ReverbShaper for ShaperBox OUT NOW – Rhythmic Space Machine

[_al_]

Bought the Reverb module yesterday experimented with it a lot. i'm sure i will get a lot of use out of it. I have experimented with techno rumbles really easy to dial up a classic rubmle situation but i'm currently experementing by adding other modules to creating something more unique. any ideas ?

Yeah, this thing is great for techno rumbles, as the verb doesn't build up over two or three kick hits (thanks to the reset when node is at zero function).
And the amount of unique sounding impulses is really appreciated!

I am also experimenting with using a distortion envelope to give little peaks on the 3rd and 4th 16th (the open hat and the 16th after), to give it a bit of rhythm and funkiness.

I do wish though, we could have both hipass and lowpass envelopes, as that would save me having to EQ it after (yeah I know it's multiband, but still...)

[jobinho]

Bought the Reverb module yesterday experimented with it a lot. i'm sure i will get a lot of use out of it. I have experimented with techno rumbles really easy to dial up a classic rubmle situation but i'm currently experementing by adding other modules to creating something more unique. any ideas ?

Yeah, this thing is great for techno rumbles, as the verb doesn't build up over two or three kick hits (thanks to the reset when node is at zero function).
And the amount of unique sounding impulses is really appreciated!

I am also experimenting with using a distortion envelope to give little peaks on the 3rd and 4th 16th (the open hat and the 16th after), to give it a bit of rhythm and funkiness.

I do wish though, we could have both hipass and lowpass envelopes, as that would save me having to EQ it after (yeah I know it's multiband, but still...)

This is one key benefit of Infiltrator, being able to use multiple instances of the same effect through the signal chain.

[e@rs]

Does the 19 EUR upgrade price have an expiration date or it's permanent?

[_al_]

This is one key benefit of Infiltrator, being able to use multiple instances of the same effect through the signal chain.

Yeah, I have Infiltrator too and really do want to like it, but the lack of vertical snapping usually puts me off reaching for it, as that makes it difficult to revert to previous settings when experimenting.
With Shaperbox, even a curve node is snapable (if that's a word), which makes it totally replicatable, effortless and comfortable.

As for techno rumbles, Infiltrator reverb doesn't really cut it imo. Too basic, and the sound isn't consistent, as the reverb spills over to the next kick, creating problems with phasing and volume swelling

That's why we need tightly controlled IR, if we are not bouncing down our rumbles.
Shaperbox offers us next level control on that front, with it's reset on zero node function.
Sample accurate replication, from one kick to the next.

But yeah, I do wish SB2 allowed multiple instances of same effect

[Jakob / Cableguys]

This is one key benefit of Infiltrator, being able to use multiple instances of the same effect through the signal chain.

..
But yeah, I do wish SB2 allowed multiple instances of same effect

We want the parameters in ShaperBox to be mapped in a reliable way for DAW automation. Each Shaper has tons of parameters (including less obvious parameters as the ones in the envelope section, all for 3 bands). To record and to play back automation, DAWs need to know the list of parameters. So the DAW knows for example that our "Noise Volume High Env Hold" is at position 342.

To allow two instances per Shaper, we'd have to double the amount of parameters.

I just had a look at Infiltrator, curious how they actually handle that.. so let's say you are adding a filter to Slot 1 there and move the Cutoff knob, this is automated as "Effect 1 Control 1" and you can of course record automation for it and play it back. Now if you move the filter to Slot 2, the automation won't work any more and instead whatever you move to Slot 1 will be automated. It's fair that they did it that way as it allows more flexibility. But we've decided to have a distinct mapping of parameters.

Having said that.. if you need a second DriveShaper, for example, you can always still add a second instance of ShaperBox.

[_al_]

We want the parameters in ShaperBox to be mapped in a reliable way for DAW automation...

...To allow two instances per Shaper, we'd have to double the amount of parameters.

Honestly, I'm not questioning any of your decisions at this point. You've done really well with Shaperbox (I've seen it grow from volumeshaper / filtershaper 1)

My only REAL wish, is to see a few more filter types like formant and comb etc, but other than that, this thing has become my goto for a lot of things

[enCiphered]

For me the biggest bummer is that all the years you refuse to make the dice buttons in all shaperbox tools visible for DAW automation. If you compose long generative ambient music, this is the best possible way to add chaos and randomness for unexpected movement. Instead of having to click with the mouse on the dice button everytime manually, which is like living in a cave in 2023..

