Anyone been checking out these Nebula IR's?

That indeed seems pretty cool. Lots of research to do on that for me now. Thanks for the tip and the links.
 
Yeah, checked them out a few months ago, they sound pretty good but there were some clips that made me think that the extra messing about didn't make it sound that much better. Also they are non-standard IRs so wouldn't work with the AxeFX.

I think they really come into their own when you look at how they can measure the non-linear characteristics that regular IRs can't. This allows you to get an IR that contains distortion so you could get an IR of your fav preamp etc..

I also think that they take a long time to create the IRs (many hours) and lots of CPU to use them inside your DAW, not checked them for a while so things may have improved :)
 
xpenno said:
Yeah, checked them out a few months ago, they sound pretty good but there were some clips that made me think that the extra messing about didn't make it sound that much better. Also they are non-standard IRs so wouldn't work with the AxeFX.
yet... ;)

Did you actually check these clips? because these are on a completely different level than those a few months ago. I checked that thread as well back then. Seems to have been a usererror that time, Now they sounds so much better it's almost scary.
 
Plankis said:

Indeed, with the main man on the case who knows what will happen ;) Maybe he will write his own standard for IR one day when he has nothing to do....

Plankis said:
Did you actually check these clips? because these are on a completely different level than those a few months ago. I checked that thread as well back then. Seems to have been a usererror that time, Now they sounds so much better it's almost scary.

I did indeed, and these clips are really great! Still I would like to hear a standard IR to compare it to.

Heads back over to UltimateGuitar for a catch up........
 
AlbertA said:
They are volterra kernels... So they wouldn't work with the Axe-fx.

yet... ;)

Yeah I know, but couldn't this be a good candidate for firmware nr. 8? These types of impulses seems really alive and dynamic. Which the good ol impulses lacks a bit in.
 
Plankis said:
AlbertA said:
They are volterra kernels... So they wouldn't work with the Axe-fx.

yet... ;)

Yeah I know, but couldn't this be a good candidate for firmware nr. 8? These types of impulses seems really alive and dynamic. Which the good ol impulses lacks a bit in.

Can somebody 'dumb this down' and explain these sorts of IR's for laypersons such as I?

Even a very simple comparison to the 'traditional' IR would do.
 
Scott Peterson said:
Plankis said:
AlbertA said:
They are volterra kernels... So they wouldn't work with the Axe-fx.

yet... ;)

Yeah I know, but couldn't this be a good candidate for firmware nr. 8? These types of impulses seems really alive and dynamic. Which the good ol impulses lacks a bit in.

Can somebody 'dumb this down' and explain these sorts of IR's for laypersons such as I?

Even a very simple comparison to the 'traditional' IR would do.

Think of it kinda like a bank of IRs taken at diffent input levels to capture the non-linear (dynamics) behavior of the cabinet (the only real IR will be the first volterra kernel tough, the others are not quite IRs).

The program then will "interpolate" through these banks given an input signal level.
 
Plankis said:
AlbertA said:
They are volterra kernels... So they wouldn't work with the Axe-fx.

yet... ;)

Yeah I know, but couldn't this be a good candidate for firmware nr. 8? These types of impulses seems really alive and dynamic. Which the good ol impulses lacks a bit in.

Too much cpu overhead I would think. I'm not sure about the latency?
 
Diagonal Volterra kernels are pretty neat. Basically, straight up convolution takes your input sequence, say, x[n], and convolves it with some kernel, say h[m], this is the impulse response of the speaker that you load in the Axe. So your output is y = h*x where * is the convolution operator. Volterra kernels are basically a power series, you could think of it sort of like a Taylor expansion.

A diagonal Volterra expansion has a bunch of different kernels, h_1, h_2, h_3 and so on, up to some h_n. In the case of Nebula it's something like 9 kernels. Then you take your input x, and you also square it, cube it, and so on. And each different kernel corresponds to one power term. The math notation will make it look more simple.

y = h_1*x + h_2*x^2 + h_3*x^3 ... h_n*x^n

(n.b. in the general Volterra case, there are different kernels used, say k_n, and they are convolved with all the lower powers i.e. y = k_1*x + k_2*x*x^2 + k_3*x*x^2*x^3 ... and so on. this is more complicated)

So you can see there are n convolutions. The raising x to a power introduces nonlinearities, and the Volterra kernels "shape" those nonlinearities. Extracting these higher order impulse responses h_n is very simple. The downside is, we're performing n convolutions. Think of the cabinet block right now. It's performing 2 convolution operations since it's a stereo pair. For an nth order diagonal Volterra kernel, it would take 2*n operations in stereo or just n in mono. Put more simply, it would take n times the CPU it currently does, where n is something like 5 or 9. So the CPU couldn't handle it right now.

There are some efficient ways to do this in the frequency domain. First of all frequency domain convolution is way faster. And there's another trick that can result in another speedup but it's sort of technical so I won't bother, it's pretty simple though. But the problem is plain old frequency domain convolution, even though it's very fast, has latency. There is partitioned convolution which has some tradeoff for lower latency, but I don't know if that would be suitable for the Axe. I'm not sure whether the Axe does it in the time-domain or not, only Cliff knows that.

But basically the moral is, whatever the Axe-FX does for convolution right now, doing Volterra kernels would take 5-10 times as much CPU.
 
Back
Top Bottom