Login

More nebula per channel.

Additional software tools

More nebula per channel.

Postby Mimi » Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:54 pm

When you need more than one band per channel ...
What to do?
Putting more of a nebula per channel?
Nebula has only one band ... And then. :?: :?: :?:
User avatar
Mimi
Member
Member
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby ngarjuna » Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:11 pm

Yep, you can insert more instances as needed. Most of my tracks have multiple instances of Nebula (one for each program) before I even start equalizing.

The number of bands per instance might vary from developer to developer; while 1 band per instance is the most common there are developers who make EQs with multiple bands per channel (the Analog In The Box eqs come to mind).
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby Mimi » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:01 pm

Would you like a bookstore that was more than one band for program ...
I want 5 bands ... do you have a suggestion.
N**e 1073?
bought alexB very good ...
1 channel by nebula is a kick on my breasts ...
User avatar
Mimi
Member
Member
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby ngarjuna » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:07 pm

I don't know of any that have that many.

The issue is how the number of samples relate to the number of variables. Increasing the number of variables (say, adding another frequency range and gain control, so two more variables) increases the number of samples by a multiplied factor; because now it's not 2 interacting variables, it's 4. It doesn't double the number of samples because all 4 variables interact. Those kinds of programs can quickly become so unwieldy that you won't be able to load them, too much CPU required.

CPU is probably the main constraint of Nebula as it currently stands. In 5 years when CPU speeds have doubled X number of times it might not be an issue at all. Nebula is definitely not a tool of convenience, it's all about quality and accuracy in reproducing sampled hardware. At this point there are sacrifices (to workflow) that have to be made in order to achieve that level of accuracy.
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby Mimi » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:36 pm

I understand ... the load on the cpu would be disastrous.
If using a Eq S****x for example, I could maintain the quality?
Uniting nebula + frequency with S****x would look good?
I wonder if I can maintain the quality of the nebula + other plugin you think?
you use in protools?
I can not ... does not work well FXP2.11
VsTToRTAS
User avatar
Mimi
Member
Member
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby ngarjuna » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:59 pm

Mimi wrote:I understand ... the load on the cpu would be disastrous.


Exactly.

If using a Eq S****x for example, I could maintain the quality?
Uniting nebula + frequency with S****x would look good?
I wonder if I can maintain the quality of the nebula + other plugin you think?


Yes and no.

No...in that in order to have an EQ program (for example) that very accurately models the equalizer being sampled, you really need all the elements.

Yes...in that there are some program packages that are more modular by nature and meant to be stacked together and/or with other effects. The one that comes to mind is the Retro Analog Studio package from CDSoundmaster which is intended to be very modular, stacking this program with that, in order to achieve signal chains similar to the ones modeled. I'm over simplifying it a bit. In that respect you could very well find programs that stack well with cleaner digital effects (by other developers) that pair nicely for you. Personally I sometimes use the RAS "compressors" (they are really just the signal from the compressors in question, they don't actually do the compressing) with a very "clean" digital compressor to accomplish something particular. It's something you should experiment with, you might very well stumble upon the results you're looking for.

I'm not unsympathetic to your comments, by the way; I'm sure for most of us Nebulites it was a pretty bizarre transition to go from using one plugin for a whole range of equalizing to only having one band per instance (and that instance still taking a fair bit of CPU!). It is something you start to get used to as you get involved with Nebula. I'm fond of saying "Nebula bent my workflow to its will" and it's true; but once I got in the habit of using it my workflow became something new. Obviously I'm happy with the results that I get even though it does take me a bit longer to get there.

you use in protools?
I can not ... does not work well FXP2.11
VsTToRTAS


I don't, sorry, I'm on a VST platform (REAPER). I'm pretty sure there are other forum users who use PT, though, hopefully they can give you some advice there.
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby Mimi » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:29 pm

:lol: the rest. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Truth ...
I like very much in love with nebula.
I'm mixing with it ... I have taken projects put into protools .
Work the mix in Cubase LE 4
is a different job, and the result is great.
digi003 I record in protools more mixing in cubase and the result is wonderful.
Although the sound is fatter in protools.
I tried using S****x + nebula.
put on the same track ... I just removing and placing two nebulas.
I agree with what he said ... Nebula is 100% better than the rest
thanks for your opinion ...
some secrets about the best use of the nebula equalization?
Take a hint please ..
User avatar
Mimi
Member
Member
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: More nebula per channel.

Postby RJHollins » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:45 am

Hi Mimi,

I wish I could find a coded EQ that I could supplement with Nebula ... but as soon as I do, I start hearing the ugliness, and why I've dislike ITB audio.

I certainly do NOT enjoy the workflow and GUI manipulation of NEBULA ... and hope that the AU development is completed so that general NEBULA issues and refinements can proceed.

All that said ... I use NEBULA, nearly exclusively, for the sound quality.
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


Return to Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest