Steinberg Spectralayers

[clevername37]

@thebutler

I’m pretty sure it will work like melodyne where clicking on the audio file in your host will allow you to access it through the Spectralayers editor.

How the enhanced integration works though is something we’ll have to wait a little more to see.

I can shed some light here, as we talked about this at NAMM.

It depends on the host. For example, Logic doesn't yet support assigning ARA plugins to regions (only tracks), and ARA plugins cannot currently open in their editor panel. In something like REAPER or Studio One, or any other the other DAWs about to announce ARA2 suport, it's the same workflow as Melodyn.

Some DAWs, like Studio One, have Melodyn built into the programme—and you can right-click to assign Melodyn to a region. In those DAWs, you assign SL to a region in a different way. Once it's assigned, it's like you say—you click the region, and in the DAW's editor pane: BOOM—SpectraLayers.

Bill

[clevername37]

Hello Bill - thanks for joining in; enjoying reading your posts.! Excited to see how this goes...

Is it going to work like, I'm guessing, Melodyne will (via ARA) in Cubase - i.e. launch inside the Sample Editor window perhaps..? Or, as a 'plugin' type tool, inserted as FX on a whole track.?

Guess we'll find out soon..

Hi, if I understand your question, it will be like Melodyn, yes. But of course dependent on the DAW—so if it doesn't work with Melodyn, we can't do it either.

[clevername37]

Interesting question about VST support—the answer is suprising. Let me talk to Robin about what we'd like to say at this point.

A simple "yes" or "no" would do. "Interesting questions" are the domain of diplomacy, or when a university student doesn't know how to answer the question his professor is asking.

I simply thought it was interesting question because Robin and I were just talking about, and I think what we're been working on is surprising.

Regardless, there's of course going to be some diplomacy in all this, as the rules have to bend from both sides when discussing upcoming features in unannounced software. I do hear you—wondering about what's happening in software you've invested in, and that you rely on professionally. That's why I'm here, and I'll do my best to help. I'm also really interested in what you all have to say. All that being said, I did just touch base with Robin.

VST support was an early feature of SL6, and was almost finished—but we were doing it just like everyone else: rendering VST plugins to selections. WaveLab already has that ability, and it's a great program. We'd rather do something new (especially within the realm of SL's focus) than duplicate someone else's functionality.

So, we went back and starting questions like, "What does it mean to add effects in an audio programme?" And we came up with new approaches that have never been done. You'll see the foundation for them in SL6, along with actual features you can use right away. As for VST…we do have something specifically planned. It won't be SL6, but it will blow your mind.

Bill

Bill, Thank you for your presence, what you are sharing, and the way you are communicating.

It is very seldom one sees such articulated and receptive discourse, something that helps while dealing with such complex matters as those put forward here. Your ability to bring the meta-view of validating diplomacy (while keeping openness) in this context, should align most of us here; those wanting answers and others interested in providing user feedback to developers or asking for SL's loyalty to its invested user base.

That said, I agree, it sounds very interesting that you are questioning the usual approach to incorporate plugins into a DAW or sound editor.
So far one selects a portion or all of the track and then applies to it a preprogrammed effect, in your words "rendering VST plugins to selections". Of course that applied effect might be complex, like side-chaining to an external track or algorithm, or recently linking to a versatil modulator (in the MELDA sense).
However, so far, those are preprogrammed processes. AFAIK a way to "open" them, is to use automation and thus depending on the implementation, allowing to correct/undo+reapply portions of the process ... though this happens on later steps.

The ability to change values of plugin parameters in real time while applying the effect... would be similar to applying an effect "while recording" on analog gear, which benefits virtual time mixing, mastering or nowadays popular inbox composition. Obviously monitoring such would need powerful low latency PCs, if attainable at all yet, therefore such novel plugin/vst/aax processing would be done with partial if some monitoring capacity...

Unless, something completely new is created, such are the wonders of the spectral domain tools.
I am waiting to be mindblown in this field and am prepared to keep waiting, give feedback and ideas while at it, if what is expressed here is indicative of things to come.

//Welcome indeed to you and best energies to your association with Robin, who has developed Divideframe as amazingly far as has been till today.

