Real-time pitch shifting for tuning in a recording scenario was described here early in the thread. Prochannel variant was described as well (for X2).

Danny Danzi


I have the last good version of Adobe Audition 3 in Sonar's tool options. It does an excellent job with pitch raise/lower with very few artifacts. It allows me to maintain pitch and alter tempo or maintain tempo and alter pitch. It doesn't take long...about 10-15 seconds. Would I like to see something like this in Sonar? To be honest, I really don't have a need for it other than for learning a cover tune that may be tuned down a half step. I tune to 440 and like SToons, use a floating Floyd so retuning for me is really not an option.

I have the pitch option in Reaper and Studio One 2 and have rarely used it, so I'm on the fence about whether it's something *I* would like to see in Sonar. If the majority wants it though, by all means add it.

Not to stir up a hornets nest, but I have to ask you guys your opinion. What are your thoughts on this whole feature request thing? To me, I have always felt it was a way to shut us up. In all my years of putting in requests both as an individual as well as in groups of people, not once has anything I've ever asked for been implemented. It sincerely makes me feel:

A. We're listening but we don't agree

B. Sorry, we'd have to re-write the entire program for that

C. Give 'em the feature request thing to shut them up to make them feel they matter but don't implement anything unless it's mind-blowing

A & B are definites I'm sure. C is what I think the reality is though. Could you imagine how different Sonar would be if WE had the power to add our input since we are users and not sellers? We'd have a gapless audio engine, (I scream when the audio engine shuts down on me...I SOOO hate it!) better notation/staff view, colors and customization (I will still never forgive whoever that was that just decided to pull the plug and decide on that for us) vari-speed, better video capabilities and probably less plugins. The program makes the plugins, the plugins and plug capabilities don't make the program, ya know? Pro Channel and it's plugs are a welcomed addtition for me...but there are more important things I'd rather see done to Sonar that are necessities in my opinion.

-Danny

The first part of your post is where I am on this. I do support the feature because I stand by the notion that we as members should support our fellow members when ever we can in features that personally we may not have a need for but other members may. If it isn't going to hurt us we should be supportive.

The second part is rather cynical and from my experience is inaccurate.

I wanted MIDI meters and got them. On this request CW answered with that they did know how such a feature would work.  None the less they were implemented.  After I said how.
I wanted better Mackie Control support and got it. This was some time ago when there was very poor MC support. In fact one had to use the generic surface to use an MC at all.  
I wanted what CW calls the inline PRV and got it.
Susan G wanted a pause button and got it.
I asked for the patch search dialog be fixed and it was. It was broken in 3 and fixed in 7.
And many other requests.

What is true is it takes time for CW to get around to these things. Given time they will address all of our wishes.

I have also noticed that how one asks makes a difference.

If we show consistency and brotherhood CW will take notice. 

Jonbouy

The ability to change pitch and time simultaneously while retaining good audio quality is a more recent development, and something you couldn't do with tape.

 
@SToons
 
That is precisely what I'm talking about by 'varispeed' being a relatively new thing, and also answers the point of how it can differ from tape.
 
And yes the ability to play something at 80 bpm to replay at 150 is something to behold, you ought to try it, you play it in exactly the same key and tuning, just like you would with a midi phrase, changing the tempo leaves it unaffected in every other aspect. 
 

First of all, listen to my music sometime...does it sound like I need to "artificially" speed anything up? Probably about as much as Danny Danzi does...
 
I would not suggest doubling the speed of a recorded guitar would sound completely "unaffected" either.
 
Next, you have illustrated my point perfectly. Mike made it crystal clear, in Post #1 what Varispeed was for the purposes of this discussion. I restated it. What you describe here is tempo-changing, time-shifting - there could be a few names to describe it - but it is not Varispeed. It is quite obvious who is serving a personal agenda here and it is not Mike. A perfect example is how "Varispeed" is whatever you want it to be which changes thruout this discussion.
 

The complaint was to do with Sonar not providing pitch shifting capabilities

More nonsense.
 
<snip>  Many more quotes re-iterating what the OP did not need to hear again as evidenced in Post #1, further illustrating the cicrcular pattern derived from posting and posting without actually reading...(apparantly not even reading Post #1)
 
 
If you can't take the time to read others' posts accurately I can't be bothered responding anymore. Toodles.

I have my own reasons to want a VARISPEED option in SONAR and have brought this topic up myself... to no avail.

But, if the bakers are watching... COUNT ME IN as one who would really appreciate this feature in Sonar.

Jim

You see 'varispeed' is one of those loose terms (similar to gapless audio) that means different things to different people. To some it means pitch shifting, to others time stretching to me it is the ability to alter tempo (speed) while retaining every other aspect as intended (as well as being able to alter pitch if necessary) and in real time.

 
Read it again SToons as I swear it's you that's not paying attention.
 
What Mike is talking about is shifting the pitch of the mix to suit an out of tune Dulcimer.
 
He's then saying that it's the lack of 'Varispeed' is causing him difficulty.  He's now been offered the idea of zPlane, some freeware, and Audition's pitch shifting capabilities as well as using a detuned midi guide to track to.  The lack of 'Varispeed' doesn't seem to be the issue at all.
 
Tape style varispeed is simply altering the pitch as a product of changing the speed (tempo).  So varispeed implies at least changing, being able to vary the speed, preserving the pitch or changing the pitch are the options available these days. 
 
Pitch shifting here alters the pitch whilst keep the tempo intact, Mike is talking about pitch shifting here and using it to complain that Sonar doesn't have 'varispeed'.
 
All he really needed do is ask how best to go about solving his problem, many of us do it daily without fuss or complaining that the software we bought is not up to snuff.
 
btw I can't think of anyone that would want to speed up an audio passage by 70 bpm either but there you go it's possible. 
  
Also I'd like varispeed in Sonar too but not to tune an out of tune dulcimer, or conversly detuning a mix to suit it, I'd use pitch shifting for that.

John

Danny Danzi


I have the last good version of Adobe Audition 3 in Sonar's tool options. It does an excellent job with pitch raise/lower with very few artifacts. It allows me to maintain pitch and alter tempo or maintain tempo and alter pitch. It doesn't take long...about 10-15 seconds. Would I like to see something like this in Sonar? To be honest, I really don't have a need for it other than for learning a cover tune that may be tuned down a half step. I tune to 440 and like SToons, use a floating Floyd so retuning for me is really not an option.

I have the pitch option in Reaper and Studio One 2 and have rarely used it, so I'm on the fence about whether it's something *I* would like to see in Sonar. If the majority wants it though, by all means add it.

Not to stir up a hornets nest, but I have to ask you guys your opinion. What are your thoughts on this whole feature request thing? To me, I have always felt it was a way to shut us up. In all my years of putting in requests both as an individual as well as in groups of people, not once has anything I've ever asked for been implemented. It sincerely makes me feel:

A. We're listening but we don't agree

B. Sorry, we'd have to re-write the entire program for that

C. Give 'em the feature request thing to shut them up to make them feel they matter but don't implement anything unless it's mind-blowing

A & B are definites I'm sure. C is what I think the reality is though. Could you imagine how different Sonar would be if WE had the power to add our input since we are users and not sellers? We'd have a gapless audio engine, (I scream when the audio engine shuts down on me...I SOOO hate it!) better notation/staff view, colors and customization (I will still never forgive whoever that was that just decided to pull the plug and decide on that for us) vari-speed, better video capabilities and probably less plugins. The program makes the plugins, the plugins and plug capabilities don't make the program, ya know? Pro Channel and it's plugs are a welcomed addtition for me...but there are more important things I'd rather see done to Sonar that are necessities in my opinion.

-Danny

The first part of your post is where I am on this. I do support the feature because I stand by the notion that we as members should support our fellow members when ever we can in features that personally we may not have a need for but other members may. If it isn't going to hurt us we should be supportive.

The second part is rather cynical and from my experience is inaccurate.

I wanted MIDI meters and got them. On this request CW answered with that they did know how such a feature would work.  None the less they were implemented.  After I said how.
I wanted better Mackie Control support and got it. This was some time ago when there was very poor MC support. In fact one had to use the generic surface to use an MC at all.  
I wanted what CW calls the inline PRV and got it.
Susan G wanted a pause button and got it.
I asked for the patch search dialog be fixed and it was. It was broken in 3 and fixed in 7.
And many other requests.

What is true is it takes time for CW to get around to these things. Given time they will address all of our wishes.

I have also noticed that how one asks makes a difference.

If we show consistency and brotherhood CW will take notice. 

