Login

Transient loss

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Re: Transient loss

Postby RJHollins » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:06 pm

It's been an interesting 11 page read on this topic.

Though I've not attempted any of the 'mods' that have
been suggested, I, like anyone else, strive for the
highest 'quality' achievable.

With THAT said, there is a fundamental issue that
should be observed.

Due to the complexities of the various equipment that
is being sampled, each with their individual parameters
and criteria, the idea of modifying the sonic performance
of a given library would NEED to have the original
piece of hardware there for A/B comparison.

Isn't THIS what each library developer is doing ?!?!
Would not THEY have the only opportunity to best match
the NEBULA library to the specific piece being sampled ?

In the analog/hardware world, it was NOT uncommon
for engineers to 'adjust' the parameters of, say, a
tape machine BIAS in order to tweak the sound desired.
The tech department were no strangers to engineer
requests to 'component' modify console channels, etc.

But to the critical point ... truthfully capturing
the sonic impulse, and creating a NEB library that
mirrors this hardware is, first, the challenge ... and
then having the the specific hardware piece there as
REFERENCE seems the only accurate procedure.

It's nice to see enthusiastic users diving into the
NEBULA parameters and experimenting !

For myself [at this point in time], transitioning from
many years in the 'old school' large format consoles,
tape machines, outboards, etc ... NEBULA has provided
a vehicle of tools that [as many attest] sound musical,
euphonic,
that was missing from so many of the algorithmic plugs.
Certainly not so of a few recent releases that I've
checked.

I certainly hope, as everyone else, that NEBULA continues
to advance. Having purchased many of the available 3rd party
libraries of equipment that I'm familiar with [obviously
NOT the exact serial# piece], my sonic 'memory' is
refreshed when I test it. There is an essence that
is there ... that, again, I don't hear [feel ... sense]
in coded plugs. Maybe 'texture' would be an appropriate
adjective.

Hey ... just some observation/comments that have stirred
reading/following this thread.

For myself ... SHOULD the original developer release
a specific 'mod' to one of their libraries, I'd certainly
jump on it ... as for tweaking the library ... well,
honestly ... I bought the Nebula library to tweak the
sounds I have to work on 8-)

Sincerely
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: 2633
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby yr » Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:27 pm

I think we need to distinguish between the sonic characteristics of the hardware (as captured by NAT more or less accurately) and the behavior of the playback engine.

All the preamp/console presets I've tested introduce some form of transient loss when using freqd clean kernel (compared to the source material and the "timed" kernel option). I've also tested presets that I've sampled myself with the same results. This behavior is not a reflection of the nature of the hardware but is related to the playback engine.

I can imagine that in some cases, using the freqd will actually give you transient response that mimics the behavior of the original hardware better. To me, personally, changing the clean kernel to timed, actually makes many Nebula presets usable again..
Reuven | post-production & sound-design | scenography |
website | nebula presets
User avatar
yr
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:04 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Transient loss

Postby fredrikberg » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:44 pm

yr wrote:I think there are a couple of variables making a quality switch complex- the parameters that "should" be tweaked are different between preset types and sometimes depend on the way a certain library/preset were created. On top of that, "quality" in this case is at least partly subjective, because you are trying to balance dynamic behavior with tone accuracy (while avoiding artifacts).

I think it's safe to say that most preamp/console & tape presets sound better using classic mode and (at least) timed clean kernel. EQ's, on the other hand, are already more problematic- some libraries sound very strange with this "tweak"...


I´m only asking for Nebula to automatically switch to "Normal Mode" during render even if I work in "Economy mode" when working on a mix. In that case I could make the tweaks I find appropriate to each program in Normal mode. I don´t think that could be too hard to implement.
fredrikberg
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:21 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby giancarlo » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:15 am

we tried it in the past and it creates a lot of issues, so we abandoned the idea. It happens the switch is not instantaneus, increasing cpu load for short times and crashing the host. Just think to 20 nebulas increasing their cpu requirements, many host crash depending on the asio driver
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Transient loss

Postby lipa » Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:57 pm

somehow it doesn`t happen with algo plugins.. most of them nowadays have switches to oversample/render in better quality.. render with better src and all that.. never had issue with that. Giancarlo please rethink the idea and let do some render settings page in nebula.. I can even dial it manually for every program... After reading this thread my nebula instance count dropped dramatically.. I don`t want to use nebula without TimeD anymore.. :roll:
User avatar
lipa
Member
Member
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:49 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby musicgreator » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:02 am

yr wrote:I think we need to distinguish between the sonic characteristics of the hardware (as captured by NAT more or less accurately) and the behavior of the playback engine.

