SF pitch shift versus others -Sound Forge - PC - MAGIX Community Forums Archive

Subject:SF pitch shift versus others Posted by: bassmanagement Date:6/23/2004 11:22:16 AM Is it just me or does Sound Forge's pitch shifting algorithm sound not so good compared to others? I've used the built-in pitch shift in Nuendo and Pro Tools as well as Serato Pitch n Time and Waves Transform plugins and they're all noticeably better. Just wondering if I was doing something wrong or if it really is just bad. Anyone like to share the settings they use? Thanks! - Bass M
Subject:RE: SF pitch shift versus others Reply by: Angels Date:6/24/2004 10:15:41 PM Trust your ears. I haven't compared the ptich-shifting but I've stopped using Forge for most of my time-shifting. Both SX (even version 1.x) and Nuendo have better-sounding time compress/expand algorithms, and you don't have to rifle through a choice of algorithm variations to get them to sound good. I'll have to compare for pitch. I find that most of the signal processing in version 4.5 has not changed in later versions. Some useful things, like compressing time to a specific sample length, have been lost. Things have been added, but little has evolved. Actions speak louder than words, and sound speaks for itself. Angels

Subject:SF pitch shift versus others

Date:6/23/2004 11:22:16 AM

Is it just me or does Sound Forge's pitch shifting algorithm sound not so good compared to others? I've used the built-in pitch shift in Nuendo and Pro Tools as well as Serato Pitch n Time and Waves Transform plugins and they're all noticeably better. Just wondering if I was doing something wrong or if it really is just bad. Anyone like to share the settings they use? Thanks!

- Bass M

Subject:RE: SF pitch shift versus others

Reply by: Angels

Date:6/24/2004 10:15:41 PM

Trust your ears. I haven't compared the ptich-shifting but I've stopped using Forge for most of my time-shifting. Both SX (even version 1.x) and Nuendo have better-sounding time compress/expand algorithms, and you don't have to rifle through a choice of algorithm variations to get them to sound good. I'll have to compare for pitch.

I find that most of the signal processing in version 4.5 has not changed in later versions. Some useful things, like compressing time to a specific sample length, have been lost. Things have been added, but little has evolved.

Actions speak louder than words, and sound speaks for itself.

Angels