marcL

I hope not! Cos I am relying more and more on small or smaller developers! IMHO they are more friendly, have better authorization, easier installation, some have better performance, a.s.o.

In relation to your example above: If you have several quiet audio clips in the same track (not a single track clip), then it would be much better to normalize them to a RMS or LUFS value, instead of a peak value, because all should have about the same loudness! Also if there are passages that have different volume levels (happens often with vocals), then you could split the clip and apply RMS/LUFS normalization to the sections to get a fast volume adaptation. Wouldn't that be great? ?

As I have written it exists in Reaper's Batch File/Item Converter! I don't agree (and so do the Reaper developers)! This is exactly the difference, normalization means only gain change! A normalize to RMS or LUFS can just run like the current peak normalization, but instead of searching the highest peak to calculate the gain change, it would evaluate the current RMS or LUFS value of the clip and then apply a simple gain change to satisfy the defined target value. It is that simple! In Reaper there is also the additional goodie that you can enable a limiter to prevent possible clips. But this is not a requirement IMO. I would be happy just with a simple normalization!

Deleted! (Duplicate, link is already mentioned above as "links")!

I have it since the old version and I prefer that one, because it's much easier to set the frequency values. You can just click and enter the value, whereas in the new version it is a real mouse hit disaster, hard for an old man! ?

I understand what you mean. But IMO there is a kind of misunderstanding. There are 2 things that you can do with loudness levels: You can normalize SHORT clips (i.e. a single vocal phrase or short instrument takes) to a RMS or LUFS level to get a good starting point for mixing or comping. You can level the loudness flow of a whole song, track or a longer clip to a RMS or LUFS level. For the latter it makes sense to use compressors or leveling plugins. I do that, too. But the first idea above would be a great help for comping or rough volume adjustment, if it was supported by RMS/LUFS normalizing in the DAW. But I agree it only makes sense for short/shorter clips. I agree with you that Normalize means that there is a certain volume change for the whole audio clip. But it is not required that the volume change is defined by a peak value IMHO. You can also specify a targeted LUFS or RMS value (as I have described above with my manual way to do it, or how the Reaper batch file converter does).

Yes, this is the case! The scale is only kept on the track level. I noticed it a long time ago. But as there are still worse issues, I haven't reacted to this one! ?

Another thing that should be considered is CPU usage! The newer NI plugins like Phasis, Raum, Flair, ... are quite CPU hungry, whereas Softube plugins (at least the 8 ones I have) are light on CPU!

I like Kotelnikov GE, but regrettably it is a bit cpu hungry (like the newer PA and NI stuff).

They say that they are working on 64-bit. Who knows?

Like WUPpi Goldberg?

$33.60 with code group at JRRshop: https://www.jrrshop.com/xhun-audio-ironaxe https://www.jrrshop.com/xhun-audio-littleone https://www.jrrshop.com/xhun-audio-zerobox

If I weight the preset chaos and other troubles against the almost never used advantages of VST3, then my opinion about the value of VST3 is absolutely clear! ?

Pitch shifting highly depends on the source material! For a single voice vocal clip it is "Radius Solo Vocal" that gives the best results, i.e. it stays nearest to the original (you can see this if you zoom in extremely and compare it to the original). For other melodic (single voice) instruments I would recommend "Radius Solo", because the other algorithms add some sort of hall/delay to the source. For all multi-voice (polyphonic) clips (it does not depend on the instrument) it is better to use either "Radius Mix" or "Elastique Pro". In other DAWs there is also the "Elastique Pro Soloist" algorithm that can be used for single voices, but regrettably this one is NOT available in Cakewalk. But I have to add that the high quality Radius algorithms are almost only available in Cakewalk! ? One thing to note is that you should always check the results thoroughly with solo listening, because there maybe artifacts (especially in vocal esses and such). You can either fix this with clip editing (sometimes it's only a little splike in the wave) or you can try another algorithm for the specific position.

In my case I have only MONO clips! And they have also the +3dB volume increase if I did it like you described above! ? That's why I tried to export with "Split Mono", because in Sonar and earlier versions of CbB that was the only way not to have the volume increase (you could just delete half of the exported clips). But with the new export dialog this works no longer, it fails with a message (see above).

As long as they (Waves) urge this ugly shell plugin and have installation only with their manager I am even not interested in such a nice freebie! ? It's a pity!

Yes, but the problem is that I wanted to export CLIPS, no tracks or busses. And if I use the export dialog it increases the volume by +3dB. If I drag the clip(s) to a folder, then it works as expected, but that way I cannot give the desired names and manual name changes on a couple of clips is very inconvenient.

Something similar happens in the export dialog, if you try to export a mono clip with Channel Format "Split Mono" (2022.11 build 021). It results in a message saying: "An internal error occurred while processing the mixdown. The operation was unsuccessful." Some may wonder why I use "Split Mono" for a mono clip. But the reason I tried to use this, was that there is a +3 dB volume increase if I use channel format "Mono" only. Someone of the bakers said once that the cause is that the clip export runs thru a stereo bus (double mono). EDIT: Strange, I just tried with Sonar (23.10 build 014) and there it worked (with the old export dialog)!

I don't know what should be faulty in the analysis! These are facts!

I tried this one, too! Sometimes it generates very strange spikes in the beginning of the clips and on certain ess sounds! Unusable IMO!

This sounds strange to me! AFAIK do all the PA plugins support the usual plugin preset way in CbB as VST2 (listbox on top)! But not their VST3 version! But if I use the VST3 version in Reaper, then there is no problem at all. The presets are selectable in their common place. Thus there is a certain thing missing in CbB for the VST3 presets IMHO!

This^, I like it! I had the same issue. Especially when you do comping it is very important not to be misled by the clips volume difference. Thus before I start comping, I level all clips to the same LUFS value. Also, when you recorded some parts of the song separately, it is helpful if all of them match the same LUFS value. It makes mixing much easier! I always wondered how people could use the CbB normalize function for this (peak based), because if you have one single spike in the audio, then this clip has a totally other volume, than others! Today I do it in CbB like this: I use the free HOFA 4U Meter Fader to find out the LUFS value of the clip (within CbB just drag the clip onto the plugin). Then I use "Process > Apply Effect > Gain..." to adjust the value to my desire. This is not very elegant, but it works. Surely it would be better if there was such a function in CbB, I agree! One thing I want to mention to the HOFA 4U Meter is that if your file is mono, then it shows the LUFS value as double mono (+3dB). But this is easy to consider. Recently I also use Reaper to achieve this. In Reaper there is a "Batch File/Item Converter" that can apply a LUFS volume adjustment and/or any plugins to a batch of files. Very helpful!

IMHO it is very difficult to decide about synth sounds, 'cos it highly depends what you play with them. At times it also helps to reduce delay and/or reverb of the preset for a certain usage. Sometimes searching a sound for a specific phrase I think a sound preset is worth nothing! The other day when I use another playing style or octave I am completely convinced 'bout the same sound. But maybe it's just me! ?

Many thanks @locrian !! Here in Europe I am teached to ignore all small printed stuff and don't read everything, because I have to click all the time on messages applying to cookie settings! ?

I don't get it, 'cos when I click "manage your products" there comes only a page with the portal download! But maybe it's somehow hidden like with Softube.