The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
RX 6 Available 4/20/17 Noise Reduction & Restoration Plugins
Old 6th April 2017
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

RX 6 Available 4/20/17

For me, it's hard to imagine working without RX these days. Yes, in a perfect world the mixes we receive to master would not need any cleanup work but the reality is that I rarely master a project that isn't touched by RX in some way, be it extremely minor or some serious work.

For some issues, I ask the client or their enginner to address the issue. In some cases it's not logistically possible or just much easier/faster to fix on my end with RX.

https://youtu.be/IAepITrndjE
Old 7th April 2017
  #2
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Its maybe one out of twenty masters where I feel the need to "clean things up", mostly a very single click or something. Those cleanups are easily overdone in my experience and very often do not go with the music.
I regularly use RX too, but only for SRC and Dithering mostly (but Im quite twisted as you can easily make the SRC sounding quite bad too and it takes some time to find usable settings) . And Im still at V3 as I see their upgrade politics a big effrontery. No, Izotope lost all my respect and I often have the feeling they mostly use our hard earned money for just put out the next advertising clip on youtube nobody wants beside some kids maybe...
Old 7th April 2017
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 

I on the other thing think their pricing policy is much better than from many of their competition. They don't force you to upgrade and provide equal prices whether you were few versions behind or having the latest version. They provide you a choice to upgrade, not an urge to to upgrade not be left behind (despite the fact that you don't see using any of the new features). I for example skipped V5 and will upgrade now my V4 directly to V6.
Old 8th April 2017
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Hermetech Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Looking forward to this, have upgraded each time since 3, also from standard to Advanced when I went from 3 to 4. Use it every day, couldn't do without it now!

And out on 4/20? Better roll a phat one...
Old 8th April 2017
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Giuseppe Zaccaria's Avatar
 

I also use it a lot to clean up clicks and digital noise, even some tricks like phase and others, Im on 5 now but I will wait to upgrade coz I really don't need other features at the moment, I do NOT like the SRC I believe it smear program material, not as good as they say. For that task when needed Saracon is the most accurate.
Old 8th April 2017
  #6
Gear Head
 

Verified Member
I bought the entry level RX plugin pack V5 in the recent sale for less than $50. It's the best of that sort of thing I've used, saved me tons of time. An absolute bargain at that price.

Jennifer
Old 8th April 2017
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Zaccaria View Post
I do NOT like the SRC I believe it smear program material, not as good as they say. For that task when needed Saracon is the most accurate.
I have also recently decided I don't care for the SRC all that much. Part of this is on me but I think there are almost too many options and room for things to go wrong. I haven't had time to really play with them all and A/B but even some of the more default option are still not amazing to my ear.

I much prefer Saracon which is more basic with options and just sounds amazing every time.

What I do like about the SRC is the "Post-Limiter" feature and the ability to retain non-audio data but I have sent a few feature requests like this to Weiss so hopefully we see a Saracon update someday that adds these things.
Old 8th April 2017
  #8
Gear Addict
 

I can't tell the difference in blind test.
Old 9th April 2017
  #9
Lives for gear
 

I love using RX standalone as an environment for the final frequency/loudness analysis, trims, fades (log/cosine!), SRC, dither and exporting - rarely "restoration" here. So the new restoration/post-production features don't interest me.

I wonder what else is new?
Old 9th April 2017
  #10
Deleted User
Guest
The new features appear to be very Post dialogue focused:
- De-rustle
- Remove wind noise from dialogue
- Dialogue isolation ("move dialogue to the front of the mix")

Although these features may be equally useful for music:
- Remove mic and headphone bleed
- One click remove mouth clicks and breaths
- de-esser

It remains to be seen how many of the "over 15 new features" are truly useful over the long term (many of the new modules in v4 haven't actually stood the test of time, many colleagues feel the same about the new modules in v5).

