De-essing?

[Thor]

We plan on replacing a G4 mini with a new Intel Mac. The G4 has been doing audio duty for quite a few years, but is showing it's age.

When de-essing has been called for, I've really liked spitfish. It can veil the sound a bit, but when needed it's very easy to use and can give great results when dialed in correctly. The soft option can help tame harsh treble in general (cymbals!) as an alternative to straight EQ.

spitfish on Intel sort of works, but it has a tendency to add clicks to the audio, which is not ok.


On my list of units to check out are:

Dyn upgrade to existing Weiss EQ1-LP
Weiss DS1 (probably not realistic due to budget)
Masalec MDS-2
Empirical DerrEsser (pair in rack)

I prefer, but don't require, analogue. I've already downloaded several plugins and tried them out, they seem either too tweaky (Oxford) or don't sound/work as good as spitfish (Waves, Eiosis). I do use the Oxford limiter and like it, maybe the SuprEsser just needs more time in the studio to learn to like it.

Maybe there are other, better ways to deal with this sort of problem? Or other units? Any suggestions?

Cheers,
Thor

[djwaudio]

I'm a fan of the Maselec MPL, but for whatever reason don't use de-essing much. I'm thinking about finding a home for someone who will.

[nickynicknick]

I was shown what the Weiss can do at a mastering session...It seemed quite remarkable.

Nick

[Ben F]

I haven't found anything that comes close to the DS-1

[Waltz Mastering]

In addition to the excellent choices already mentioned, I've had good results with hardware - SPL de esser and software - waves de esser (older one) when automation is needed.

[Mr XY]

i recommend persisting with the sony - it's tweaky but once you get used to it it's pretty fast to set up.

the UAD de-esser is also very good and simple
(but obviously you need the card)

[hsten]

I would very much recommend the DS1. I do not think that upgrading the EQ1 to DYN-LP would offer the same precision as the DS1 in terms of de-essing. I think the DS1 is the most flexible and great sounding dynamic processor out there.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Ben F

I haven't found anything that comes close to the DS-1

I'm guessing you haven't demoed the DerrEsser yet.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[staudio]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

I'm guessing you haven't demoed the DerrEsser yet.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

I really love my DerrEssers when mixing, but believe it or not I haven't yet tried them for mastering work. About how much (if at all visible on the meter) reduction do you find you can use when it's called for. Do you use HF Lim or DS, depends on the material right?

Thanks,
Alex Sterling

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by staudio

I really love my DerrEssers when mixing, but believe it or not I haven't yet tried them for mastering work. About how much (if at all visible on the meter) reduction do you find you can use when it's called for.

From no led's visibly triggered (just to soften the high end) to lots of them. Whatever works best.
fwiw - 8kHz tends to be my starting crossover freq crossing and then I adjust from there if necessary.

Do you use HF Lim or DS, depends on the material right?

It's rare I use the HF Limit mode - but I have.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Alécio Costa]

Have you tried Neon HR in M-S Mode?
It saved my butt twice this year.

[dave-G]

Among plugins, I'm pretty well impressed with the Massey De-Esser... but that's a ProTools-only thing. Can't remember if you're working in PT at all, or you're all in SB (Thor).

In analog, I've not yet tried the DerrEssers, but still like the UREI LA-22, which is a pretty kewl sleeper of a box.

-dave

[macc]

UAD De-esser here but I am anxiously waiting for the Paul Frindle DSM plugin for Windows...

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Thor

On my list of units to check out are:

Dyn upgrade to existing Weiss EQ1-LP

The Dyn Weiss is a reasonably good dynamic equalizer, though they plan an upgrade with better time constant control. But as a de-esser, it's just not versatile enough. There is a reason the DS1 is so expensive, it's a fantastic De-esser, perhaps the best in the world, or tied with the best that there is. The Mk3 is also extremely versatile.... and can do ONE of the following four at a time very well: De-essing, parallel compression, or standard (downward) compression, or Upward expansion. I have three of these in my rack... I'd like to get it down to two, but I'm still awaiting some upgrades to the TC system 6000 so it can accomodate a bit more DSP at 96 khz. At that point I probably can manage to sell one of my three Weiss units...

Masalec MDS-2

People who I trust sa the Masalec is an excellent De-esser. To be honest, though, I think the digital algorithm of the Weiss, due to its band-specific operation, linear phase filtering and optimized attack/dual release time constants, makes it superior to any analog unit I've heard so far. And the new Mk3 has split channels and can do M/S, which amounts to icing on the cake, considering that the Mk2 was always working in stereo and still sounded great.

