Let's talk about pitch shifters!

Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Why can't this be as complex as übermod (which I think is still simple to use)?

I'm definitely looking forward to this one. :) [/u]

Post

At least 3 voice shift plus the original dry sound would be cool.
waves break, but somehow it all makes sense.

Post

scook wrote:I have been hoping this subject would come up. A Valhalla implementation of something like the H3000 shift algos would be great.
I have something very similar to the H3000 shift algorithms (at least the Multishift) in Shimmer. My idea is to bring these algorithms to the forefront.
A simple UI would be OK but if there were some way to access more of the guts of the algos via extended tags in the preset file and plugin automation that would be even better.
This is what I am wondering about. A 4 voice pitch shifter just can't have that simple of a GUI. A 1 voice pitch shifter can be simple, but it can't do as much. Having a simple GUI, with the ability to see a lot more parameters, seems like the best solution, but the devil is in the details.

Sean Costello

Post

I'm fooling around with Uhbik G right now, 3 instances with different interval transpositions, with lfo's in my host numerology controlling the transpose amounts sæt to around a 1/4 of a semitone. These three are fed with a source from Diversion mixed with the dry in a sub mixer then sent into MFM 2 and another instance of Uhbik G as a granular effect. The mix between these two is controlled using a Numerology Dual Lfo..

So maybe the way is just keeping the main Valhalla Pitch shifter as simple as possible and then using several instances as needed in a host of your choosing..

Cheaper to develop and easier to keep track of mod destinations in the host..
Last edited by TwoToneshuzz on Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
waves break, but somehow it all makes sense.

Post

valhallasound wrote:This is what I am wondering about. A 4 voice pitch shifter just can't have that simple of a GUI. A 1 voice pitch shifter can be simple, but it can't do as much. Having a simple GUI, with the ability to see a lot more parameters, seems like the best solution, but the devil is in the details.
Have you thought of doing two versions for plug-ins that require more complex/parameter-rich interfaces? You could have a 'Tweaker' version and 'Easy' version. Maybe you could use the concept of Macro controls. Say you have eight (or however many) macro controls that can have several parameters assigned to each, the Macro controls could be assigned in the Tweaker version but in the Easy version you can only access these Macro parameters and the patch management stuff.

This way, the Easy version can be used as a preset player if you just want to make small changes to patch and you can use the tweaker version to make completely new patches.

Post

well whatever you do, don't ''phone in'' the modulation options. that should be at least 60% of the plugin imo. which makes me cautious, as all of your plugins are purely delay based effects with no real modulation sources to speak of, other than basic midi control.

the other thing to consider is at $50, your other plugs came in at the cheaper end of the spectrum for what they do. In terms of pitch effects, that aren't aiming for high-end results - in fact might even be aiming for 'lo fi' or 'character', well I think there's a lot of options. for little to no money... also depending on what you already own, specifically max/reaktor..

so if you're aiming for a $50 price tag I would certainly try to deliver some considerable bang for buck..if not in comprehensive modulation options then at least in available parameters & algos..

imo.

Post

justin3am wrote:
valhallasound wrote:This is what I am wondering about. A 4 voice pitch shifter just can't have that simple of a GUI. A 1 voice pitch shifter can be simple, but it can't do as much. Having a simple GUI, with the ability to see a lot more parameters, seems like the best solution, but the devil is in the details.
Have you thought of doing two versions for plug-ins that require more complex/parameter-rich interfaces? You could have a 'Tweaker' version and 'Easy' version. Maybe you could use the concept of Macro controls. Say you have eight (or however many) macro controls that can have several parameters assigned to each, the Macro controls could be assigned in the Tweaker version but in the Easy version you can only access these Macro parameters and the patch management stuff.

This way, the Easy version can be used as a preset player if you just want to make small changes to patch and you can use the tweaker version to make completely new patches.
I *have* thought about this. I've also thought about this for ÜberMod. Something along the lines of MicroÜber, or Lil'Über if you prefer horrible product names that force you to drool a little bit when you say them. This might be a useful approach. I'm not sure if it would be better than one plugin with a simple and advanced view, other than from the perspective of automation (which, granted, is an important perspective).

Sean Costello

Post

A simple UI with a page of entry widgets for advanced input might be enough. I would imagine many would find a two channel shifter with a VVV like front end to be a useful effect. A single H3000 is a very powerful tool. On the other hand, if there were a way to use a facility like sidechain to create a cluster of shifters....