*edit, correcting mostly typos for clarity

Hi, and thank you for your reply. An interesting idea you present—I like the automation idea. I'll have a think. Cheers!

Bill

[goldenanalog]

Hi, Bill!

First off: I have licenses for both SL 3 & 4 and am planning to upgrade to Steinberg's version 6 when it's available. I also own a license for Izotope's RX6 (not RX7, the latest version; but sometimes it's OK to skip one ) so I have the (2) to compare.

This article excerpt from a Sound-on-sound review circa October 2012 is still relevant (IMHO) as an overview:

"While Izotope RX and Sequoia are described as repair and restoration tools, however, SpectraLayers Pro is being presented as more of a creative sound-manipulation program. The difference is, to a large extent, one of marketing: the programs are very similar in their basic functionality and appearance. The distinctive selling point of SpectraLayers Pro is hinted at by its name: it employs the concept of 'layers' to allow non-destructive editing of audio. The term will be familiar to Photoshop users, and provides the same benefits here as there: the ability to organise and audition different edits and alterations without committing to a sequence of irreversible changes."

OK, I have a 'proposal of direction' for you, Bill, based on a simple observation:

If we see RX as a *subtractive* spectral tool (repair of audio in general terms involves reduction/removal of sonic artifacts)

Maybe we can see SL as an *additive* spectral tool - with the lofty goal of being a part of virtually every professional sound designer's arsenal.

How do we get there? Maybe IR's are the answer - and further: is it possible to make both Wavelab and Halion 'subtools' that help Spectralayers with that?

This "article", about a year old, speaks volumes in terms of potential:

https://lancasteraudio.com/10-benefits- ... responses/

[clevername37]

NIce to meet you!

Non-Sequitor: I'll take this moment to mention that I can now talk a lot more about what's coming SpectraLayer's 6.

Yes, that is an interesting review. (SpectraLayers ended up winning Sound on Sound's Editor's Choice award. But that was before my time.) Your question goes the heart of what SL6 is: a re-imagining of SpectraLayers to be the world's only spectral editing platform.

While previous release had some overlapping features with other audio editors, that's no longer the focus for us. In SpectraLayers 6, nearly every single thing the program does, and how it does it, is completely unique to SpectraLayers. Hopefully, that's a good thing. But when you're doing completely new things, you're bound to get a few things wrong at first—that's one reason I want to establish a dialogue with you.

You mention RX. I love RX, and am a long-time official iZotope endorsee. I use RX so much that I designed a feature for SpectraLayers 6 (and thank you, Robin) to use RX from inside SL. Just because…well, I needed that for my own work. Switching between programmes was driving me crazy, as well as going in and out of a DAW. That lead to several major new features, and the ability to also work with WaveLab, SoundForge, and Audition—all at the same time from SL.

But…I don't want to over-hype this functionality, because you can't see it yet. I don't mean that RX opens inside SpectraLayers like an ARA plugin (and I don't think that's even a good idea). I don't know if you'll like what we've done here—maybe it's a big meh for some of you. All I can say is that an engineer who uses RX and WaveLab all the time, I think it's dope. I hope you agree—let me know.

So, if SpectraLayers is the only true spectral editor…what are those other programs? They're also specialised tools, just like us. Each one is the best at what it does—and nobody else (except CEDAR) is even trying to be a spectral editor. And likewise, our mastering tools are terrible.

Those programmes use spectrographs for visualisation, simple transforms (e.g. cut/paste), and for applying their built-in audio processes. (And with RX, you're really buying it for that library of processes—and it's worth it.) You don't actually edit the audio spectral—that's something you only do in SpectraLayers.

Now there is another big way to acccess effects process from directly within SL, and that is also new in SL—but that's a topic for another day.

You also mention the image-editor metaphor that Robin created. If you like that, then you'll love how we've expanded on that in SL6. As for impulse responses…OK, I'm intrigued. What do you think would be useful to do with them in SL?

Bill

Hi, Bill!

First off: I have licenses for both SL 3 & 4 and am planning to upgrade to Steinberg's version 6 when it's available. I also own a license for Izotope's RX6 (not RX7, the latest version; but sometimes it's OK to skip one ) so I have the (2) to compare.

