Hi folks. I can across a few videos on Shaperbox recently, which seem to be a one of the hype tools for use in a DAW at the moment. I got the trial of Shaperbox mainly because of the Noiseshaper that reacts to your incoming audio and then applies foley and other sounds - this can be noise that ducks or even that fills in the gaps in between hits. So far, it’s been fun to try out.
I know that some synths (eg: Massive X, Pigments) have sample & noise engines, that sneakily have some pretty cool atmospheric layering sounds, although these are naturally geared to add that layer to a synth sound. I’m guessing to do the Shaperbox thing in a synth engine, you’d have to set this up manually every time by setting up the oscilators to play a constant note - then you can map it to an LFO/shaper tool and tweak to taste, so it either adds a layer or ducks out of the way of your track. (And of course, all this goes without saying, just grouping samples together with some subtle LFO’s & modulation is a simple way to achieve layering without the fancy effects or VST’s at all.)
It looks like maybe the big feature of Shaperbox is that it takes the work out of all of the above, so that you can get on making your track. And of course it has that fancy thing where you can apply different effects to different frequencies only in the spectrum, which is where it starts to look like an ease of use thing, vs the stock DAW tools. It seems very surgical with that big old interface, so you can get into the weeds designing your shapers.
For those of you who have used this plugin, is Shaperbox a quicker way of doing things, or is there something else about this that it brings to your workflow (NoiseShaper or otherwise.)
Not exactly what you asked, but for this kind of thing i like to use a free plugin called Noiiz Filter. It is very simple and limited but I found it fits my workflow and taste very well. The other technique I use in order to create this kind of effect is just a sidechained gate on a field recording, which has the advantage that you can further process it as you wish because it sits on a track of its own. I find ShaperBox too fancy/too many options, it doesn’t inspire me.
Yeah, I can see that side of it. There’s a hell of a lot going on in Shaperbox, and I already use Effectrix for this kind of thing, but as that’s an older VST it doesn’t (to my knowledge) work with samples in such an advanced way. Shaperbox does other things with volume too which put it on my radar. But I was a bit on the fence, hence this thread - so alternatives are definitley of interest!
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I’m a fan of samplepacks by Soundghost, and they have a very similar concept to Noiseshaper called Texturize. I kinda like how simple the UI is and I already love their sounds so maybe this is a better option. Or as you say, just modulating the samples might be a perfectly decent way to go. That said, open to hearing other votes for Shaperbox meantime, as I usually miss something when assessing these plugins!
Shaperbox is really good at a lot of useful things. I love the noise shaper, but I think the volume shaper is also the best ducker on the market, you can exactly control the envelopes so easily. All the other shapers also get a surprising amount of use from me. I dont think it is hype in this case, just a great plugin.
…shaperbox is too good to be real, end of the day…
ur referring to it’s noise section which is indeed a nice and pretty universal thing to have…
but that’s “just” an add on to the whole shaper tool box…
for pretty much everything, there are various ways to achieve the same thing…
but it’s volume lfo shaper alone is already tighter and more precise than any sidechain/ducking what not processing u would “normally” do…
and don’t get me even started on it’s time shaper tool…not to mention it’s filter and distortion tools…
nope…this damned plugin is one of those truu must haves and worth every penny…
Thanks folks. One thing I love about Ableton is the ease of use and simplicity of UI. That said, actually something I didn’t factor in is my slightly dodgy eyes - and now because of it I kinda like full screen interfaces like this.
Agreed on all the half time stuff - from what little I’ve done with that it did seem a lot of fun.
Ok, it seems I should give it a try again (I own Shaperbox 2). I tend to dislike plugins that can do too many things -I appreciate a lot itb and ootb minimalism.
You can do the exact same thing with modulation/automation and Ableton’s stock plugins, but it’s going to take a long time to program some of the things that Shaper Box does with a few clicks. I see it as a time saver. Which when walking the line of being productive, and following into a never ending roll of twiddling parameters, is worth it.
This is honestly one of the biggest factors for me with these plugs. Yep, you can create all the racks and whatnot, but with limited time on my hands, anything that speeds stuff up gets a tick (and usually a purchase) in my book. And if it adds a bit of creative inspo in there for good measure - then that’s a win. EG: I enjoy using XO for drums. In a way this is really just a very fancy way of making a distributed ranges drum rack with multiple sounds in - which works until you want to move or change one sample. With XO I can have literally anything I want in there and it has a sequencer. If I have 2hrs to make something, anything that saves me from making racks instead of writing stuff is a winner in my book.
