ok...so at this point i've purchased around 30 of henry's libraries and i just can't say enough about them. really, really great stuff.
there's allot more that i want to get but i'm going to wait for more libraries to be released at 96. i don't work at 192.
i just picked up all of the available sample rate updates for the libraries that i have but i have to admit that it feels a bit wasteful to buy a libary at 192 and then buy it again a week later at 96. hence, why i'm willing to wait for more of the libraries to be released at 96. really loving these though. kudos to henry!
henry, if you happen to read this...do you have any kind of schedule as far as when you expect all libaries to be available at 44.1/96KHz?
david1103 wrote:Hi Barendse, I spent some time listening but have not come to any conclusions yet. The girthy seems to be able to add a nice distortion to the transients of sampled snare drums making them sound more 'dirty/real' alive and analog.
I made screen dumps of all the EQ curves, and here they are for those interested:
I only listened at 44.1 so far, that is what i mostly use. My experience is that programs down sampled by nebula don't sound so good, but these are down sampled off-line by SoX I think.
Do you think they lack fidelity? The main difference is they are sampled as pre-amps rather than EQ's. This means their kernel length is shorter than usual for EQ's, maybe this makes for a different sound. Also they can overload into nasty noises and not take bass transients as well as EQ's, BUT being preamps they should have a better sound... or should they?
What i would love to do, but dread the time it would take, is to develop a systematic repeatable method of testing nebula programs with the same audio and share the results. Each program is so different, different converters, different ways of capturing it, different settings. I think sampling must be an art form, just sticking great gear in front of NAT is not going to mean a great program. I don't know the ins and outs of how NAT works, but auditioning each program properly is a full time job
As i was saying, no conclusion yet, i really should stop geeking out so much over Nebula! It is just too exciting for me to to finally be able to send a bit of audio through a VST and have something better and different sounding come out the other side!
Again i did a reality check of nebula vs a normal VST EQ... how can anyone not be using Nebula? they must be deaf Its like one is alive and the other is dead, people are killing music with their crappy EQ's
Would love to hear what people think of the preamp sampling vs regular EQ sampling for EQ presets, also the 192 down-sampling. Lets 'join ears'!
great graph info, id like to test some others by myself. What is the process? I have Span and know how to change the setup to make i flat, fast and accurate. But did you use some soundgenerator to which will be sent through nebula plugin or eq- d some rich sound completely flat?tnx all the best! btw I also bought everything in my daw sample rate. Very good way to start exploring Olongas librarys.