This article excerpt from a Sound-on-sound review circa October 2012 is still relevant (IMHO) as an overview:

"While Izotope RX and Sequoia are described as repair and restoration tools, however, SpectraLayers Pro is being presented as more of a creative sound-manipulation program. The difference is, to a large extent, one of marketing: the programs are very similar in their basic functionality and appearance. The distinctive selling point of SpectraLayers Pro is hinted at by its name: it employs the concept of 'layers' to allow non-destructive editing of audio. The term will be familiar to Photoshop users, and provides the same benefits here as there: the ability to organise and audition different edits and alterations without committing to a sequence of irreversible changes."

OK, I have a 'proposal of direction' for you, Bill, based on a simple observation:

If we see RX as a *subtractive* spectral tool (repair of audio in general terms involves reduction/removal of sonic artifacts)

Maybe we can see SL as an *additive* spectral tool - with the lofty goal of being a part of virtually every professional sound designer's arsenal.

How do we get there? Maybe IR's are the answer - and further: is it possible to make both Wavelab and Halion 'subtools' that help Spectralayers with that?

This "article", about a year old, speaks volumes in terms of potential:

https://lancasteraudio.com/10-benefits- ... responses/

[clevername37]

Some of you sound like you might make great beta testers. Email me if you'd like to discuss: bill AT spectralayers DOT net. If this sounds exciting to you, you've never beta-tested. It can be very frustrating. But it can also be rewarding. Probably the best reason to beta test is make sure YOU don't have problems with the software—likewise, the best way to beta-test is to be selfish in that respect. The deal will be that if you really do the testing, we'll comp you the upgrade license, and maybe some other goodies. But it's real work.

[goldenanalog]

The pleasure is all mine, Bill! First off: no worries if SL6 isn't the be-all/end-all of where you want it to be - it's suffered a recent change of ownership which invaribly will cause some disruption in the product. Thats fine - the important thing is that SL seems to be in excellent hands - your interaction here (especially if it continues) builds confidence now; and in the future of the product.

Speaking for myself: I *want* to see SL6 and subsequent versions succeed - it's user base expand.

[goldenanalog]

Ok: the simple idea behind using IR's is that they can add an enormous range of environments to audio files - the environments can be almost anything, real or imagined - studio equipment; natural or manmade spaces; mathematical constructs - the limits are those of imagination.

[clevername37]

The pleasure is all mine, Bill! First off: no worries if SL6 isn't the be-all/end-all of where you want it to be - it's suffered a recent change of ownership which invaribly will cause some disruption in the product. Thats fine - the important thing is that SL seems to be in excellent hands - your interaction here (especially if it continues) builds confidence now; and in the future of the product.

Speaking for myself: I *want* to see SL6 and subsequent versions succeed - it's user base expand.

Sounds good!

To clarify, speaking for myself, SL6 is literally the be-all of everything that I wanted it to be. Robin would need to speak for himself, but I'm sure he'd agree. There are absolutely no asterisks for this version. It fulfills our vision 100%.

My comment was simply a reflection of humility.

Bill

[goldenanalog]

The pleasure is all mine, Bill! First off: no worries if SL6 isn't the be-all/end-all of where you want it to be - it's suffered a recent change of ownership which invaribly will cause some disruption in the product. Thats fine - the important thing is that SL seems to be in excellent hands - your interaction here (especially if it continues) builds confidence now; and in the future of the product.

Speaking for myself: I *want* to see SL6 and subsequent versions succeed - it's user base expand.

Sounds good!

To clarify, speaking for myself, SL6 is literally the be-all of everything that I wanted it to be. Robin would need to speak for himself, but I'm sure he'd agree. There are absolutely no asterisks for this version. It fulfills our vision 100%.

My comment was simply a reflection of humility.

Bill

Lol - well, in that case, just say that Spectralayers Six is the sh!t, Bill! No humbleness required! Lol!

Then lets get to work - ill be happy to sign on as one of your beta testers if you'd like, Bill - im perfectly comfortable signing NDA's and do have experience testing software - although its been a little while, admittedly.