Definitely won't upgrade from v4 Advanced if RX6 remains stereo-only and Spectral Repair isn't further developed from v4, nor many of the older newer modules. The other restoration tool options available to me will remain much more flexible, as I use continue to barely use RX v4.
Old 10th April 2017
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Hermetech Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Any idea of upgrade price from RX5 Advanced to RX6 Advanced?
Old 10th April 2017
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Poinzy's Avatar
 

I'm still using Izotope RX4. I realized that the "upgrades" I wanted in RX4 were in Izotope Ozone 7, so I just got that instead of RX5. I'll see what the RX6 demo is like.
Old 10th April 2017
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
The other restoration tool options available to me will remain much more flexible, as I use continue to barely use RX v4.
I'm curious, what other tools are you using? Personally I've found RX to be superior to almost everything else in terms of restoration and fixing clicks/gaps/any weird sonic anomaly.

I hope they further develop this area as well but I'm still very content with RX (I'm still on v3 advanced and see no real need to upgrade).
Old 10th April 2017
  #14
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
I'm curious, what other tools are you using?
Cedar Studio 7

Sonic Studio NoNoise Complete (modules within soundBlade)

Sonic Studio NoNoise 3 Plugin (equivalent to the sB BBDN module)

Sonic Studio Process (NoNoise batch tool, SRC up to 384k)

Sonic Studio Repair Tool (reNOVAtor)

Absentia DX (batch dehum tool is very good)

Sonic Studio Mastering EQ

WholeGrain Digital DynPEQ


Quote:
Personally I've found RX to be superior to almost everything else in terms of restoration and fixing clicks/gaps/any weird sonic anomaly.
I have found RX isn't as refined as the above options, and consistently I am able to achieve more transparent processing with the above tools. NoNoise integration within sB is much faster than RX in terms of speed and workflow, processes 8 channels, ...

I can hear the results of RX processing, often quite clearly on film and television shows, it has a definite signature. Colleagues mention having the same experience (many of whom have upgraded to Cedar Studio).

Last edited by reynaud; 10th April 2017 at 09:26 PM..
Old 10th April 2017
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Very interesting. I guess I need to check out Cedar. I mean, they are legendary.. that's for sure.

Thanks for the list!

EDIT: Ouch. Forgot how expensive Cedar is. For the things I use RX I can't justify the cost of Cedar. But if I was doing post for movies/dialogue or forensics for a living, then I would definitely demo it.
Old 12th April 2017
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Zaccaria View Post
I do NOT like the SRC I believe it smear program material, not as good as they say. For that task when needed Saracon is the most accurate.
Could it be that you set the filter steepness too steep in RX? I've noticed Saracon uses a gentler filter slope at the expense of strong aliasing above 20Khz to reduce the impulse ringing and have extremely low noise floor.

That's the one thing I really love about RX resampler, that you can adjust the cutoff point steepness and phase to exactly where you want it.
Old 12th April 2017
  #17
I compared the SRCs of saracon and RX with an binaural project - RX did not alter the positions of the instruments but Saracon messed up all the spatialness...
Also with normal signals i prefer a (well adjusted) rx src to saracon !
Old 13th April 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 

As already mentioned, It's not really possible to say RX (or generally iZotope SRC) do something better/worse, unless you also note its filter settings, which can significantly change its sound in the context of particular material.
IMO all current good algorithms (say iZotope, Saracon, SoX, Merging, Apple MFIT.. and quite a few of others) performs very well with regards to precision, passband artifacts and ripple.. so what is perceived as "sonic signature" is affected mainly by how its filter "balances" inevitable tradeoffs - (pre)ringing amount, aliasing, HF attenuation or phase shift.. The effect of messing with all those attributes is of course also material dependent.
Most of SRC algorithms defaults to linear-phase filter with symmetric impulse response and LPF starting around 20-21k (speaking about 44.1k target rate), which tends to be good overall setting..
SoX defaults (vhq) to narrower transition band, but higher alias rejection (> 90dB at fs/2), unless you allow aliasing via option.. this will conversely relax the slope and reduce ringing at expense of slight aliasing (cca from 20k upwards).
Saracon, Pyramix Apodizing and Izotope SRC called from RX (all sliders at default value at UI) has all very similar filter response with allowed aliasing (attenuation is about 6dB at fs/2 and reaches 90dB atten. somewhere between 23 and 24k..). The point of allowed aliasing is, typical program material has rather falling pink noise frequency distribution and modulation around 20k is pretty low (say -70 -80dB).. so also aliased signal, which reflects back to the passband will have very low energy and will be rather above upper frequency limit of our auditory system.
So personally I don't really think, it will be some significant difference or clear preference among those three algos in some comparisons with mentioned def. settings.. Of course this can be very subjective, but I'd say in most cases one shouldn't be able to pick it in proper ABX.. nor it would have a potential to break the record..
For sure, when someone starts to "tweak" filter parameters to particular material.. or select different algo flavors (minimum or intermediate phase variants of some SRCs), this can make a difference. Similarly one can find beneficial to tweak the defaults for different tasks (eg. CD rate, DVD rate, up-sampling etc.), because in some cases it's possible to "relax" filter settings thanks to wider frequency margin above 20k. Some SRCs without user tweakable settings can also use that and automatically adapt internal filters attributes according to source and target rate.

