This would be a big plus for Melodyne and Vocalign users.
I realize this would require a licensing deal to add this functionality but I can’t imagine that the cost is that great that it would outweigh the benefit.
There is no comparison between using ARA enabled products in a DAW with ARA and the old transfer process that we are still dealing with in Cubase.
UPDATE: Per Steinberg, ARA2 support should be added to a Cubase 10 maintenance release sometime in Q1 2019.
I’m considering Melodyne sometime in the next 6 months, so I’d also like to see that.
BTW, does anyone know if formant shifting can in Melodyne be used in a mild manner, so as to create the illusion of a second singer? (Track 1: lead singer, Track 2: same person doing back-up vocal by overdub. If track 2 has the formant shifted up or down just a bit, will it sound like a different person sang track 2?)
Yeah, this would be a great workflow enhancement with Melodyne. I hope the answer is not making a new standard because it wasn’t made by Steinberg.
Big Plus 1!
I personally would think a proprietary standard embedded into Cubase is a step back. I’m glad we’re getting rid of Quicktime.
More interesting would be VST4 including ARA-like features.
+1 for ARA
Even it you made ARA support a bolt-on and charged a fee to cover the license - fine - I’d happily pay it. That means the people that don’twant/need ARA would see a price increase to cover it.
I am absolutely in favor of this it would open up doors for two applications I rely on that being Meldoyne and Revoice Pro. Who knows how many others would follow with a great open standard like this!
It’s not an open standard. VST Is.
I guess I am not sure what you mean, it is not a team collaboration across multiple manufactures like AAF is. It was developed by Celemony just like VST was developed by Steinberg but it is fully open for Steinberg to implement and any other company that would like to encorporate this into their DAW. 3rd party apps like Vocalign by SychroArts also benefit from DAW’s implementing this into their software.
So I guess regardless of open or not it would greatly benfit me if Steinberg implemented it.
I didn’t expect implementing it in a DAW would be free of charge, so that’s better than I thought.
I still think embedding something proprietary mandated by another company (and probably the competitor Presonus) into your UI is something you don’t necessarily want. Quicktime integration also seemed like a good idea at one point.
Presonus didn’t come up with it Celemony (and they don’t currently have an iron in the fire as far as DAW’s go) did since DAW’s only let plug-ins know what is happening as they happen when stuck in as an insert which is how Melodyne works otherwise. Presonus and Sonar just chose to implement it and Presonus was the first to the table.
As for QuickTime that has been a great help and allowed development to be to a much broader user base. Avid still feels the same way with Pro Tools since they still implement QuickTime though in PT11 they did implement their own native support of a video engine and their own direct playback of their codecs, which has been horrible and a major bog of Pro Tools but much better in version 12.
As you probably know QuickTime is not a format from some third party (though Apple makes and came up with it) but rather a container/player and depends on codecs that can be installed and even purchased it makes it accessable for Cubase and other applications to play and import contant that otherwise is not possible (so it benefits from 3rd party implementing 3rd party). That is how I have been importing straight up audio that Cubendo can’t import like CoreAudio files, through the Import:Audio From Video file… since thankfully it uses QuickTime. I of course would just use QuickTime itself to convert and then import but that would be even more of an extra step for me. Just my thoughts, but I realize one man’s treasure is another man’s annoyance (or something like that).
Presonus helped develop ARA with Celemony, that’s why I mentioned them. I don’t know if they’re still involved in decisions, but if they are then they have an advantage over competitors.
Since Apple decided to discontinue QuickTime on Windows, leaving in critical exploits, Steinberg was forced to rewrite their own video handling system. Now we basically don’t have video support on Windows unless we’re willing to risk our system’s security, just because of what another company than Steinberg decided. For me that doesn’t outweigh any benefits and I don’t want this to happen again.
Lastly, I found the ARA integration in Studio One underwhelming. While nice in a screenshot, it feels slow and tacked on, and as people here call it, “sluggishly” lags behind when resizing and such.
Oh that makes sense I didn’t realize Apple did that to Windows users what a pain, that seems crazy to drop QuickTime for Windows, I wonder why they did that.
Yes hopefully not sluggish but even at sluggish it would be much better than what we have now. Hopefully it would be something that you can turn on and use or if people don’t need it then it won’t affect others performance. Maybe wishful thinking but if the code can be bypassed or not be touched if you don’t have a third party that uses it that would be great. I understand your conserns much better now.
That’s not totally impossible since there’s a system like this already:
However, with enough on Steinberg’s plate already, this just seems like a complication that may cause trouble in the future in technical or business related ways. If they would make VST4 compete with ARA in features then that would be a lot more strategic in my eyes.
Fingers crossed this is implemented one way or another be it through VST4 or otherwise. As a side note I hope Pro Tools implments ARA as well, and I see them less likely implmenting VST4. After seeing one manufacture implement the tip of a TRS to the red RCA connection on the other end, one of my early audi oinstructors said “the great thing about standards is everyone has their own.”
I hope this isn’t a case of Steinberg resisting the ARA technology because it is not their own creation. Steinberg prides itself on being creative and cutting edge when it comes to adding new features but sometimes it so good to give credit to others that have a great come up with a great advancement. It is no knock on them as developers to adopt this, in fact it just shows that they are truly trying to make their products more user friendly, all egos aside.
It’s also about having control of your own application. The QuickTime debacle is a harsh example of this.
I can understand the point of being able to have full control of what is included in the application and there is definitely and advantage to that. I also believe that collaboration between companies can really move things forward.
I think that Celemony created this protocol that not only helps their products but now they are also helping better the products of some competing products. As long as the various developers agree that this is a good protocol to adopt and standardize across the board (just like VST), there shouldn’t be an issue.
If Steinberg has a better solution to integrate with third party products or adds all of the features to eliminate the need for any third party products (just joking and not possible) then I hope to see it. Otherwise, I hope that they work towards bridging the gap that has been created between them and other developers.
There are a lot of innovative third party developers out there and I believe the company that nurtures the relationships with these forward thinkers and makes their products more accessible to be improved upon will win out in the end. Just because it is not your idea doesn’t mean it is a bad one. No man (or company) is an island (John Donne).
I would like them to integrate ARA like features into VST4, I do see them being able to compete if they really research what could drive plugins forward. (VST3 is a poor example of this.)
Of course this is not my call though. I can also see your side of the argument and maybe Steinberg does, too.
