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:
http://www.learndigitalaudio.com/blog/w ... nshots.zip
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'!