I prefer, but don't require, analogue. I've already downloaded several plugins and tried them out, they seem either too tweaky (Oxford)

I do have the Oxford Suppressor, and I am VERY impressed. It's my second choice de-esser after the Weiss, and might actually be the equal of the Weiss. Once you learn it, it's not hard to adjust or use. You don't have to get tweaky other than adjusting the frequency, you can leave the time constants to their defaults, which is the same way I treat the Weiss for de-essing.

BK

[finetuner]

When it comes to de-essing, i think nothing comes close to spot processing manually ( just de-essing the 'sses' with software).

No matter how good your de-esser, it will affect cymbals, snare attacks and what not when used in real-time.

Yes it's laborious but how many offending esses will there be in a typical song?
10 to 15? With ProTools' audio suite it's not that hard and once you get the hang of recognizing esses visually, you'll fly through a song in no time.

Since you will only process fractions of seconds, you won't even need the quality required for real-time de-essing.
You can go as deep as needed for any 'S' and still be transparent to the rest.
So you only trade some extra time for a much better result and that's what counts most to me.

Please take into account the time it will cost to find an optimal setting for a real-time de-ess job.

I own a DS1mk3 and while it's de-esser function is one of the best, i still prefer manual spot processing with software.

I wonder how many of you feel the same ?

[cynics1207]

thanks for the SONNOX tips Bob.

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by macc

UAD De-esser here but I am anxiously waiting for the Paul Frindle DSM plugin for Windows...

Just for info - the Windows and VST support for the DSM is now expected in May.

Sorry it's taken so long, there's only myself and one other (part time) engineer at the moment :-(

[kjg]

Originally Posted by Paul Frindle

Just for info - the Windows and VST support for the DSM is now expected in May.

Sorry it's taken so long, there's only myself and one other (part time) engineer at the moment :-(

Excellent news! Thank you for fulfilling the wish of many pc and cross platform users.

Will the license be for both pc and mac (e.g. allowing using it for mixing on a mac one day, and for mastering on a pc another day) or for either mac or pc?

regards,
Klaas-Jan

[Jerry Tubb]

Hello Peter

Sounds like we're on the same page here.

A little manual spot processing does the job most of the time without the global coloration of a plug-in or other real time device.

That said I've used the Ren DeEsser, Spitfish, and Sonnox with good results.

Cheers - JT

Originally Posted by finetuner

When it comes to de-essing, i think nothing comes close to spot processing manually ( just de-essing the 'sses' with software).<snip>

I wonder how many of you feel the same ?

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by finetuner

When it comes to de-essing, i think nothing comes close to spot processing manually ( just de-essing the 'sses' with software).

No matter how good your de-esser, it will affect cymbals, snare attacks and what not when used in real-time.

Yes it's laborious but how many offending esses will there be in a typical song?
10 to 15? With ProTools' audio suite it's not that hard and once you get the hang of recognizing esses visually, you'll fly through a song in no time.

I do a lot of 'manual' de-essing too. But two other ways.. Sometimes, the Audiosuite plugin I have up is an EQ, with 2 or 3 tight-Q bands that I notch on whistle-ish esses (the frequencies for which often change per "sSs", which is a pain in the ass) .. Sometimes this is the only way to handle those transparently, as a conventional de-esser becomes much more audible in any straight gain-reduction on this type of sSs.

The other way, somewhat similar to your Audiosuite spot-de-essing approach, and good when there's a lot of sSs-es, is to automate the threshold on a de-esser (ie: Waves' RenDeEsser) . Same effort to find them individually, but then you can just draw down the threshold level on the graph around that spot in the waveform. It's a pretty quick and simple way to work the task, too.

One thing that's nice about the Massey, and I believe, the DerrEsser (as 'level insensitive'), is a dynamic threshold, which helps to prevent false triggering, while still catching sibilance in quieter passages that might have fallen under threshold on a fixed-threshold processor.

While I otherwise do the bulk of my signal processing in the 'analog domain' and do still like the sound and performance of the LA-22 (and formerly some DBX 902s in my mix-rack), de-essing, to me, is a task that I've found better results for with plugins and "the box".

-dave

[finetuner]

Good points Dave.

Interesting approach on the automated threshold. I'll give it a ssshot next time. thumbsup

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by dave-G

de-essing, to me, is a task that I've found better results for with plugins and "the box".

Originally Posted by finetuner

When it comes to de-essing, i think nothing comes close to spot processing manually ( just de-essing the 'sses' with software).

