I fully understand where you're coming from. The way I see it (and perhaps I'm in the minority on this one) is that the devs, whether it be G/E or the third party library developers, really have produced the very best possible tunings for their programs. Yes, of course real world usage comes into play; nobody is going to try to sell a preset that takes 35% of quad core i7! But that's probably as it should be.SWAN wrote:Well - from what Ive read it appears that Nebula comes set-up for generalised usage. It appears there are different uses/processes Nebula can do - so that the standard settings are as you say - a compromise. A sensible one at that. I understand the TIMED and SPLIT compromise which I think you are referring to. ngarjuna this thread is not intended to be an attack on Nebula - merely Im trying to demystify its approach to compression to understand it better, and get some feedback on the recent programs. This is so I can make an informed decision on my studio purchases. You appear to be launching a defence of AA when I dont think anyone is attacking-just observing and discussing.
The only suggestion I have made is that if there are tweaks that can improve things like the transient response on compressors (on a per program basis) - then perhaps the developers should be advising on those tweaks.
So when you complain (not you personally, the colloquial "you") that the devs have not provided optimization I don't really agree with that; they may have optimized for a different goal than some users would optimize for and, for those users, there's a fully tweakable engine. But we can't realistically expect these new variations, many of which A-A has declared explicitly inadvisable, to receive the kind of support that the product receives when it's used as intended.
And now it's all seriously confused; people come and post about this problem or that issue and one can only wonder: how is their Nebula setup configured? Have they tweaked programs for TIMED? When they ran in "normal" configuration, did they explicitly UNDO the TIMED tweaks or did they just run in a normal, untweaked Nebula installation (from my understanding of this tweak those are not the same thing, each program is actually tweaked on an individual basis in order to adjust kernel switching, kernel length, program rate, etc.)? It's all fairly confusing now. I can only guess only how many "technical support" questions G/E have had to solve by suggesting that people put things back the way they're supposed to be run. So that's why, to me, ensuring that we're discussing vanilla Nebula is actually important to all of us getting good and accurate information from this thread. Something I'm also interested in.
Not at all; if that's the impression you got, then I probably misspoke. I think it makes perfect sense to discuss the limitations as they exist -- because they do indeed exist. Not only does it help the devs get a reading on where the user base is at on particular issues it also compels us as users to help one another optimize our usage of Nebula (albeit sometimes in less than standard or intended manners). I just want to make sure that, in the context of this particular discussion, we're all talking about the same thing. Highvoltage's confirmation that he has been running his samples in normal/standard configuration is a good example; now that I know that, I know that what he's describing applies to him, me, you and anyone else; as opposed to some special problem that he introduced into his compressor programs tweaking kernel lengths and the like.I am trying to get the best result and get into these programs - it sounds like your message is "we all know the limitations just use it or shut up".
I know some of the compressor programs come with the lookahead enabled by default, maybe that's related to this suggestion? On that I'm not sure. Not sure if that's a suggested tweak, though, or if he's confirming that it's being run in standard configuration (as opposed to one of the many popular tweaks going around). Hard to tell from the context there.With regards to compressors which is what this thread is about Enrique already suggested a tweak to the look-ahead so I dont think any of this discussion, which is intended to be a neutral investigation, is off base so far...I for one am interested in what difference these tweaks make...