Is that like saying the screwdriver sucks because it can’t measure distances accurately?
I respect your valuation of SpectraLayers’ importance. Others may feel that way about the features you feel are indispensable. Different strokes!
Pitch Shifter is not meant for live use. It also has functionality VariAudio doesn’t, as mentioned here:
Yes, but the ability to not have to open MixConsole/find it in MixConsole.
Or just allow someone to Copy/Paste a plugin into a blank insert without having to first add the same plugin.
Yeah, I’ve always got at least one Mix Console open. There’s also that handy-dandy “Mix Console” tab in the project window 
The feature that Cubase needs is Opcode Vision’s subsequences, which it had in 1989. Check out this article by the esteemed and eclectic Carter Scholz, and be amazed at how far MIDI editing has not progressed in three and a half decades.
But Pitch Correct does. How many variances of pitch shifting you want per Cubase version? There’s maybe 6 at this point already and they do more or less the same thing.
I like how you’re using the fact Hans Zimmer is successful using Cubase as some sort of condescending gatekeeping to put people down for arguing their case about why a feature you don’t use should be in Cubase.
This turns this post into three halves, one of them being you sweating over Hans Zimmer and arguing when people don’t agree with your opinion of him being the greatest film composer of all time.
So, you’re pointing fingers at people for using broad generalizations but it’s a valid argument when you do it? That’s swell.
My point is that is hard to argue the case of a pitch shifting plugin that adds 256ms of latency in the current world of audio processing, especially with the amount of computational power even modest hardware has.
Arguing that SpectraLayers is an important compositional tool feature is about as much of an absurdity as claiming the screwdriver sucks because it can’t measure distances accurately.
But pitch correct does? I’m not understanding the context of your reply.
Some are older and some are new and better, sometimes the old have a charm or artefacts that are desirable. Pitch shift is a pretty essential and useful tool, very happy to have variations for all the music production and sound design I do.
Take it how you will, if you take it as that… That’s maybe a problem you have. Others could see it as a type of reality inspiration in that they could think, “oh yeah, I don’t need anything other than what I currently have” - and we all could, because it’s true. But for some of us, time is important. Time is money, and money is a metric of value and survival.
I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I also linked to Amon Tobin, a little less known. Check him out… Fantastic creative individual.
I’ve learned to trust my intuition in this industry. Not much get’s past me, but when I’m wrong, I’ll gladly accept.
Typically, the design theory for DAWs on stock plugins is to be as economic as possible so that they are useable for a wide range of users computer systems, and to also not have too many performance-complicated features like 24x over sampling that may cause users issues of which they don’t have an understanding of which causes them to send in support tickets or complain on the forums.
So in theory, possibly some heavy duty pitch plugin could be created, but that’s not the objective of DAW stock plugin design… Most people don’t have Hadron-Collider data analysis level computer systems to run a high-quality pitch plugin at near real-time speed.
But also, this sort of a matter of physics. When it comes to pitch shifting - higher is always easier to accomplish because you are making a sound shorter. Lower is more complicated because you are elongating time, or essentially creating time/sound waves that didn’t exist. Theoretically, you can’t make a sound longer in real-time without warping our time reality itself… which is what the latency accounts for… If a sound wave is 1000hz/1.125ft in length… How do you convert it to make it 4.5ft (250hz) in length instantly? You are creating cycles that are longer, that don’t exist.
This is why even pitch shifting guitar pedals usually have a bit of a slap-back delay and a metallic cloudiness to them. Many are actually synths in which there is a decay amount.
You’re creating a circular argument. No one said Spectralayers is a composition tool, but you’re also ignoring todays reality of sound-design being a big part modern composition… Not to mention, having an understanding of instrumentation timbre is part of composition and can be edited with a spectral editor.
But Cubase isn’t solely a composing tool - if it were, it would just be Dorico and Cubase wouldn’t exist. People also use Cubase to edit and mix their compositions, and master - of which spectral editors are an essential professional tool. Nearly no industry competitive editor, mix engineer, mastering engineer, post-production engineer, dialogue editor/mixer, sound-designer is working without a spectral editor. Sometimes it’s not needed, but if in 100 projects you haven’t used a spectral editor, then the vocals you’re working on probably aren’t competitive engineering wise. Just curious, have you ever worked on dialogue professionally?
Obviously Cubase has evolved to not just being a composition tool - it’s an audio editor, mixing environment, sound-design environment, etc.
Those are very interesting thoughts:
“When it comes to pitch shifting - higher is always easier to accomplish because you are making a sound shorter. Lower is more complicated because you are elongating time, or essentially creating time/sound waves that didn’t exist. Theoretically, you can’t make a sound longer in real-time without warping our time reality itself… which is what the latency accounts for…”
How about pitch-shifting with a physical model like a spring, that is stretched longer or shorter continuously (ok, this is the time-warp, probably…)? (Not to confuse this with a spring-reverb.)
