I'm not saying that it isn't a fantastic and interesting process, but I think it's important not to perpetuate the "digital sampling is a stair-step approximation of an analog waveform" metaphor (also sometimes put forward as the "snapshot" metaphor) where more bits = better picture. Sampling and reconstruction of the waveform is a very sophisticated process, and that metaphor glosses over the actual workings of the process and makes it seem as though 44.1khz is inadequate because it can't capture the audio accurately, when that isn't true - the reason we use higher samplerates is because it allows more internal precision when processing, and because it moves the problematic effects of filtration beyond the audible range. It isn't because 44.1khz can't cut the mustard on audio in the human hearing range.
A small quibble but it is something that I try to be careful of because it's a very attractive and intuitive metaphor for sampling but it isn't reflective of how complex sampling really is.
I'll keep the rest in mind as I explore the literature on the topic, hopefully it will help me to grasp what I'm reading.
Nebula is the cab sim holy grail.
-
- KVRAF
- 1655 posts since 3 Mar, 2009 from Colorado Springs
-
- KVRist
- 313 posts since 3 Oct, 2006
Hi Agreed,
The snap-shot and stair-stepping metaphors are not used to represent the sample rate of a samplng process.
The bit rate of a digital recording is very accurately represented by this reference. Literally every change to volume = dynamics, is represented by a change of "1". The better the resolution of "1", the more accurate the final bigger picture will be.
With the sampling frequency, as you've mentioned here being 44.1- there is a representation of a completely different set of attributes to compare between sampling processes- static, dynamic, and that described in the Neb kerneling process.
I am definitely not saying that 44.1 is insufficient as a sample rate: in fact, nowhere have I stated that.
Nebula goes far beyond the 'picture-by-picture', 'state-by-state' approach to sampling, but these do provide a very accurate representation of how static IR's are measured and convolved. In static IR's, there is a very easy, direct comparison to snapping an image. A good digital camera is taking a collecting a single instance of data of multiple details to be reproduced. It is looking at space, distance, relative size, color, balance, contrast, etc. But, in this example, it is only providing the outcome of these qualities in a single frozen isntance. The quality of pixels equals the same reference as a bit of audio down to the essence of the concept.
I think perhaps the confusion in your response is that I am somehow referring specifically to a sample rate frequency when referring to the 'sampling' process, and that is not the intention in using the analogy. Bit depth resolution and sample rate frequency resolution both factor into the final quality of the sampling process, but the analogy of still images and frames per second as is the example comparable in dynamic convolution, are very much the process that static and dynamic sampling undergo.
The analogy also is only being utilized to express how static IR sampling and dynamic sampling are much more linear and simplified processes in comparison to live streaming, live updating kerneling. That is the point of what is being stated here. The process of source tones, dynamics, repetition, and the processing that the Nebula engine exudes are much more advanced, and the human ear picks up on these details and evaluates the subtle fluctuation of these details as being more realistic and multi-dimensional.
- M.
The snap-shot and stair-stepping metaphors are not used to represent the sample rate of a samplng process.
The bit rate of a digital recording is very accurately represented by this reference. Literally every change to volume = dynamics, is represented by a change of "1". The better the resolution of "1", the more accurate the final bigger picture will be.
With the sampling frequency, as you've mentioned here being 44.1- there is a representation of a completely different set of attributes to compare between sampling processes- static, dynamic, and that described in the Neb kerneling process.
I am definitely not saying that 44.1 is insufficient as a sample rate: in fact, nowhere have I stated that.
Nebula goes far beyond the 'picture-by-picture', 'state-by-state' approach to sampling, but these do provide a very accurate representation of how static IR's are measured and convolved. In static IR's, there is a very easy, direct comparison to snapping an image. A good digital camera is taking a collecting a single instance of data of multiple details to be reproduced. It is looking at space, distance, relative size, color, balance, contrast, etc. But, in this example, it is only providing the outcome of these qualities in a single frozen isntance. The quality of pixels equals the same reference as a bit of audio down to the essence of the concept.
