Login

Transient loss

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Re: Transient loss

Postby dpclarkson » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:44 pm

Ericus, totally agree!
There are no secrets, in fact, just stumbled across another tip:

http://www.acustica-audio.com/forum/index.php?f=11&t=1069&start=0&rb_v=viewtopic

This might also be useful for fast transients/compression, etc.
Going to test this as well.
If these guys wanted to make this whole engine 'top secret', they just
gave us a GUI with a couple of knobs to tweak and just the browser-window.
dpclarkson
Member
Member
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Transient loss

Postby ericus » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:21 am

dpclarkson wrote:Ericus, totally agree!
There are no secrets, in fact, just stumbled across another tip:

http://www.acustica-audio.com/forum/index.php?f=11&t=1069&start=0&rb_v=viewtopic

This might also be useful for fast transients/compression, etc.
Going to test this as well.
If these guys wanted to make this whole engine 'top secret', they just
gave us a GUI with a couple of knobs to tweak and just the browser-window.


Well said! :mrgreen:
ericus
Member
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:37 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby Definity » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:45 am

I understand that G and other guys at Acustica are busy but making a program such as nebula and a sampling tool like NAT and not writing a decent manual to me defies the point of nebula and NAT being open to everyone to sample stuff especially if we dont know how! Not blaming G or E for this since they have given us an amazing tool but a decent in depth broken down to baby step and description guide would not go a miss and it would also secure even more decent program from more independant people to be released.
Definity
Member
Member
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:54 am

Re: Transient loss

Postby musicgreator » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:14 pm

Am i assuming right, that SLITH mode needs less CPU than CLASSIC and plays the first part of the kernel with TIMED? And does TIMED have a maximal length of 30ms so it would cut off kernels that are longer than 30ms? Does the SPLITH mode with let's say 1ms of TIMED solve the transient loss issue, or how much TIMED is needed? I changed the TIMED thing from 10ms to 30ms in MAST page is that good?
musicgreator
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby enriquesilveti » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:33 pm

The right way to do it is listening the real gear and tweaking Nebula.
Enrique Silveti.
Acustica Audio customer and technical support.

MBP 11.5 (i7-4870 | 16 GB | 512 SDD)
SP4 (i5-6300 | 8 GB | 256 SDD)
RME UFX | PS Lyra2 | SD USBPre2
VM U15 | VM W10 | VM OSX 10.12
N4/NAT4 | SPX3 | RX5 | LN2C | Smaart8 | R5 | PT12 | PX10
User avatar
enriquesilveti
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Lodi | Madrid | Buenos Aires

Re: Transient loss

Postby Cupwise » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:10 pm

musicgreator wrote:Am i assuming right, that SLITH mode needs less CPU than CLASSIC and plays the first part of the kernel with TIMED? And does TIMED have a maximal length of 30ms so it would cut off kernels that are longer than 30ms? Does the SPLITH mode with let's say 1ms of TIMED solve the transient loss issue, or how much TIMED is needed? I changed the TIMED thing from 10ms to 30ms in MAST page is that good?


no. there are really 3 modes. there are two classic modes, not one. classic timed, and classic freqd.

lets say you always have a kernel length or total kernel length of 50ms. classic freqd would need the least cpu. classic timed would need the most. split would be in the middle because it uses some of both to get the full 50ms.

so you can't say that split is always less cpu intensive than classic, because classic timed is the most. split is a compromise. try around 10ms of timed with split and 40ms with freqd, or experiment with all timed like some people are.

the same ground is being covered over and over with these explanations...
Cupwise
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Transient loss

Postby tbentley » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:31 pm

Is there any way to make a nebula version that changes programs automatically. Because i would like the use this with nebulaman.
tbentley
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Transient loss