[JiggSaw]

I haven't checked in or updated in a few weeks. Has mixlock been implemented yet or is it at least being worked on?

[mabian]

Also, another question.... I see that in general volume output from Shaperbox can be significantly differ than the input... Maybe I'm a bit blind but I can't see a general output volume trim so that I can check correctly what the instance does to a sound compensating the possible level difference. Is it there?

EDIT: from a 2019 MusicTech Shaperbox review
"If we’re looking for minor niggles, then it would be useful to have a final master output volume so that you can volume match after you’ve applied filtering and other effects that might shrink the sound."

If it's still not there please consider it as a feature request

Thanks!

- Mario

[Held]

I just had a look at Infiltrator, curious how they actually handle that.. so let's say you are adding a filter to Slot 1 there and move the Cutoff knob, this is automated as "Effect 1 Control 1" and you can of course record automation for it and play it back. Now if you move the filter to Slot 2, the automation won't work any more and instead whatever you move to Slot 1 will be automated. I

Infiltrator has up to 8 macro controls which you can map to other parameters which will still work if you move effects around.

The disadvantage is, that you have to assign them first if you want to automate something reliably.

The advantage is that you can easily automate parameters in a range that makes sense for your track and you can automate multiple parameters at the same time which is less work.

Personally, I'd prefer having macros and being able to use multiple instance of the same Shaper and automating their parameters together with one macro, but I can see why you've been doing it your way until now.

[Download SOphist]

Does the 19 EUR upgrade price have an expiration date or it's permanent?

That’s the permanent upgrade price for owners of shaper box

[Rickskii]

I haven't checked in or updated in a few weeks. Has mixlock been implemented yet or is it at least being worked on?

This is really needed. Surfing presets is a no go in the current state. Shame as I love SB.

[Double Tap]

This is one key benefit of Infiltrator, being able to use multiple instances of the same effect through the signal chain.

..
But yeah, I do wish SB2 allowed multiple instances of same effect

We want the parameters in ShaperBox to be mapped in a reliable way for DAW automation. Each Shaper has tons of parameters (including less obvious parameters as the ones in the envelope section, all for 3 bands). To record and to play back automation, DAWs need to know the list of parameters. So the DAW knows for example that our "Noise Volume High Env Hold" is at position 342.

To allow two instances per Shaper, we'd have to double the amount of parameters.

I just had a look at Infiltrator, curious how they actually handle that.. so let's say you are adding a filter to Slot 1 there and move the Cutoff knob, this is automated as "Effect 1 Control 1" and you can of course record automation for it and play it back. Now if you move the filter to Slot 2, the automation won't work any more and instead whatever you move to Slot 1 will be automated. It's fair that they did it that way as it allows more flexibility. But we've decided to have a distinct mapping of parameters.

Having said that.. if you need a second DriveShaper, for example, you can always still add a second instance of ShaperBox.

I noticed that d16 have a system for Drumazon where you can right click a knob and make it available for DAW automation, since they also have too many parameters to make them all available. It’s not instantly obvious but once you realise, it’s a decent workaround the limitation.

[Jakob / Cableguys]

I noticed that d16 have a system for Drumazon where you can right click a knob and make it available for DAW automation, since they also have too many parameters to make them all available. It’s not instantly obvious but once you realise, it’s a decent workaround the limitation.

That's interesting and kinda straightforward. What is missing, though, is DAW Undo/Redo, which I find very convenient to have. So if you changed a slider, you can always do CTRL-Z / Command-Z via your DAW undo/redo. For being able to have a Shaper twice, we'd have to loose that.

[Jakob / Cableguys]

I haven't checked in or updated in a few weeks. Has mixlock been implemented yet or is it at least being worked on?

This is really needed. Surfing presets is a no go in the current state. Shame as I love SB.

I can see why this is useful for a plugin that "only" does reverb, for example. But in a plugin where presets are very different to each other, a Mix lock would often result in strange effects. Let's say there's a TimeShaper bandstop curve involved, for example. Mix needs to be at 100% for that one or it'd result in a sound that does not sound like bandstop, but more like some crazy FX, altering the intention of the preset designer.

So yes, a Mix control can be useful at many times, but also quite confusing at others. So we see the benefit, but also the tradeoffs, and I find that the weighting of both does not justify having another control in the UI. Having said that, I think there are good arguments for having it and there might be some chance that we weight the arguments differently at some point.