I think perhaps the confusion in your response is that I am somehow referring specifically to a sample rate frequency when referring to the 'sampling' process, and that is not the intention in using the analogy. Bit depth resolution and sample rate frequency resolution both factor into the final quality of the sampling process, but the analogy of still images and frames per second as is the example comparable in dynamic convolution, are very much the process that static and dynamic sampling undergo.
The analogy also is only being utilized to express how static IR sampling and dynamic sampling are much more linear and simplified processes in comparison to live streaming, live updating kerneling. That is the point of what is being stated here. The process of source tones, dynamics, repetition, and the processing that the Nebula engine exudes are much more advanced, and the human ear picks up on these details and evaluates the subtle fluctuation of these details as being more realistic and multi-dimensional.
- M.
Agreed wrote:I'm not saying that it isn't a fantastic and interesting process, but I think it's important not to perpetuate the "digital sampling is a stair-step approximation of an analog waveform" metaphor (also sometimes put forward as the "snapshot" metaphor) where more bits = better picture. Sampling and reconstruction of the waveform is a very sophisticated process, and that metaphor glosses over the actual workings of the process and makes it seem as though 44.1khz is inadequate because it can't capture the audio accurately, when that isn't true - the reason we use higher sample rates is because it allows more internal precision when processing, and because it moves the problematic effects of filtration beyond the audible range. It isn't because 44.1khz can't cut the mustard on audio in the human hearing range.
A small quibble but it is something that I try to be careful of because it's a very attractive and intuitive metaphor for sampling but it isn't reflective of how complex sampling really is.
I'll keep the rest in mind as I explore the literature on the topic, hopefully it will help me to grasp what I'm reading.
-
- KVRist
- 313 posts since 3 Oct, 2006
Goodness no. There is constant fluctuation in how the load on the speaker, air pressure, current, interact with the clean/distortion levels; not just fequency and/or added harmonic elements. Granted- you can get an averaged basic static sampling of a cab and it will sound good, but sample it dynamically with very subtle changes in fluctuation and it becomes much more than just a pass-through. This is before interaction of freq. and dynamics interact with the mic'ing!
electro wrote:Isn't the Cab a static toneshaper for the Power Amp? What dynamics or harmonics does a Cab introduce?
-
- KVRist
- 236 posts since 24 Jan, 2008
Are there any free or commercial cabinet programs for nebula at this moment? I have nebula2, but truth be told their site is a mess and it's hard to keep up with all the libraries.
-
- KVRian
- 1372 posts since 3 Dec, 2002
Is it possible to use this cabinet real time? The problem that I keep having with Nebula is the latency introduced in the signal chain. I only have the older free versions so if this is not the case I'd be interested.
It just seems that any type of dynamic process going on in your guitar signal chain is best when real time as it will most likely effect the way you approach the instrument?
It just seems that any type of dynamic process going on in your guitar signal chain is best when real time as it will most likely effect the way you approach the instrument?
-
- KVRAF
- 25049 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Unlike IRs it can emulate a speaker that actually moves during usage (i.e. it is able to really emulate a speaker at all).Agreed wrote:What exactly does Nebula offer for cab simulation that IRs don't?
-
- KVRAF
- 1655 posts since 3 Mar, 2009 from Colorado Springs
Cab IRs do a great job for me, they're much more efficient, they can be combined in novel ways, they are easy to make and work with, there is no added expense if you want to use IRs and ultimately the sound on the track is all that matters and IRs kill for that.