You're a lucky man John. :) I'd definitely boast about it if that were my experience. I know sometimes these things take time. But unfortunately, quite a few of my options (and even a few fixes) took more time than I was hoping for or never made it. I'm not bent about the options (other than colors and customization) really and of course have no problem asking nicely for a look at something. I guess part of me gets let down when I know several claim to be asking for something and well, it doesn't seem to get implemented or may take years. Heck bro, remember arm on the fly which was introduced in Sonar 6 I believe? I've been crying about getting that fixed since it came out. Quite a few users experienced a gap in audio when this was enabled. It just started working correctly for me on the last release of X1. I asked for that option for years with Cakewalk into Sonar and man, once it came, I couldn't use it. Stuff like that can definitely get to ya. Who knows...maybe "quite a few users" wasn't enough to fix it.
 
I will say this though, I feel the current baker staff is probably the best ever in terms of listening, taking part and fighting for the things we may want/need. I just wish some of this stuff happened a little faster with us in mind instead of what a few staff individuals may THINK is the better option, ya know? I think we've cried about a gapless audio engine, better video tools, staff/notation, colors and options for quite a while. Some of those things have been "wants" for years. I think it's just as important to keep your current "re-up every year" customers happy as much as it is trying to gain new ones with assorted bells and whistles because you can always count on the old die-hards as a source of floating the company.
 
It's like my recording business. I have customers that are every week, every month and every year. I don't want to lose them EVER as they are the ones that keep me alive if no additional business were to God forbid, not come in. That said, new customers that make suggestions to me are always welcome and I do my best to cater to their needs. I know it's way different than coding software and trying to keep a million people happy as opposed to the few hundred clients I have. But the same principal stands. Keep your main user base happy at all times because you can always count on them to put food on your table. Lose them and you have to hope that advertising takes up the slack and the new features sell the program.
 
-Danny

After 3 pages, the wish for Varispeed may be taken seriously by Cakewalk and resources expended. 
No doubt, if it worked, it may be another appreciated and useful tool.

However, Don't you guys want Cakewalk resources devoted to something a little more meaty?
Starting with maybe a gapless engine. Or, color customization. Or, 'insert your favorite here'. 

There was a thread here recently that listed 1-4 of desired additions/fixes.
Which turned into another pissing contest. 

I would suggest that whoever started that thread, continue with a new thread while keeping in mind the other wishes that had been brought up and list 20-30 or whatever. With the instructions to pick your top 3 and that any discussion about your choice or "his" choice would cause for your vote to be deleted.

BTW, my top pick (if available) would be to abandon the X series and go back to making Sonar 8.6 the best DAW. 

Just a thought.

Danny Danzi

John

Danny Danzi


I have the last good version of Adobe Audition 3 in Sonar's tool options. It does an excellent job with pitch raise/lower with very few artifacts. It allows me to maintain pitch and alter tempo or maintain tempo and alter pitch. It doesn't take long...about 10-15 seconds. Would I like to see something like this in Sonar? To be honest, I really don't have a need for it other than for learning a cover tune that may be tuned down a half step. I tune to 440 and like SToons, use a floating Floyd so retuning for me is really not an option.

I have the pitch option in Reaper and Studio One 2 and have rarely used it, so I'm on the fence about whether it's something *I* would like to see in Sonar. If the majority wants it though, by all means add it.

Not to stir up a hornets nest, but I have to ask you guys your opinion. What are your thoughts on this whole feature request thing? To me, I have always felt it was a way to shut us up. In all my years of putting in requests both as an individual as well as in groups of people, not once has anything I've ever asked for been implemented. It sincerely makes me feel:

A. We're listening but we don't agree

B. Sorry, we'd have to re-write the entire program for that

C. Give 'em the feature request thing to shut them up to make them feel they matter but don't implement anything unless it's mind-blowing

A & B are definites I'm sure. C is what I think the reality is though. Could you imagine how different Sonar would be if WE had the power to add our input since we are users and not sellers? We'd have a gapless audio engine, (I scream when the audio engine shuts down on me...I SOOO hate it!) better notation/staff view, colors and customization (I will still never forgive whoever that was that just decided to pull the plug and decide on that for us) vari-speed, better video capabilities and probably less plugins. The program makes the plugins, the plugins and plug capabilities don't make the program, ya know? Pro Channel and it's plugs are a welcomed addtition for me...but there are more important things I'd rather see done to Sonar that are necessities in my opinion.