Post

ChiTown24 wrote:well whatever you do, don't ''phone in'' the modulation options. that should be at least 60% of the plugin imo. which makes me cautious, as all of your plugins are purely delay based effects with no real modulation sources to speak of, other than basic midi control.

the other thing to consider is at $50, your other plugs came in at the cheaper end of the spectrum for what they do. In terms of pitch effects, that aren't aiming for high-end results - in fact might even be aiming for 'lo fi' or 'character', well I think there's a lot of options. for little to no money... also depending on what you already own, specifically max/reaktor..

so if you're aiming for a $50 price tag I would certainly try to deliver some considerable bang for buck..if not in comprehensive modulation options then at least in available parameters & algos..

imo.
"Bang for buck," IMHO, comes from sound quality and usability. Lots of people buy an H3000, and leave it on one preset. The only parameter that these folks need is the ON button. A large number of plugin parameters can result in a powerful plugin, or it can result in a bloated monstrosity that only a few people use and enjoy. My goal is to create a plugin that allows people to dial in a lot of complexity very quickly, and this will dictate the number of parameters.

Sean Costello

Post

valhallasound wrote:"Bang for buck," IMHO, comes from sound quality and usability.
Sure. And let us not forget comparisons with what else is available on the market with the same or comparable sound quality and usability. If all else is the same it will boil down to cost comparisons. So re: another pitch shift/mod plugin, good bang for buck imo will be based on modulation options or, especially acknowledging that appears to be a potential weak spot for you, the available parameters for tweaking and amount/variety of algos.

You could also just bank on sheer brand loyalty at this stage, that's sure to account for some considerable sales at least..

I'm never less than impressed at how you can spin so many plugs from the same delay based expertise :)

Post

ChiTown24 wrote: I'm never less than impressed at how you can spin so many plugs from the same delay based expertise :)
There's a lot of rice and soybean products in Chinese cuisine. :D

Sean Costello

Post

valhallasound wrote:
ChiTown24 wrote: I'm never less than impressed at how you can spin so many plugs from the same delay based expertise :)
There's a lot of rice and soybean products in Chinese cuisine. :D

Sean Costello
Ha! ... don't forget MSG ;)

Post

When it comes to marshaling complexity, I like the idea of there being rarely used parameters that are only exposed when cutting and pasting in new presets, or when using automation - these would almost be a software version of 'circuit bending'. Not part of the feature set that most people would use, but there for those who want to explore glitchiness and domains where musicality is less common than quirkiness.

I get the feeling that the UI is going to be the tough part to pin down. If I'm turning a single note into a chord, I'm going to want very different kind of pitch controls to the ones I'd want for fattening a sound or for backwards delay. Possibly the labels for the controls should change for different algorithms? I'd love to be able to do things like automate switching from harmoninsing a major chord to a diminshed minor 7th with control over legato, and over which of the notes that makes up that chord is the one I'm feeding in, and to smoothly crossfade to a different chord inversion, but that's inevitably going to be a user interface nightmare.

At the risk of hinting at 'I'd rather you did something else', I wonder if there might be value in thinking of this plug in as ValhallaGrain, with pitch -shifting as one of the things is does with grains, rather than it's sole purpose? This might allow more creative freedom, as well as fending off the potential for reviews that dismiss the product on the quality of the shifting.

Post

I would like to see a multiband pitch shifter.

I made one for reaktor http://co.native-instruments.com/index. ... tchid=9893

I'm no reaktor builder though so its a hack job and a proper implementation would be nice imo

The idea behind it was to change the sound of breakbeats (i.e. pitching the snare up or down relative to the kick and hats)and having the option to place the crossover pre or post pitch shift to allow or avoid frequencies that have been shifted to overlap. It is also a useful technique for changing vocals and modulating atmospheres.

Cheers and i would be grateful if you would consider this route.

Post

LX_Nen wrote: At the risk of hinting at 'I'd rather you did something else', I wonder if there might be value in thinking of this plug in as ValhallaGrain, with pitch -shifting as one of the things is does with grains, rather than it's sole purpose? This might allow more creative freedom, as well as fending off the potential for reviews that dismiss the product on the quality of the shifting.
The pitch shifting methods will sound pretty cool - I'm not worried about it. The technique I plan on using is something I have played with since the mid-2000s. It isn't artifact free, but the artifacts sound awesome. :D

That being said, you have a good point, in that "ValhallaPitch" might imply that the product is my "be-all, end-all" pitch shifter. The name will come together as the product does. Hopefully the product will be more coherent than ValhallaÜberMod - THAT was a difficult product to name, due to all of the stuff that it does.

Sean Costello

Locked

Return to “Valhalla DSP”