I just recently learned about Dorico's VST support and was considering trying it out as an alternative to the workflow I'm using now (compose in musescore, export to logic and then key in dynamics + velocities). It seems really useful to have everything "just work" based on articulation and dynamics markings.
Really looking forward to musescore's VST support, hopefully it can get to a similar point!
wow, I was literally just about to download the trial for the archetype nolly (after being iffy on whether the fortin nameless was right for what I wanted), what are the chances it's being discussed on HN.
I'm hoping that the nolly plugin can cover both dirty and clean sounds well enough to not need a second plugin, fingers crossed
Here’s my unscientific breakdown of how I view the Nolly, Cali, and Nameless plugins.
Nolly: most versatile thanks to its multiple amps, far and away my favorite for most things. I recently used it to mix an entire album of very polished black metal, replacing the real fuzzy mic signals captured in the studio. The band loved it. Extremely detailed. Got some gorgeous cleans out of it, too.
Cali: this one reminds me a lot of my own Marshall tube amp. It was the first one that really sold me on using Neural DSP plugins instead of amps in the studio. It’s a lot dirtier than the Nolly and I don’t find it appropriate for situations where I want a very polished sound. Recently chose this over the Nolly for a more organic sounding black metal project.
Nameless: this always sounds unnatural to me. It’s good and intense but I always come away feeling like it’s fizzy and flat. It’s a simulation of an amp Fortin made for Meshuggah, so I think it might have a very specific audience. Last year, I blended this with some live amp signals to get some added bite and it worked nicely but I haven’t reached for it since then.
You might also consider disabling the cab sim in the plugin and use a third party IR loader. I find GGD Zilla Cabs to be a complete game changer, a cheap and crucial upgrade to every one of Neural DSP’s plugins.
Any experience with Plini? It seems to be the closest to Nolly, and from a cursory look it seems people generally like it better. I suppose I'll have to get the trials for both to compare
I had never heard of GGD's IR loader, seems awesome! Definitely on the list of things to buy now
Feel free to drop a link to the album you made with the nolly plugin, I'd love to take a listen
I haven’t used the Plini but only because I hit Nolly last and I’m thrilled with it. I’m pretty sure the Nolly rhythm amp is modeled after a 5150 or a 5150II, so it’s very familiar for me since I mostly work with extreme metal.
I seriously can’t say enough good things about Zilla Cabs. Just make sure to disable the cabs in the amp plugin or it’ll sound weird!
The album I did with the Nolly plugin isn’t something I can share yet, unfortunately.
I just spent a couple of hours playing with the nolly trial and it's awesome, lots of fun. Definitely getting some 5150 vibes from several of the presets, I believe it
If you are looking for a plugin with good cleans as well as dirty I would say the Nolly plugin is better when compared to the Fortin Nameless, but it was a while ago that I used the trial, however I don’t remember being as in love with it as the Nolly. I had a hard time choosing between it and the Abasi plugin but I felt like Nolly shined more in a wide range of scenarios. Overall I have been very happy with it, 10/10 would recommend especially since they recently added a build in tuner. I have had some issues but I think it’s just my $30 usb interface.
The Nolly is awesome, tons of options in there for both clean and dirty sounds. The awesome thing is you can try all their plugins before buying to make sure it’s what you need.
Even better is to look up the undergrad/grad curriculum from a university and then look at the course webpages (many universities still publish their course materials available to anyone who has the link, without needing to login through canvas or a university portal). Pretty often you can get access to homeworks/exams and solutions, lecture notes, etc. in addition to seeing whatever textbook they're using.
Plus, the added benefit helping limit "analysis paralysis" from having too many possible texts to choose from yourself, just pick whatever was standard for that particular class.
This is a great point. Out of all the ones I've looked into, I think MIT has by far the most complete public curriculum (because of MIT OCW), but Cambridge and Oxford are not far behind, with excellent lecture notes and problem sets.
Agreed, at some point I've used something from all three of those and they're all great! I've seen a surprising amount of great stuff from smaller universities too iirc, if you google around.
Are you forgetting a Jacobian? The maximum probability isn't inside the nucleus for an s-orbital. E.g. for hydrogen, the maximum probability for the electron is one bohr radius away from the center of the nucleus (and the expectation value of the radius is 1.5 bohr radii away).
Well let me just quote Wikipedia here: ...in three-dimensional space, the maximum probability density occurs at the location of the nucleus and not at the Bohr radius, whereas the radial probability density peaks at the Bohr radius, i.e. when plotting the probability distribution in its radial dependency.
That it is maximum at the nucleus is not of much significance. To quote a professor:[1]
> In some ways it does not provide the best description of the electron distribution, since the region around r= 0, where the wavefunction has its largest values, is a relatively small fraction of the volume accessible to the electron. Larger radii represent larger physical regions since.
If you were to do any kinds of measurements, you are most likely to find it at the Bohr radius, not closer to the nucleus.
Ah yup you're right, I read your sentence too fast, whoops. The most likely location is at the nucleus, but the most likely radius (integrating over all angles) is at 1 bohr radius.
I think it's pretty typical, at least in physics. Every offer I had/that I have heard of was around 30k, I've only heard of one that was around ~24k iirc
FYI they are totally different "singlets", a singlet exciton refers to the spin state of the particle (as opposed to a triplet exciton, which has a different total spin). A singlet lens is just a lens with a single simple component.
There are definitely papers in physics that are well-known to be wrong. I know of results published in high-profile journals where the authors have stated (in person, but not officially in a published update) that even they cannot reproduce their own results.
Just FYI, the idea that Nature Communications is inherently "untrustworthy" is completely unfounded, you can't take a quick look at rankings or briefly skim a wikipedia page and get a good picture of how "serious" or trustworthy a journal is. It is a generally a well-regarded journal, I don't personally know any actual scientists who would turn their nose up at research published in it just because of the journals name (although, there are some Nature-branded journals that many do instinctively scoff at, mostly Scientific Reports, but IMO that's unwarranted too). Most of the big names in my sub-field of physics have co-authored a paper in this journal.
It's a chalcogen vacancy, a very common type of defect in these materials. These materials are called transition metal dichacogenides, so they have the form MX2, where M is a metal (most commonly Mo or W) and X is a chalcogen (typically S or Se). In this case, there is an S missing, but you still see a spot because there is another S below it (if you look at the crystal structure, it resembles graphene but has more complex structure in the third dimension, its 3 atoms thick rather than being flat, with the two chalcogens in the unit cell right on top of each other).
Really looking forward to musescore's VST support, hopefully it can get to a similar point!