If the new feature is complex or required by professionals, then it’ll be part of the coming RX Advanced. I would describe iZotope’s development-marketing strategy as selecting an acute, specific market need, be it one that existed for long time or a novel one, and then creating a specific “module” that will be added as a new RX feature and promoted as such in the next RX version released. So it’s little features like that where Izotope are willing to go above and beyond in investing into, whereas Steinberg seems to be a little more reserved. It would be good if I can take a eurorack performance that was recorded on a cell phone from 12 years ago, convert that into “studio audio” and then be able to unmix it. You should view the MSRP of iZotope products no different than you view those from Waves and many other companies. If you’re buying these products are MSRP, you’re almost always throwing money away. all saw ridiculously low sales prices in the $25-50 Range). You could get almost everything for less than the “MSRP” of RX Standard (since VocalSynth, Neoverb, Insight 2, etc. Additionally, RX 9 Standard as an upgrade off Elements for $99. Melodyne Essentials) for < $180 as an upgrade off of one of the many Ozone 9 Elements give-aways they had. ![]() Last year, iZotope had the Tonal Balance Bundle sales multiple times, where you could get Ozone 9/Neutron 3 Advanced, Tonal Balance Control 2 and Nectar 3 Plus (incl. SpectraLayers Pro is most comparable to RX Standard. RX Advanced is only worth it for post-production professionals. MSRP simply isn’t a realistic measure of pricing, these days, unless the company in question never discounts their products (e.g. When is RX ever not on sale? RX9 Standard was a $99 upgrade off of Elements for me, and it’s more often than not available for $149 either from iZotope themselves, or through partner retailers like Plugin Boutique. Practically no one pays MSRP for these products anymore, these days. On the other hand I can see Izotope jumping on the opportunity of buying all the rights/patents to the “ voice cloning” idea because they see how valuable something like that is for audio engineers. Someone here brought up a unique feature suggestion of “voice cloning”, which (as scary as it sounds) wouldn’t be a bad investment for Steinberg to invest into for Spectralayers. Where a sum of algorithms of phone microphones can be used to build an algorithm (sort of similar to the unmix stems feature) to then be converted into “studio audio”. Where you can turn a phone recording into audio as if it were recorded in professional studio. The only way to archive eurorack patches and modular synth performances is to literally record it with a video camera or your phone… With that in mind, a unique useful feature steinberg could invest in for Spectralayers(which I have talked about before) is a “studio audio” feature. ![]() The most interesting thing about eurorack patches is that its a once in a lifetime event, meaning that once you create a patch and unpatch it there is no way to recreate it, and even if you do manage to attempt to recall that patch it will never sound the same. ![]() Some of the best pieces of music I’ve heard so far (especially in the last 2 years) is eurorack patches and modular synth performances. Honestly the only thing that Izotope has over Spectralayers is that the company Izotope is a lot more committed to investing in their products overall and audio restoration/repair features as opposed to Steinberg. I’m confused as clearly other people are using it fine without any issues. There’s a bunch of other stuff that doesn’t seem to be working. I’m also finding that preview does not work. It happens pretty much every time I start up spectral layers on a audio clip, even if it’s only a few seconds. SL initialize fast and Cubase prepare the file fast, but transferring it to SL takes a very long time (unlikely)ĭuring that minute there’s just a spinning ball. SL initialize fast, but Cubase takes a long time preparing the audio file before transferring it to SL (possible, some users have reported some long time when Cubase prepares the data) SL takes a long time to initialize, but then loading the audio file is very fast (possible, but SL only takes 5 seconds to initialize on my mac) ![]() What do you see during that mimute ? Is there a message somewhere ? Drdrdrdr, is it the first time only, or opening a second short audio sample in the same project also leads to a minute loading it ?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |