Cableguys ShaperBox 3.5.1 UPDATE – LFO Favorites + more

[DanielKonopka]

It would be really nice if you could use a shaper more than once.

+1
Also, it would be nice to be able to set up shaper configurations not just in serial, but also in parallel stack.

[Kr3eM]

I have only one request if possible.
Would be really appreciated to have everythings (samples, presets and whatever) inside the download file, so everything can be used on a full offline pc too

Thanks

Thank you for the feature wish. It's something we consider, but the wish comes up very rarely (sometimes on forums, but rarely via email).

Probably because most people think there's no point, specially if they have read the responses to this and similar requests (like NoiseShaper's factory samples) over the years.

[Jakob / Cableguys]

It would be really nice if you could use a shaper more than once.

To allow for the addition of new features and Shapers to ShaperBox via future updates, we need to 'reserve' many parameters, as the VST/AU formats do not allow the reordering of existing parameters without breaking a plugin’s compatibility with existing projects, etc.

This has already resulted in almost 3000 plugin parameters for ShaperBox 3, and allowing just two of each Shaper to be loaded would double that to 6000, which could start to cause noticeable issues for parameter handling in some DAWs.

[midi_transmission]

We just released ShaperBox 3.3.1 – this one brings quality improvements and fixes.

First, CPU usage has been reduced when using the General and Complex Audio Trigger algorithms.

Hi Lee, Is the plugin latency reduced by that too?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

It would be really nice if you could use a shaper more than once.

To allow for the addition of new features and Shapers to ShaperBox via future updates, we need to 'reserve' many parameters, as the VST/AU formats do not allow the reordering of existing parameters without breaking a plugin’s compatibility with existing projects, etc.

This has already resulted in almost 3000 plugin parameters for ShaperBox 3, and allowing just two of each Shaper to be loaded would double that to 6000, which could start to cause noticeable issues for parameter handling in some DAWs.

Just a thought/suggestion, but with other large multi-fx or modular plugins, some deal with avoiding thousands of automation targets by having free form automation assignments. Example: the plugin will have something like 100 automation params, then users can go into an edit panel to assign which plugin params they want assigned to each of the 100 available automation params. Usually folks aren't concurrently automating more than a handful of parameters.

Neither approach, either yours or plugins that require users to make the assignments, is without drawbacks. But if automation is the only thing stopping you, may be something you want to consider for SB4.

[Held]

It would be really nice if you could use a shaper more than once.

To allow for the addition of new features and Shapers to ShaperBox via future updates, we need to 'reserve' many parameters, as the VST/AU formats do not allow the reordering of existing parameters without breaking a plugin’s compatibility with existing projects, etc.

This has already resulted in almost 3000 plugin parameters for ShaperBox 3, and allowing just two of each Shaper to be loaded would double that to 6000, which could start to cause noticeable issues for parameter handling in some DAWs.

I'm sure you can figure something out. There are plenty of modular plugins out there which don't suffer from this issue. You can probably learn from them how it can be done.

[DanielKonopka]

Just a thought/suggestion, but with other large multi-fx or modular plugins, some deal with avoiding thousands of automation targets by having free form automation assignments. Example: the plugin will have something like 100 automation params, then users can go into an edit panel to assign which plugin params they want assigned to each of the 100 available automation params. Usually folks aren't concurrently automating more than a handful of parameters.

Neither approach, either yours or plugins that require users to make the assignments, is without drawbacks. But if automation is the only thing stopping you, may be something you want to consider for SB4.

If I understand correctly, what you're proposing is to have a fixed, much smaller amount (as you say 100) of automation parameters exposed by ShaperBox plugin to the host, while each of the exposed automation parameters can then be assigned to a user-chosen internal plugin control/knob etc.? Something along the lines of a macro functionality in certain synths?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Just a thought/suggestion, but with other large multi-fx or modular plugins, some deal with avoiding thousands of automation targets by having free form automation assignments. Example: the plugin will have something like 100 automation params, then users can go into an edit panel to assign which plugin params they want assigned to each of the 100 available automation params. Usually folks aren't concurrently automating more than a handful of parameters.