-Danny

The first part of your post is where I am on this. I do support the feature because I stand by the notion that we as members should support our fellow members when ever we can in features that personally we may not have a need for but other members may. If it isn't going to hurt us we should be supportive.

The second part is rather cynical and from my experience is inaccurate.

I wanted MIDI meters and got them. On this request CW answered with that they did know how such a feature would work.  None the less they were implemented.  After I said how.
I wanted better Mackie Control support and got it. This was some time ago when there was very poor MC support. In fact one had to use the generic surface to use an MC at all.  
I wanted what CW calls the inline PRV and got it.
Susan G wanted a pause button and got it.
I asked for the patch search dialog be fixed and it was. It was broken in 3 and fixed in 7.
And many other requests.

What is true is it takes time for CW to get around to these things. Given time they will address all of our wishes.

I have also noticed that how one asks makes a difference.

If we show consistency and brotherhood CW will take notice. 

You're a lucky man John. :) I'd definitely boast about it if that were my experience. I know sometimes these things take time. But unfortunately, quite a few of my options (and even a few fixes) took more time than I was hoping for or never made it. I'm not bent about the options (other than colors and customization) really and of course have no problem asking nicely for a look at something. I guess part of me gets let down when I know several claim to be asking for something and well, it doesn't seem to get implemented or may take years. Heck bro, remember arm on the fly which was introduced in Sonar 6 I believe? I've been crying about getting that fixed since it came out. Quite a few users experienced a gap in audio when this was enabled. It just started working correctly for me on the last release of X1. I asked for that option for years with Cakewalk into Sonar and man, once it came, I couldn't use it. Stuff like that can definitely get to ya. Who knows...maybe "quite a few users" wasn't enough to fix it.
 
I will say this though, I feel the current baker staff is probably the best ever in terms of listening, taking part and fighting for the things we may want/need. I just wish some of this stuff happened a little faster with us in mind instead of what a few staff individuals may THINK is the better option, ya know? I think we've cried about a gapless audio engine, better video tools, staff/notation, colors and options for quite a while. Some of those things have been "wants" for years. I think it's just as important to keep your current "re-up every year" customers happy as much as it is trying to gain new ones with assorted bells and whistles because you can always count on the old die-hards as a source of floating the company.
 
It's like my recording business. I have customers that are every week, every month and every year. I don't want to lose them EVER as they are the ones that keep me alive if no additional business were to God forbid, not come in. That said, new customers that make suggestions to me are always welcome and I do my best to cater to their needs. I know it's way different than coding software and trying to keep a million people happy as opposed to the few hundred clients I have. But the same principal stands. Keep your main user base happy at all times because you can always count on them to put food on your table. Lose them and you have to hope that advertising takes up the slack and the new features sell the program.
 
-Danny

I think we are in agreement. I didn't mean to sound as if I were bragging. And it took a lot of time to see these features become a reality. But the point was and is CW really does listen.

On the features you listed above I think its a problem with the fundamental architecture of Sonar for many of those points being incorporated. Look at the notation issue for example. I have as have many pushed for improvements in this area from day one of Sonar 1. That is about 10 years or more of asking. Why hasn't it been done? I think it requires a major rewrite of the program code in order for it to come to pass. I see it as something CW would like to do but have from their viewpoint more pressing issues.

The other thing is I believe CW needs this sort of feedback to come up with new features. Some things they do on their own but many ideas come directly from us. Than some things are easier to implement than others. 

When you mention color customization I think its the nature of how CW created Skylight with bit mapped elements that preclude an easy solution. But it can be done. We know this because Panup has demonstrated that it can. 

At any rate the points you mention may come to pass in time. Lets just hope so and support each other when ever we can.

In my view Mike made a good case for varispeed. And Jonbouy did a good job of clarifying it.

I don't see a real objection to the notion of adding varispeed to Sonar.

Jonbouy

 I have had outstanding success with an elastic band bass.  

It's an Alembic, I keep telling you.

bapu

Jonbouy

I have had outstanding success with an elastic band bass.  

It's an Alembic, I keep telling you.

 
Pfft.........
 
I have a Varilembic.
 
It is tuned to the same pitch as a concert dulcimer.
 
I can play it at any speed, so my DAW doesn't have to.