the quality control of some developers in the Nebula community (I'm going to get flamed for this!). Privately, I pointed this out to CDMS, AITB, Signal to noise, Nebula techsupport...and the only developer who responded was Tim(Cupwise).
The artifacts are easy to detect and even non-technically minded musicians in my environment can clearly identify it. Pointing this out to some seasoned engineers was also an eye-opening experience; all these people, who can discuss sonic shadows and auras of esoteric equipment managed to miss some serious, bleeding sonic wounds - that I personally find to be unacceptable.
I'd still use Nebula as a lo-fi effect but not in productions where any kind of sound quality matters.
Quoting numbers of "satisfied" users is great for the developers but for me it is absolutely meaningless. However, the point I agree with, is that if you don't hear this defect then perhaps you shouldn't bother about it.
^michael did respond in this thread (just a few posts above). he responded by saying he never received any such correspondence. i personally did not need to be told that. if there is one thing we all know michael likes to do, it's respond to emails. if he didn't respond, he didn't get one.
something else noteworthy: all of us here (whether in amateur or professional capacities) use nebula and its third party libraries regularly. some of us have been doing it for years. yet, this is the first we're hearing of this issue. all of our ears couldn't be that terrible, could they? i, for one, have a few commercially released credits in my cv on which nebula and several 3rd party libraries were used. they were sent to professional mastering houses prior to their release. i've not heard back from a single one of them regarding undesirable artifacts or the like. i most assuredly did hear back from them about the mixes themselves, but that speaks more to my abilities (or lack thereof) as a mixing engineer.
my point is that i would respectfully suggest (as many others have pointed out in the past) that nebula is definitely not THE platform for everyone. it seems as though it may not be for you, scene. furthermore, i want to stress that i am definitely NOT suggesting that your assertions don't hold merit. if there is parameter in nebula or its libraries that could potentially be creating unwanted artifacts, it should certainly be addressed and corrected. however, my overall point is that it's very curious that we had not become aware of this until many years into the platform's development. most of us here have created and continue to create many satisfactory finished works using it (some under the supervision of industry-leading sound engineers). it seems to defy logic that we all missed something.
looking forward to everyone else's responses on this. have a great weekend...
jorismak wrote:it seems _very_ noticeable when you flip the phase on one of the files . Little robotic something that gets added. Still sounds like a rounding error or changes from vector to vector. Did you play around with the liquidity (liqdt) control?
Do you have it in both Reaper and Samplitude? Wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with certain buffer sizes in your DAW or inside nebula. But other than those (useless) remarks, I'm at a loss here. Something is clearly wrong with those files though.
edit: Tried it with CDSM 160 D*x program (only nebula compressor I have), STN Studl, STN NagTape, AlexB CLC and AlexB VBC + SideCar console. I tried it by applying the nebula preset to your 'without 660.wav', and bouncing to a mono 32bit FP 96000khz wav file. Comparing them (and doing null tests) does NOT reveal the effect you describe, while it's clearly there on your 'with 660.wav' file. So I don't seem to have the problem... keep searching.
infact... I guess he is overloading nebula somewhere in the chain. I couldnt replicate it either. Anyway I'm asking what the original poster thinks about melodyne, which adds tons of robotic mistakes in all current music. Sometimes you fix vocal using an harmonizer and/or autotune and/or melodyne and depending on the way you process a track (sometimes a bit of eq) the mistake suddenly appears. Sometimes the host during rendering is overloaded and you get a mistake too (depending on the host). Sometimes it is just internal clipping which makes nebula completely crazy.
@Swang - My engineering gene whispers to me: there is a repeatable test case, therefore the "issue" can be understood and fixed. The Nebula community is telling me that if I am not personally experiencing the "issue" then don't worry because [by implication] the set of variables necessary for the "issue" to occur don't exist in my environment. I was sort of thinking that maybe they don't [yet] exist but until they do I understand that I don't have an issue. Since I haven't yet taken the Nebula course or understand much of the internals and haven't yet sampled anything I'll have to go with the current thinking. I don't currently have an issue, and maybe, even when/if I do, don't use it that way(?) Just guessing here.
btw, as I wrote before, if you want to use the 660 wo artifacts, use the SHQ version.
And sorry, I could not replicate the problem with other 3rd party Nebula programs except with AlexB GMD which indicate that it's something that can easily (customer point of view ...) be fixed by devs.
oh, and I have Dynaudio BM15A at home and Genelec 1036A at work. But maybe my listening skills are wrong, ... who knows.
Yes, the problem was identified and confirmed on three distinct computers here, another studio and by Cupwise. In other words, I'm absolutely positive that whoever use these programs should definitely be affected by this problem.
As I stated together with Tim Cupwise in previous messages, all you have to do is listen to the submitted files or better yet take something you're really familiar with (any clear, monophonic, long sounds such as violins, vocals, cello etc) and test it by yourself.
@kels, at the moment , I'm not totally convinced with SHQ versions and I don't like the non real time-rendering aspect of it, even though, they do sound noticeably better.