I concur, If it's a vocal induced sibilance problem that happens periodically, with automation you can just fix those problem areas and not effect the rest of the track.

The only control that you would need to automate in most instances, is the threshold.

For whole tracks that suffers from unpleasant transients and sibilance through out, you wouldn't need to automate so much and most likely just strap a de-esser across the track.

I also think there's good and bad sounding sibilance. The kind that cuts your head off is bad. The kind that gives the vocal character without being invasive, I don't mind so much.

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by kjg

Excellent news! Thank you for fulfilling the wish of many pc and cross platform users.

Will the license be for both pc and mac (e.g. allowing using it for mixing on a mac one day, and for mastering on a pc another day) or for either mac or pc?

regards,
Klaas-Jan

Yes, the upgrade will be a free download for existing users and will run on both Mac and PC on a single iLok licence. Existing users should not need an additional licence - and you will be able to swap between Mac and PC at will :-)

[kjg]

Great. That is what I expected, but thank you for confirming, Paul.

I'm sure the investment in time and resources for developing the pc version will pay off eventually.

[Fat larry]

Originally Posted by finetuner

When it comes to de-essing, i think nothing comes close to spot processing manually ( just de-essing the 'sses' with software).

No matter how good your de-esser, it will affect cymbals, snare attacks and what not when used in real-time.

Yes it's laborious but how many offending esses will there be in a typical song?
10 to 15? With ProTools' audio suite it's not that hard and once you get the hang of recognizing esses visually, you'll fly through a song in no time.

Since you will only process fractions of seconds, you won't even need the quality required for real-time de-essing.
You can go as deep as needed for any 'S' and still be transparent to the rest.
So you only trade some extra time for a much better result and that's what counts most to me.

Please take into account the time it will cost to find an optimal setting for a real-time de-ess job.

I own a DS1mk3 and while it's de-esser function is one of the best, i still prefer manual spot processing with software.

I wonder how many of you feel the same ?

Same here

[SurveillanceP]

Not trying to complicate things at all (cough) but if you are de-essing vocals in mastering aren't you compensating for a mixing fail? Or is it just the low budget/badly made stuff where you have to do this?

Also, surely you find yourselves in situations where the vocal has already been de-essed it just hasn't been done right / comprehensively.

So then you're de-essing something which has already been a little mangled...

Sorry for the derail

To the OP- my bands first EP was by a dude who used the de-esser in logic, and the vocals sounded lispy and toothless. Maybe the native de-esser sucked, or maybe he sucked. Thats the only crumb of info I've got soz

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by SurveillanceP

Not trying to complicate things at all (cough) but if you are de-essing vocals in mastering aren't you compensating for a mixing fail?

Yes, you are. Obviously best thing is a remix in these situations - but more often than not the client just wants to move on and get their release out than go back to fix these types of more minor problems with a remix. So - the ME needs to have good tools to take care of these situations.

Or is it just the low budget/badly made stuff where you have to do this?

I've seen even experienced mixing engineers working in nice studios occasionally miss these problems in mix down as well, as their focus was getting the balance and overall vibe right and not on the minutia. And sometimes if you make a track brighter in mastering the sibilance only becomes noticeable then.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[macc]

Originally Posted by Paul Frindle

Just for info - the Windows and VST support for the DSM is now expected in May.

Sorry it's taken so long, there's only myself and one other (part time) engineer at the moment :-(

I think I speak for Windows users everywhere when I say 'wooohooo!'

Certainly no need to apologise Mr. Frindle - I read that other thread and appreciate the circumstances you're working under.

All of which means I will be doubly glad to give you my cash in May :D

[bonne]

Originally Posted by macc

I think I speak for Windows users everywhere when I say 'wooohooo!'

Certainly no need to apologise Mr. Frindle - I read that other thread and appreciate the circumstances you're working under.

All of which means I will be doubly glad to give you my cash in May :D

Hope a lot of people will do the same and make May a great month for Paul and his partner.

People have been looking forward to the extended platform support in the new version of Paul's multi-talented DSM plug. Let them credit cards sing, Slutz!!

JB

[hsten]

I did work with the DSM for the three week trial period and I like it very much. I will definitely purchase it. However I did not find it as useful as expected for de-essing. Even with very careful tweaking I did feel that the overall sound on vocals became less transparent than I needed. This is a general observation as I surely was able do use it as a de-esser from time to time. In a fine-tuned mastering chain I still feel that the DS1mk3 is the best option. I do wish I had an additional de-esser since I very often use the DS1 for other tasks.