Sounds like (masochistic) fun! Lol

[clevername37]

The pleasure is all mine, Bill! First off: no worries if SL6 isn't the be-all/end-all of where you want it to be - it's suffered a recent change of ownership which invaribly will cause some disruption in the product. Thats fine - the important thing is that SL seems to be in excellent hands - your interaction here (especially if it continues) builds confidence now; and in the future of the product.

Speaking for myself: I *want* to see SL6 and subsequent versions succeed - it's user base expand.

Sounds good!

To clarify, speaking for myself, SL6 is literally the be-all of everything that I wanted it to be. Robin would need to speak for himself, but I'm sure he'd agree. There are absolutely no asterisks for this version. It fulfills our vision 100%.

My comment was simply a reflection of humility.

Bill

Lol - well, in that case, just say that Spectralayers Six is the sh!t, Bill! No humbleness required! Lol!

Then lets get to work - ill be happy to sign on as one of your beta testers if you'd like, Bill - im perfectly comfortable signing NDA's and do have experience testing software - although its been a little while, admittedly.

Sounds like (masochistic) fun! Lol

Well then email me, fam!

[goldenanalog]

[Nihilith]

Hey Bill, of course I do not know what features will be integrated in SL6 and as I have very limited experience with SL5, as I got it just some days ago, I might just have missed these features...but given the fact, that SL is designed in resemblance to photo processing, how about some horizontal (define desired frequencies) and vertical (define transients) sharpening?

Or how about the ability to apply functions (saturation, desaturation etc) to these so distinctly broken down sound components. Would be cool to have the ability to saturate only certain frequencies only in certain areas in time.

Your engagement with the community is very much appreciated!

Daniel

[clevername37]

Hey Bill, of course I do not know what features will be integrated in SL6 and as I have very limited experience with SL5, as I got it just some days ago, I might just have missed these features...but given the fact, that SL is designed in resemblance to photo processing, how about some horizontal (define desired frequencies) and vertical (define transients) sharpening?

Or how about the ability to apply functions (saturation, desaturation etc) to these so distinctly broken down sound components. Would be cool to have the ability to saturate only certain frequencies only in certain areas in time.

Your engagement with the community is very much appreciated!

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Interesting ideas, man - thanks for sharing.

Can you explain more about your notion of sharpening—what would be going on technically, what the sonic effect would be, and in what context these effects would be applied?

Same for saturation—what would you consider "saturation" to mean in the sound and audio world?

Thanks!

Bill

[Nihilith]

Hey Bill!

As far as I understood SL analyses audio so that on the x axis we have time, on the y axis we have frequency and the brightness of every pixel so to speak is the amplitude of a certain frequency at a certain point in time.

Vertical contrast:

for simplicity´s sake lets assume we have the following values (in this example on just one frequency)

0.0, 0.1, 0.,1 0.8, 0.8, 0.7, etc

lets say we want to define the transient more. so a transformation would result in

0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.8, 0.8, 0.7, etc

Thats what I mean by changing the contrast.

The result in sound would be so that the transient is more defined. With SL´s ability to select certain frequency one could leave the finger attack of a bass in the upper register intact, but could tighten up the lower frequencys, just a example.

horizontal contrast:

lets assume the following values:


0.,3 0.2, 0.2, 0.3 etc
0.7, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7, etc
0.3, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, etc

a transformation could look like:

0.1, 0.05, 0.05, 0.1, etc
0.7, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7, etc
0.1, 0.05, 0.05, 0.1 etc

lets say we have a rather busy mix and a lot of overtones (maybe even from additional distortion) are all jammed together but I want to sculpt out the dominant frequency (automatic process) or I want to sculpt out frequencys of my choice. For this purpose an increase in horizontal contrast could come in handy.

There are plugins which do this (more or less) but not with the ability to select certain frequencys in certain points in time.

as applying a function (like saturation): again, key for me would be the ability to choose time and frequencys

so one could saturate only a certain frequency (by whatever saturation function (cubic, or...)) or the overtones of a frequency or just register. yes, there are multi band saturation plugins, but none would be so flexibel as SL

Hope my ideas are clear, sorry for the rushed write up, kids...


Kind Regards, Daniel