…then, get warm with what u already got…the big game changer/time saver/sparkle plus factor is already in shaperbox 2…
and it’s not one of those overwhelming i can do it all for u plugins…it’s dead simple in it’s foremost basics and sticks to the exact same rules each time u might wanna add another shapertool…
so one instance of shaperbox can grow into a huge stack of multifx, while each piece of the stack follows the same rules while can be changed in it’s following orders, or u can just use many single instances all over the place, each just doing one single dedicated job…
meanwhile, shaperbox is relatively cpu friendly…
unlike infiltrator for example, which is pretty hungry and indeed way more an overwhelming piece of gui and code…too many fancy plugins out there…shaperbox is not one of those…
That Texturize plugin looks quite interesting for me, that’s the kind of simplicity I enjoy. I have just downloaded the demo. Their other plugin, Scatter, also looks inviting, it reminds me a bit to Sinevibes Albedo, another granular plugin which I use extensively.
Yep. I can 100% vouch for their samples. The guy behind it is really responsive and messages back if you have any questions. Scatter to me feels like a much more restrained version of something like Portal (and that’s not a criticisim I should say). The nice thing about Texturize is it also comes with like 200 sounds in the plugin and if they are like their other sounds then I can imagine they will work really well in tracks.
From what I’ve bought from them already, their stuff has a simplicity I really like - they don’t try to cover too much ground, they just do a limited range of things really well. I’ve found that they and another studio tend to beat out the sounds I found on the big 2 sample sites for these genres (but just my opinion of course.) That simplicity applies to the way the plugins and instruments are designed with a few simple controls and quick access to nice sounds (the ambient Library Tundra I also really like.) Plus it’s always cool to support an indie producer. This guy has no Splice, no Loopcloud, just doing it himself (plus some friends here and there.)
Oh, I am already warm with what I got, but I also like to question my workflow from time to time, that’s a nice way of progressing sometimes and get out of the comfort zone.
I have just spent half an hour noodling around with Shaperbox 2, I don’t find it overwhelming in the sense that I don’t get its functions, I understand quite well what all the parameters do and where to find what you want to find, but there is something about it that I just don’t connect with, it kind of stops my creativity somehow. All subjective of course.
There is also something about the tone of NoiseShaper that I don’t enjoy, it sounds to me a bit “sharp” for a lack of a better word. Even after applying some LPF it doesn’t sound very natural/organic, it is a bit cold and cutting to my ears.
Yeah that’s cool, I gladly support that kind of devs. Samples I don’t generally use other than drums a bit but thx for the recommendation.
Portal is another example of a plugin with too much stuff going on (I am speaking about the backend, not the first macro page that appears when opening it) and that puts me off a bit. It sounds beautiful though. Very often for me “less is more” when speaking about tools and creativity. But I am diverging quite a bit from your original post, sorry for that!
I guess I brought it up hehe, so my fault. And to be honest, it’s more interesting to hear other opinions. So here we have kinda 4 options going on; the native tools of a DAW that take some work, the workaround of noise/samples in a synth, the simplicity of a dedicated plugin like Texturize or the uber-multi-mega effect options within something like Shaperbox. I just wondered how others saw any of these 3 vs the DAW option - really interesting to hear what others think.
I just tried Texturize and I love it already. I actually was wishing there was an alternative to Noiiz Filter that would run natively on Apple Silicon (Texturize does, Noiiz Filter is the only plugin I use that still doesn’t), and I find Texturize it has just the right amount of controls, it’s well thought out. And also a great thing that you can import your own files onto it. Glad you mentioned it!
Btw another technique I used to like for layering noise/texture on Ableton Live (if using soft synths) is to put a Sampler or Granulator II loaded with some foley or field recording on an Instrument rack and the soft synth on another track inside that instrument rack. That way you can also transpose the noise according to the midi notes you are playing and can lead to interesting results, as you introduce another dimension to the noise (pitch transposition).
(this makes me think I’m ovethinking it slightly and should probably follow suit heh!)