Neither approach, either yours or plugins that require users to make the assignments, is without drawbacks. But if automation is the only thing stopping you, may be something you want to consider for SB4.

If I understand correctly, what you're proposing is to have a fixed, much smaller amount (as you say 100) of automation parameters exposed by ShaperBox plugin to the host, while each of the exposed automation parameters can then be assigned to a user-chosen internal plugin control/knob etc.? Something along the lines of a macro functionality in certain synths?

Exactly. It's just a different way of allowing for automation on complex plugins that either have variable number of parameters (such as modular synths or rack effects where components may come in or out and nothing is fixed) or would that would otherwise require massive amounts of automation params.

[ROTMetro]

Just a thought/suggestion, but with other large multi-fx or modular plugins, some deal with avoiding thousands of automation targets by having free form automation assignments. Example: the plugin will have something like 100 automation params, then users can go into an edit panel to assign which plugin params they want assigned to each of the 100 available automation params. Usually folks aren't concurrently automating more than a handful of parameters.

Neither approach, either yours or plugins that require users to make the assignments, is without drawbacks. But if automation is the only thing stopping you, may be something you want to consider for SB4.

If I understand correctly, what you're proposing is to have a fixed, much smaller amount (as you say 100) of automation parameters exposed by ShaperBox plugin to the host, while each of the exposed automation parameters can then be assigned to a user-chosen internal plugin control/knob etc.? Something along the lines of a macro functionality in certain synths?

Please do not do this.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Please do not do this.

For the record: it's not my favorite either. It's a pain in the ass with control surfaces and essentially renders them useless. It also makes automation a chore. I'm just saying, it's an option if the number of automation params is the sole factor in not allowing use of 2 shapers at once.

I'd honestly rather keep the existing limitation and use a second instance if I really needed two of the same shaper.

[DanielKonopka]

For one, I can't see how assigning 10-20, heck, even 30 parameters, once in a few hours, can be a problem/chore. To each their own, though.

[ROTMetro]

Personally I can't see wanting to put in more 'config' time to in place of just slapping another instance on. I will definitely stop using this plugin if that were to be the case. I love this plugin because it is so usable when I'm in the zone compared to the typical overdesigned/underperform stuff that sucks you out of the zone.

[Lee / Cableguys]

We just released ShaperBox 3.3.1 – this one brings quality improvements and fixes.

First, CPU usage has been reduced when using the General and Complex Audio Trigger algorithms.

Hi Lee, Is the plugin latency reduced by that too?

Hi! Plugin latency is the same – we need this latency for accurate transient positioning.

[Jakob / Cableguys]

We just released ShaperBox 3.3.1 – this one brings quality improvements and fixes.

First, CPU usage has been reduced when using the General and Complex Audio Trigger algorithms.

Hi Lee, Is the plugin latency reduced by that too?

Hi! Plugin latency is the same – we need this latency for accurate transient positioning.

I'd like to add that latency depends on your settings and can be between 0 samples and 16ms.

From our manual, in the section that discusses the Main Menu:

- Anti-Click Trigger Smoothing: On by default, this alleviates any clicks that could arise when retriggering LFOs with MIDI or audio. In VolumeShaper, this adds 6ms of lookahead in Audio and MIDI mode, so disabling it will reduce latency by 6ms, yielding 10ms latency in Audio mode, and no latency in MIDI mode.

- Reserve DriveShaper Latency: When disabled, ShaperBox uses 0 samples of latency as long as DriveShaper is not loaded. Most DAWs compensate correctly for latency, so this setting has no practical effect. However, some DAWs (eg, Ableton Live and Logic Pro X) have known problems with latency compensation, for which zero latency can be helpful. Note that Live's latency display may not update when ShaperBox switches from 16 samples to 0 or vice versa, even though the audio is correctly processed.

[midi_transmission]

10-16 ms are perfectly fine for mixing but 10 ms can be too high for real time audio. Think about plugin chains in addition, because they accumulate their latency. Many gates or limiter have lookahead settings to handle it accordingly. On simple signals the precision is often not so crucial.