Postby edbilleaud » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:30 am

This is certainly a classic nebula thread. Wow, as a Mac guy, and an old analogue guy, this is almost impenetrable for me.
My ears convince me to have great respect for the sound potential of Nebula, but as a customer I feel entitled to say that the product should obviously provide the highest quality as a default. If someone has CPU limitations, THEN they should have to adapt. It is not logical to have default settings which may or may not be the best quality when dealing with professional audio.
But, as this thread demonstrates, who knows what is and what is not the best setting for any given parameter? As a customer, I don't have confidence anymore in using Nebula, because I frankly don't know if it will sound its best when I use it, or if I am using a somehow compromised version. And, I certainly don't have the inclination to begin experimenting with arcane parameters which I don't understand, and shouldn't need to understand, and honestly don't even want to understand. I should not be penalized for not wanting to have to experiment. I don't for example make my clients remix their own records. They pay me for a service, and expect the best I can provide. What is different here?
Yes, I know I don't have to change the defaults, but here I am also being told that it doesn't sound as good if I don't do that. Very frustrating.
edbilleaud
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:38 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby musicgreator » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:11 am

edbilleaud wrote:This is certainly a classic nebula thread. Wow, as a Mac guy, and an old analogue guy, this is almost impenetrable for me.
My ears convince me to have great respect for the sound potential of Nebula, but as a customer I feel entitled to say that the product should obviously provide the highest quality as a default. If someone has CPU limitations, THEN they should have to adapt. It is not logical to have default settings which may or may not be the best quality when dealing with professional audio.
But, as this thread demonstrates, who knows what is and what is not the best setting for any given parameter? As a customer, I don't have confidence anymore in using Nebula, because I frankly don't know if it will sound its best when I use it, or if I am using a somehow compromised version. And, I certainly don't have the inclination to begin experimenting with arcane parameters which I don't understand, and shouldn't need to understand, and honestly don't even want to understand. I should not be penalized for not wanting to have to experiment. I don't for example make my clients remix their own records. They pay me for a service, and expect the best I can provide. What is different here?
Yes, I know I don't have to change the defaults, but here I am also being told that it doesn't sound as good if I don't do that. Very frustrating.

That's probably the reason why those tweaks aren't that well known. Acoustica audio probably tried to find a good middle to not frustrate customers with too much cpu consumption. But then again for me as well, nebula stands for highest quality so maybe this should have the highest priority and lowering cpu consumption second priority. Well, i'm just glad i know those tweaks now. Hopefully technology brings us more CPU power soon (Or Cuda).

But i tried SPLIT mode with 7ms Clean, 2ms for Odd and Even and it doesn't take too much more cpu while the transients seem to be better.

Could pure TIMED lack in low end even with 30ms? I did a null test against FREQD and alot of low and was still there.
musicgreator
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: Transient loss

Postby tbentley » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:57 pm

edbilleaud wrote:This is certainly a classic nebula thread. Wow, as a Mac guy, and an old analogue guy, this is almost impenetrable for me.
My ears convince me to have great respect for the sound potential of Nebula, but as a customer I feel entitled to say that the product should obviously provide the highest quality as a default. If someone has CPU limitations, THEN they should have to adapt. It is not logical to have default settings which may or may not be the best quality when dealing with professional audio.
But, as this thread demonstrates, who knows what is and what is not the best setting for any given parameter? As a customer, I don't have confidence anymore in using Nebula, because I frankly don't know if it will sound its best when I use it, or if I am using a somehow compromised version. And, I certainly don't have the inclination to begin experimenting with arcane parameters which I don't understand, and shouldn't need to understand, and honestly don't even want to understand. I should not be penalized for not wanting to have to experiment. I don't for example make my clients remix their own records. They pay me for a service, and expect the best I can provide. What is different here?
Yes, I know I don't have to change the defaults, but here I am also being told that it doesn't sound as good if I don't do that. Very frustrating.


I agree. I think that nebula should add another version to the regular and reverb. This version should be the highest quality version of nebula with cpu usage not being a priority.
tbentley
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests