Cedar Audio DNS... how does it work, and any alternitives?

[postprosound]

There is a recent thread started as a survey to see what is used for dialog noise reduction. As one would expect, Cedar DNS is mentioned several times. I have to admit, the results from this unit are quite impressive. One question though, how does it work? I mean is it a broadband nose reducer ala z-noise, x-noise, or the sort, or is it a multi band compressor like C4 or mulitdynamics? I am sure it's a closely guarded secret, but, in general, what is it's MOA? (and what can we learn from it?)

Second, as to alternatives: in a somewhat recent thread, someone (i believe it was minister, but i could be wrong) mentioned that in the Wavearts multidynamics plugin, there was a 'noise reduction' preset that he likened to the cedar unit. I know that a simple preset is not going to cure the noise blues, especially compared to the cedar, but it made me think about how one could emulate it. (what's that said about being the best form of flattery?) what kind of alternatives are there out there?

[Frank S.]

iZotope, Inc - Audio Signal Processing Hardware, Software, Plug-ins, Technology Licensing

[soundslikejoe]

Originally Posted by postprosound

mentioned that in the Wavearts multidynamics plugin, there was a 'noise reduction' preset that he likened to the cedar unit.

That's a slight misunderstanding..... I was making a comparison between WaveArts Native NR processors to Cedar products used on a SADI system. These are not the same as units like the DNS. Just the same company....

Also I wouldn't characterize the usage as a preset. I simply stated that the end results of the processor were excellent.

There aren't many effective presets in the world of noise reduction.....

[postprosound]

Thanks so far!
frank, i have the izotope RX, and really like it. the declick, and the spectral repair are excelent, and the denoise isn't that bad either. i can't wait until they get the plugin portion done!
As to the cedar/wavearts comparison, point taken... although, did you like the WA as far as noise reduction? I have noticed a pretty bipolar response to it; you either love it or hate it. I think that it my be a good addition to my arsenal against the jackal that is noise.

Any comments on how the Cedar units work?

[minister]

Originally Posted by postprosound

Second, as to alternatives: in a somewhat recent thread, someone (i believe it was minister, but i could be wrong) mentioned that in the Wavearts multidynamics plugin, there was a 'noise reduction' preset that he likened to the cedar unit.

it WAS me, and I said like a Dolby CAT .43 unit, not a Cedar. There is a preset in the Wavearts that gets you started.

The Cedar is basically a multi-band compander, but what is remarkable about it is the design of the algorithm. There are 2 (basic) ways to divide up sound. One is by frequency, the other is by time. The Cedar divides it by time, and in a way that is completely reversable. This among other things, accounts for it low latency and clear, lack of artifact results. No other NR does this. the Sonic No Noise, by contrast, does it by frequency, and is not reversible. No Noise is very good, I use it all the time.

Cedar, as great as it is, is not the magic bullet for everything. One thing that it is not very good at is when you have a high level of noise to voice. Like a voice recorded in a crowded restaurant or noisy kitchen, there are better ways to mitigate the background noise than the Cedar. But what it does do, it does very well.

you need as many tools as possible.

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by postprosound

One question though, how does it work? I mean is it a broadband nose reducer ala z-noise, x-noise, or the sort, or is it a multi band compressor like C4 or mulitdynamics?

It seems that Cedar DNS systems are closer to multiband gates with a number of bands around 20-40. They have very low latency, but the frequency resolution is moderate.

[postprosound]

thanks everyone! great wisdom! and sorry for misquoting you, minister.

this is starting to make sense... we need lots of tools in our shed!

the idea of a compander does kind of confuse me, though... could a person over-generalize then, and say that any multi-dynamic (C4, wavearts, Sonalksis CQ1) is a compander?

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by minister

The Cedar divides it by time, and in a way that is completely reversable. This among other things, accounts for it low latency and clear, lack of artifact results. No other NR does this. the Sonic No Noise, by contrast, does it by frequency, and is not reversible.

Actually frequency decompositions found in most noise reduction products are also reversible. You are probably referring to crossovers (as "time decomposition") vs. FFT ("frequency decomposition"). Both of them are reversible, but FFT typically has much better frequency resolution and much lower time resolution, which introduces certain characteristic artifacts in noise reduction, like musical noise and pre-echoes.

[minister]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

Actually frequency decompositions found in most noise reduction products are also reversible. You are probably referring to crossovers (as "time decomposition") vs. FFT ("frequency decomposition"). Both of them are reversible, but FFT typically has much better frequency resolution and much lower time resolution, which introduces certain characteristic artifacts in noise reduction, like musical noise and pre-echoes.

yes.

however, the one in the Sonic No-Noise is not reversible.

[Pedro_vde]

we use the Cedar DNS 1000 in conjunction with the Waves noise reduction plug-ins and for 85% of the time we achieve the result we intended on dialog cleanup.

There is a difference in the way both systems do their thing and although I can't exactly say how there are cases where the CEDAR lays the basic reduction and the Waves ads the final touch.

It's really worth the trial.

Kind regards from Belgium

Pedro

[georgia]

I like my DNS2000 but I still use my System 6000 backdrop and Waves restoration. Diffrent tools for different problems.

cheers
geo

[mgoorevich]

My 2 cents...
I like as WaveArts working with dialog broadband noise. I didn't success to push it hard enough on really noisy material without getting artifacts. However it delivers nice results on moderate background broadband and some white noise (mic hiss). You can manually adjust frequencies, threshold and attenuation you want to apply on.
I like to use Sonic NoNoise on a "bad" stuff. But there is always a tendancy to thin the sound very easily.
I had some interesting results with McDSP MC2000 as well. This is a little bit cleaner than Waves C4 to my taste.

[Jay M]

If your software will support Sony (formerly Sonic Foundry) Noise Reduction 2.0, I think that is one of the best noise reduction tools for spoken word.

It is Direct X only, and doesn't work in the older DX capible Nuendo. It works great in Wavelab, and the Sony products.

I get the best results with a combination of Waves x-noise & Noise REduction 2.0. I used to use Sonic No Noise, but I get MUCH better resuts out of the dirt cheap Sonic Foundry Noise Reduction 2.0.

I have tried the Wavearts demo, and it has a lot of great things about it. I found that while it was able to make un usable audio usable, it didn't remove noise as effectively as the Sonic Foundry/Sony product.

When I was at CES I made it a point to tell the kind folks at Sony how great their little plugin is in hopes that they will make it VST and market it.

~Jay