Waves NS1

[Henchman]

And as an aside.
Being a prominent mixer, doesn't necessarily make you a great or even a good mixer.

[MixMasterM]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I agree. In spite of prominent mixers disagreeing.
WNS still has too much artifacting when using it in pretty extreme cases, whereas CEDAR doesn't.

I'm sure we can all agree in "extreme cases", Cedar is the best of the bunch, and most mixers, if given the option, a Cedar would be the first tool used for NR. But ..... in many cases, WNS can yield good results when used properly on mild to medium noise. And for the price, it is a great alternate option for mixers on a budget who have to equip themselves. Using a cheaper product doesn't make someone a bad mixer... there's a lot of mixers that use top gear that aren't great. Good mixing shouldn't be about the tools used but how they are used to the best of their capabilities.
The Beatles made some pretty damn good records on a 4track....better sounding that most tracks mixed in million dollar SSL rooms.

[brandoncross]

Here is another view. MOST mixers don't even use a DNS correctly!!!!!!! I've worked in lot's of high end studios where I've just looked at the way a mixer used a cedar and gasped. Totally WRONG!!!! It's not just a box with faders. Moving faders around until it's less offensive doesn't work with a DNS system. I'd bet the mixers that can't tell the difference or like the WNS better than a cedar don't know how to use it. I also would bet the mixers that like the WNS better than a cedar like the suggest button for speed.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by brandoncross

Here is another view. MOST mixers don't even use a DNS correctly!!!!!!! I've worked in lot's of high end studios where I've just looked at the way a mixer used a cedar and gasped. Totally WRONG!!!! It's not just a box with faders. Moving faders around until it's less offensive doesn't work with a DNS system. I'd bet the mixers that can't tell the difference or like the WNS better than a cedar don't know how to use it. I also would bet the mixers that like the WNS better than a cedar like the suggest button for speed.

Yep.
I've seen the same thing as well.

[pethenis]

Brandon, that's how I use my WNS: Find the right balance between noise reduction and signal degradation by moving faders up and down untill I'm happy with trade off...

Now I know WNS isn't a DNS, have demoed DNS One and agree it's much better, but they are similar enough to ask you how do YOU operate the Cedar?

[Henchman]

Pethenis, I have seen mixers using it to try and get of rid of a buzz or hum, then literally throw their hands up, and bypass it. Then turn to the client and say, "well that's all we can do about that buzz", and move on.

[pethenis]

Hmmm any job openings for me over there? Notch notch, wink wink

[MixMasterM]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I have seen mixers using it to try and get of rid of a buzz or hum, then literally throw their hands up, and bypass it. Then turn to the client and say, "well that's all we can do about that buzz", and move on.

Well, it woudn't much matter what gear they had then, if their only go-to option to remove buzz was the cedar.

[pethenis]

Originally Posted by MixMasterM

Well, it woudn't much matter what gear they had then, if their only go-to option to remove buzz was the cedar.

So they did have a Cedar, but couldn't afford a decent notching EQ

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by pethenis

So they did have a Cedar, but couldn't afford a decent notching EQ

Again, I'm not talking new, know nothing mixers on some, low rent stage either.

So, that's why I don't put much stock in what some "prominent" mixers think.
I do take stock from those mixers whoms work I've heard and respect.
Some of them frequent this board.

[BIGBANGBUZZ]

A combo of izotope rx2 I. Audio Suite, then real time wns and w43 has saved some pretty ordinary dia for me.

I love w43, really fixes the hissy high freq stuff

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk

[brandoncross]

Originally Posted by pethenis

Brandon, that's how I use my WNS: Find the right balance between noise reduction and signal degradation by moving faders up and down untill I'm happy with trade off...

Now I know WNS isn't a DNS, have demoed DNS One and agree it's much better, but they are similar enough to ask you how do YOU operate the Cedar?

Hi Pethenis,
I don't know you so please don't take this the wrong way but that's not how it's done. Sorry. Totally incorrect usage. The Cedar DNS (WNS) consists of 2 main controls. The threshold and the reduction (three if you are counting freq but for this short explanation lets just assume you know what the freq the noise is and have set the plug in to the correct freq). You first find the threshold of the noise Number one thing you need to do. Then you work the fader until the noise is suppressed. Most mixers just leave the threshold fader at 0 and pull down some faders. Might as well be using an EQ. When used correctly, it's immediately apparent that the cedar and the WSN aren't even in the same class of plug in., WNS=compander, Cedar=magic

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by brandoncross

Hi Pethenis,
I don't know you so please don't take this the wrong way but that's not how it's done. Sorry. Totally incorrect usage. The Cedar DNS (WNS) consists of 2 main controls. The threshold and the reduction (three if you are counting freq but for this short explanation lets just assume you know what the freq the noise is and have set the plug in to the correct freq). You first find the threshold of the noise Number one thing you need to do. Then you work the fader until the noise is suppressed. Most mixers just leave the threshold fader at 0 and pull down some faders. Might as well be using an EQ. When used correctly, it's immediately apparent that the cedar and the WSN aren't even in the same class of plug in., WNS=compander, Cedar=magic

One other advantage of CEDAR over WNS is the range selector meaning you can hone in on the offending frequencies with much more precision.

[Branko]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

One other advantage of CEDAR over WNS is the range selector meaning you can hone in on the offending frequencies with much more precision.

Can you explain that? How's that different from WNS? WNS has also a freq selector, only it's continuous.

[Branko]

Or, let me ask you a question, tom_lowe: Have you ever seen a Waves WNS?

[Branko]

Originally Posted by brandoncross

WNS=compander, Cedar=magic

If your DUC user name is BrandonX, funny you couldn't tell the difference in a test I posted on DUC 2 yrs ago.

[Branko]

And let me make myself clear:

I am not defending Waves or Cedar or whatever - I'm only trying to defend a principle of talking only about things one knows. Which isn't always the case on GS. This post production forum was kinda exception, but ut is definitely getting worse.

Rant over.

[Henchman]

I have used both the WNS and DNS, and I wouldn't waste a nickel on WNS personally.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by Branko

Or, let me ask you a question, tom_lowe: Have you ever seen a Waves WNS?

You seem to be very agitated.

Also, you accuse people of not knowing the facts before making such statements. If you bothered to check your facts, you would see that earlier in this thread I wrote that I have used WNS. Yes, I know you can change frequencies on WNS, but find the CEDAR way more intuitive as you don't have to know the precise frequencies.

[brandoncross]

Originally Posted by Branko

If your DUC user name is BrandonX, funny you couldn't tell the difference in a test I posted on DUC 2 yrs ago.

Not sure if that's the same person or not. My handle on the duc is brandonx1. My actual name is brandon howlett. I own both and have extensive experience with both. I don't remember your test and I might have failed it but I definitely know the difference between the 2 plug ins. I wouldn't have spent 5000 dollars on the cedar and cart it around with me to every gig if it was even 1/2 the plug in. Trust me, I really wish I liked wns as all the studios I freelance at have it. It's just not the sound I'm after. If wns works for you, that's great. More power to you.

[pethenis]

Originally Posted by brandoncross

Hi Pethenis,
I don't know you so please don't take this the wrong way but that's not how it's done. Sorry. Totally incorrect usage. The Cedar DNS (WNS) consists of 2 main controls. The threshold and the reduction (three if you are counting freq but for this short explanation lets just assume you know what the freq the noise is and have set the plug in to the correct freq). You first find the threshold of the noise Number one thing you need to do. Then you work the fader until the noise is suppressed. Most mixers just leave the threshold fader at 0 and pull down some faders. Might as well be using an EQ. When used correctly, it's immediately apparent that the cedar and the WSN aren't even in the same class of plug in., WNS=compander, Cedar=magic

Don't know if that's really so different from what I do. The noise I'm trying to suppress is broadband and the WNS IS an EQ, a dynamic one. So by raising and lowering the faders I experiment to find the most suitable setting for the noise, much like sweeping with a narrow Q boost to find offenders. Then I choose a setting for the threshold, but most of the times I ride it around the dialogue to get the most out of it (should really be "leave the most in it"). If I can't get it with Izotope RX, W43 and WNS I'm done.

But then I'm not much of a manual reader

[Branko]

Originally Posted by brandoncross

Not sure if that's the same person or not. My handle on the duc is brandonx1. My actual name is brandon howlett. I own both and have extensive experience with both. I don't remember your test and I might have failed it but I definitely know the difference between the 2 plug ins. I wouldn't have spent 5000 dollars on the cedar and cart it around with me to every gig if it was even 1/2 the plug in. Trust me, I really wish I liked wns as all the studios I freelance at have it. It's just not the sound I'm after. If wns works for you, that's great. More power to you.

Here's what Brandonx1 said in May 2010:

So in exampe 2 B is the DNS one. In example 1 A is the DNS. Is that correct?

and the link to the page is THIS

Now, if the difference is soooo dramatic, radical, obvious, you name it, how in the world you couldn't notice that difference?
I'm looking for that answer, not because I have something against you or anyone else, but to understand what is the difference I'm not hearing.

[brandoncross]

Originally Posted by Branko

Here's what Brandonx1 said in May 2010:

and the link to the page is THIS

Now, if the difference is soooo dramatic, radical, obvious, you name it, how in the world you couldn't notice that difference?
I'm looking for that answer, not because I have something against you or anyone else, but to understand what is the difference I'm not hearing.

To be truthly honest, I'd say it is operator error, or not the correct content or I just wasn't really on my game that day. Not sure.

[Henchman]

Interesting that Youbare trying to convince everyone that WNS is as good as DNS.
Waves knows it isn't, which is why they dumped teh price not long after releasing it.
Pretty much every broadband noise reduction tool, except teh DNs, has serious artifacting once you start pushing it in situations where you REALLY need it. Which for me is a couple of times on every mix I do. You get that digital, weird aliasing, so you have to back off.
With the DNS, this doesn't happen. And I have found that with some additional eq and commanding I can get rid of any noticeable pumping. Creating a nice clean, smooth, artifact free dialog track. Where all others fail.

[Alexey Lukin]

Branko, I'd like to hear your comparison results, but the links at DUC have expired...

I agree that both DNS and WNS have similar principles, meaning that they are both dynamic EQs that essentially perform multiband gating. However I thought that DNS is better designed/tuned.

[Branko]

Alexey, I'll try to dig them out somewhere, or produce a similar set of files, as soon as I have some time.
I also think DNS is better designed, but I don't think WNS is really that bad as people are saying here. With a little bit of effort (and experience), they can sound amazingly similar.

[Alexey Lukin]

Thanks. You can see how they worked on my sample too: spectrum.htm. It has both broadband noise and hum.

[Branko]

Oh, I remember those files! I also remember trying to denoise them with WaveArts denoiser and Equium notches, and then discovering during the process that it was not that easy, as it seemed at the first glance!

Both WNS and DNS are insufficient if there is any steady pitched, voiced noise, and they will pump the bg every time NR opens.

[minister]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

One other advantage of CEDAR over WNS is the range selector meaning you can hone in on the offending frequencies with much more precision.

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

I know you can change frequencies on WNS, but find the CEDAR way more intuitive as you don't have to know the precise frequencies.

You can hone in on the offending frequencies with much more precision but you don't have to know the precise frequencies. Got it.

[FullFrequency]

Wow this NS1 plug thread has caused quite a bit of calling each other out. Did everyone get out the wrong side of bed when replying or something!? Play nice people