The subtleties that the Nebula program should be able to capture are exciting, technologically, but IRs are a proven and effective method of simulating a mic'd cab. The way that I prefer to record cabs is to get the cabinet involved and get the speaker involved. Find the point at which those are both happening and then throw a microphone on it, tune the placement and then keep those variables consistent throughout the recording process. Take an IR at the same level that gets the speaker and cabinet doing their thing, and it actually turns out to be really good for me because then I can use the IR among other IRs, blend them however I need to with sample-level delay to optimize the sound, and record at really moderate volumes instead of the quite loud levels that getting the cabinet and speaker involved usually requires. The static nature of IRs has been a real boon in that regard, not a hindrance, at least to my process.
I am sure that the Nebula cab sim will be very cool, but will it be better enough that the greatly increased resource load is worth it? Will it be efficient enough that it isn't a problem anymore? I certainly hope so, that would be really cool. I'm anything but a luddite when it comes to new technology. I won't be discarding my IRs any time soon, though. IRs are certainly able to sound good, regardless of their inflexibility
AE, please keep us updated on how it all works. It sounds like you're figuring a lot of the stuff out as you go, are you keeping notes that could help others do some of the neat things you've been doing?
The subtleties that the Nebula program should be able to capture are exciting, technologically, but IRs are a proven and effective method of simulating a mic'd cab. The way that I prefer to record cabs is to get the cabinet involved and get the speaker involved. Find the point at which those are both happening and then throw a microphone on it, tune the placement and then keep those variables consistent throughout the recording process. Take an IR at the same level that gets the speaker and cabinet doing their thing, and it actually turns out to be really good for me because then I can use the IR among other IRs, blend them however I need to with sample-level delay to optimize the sound, and record at really moderate volumes instead of the quite loud levels that getting the cabinet and speaker involved usually requires. The static nature of IRs has been a real boon in that regard, not a hindrance, at least to my process.
I am sure that the Nebula cab sim will be very cool, but will it be better enough that the greatly increased resource load is worth it? Will it be efficient enough that it isn't a problem anymore? I certainly hope so, that would be really cool. I'm anything but a luddite when it comes to new technology. I won't be discarding my IRs any time soon, though. IRs are certainly able to sound good, regardless of their inflexibility
AE, please keep us updated on how it all works. It sounds like you're figuring a lot of the stuff out as you go, are you keeping notes that could help others do some of the neat things you've been doing?
-
- Banned
- 1021 posts since 31 Mar, 2009
nebula does sound amazing but doesn't it have built in latency? iirc most people are using it during post tracking mixing phase and mastering...
-
- KVRist
- 313 posts since 3 Oct, 2006
Nebula- check out free plug-in version and free program downloads;
Acusticaudio.net
I am not sure if there is currently a free cab(s) in the free commercial library. There were some cabs within the main commercial library but I honestly haven't checked lately.
Nebula is really best used for mixing and mastering. There have been several stages of optimization in the main engine and code that has made loading time quicker and overall performance and cpu usage less strained. But, I don't know that it is going to get to a point where the more taxing programs are supposed to be able to run realtime with low enough latency. It's definitely about having the best sound quality within the computer without compromise.
As far as cabinet IR's- I don't really think there is anything wrong with using static IR's for realtime as long as they enhance the performance. Nothing should hinder getting the right performance.
For some, all that's needed is a light reverb on a decent plug-in distortion or a delay that is synched to the song to get the right feel for tracking. Personally, I like to get as much of the full chain recorded wet, especially when layering multiple guitar parts that work together as one larger entity. Nebula is excellent for re-amping and even adding preamps and tape make a huge difference in adding dimension to previously recorded tracks.
Acusticaudio.net
I am not sure if there is currently a free cab(s) in the free commercial library. There were some cabs within the main commercial library but I honestly haven't checked lately.
Nebula is really best used for mixing and mastering. There have been several stages of optimization in the main engine and code that has made loading time quicker and overall performance and cpu usage less strained. But, I don't know that it is going to get to a point where the more taxing programs are supposed to be able to run realtime with low enough latency. It's definitely about having the best sound quality within the computer without compromise.