All the preamp/console presets I've tested introduce some form of transient loss when using freqd clean kernel (compared to the source material and the "timed" kernel option). I've also tested presets that I've sampled myself with the same results. This behavior is not a reflection of the nature of the hardware but is related to the playback engine.

I can imagine that in some cases, using the freqd will actually give you transient response that mimics the behavior of the original hardware better. To me, personally, changing the clean kernel to timed, actually makes many Nebula presets usable again..
So you use TIMED only on the clean kernel. Why not on the harmonic kernels too? Is TIMED on clean kernel enough for keeping the transients and quality?
musicgreator
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby yr » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:01 pm

musicgreator wrote:
yr wrote:I think we need to distinguish between the sonic characteristics of the hardware (as captured by NAT more or less accurately) and the behavior of the playback engine.

All the preamp/console presets I've tested introduce some form of transient loss when using freqd clean kernel (compared to the source material and the "timed" kernel option). I've also tested presets that I've sampled myself with the same results. This behavior is not a reflection of the nature of the hardware but is related to the playback engine.

I can imagine that in some cases, using the freqd will actually give you transient response that mimics the behavior of the original hardware better. To me, personally, changing the clean kernel to timed, actually makes many Nebula presets usable again..
So you use TIMED only on the clean kernel. Why not on the harmonic kernels too? Is TIMED on clean kernel enough for keeping the transients and quality?


I've used "timed" on all kernels for the files I've posted, but in the studio I use only timed clean kernel. Transient response is good and cpu load bearable..
Reuven | post-production & sound-design | scenography |
website | nebula presets
User avatar
yr
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:04 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Transient loss

Postby Tim Petherick » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:15 pm

I think it would be good to have Cuda bridge up and running on everything in Nebula.

If working in 44.1 it maybe possible to do a entire mix using timed mode using Cuda!!


So what is the development of Cuda at this moment in time?

Tim
User avatar
Tim Petherick
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:07 pm
Location: Bath , Uk

Re: Transient loss

Postby mitch » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:09 am

Hi all! First of all, a huge thank you to all for having talked about this tweak!!! It is not so complicated at the end and it really is making things much more real!
Before the tweak, I found myself using more Nebulas to achieve a certain sound, because things where getting a bit "muddy" when using many instances on a source.

In my experience on the cpu side is that:
-I bought an i5/16gig/SSD computer especially for Nebula, and switched to Reaper.
-Before the timeD-10ms/EFV17 tweak, I was able to run around 40-50 instances at the same time maximum; but strangely the crashes occured when the cpu meter showed only 40%cpu load on Reaper.
-now, I can run the same amount of Nebulas before overload, but the cpu meter shows 80% load, which is more logical, AND IT SOUNDS BETTER :D

For me Nebula is very heavy for a plugin anyway,not so cheap (if you count the libraries, the pc, Reaper)
and not so easy to understand in the beginning.
Then the install/licence scheme is not perfect neither.

I have choosen it and even bought an expensive Pc because I love the sound, and I think a big part of the userbase has the same motivation. So having a "normal" mode with the best possible sound without tweak (at least with 10ms for timeD) sould be the basis, and then the economic mode should switch the timeD/freqD setting for low cpu consumption.
For some people tweaking the plugin while having no idea how to is frightening, and they won't read all the posts of the forum...

Ayway thank you again for the tweak and for Nebula of course!!!
mitch
User Level IV
User Level IV
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby voidar » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:29 am

I did some null tests.

On my setup these are more successfull (closer null) using the FREQD kernel mode. TIMED leaves a lot of high-end while FREQD leaves some low-end mud

Just out of curiousity I sampled a channel-bus instance of Slate VCC and then ran Nebula Reverb with this program against the VST.

Strangely cancellation was best with no oversampling on the VCC side while I am pretty sure the program was rendered at 8x oversampling.
voidar
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests