Excellent breakdown and overview of this plugin. I was able to use this in a mastering session actually where the kick was a little too buried in the mix and the client didn't have access to the session to make the adjustment I needed. Texture added just the right amount of saturation to each kick hit to make it poke through and brought the entire record to a new level.
Devious machines make great plugins. Bought the bundle forever ago and I've used texture and duck in every project since, and just recently got infiltrator. So damn good
I love Texture...my dream plugin would be only the XY-filter of Texture (+ resonance) affecting the" dry" signal like Klevgränd Gaffel. To be able to insert the filter-plugin on many channels, having the parameters be the same and controlled by the automation of only one channel... I don't think it exists, but believe it would be a hit, if it did!
Nice. Got infiltrator but now need to go also to this one. Thanks for the whole job done here and thanks for all your works. Don't know if I am clear because I'm french but you show me that this plugin is super cool.
I already do this in pretty much all of my projects with stuff I have in my DAW so I pass on this plugin. But yeah, layering non melodic stuff over melodic stuff and other non melodic stuff is a good way to add texture to a mix.
do you happen to be able to tell me in words so i can understand a little better real quick what the difference is between letting the volume of one track shape the volume of a noise track, and modulating a signal with another one?
@@sickheadofficial In Texture, what's being modulated is the amplitude, the volume. So it's the same as letting the volume of one track be shaped by the volume of a noise track.
I'm probably comparing apples to oranges here, but it'd be nice if Texture allowed people to draw their own LFO's (like ShaperBox2) instead of relying on just the 5 (tri, sine, square, saw+, saw-) in it. The fact that Texture lets you import your own wave files for mangling (again, like ShaperBox2) makes sound-sculpting possibilities endless. I can definitely see both of these plugins as RC-20 killers...or at least challengers.
Interesting! I wonder if it would be particularly effective if it was used to emphasize/de-emphasize specific parts of compositions, e.g. have a 'noisier' verse then a pristine chorus (or vice-versa), or perhaps save it for part of a song that doesn't have vocals, such as an outro.
As a work around you could duplicate the sample onto a few tracks and have different FX on each, then bounce them all to a folder and cycle through in texture
@@troyhoggart9079 I hear ya but at that point I might as well put a gate on a noise sample and map it. To me texture would only be useful if it speeds up or simplifies that workflow. I own Texture but most times wind up doing the work myself to have these kind of options. Texture needs an update to keep up.
Suppose the biggest difference is that NoiseShaper is more of a rhythm oriented plugin in the end / combines with the other shapers, and this is more of a dynamic noise shaping tool with a lot of fine control. However, they are very similar in most case uses.
Haven't watched the video yet, but, open question. I already had Denise Noize 2, also recently got Shaperbox, including the new noise shaper. While I've had interest in Texture, is there a point to getting it? Does it offer a significant feature, set of features those other 2 don't already provide?
@@OrdinaryOneOfficial I haven't had the time to watch a video yet. I don't know about you, but I can type a comment of this length in far less than 20 minutes.
I don't own the Denise one, but as for Texture vs Noiseshaper, off the top of my head: I own both because they're both great, but Texture is pretty impressive for being the original out of these three and still holding its own. Texture and Noiseshaper both have a limit function for the noise trigger, but only Texture also has a gate. Texture has two granular synthesis modes and a compressor for the noise, none of which is found in Noiseshaper. Noiseshaper wins on modulation with its drawable envelopes, whereas Texture uses LFO. Conversely, Texture wins on EQ of the noise, offering a full 5-band parametric control plus a separate HP/LP/BP whereas Noiseshaper only has HP and LP. Texture also has a page for adjusting the EQ of the original sound. Noiseshaper has that great Band Control section, which Texture doesn't. Noiseshaper has an ultimate advantage in being part of Shaperbox, so there are radical opportunities for creative manipulation depending on where and how you use it in the chain, or if you put it on a send performing nothing but noise and then devote all Shaperbox's power to transforming that noise. Texture lets you repitch the noise, but Noiseshaper can't do that (or at least can't do it yet). Then there's the suite of included noises: both offer excellent libraries, but you may prefer one over the other or want to own both for their own strengths. Also afaict you can't import your own noise files into Noiseshaper yet, unless I'm missing something, whereas you can use your own files in Texture.
@@joechapman8208 thanks for the elaborate response. You can use your own noise samples in noiseshaper by the way, you just need to put them in a specific folder I think