As far as cabinet IR's- I don't really think there is anything wrong with using static IR's for realtime as long as they enhance the performance. Nothing should hinder getting the right performance.
For some, all that's needed is a light reverb on a decent plug-in distortion or a delay that is synched to the song to get the right feel for tracking. Personally, I like to get as much of the full chain recorded wet, especially when layering multiple guitar parts that work together as one larger entity. Nebula is excellent for re-amping and even adding preamps and tape make a huge difference in adding dimension to previously recorded tracks.
-
- KVRian
- 1174 posts since 29 Apr, 2008
I haven't tried Nebula as a cab sim, but if it's not realtime, I can't see it catching on with guitarists. As a production tool it may end up being incredible for mixing/mastering, but guitarists need realtime, period.
-
- KVRist
- 313 posts since 3 Oct, 2006
Everything that I use Neb for is involving mixing and mastering, so I can't say.
There may be folks using it with minimal latency for live cab.
I do know that it is easy to drop an IR for tracking and then render/mixdown using Neb. in place, making it easy to have best sound for mixdown on standby in bypass.
If I'm ever tracking guitar at a point in the song too early to know what is going to sound best, I will use Cubase and place a few send effects to get good tracks without dedicating anything but the raw guitar to track, then place the absolute best chain later when mixing once I know what I'm needing most.
I'd be interested if anyone reading this is using Neb for live tracking or live monitoring?
There may be folks using it with minimal latency for live cab.
I do know that it is easy to drop an IR for tracking and then render/mixdown using Neb. in place, making it easy to have best sound for mixdown on standby in bypass.
If I'm ever tracking guitar at a point in the song too early to know what is going to sound best, I will use Cubase and place a few send effects to get good tracks without dedicating anything but the raw guitar to track, then place the absolute best chain later when mixing once I know what I'm needing most.
I'd be interested if anyone reading this is using Neb for live tracking or live monitoring?
chj wrote:I haven't tried Nebula as a cab sim, but if it's not real time, it can't possibly be considered the holy grail of cab sims. As a production tool it may end up being incredible for mixing/mastering, but guitarists need realtime, period.
-
- KVRAF
- 1655 posts since 3 Mar, 2009 from Colorado Springs
Thinking about it, it would be quite easy to take advantage of both methods. While you're taking the measurements for Nebula's kernals, take an IR as well. The IR will be static but easily usable live, and it will sound EXTREMELY close to Nebula's in its overall frequency response, just not as good as the Nebula's dynamic-system behavior. The IR is your live monitoring/tracking tool. Then you can render it out with the Nebula cabinet sim rather than the IR, so that you get the full depth and dynamics that the Nebula cabinet sim program offers but you were still able to use the same overall sound live without any trouble.
Not any harder than remembering to enable the highest quality mode in resource-hungry programs, just disable your IR loader, enable Nebula, and render it out for the best of both worlds.
Not any harder than remembering to enable the highest quality mode in resource-hungry programs, just disable your IR loader, enable Nebula, and render it out for the best of both worlds.
-
AeternusEternus AeternusEternus https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=198703
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 17 posts since 19 Jan, 2009
You got it. And, as a beta tester, I've got a version of NAT that creates IRs that correspond to the actual dynamic programs.Agreed wrote:Thinking about it, it would be quite easy to take advantage of both methods. While you're taking the measurements for Nebula's kernals, take an IR as well. The IR will be static but easily usable live, and it will sound EXTREMELY close to Nebula's in its overall frequency response, just not as good as the Nebula's dynamic-system behavior. The IR is your live monitoring/tracking tool. Then you can render it out with the Nebula cabinet sim rather than the IR, so that you get the full depth and dynamics that the Nebula cabinet sim program offers but you were still able to use the same overall sound live without any trouble.
Not any harder than remembering to enable the highest quality mode in resource-hungry programs, just disable your IR loader, enable Nebula, and render it out for the best of both worlds.
But I just track using Catharsis's Fredman impulses