Nature can do it in realtime. Also think of nonlinear frequency-doubling in optics, for instance with lithium triborate. ‘Just model this for acoustics…’ easier said, than done, ok, but at least in principle, there is still hope.
I guess the problem is our approach via FFT on a time-linear, consecutive approach. Nature works massively parallel all the time and everywhere.
Ok, it might look realtime to us, because the speed of light is huge in comparison to the speed of sound. But I still wonder, if a physical model within a parallel neural network might work much better for pitch-shifting, than todays standard FFT-approach. One could argue, that FFT is already a physical model, ok. But there are the well known obstacles to transfer continuously FFT into sFFT on a todays discrete working computer.
It’s a bit beyond my paygrade.
Even my previous post is probably not completely accurate - again it depends on what type of pitch shift characteristics you are trying to accomplish and if the length of the source material is going to change or stay the same length despite the lower pitch…
for example, offline resampling (just halving the amount of samples like 96khz → 48khz) results in a great sounding pitch change, but everything is going to be twice as long… This is what old samplers are doing when people pitch shift samples.
But to do that in a plugin with time correction… You’d first have to have enough time to half the sample rate, and then take that elongated length and then run a second time-stretch process to get it back to its original length….
All I know, is that the new Steinberg PitchShifter sounds very good, and is in time with original source material. It sounds like resampled samples but magically time corrected without any glaring artifacts… to have that as an automatable insert…… very powerful.
I did compare (using Spectral Layers) the new Steinberg pitchshifter with the Kilohearts pitchshifter and couldn’t find any relevant differences in sound quality.
Anyway, this might be better placed here:
Just tested it,
Kilohearts had some zipper type noise artifacts, adjusting the grainsize helped, but, the KHS lows are a bit hollow and not as forward as Steinbergs… noticeably so - and from a sound-design and mixing perspective, that’s pretty important.
Also, the Steinberg version has lots of bells and whistles… that are fairly relevant, especially when combined with the nicer low-end.
So, the fact Steinbergs doesn’t take any adjustment at factory state to sound good and have no artifacts without touching anything is a big plus. Move that pitch knob, and it sounds fantastic - then have some fun with the other settings.
They do seem to employ the same technique though, I’d figured it might have something to do with grain samples.
The new PitchShift plugin is great. I’m already using it successfully with voiceovers and some instruments. I can’t care less about the latency. When I’m done with the settings, either I’m bouncing to a new audio track (when with automation) or just ading it as the offline processing. Disabling it on the insert and the job is done.
It sounds really good, better than any other plugin for this task that I have in my collection. It prevents the details and nuances of a voice very, very well. Especially with the automation.
Usually, I’m avoiding this type of effects because they degrade the sound, making it artificial and “bleh”, but this one is exceptional.
So, if added latency is bothering you so much, just use something else. Like I’m not using their latest delay and reverb plugins because I have other ones that suits me better.
Is that PitchShift on Cubase 15?
yes it is.
I was using Cubase in Atari days before you young lads were trying to mash up tiles made by others and calling it “creative” - a thing that us pompous blokes would just smile and, obviously, dismiss as a teenager wandering. That is as much music as my groceries’ list is literature. But the post isn’t about our conceptions (or misconceptions) of what music is - for that you’d need informed, knowledgeable people to engage in that kind of never-ending but fruitful conversation. It’s called dialectics by the same pompous blokes.
The post is about Cubase, it’s ethos and road to relevance. And clip launcher - although as amusing and groundbreaking it may seem, how creativity-boosting it may appear to lads doing that edm sound stuff - is a clear detour of valuable resources needed to address the needs of professionals (aka pompous blokes).
I could go for some pompegranate right about now.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking only the music you make is creative (relevant).
And yes I’m 66 and was making music before the atari was a thing.
I use Live’s modular arrangement system every single day for both creative and compositional workflows, none of which has anything to do with EDM. I far prefer Live’s system to other “arrangement track” solutions in other DAWs, and I use it extensively for my orchestral/classical compositions where deep parameter customization per clip is useful. My “Live+Cubendo” integration is a staple of my entire workflow, and it has nothing to do with “edm sound stuff.” It’s also invaluable for any genre while composing.
I 100% agree that it’s a clear detour of valuable resources for the SB product team, but to dismiss other workflows out-of-hand because of what you happen to consider “professional needs” is pompous indeed. Not only is it wholly incorrect, but it’s an unnecessary distinction. You can be professional without being pompous.
The only reason I’m replying is because I too have been around for a very long time, and I found your ad hominem insults to classes of others detracted from your otherwise insightful opinions. FWIW.
Nobody is.
It’s silly to even compare. (Wait, wasn’t that your words..?)