Zino also mentioned spatial image and instrument positions.. well all of those fiters processes every input channel the same way, there's no dynamic component (at least, I've never heard of any similar signal adapting filter for general purpose SRC). So even with minimum phase filters, stereo information or generally inter-channel relationship has to stay intact (eg. all channels passes the same LTI system - filter.. in case of minimum phase filter, basically it will change timing relation of highs and lows, but not timing between stereo pair channels for example).
So my best guess is, mentioned changed image perception is rather related to different pre/post ringing amount and psychoacoustics.. Initial attack/transient phase of sound events is important for its localization in space and for example steeper filter with more pre-ringing energy can generally smooth those transients and under some circumstances, it can make more difficult for our brain to localize the event.

Michal

Last edited by msmucr; 13th April 2017 at 12:25 PM..
Old 13th April 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
For me the special quality of the RXs SRC mainly comes with the additional use of their dithering.

msmucr, when comparing filters (not only SRC) I often have made the experience that certain ones change the perception of width. Some just sound more narrow than nothers in a quite strange way. Personally I find it quitehardto find a rather clean sounding digital filter, still a lot of bad designs out there....
You mentioned aliasing, ripple, ringing, but what about rounding erors or other artefacts? RX is indeed great to geta feel for the influences of those three main artefacts.
But I still have a hard time to believe that a modern filter design is just about these three basic artefact within you only have to find a personal sweetspot. I experienced too many strange, unpleasant behaviours with so many digital filter designs...

Last edited by JP__; 13th April 2017 at 01:01 PM..
Old 13th April 2017
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
For me the special quality of the RXs SRC mainly comes with the additional use of their dithering.
That makes a sense, if you find it beneficial for your workflow.. I'm not really big believer of different dither algos impact, besides basic categories (flat, psychoac. shaped one). Mostly using TPDF or lightly shaped variants (say from Sonnox) in cases of 16bit output.
But I can see advantages of having everything at one software, incl. limiter for possible increased peaks during conversion.

Quote:
msmucr, when comparing filters (not only SRC) I often have made the experience that certain ones change the perception of width. Some just sound more narrow than nothers in a quite strange way. Personally I find it quitehardto find a rather clean sounding digital filter, still a lot of bad designs out there....
You mentioned aliasing, ripple, ringing, but what about rounding erors or other artefacts?
With regards to filter differences and relation to its properties, it's very interesting subject.. I'll return to that later in another post, but first try to answer your question about artifacts.
I've also touched it before, but generally if some algorithm hits the limit of used numeric representation.. like overflows, or quantization errors with coefficients calculations.. or similar issues. It always shows at THD+N plot as an additional frequency product (artifacts), which is correlated to input signal or increased noise.
So amount of those errors is clearly measurable. If you check (or measure) plots of mentioned algorithms, you'll find level of its artifacts is typically way bellow noise floor of any analog device (and often also bellow range of 24bit measurement software). If there will be any mentioned problem, you'd also see it.
I'd attribute that to general advancements in computing power, because designers can choose to work all the way in double precision (64 or 80bit) and implement longer filters without great impact to usability of those SRCs or effects in general. Of course, it's not always matter of brute force, but also careful analysis of the algorithm, for example designers, who previously had to work under technology constraints, came with great ideas how to further improve performance of their algorithms using clever implementation "tricks" and optimization.
Some SRCs has quality settings.. so for example SoX resampler can be gradually adjusted to run very well almost everywhere.. from low power platforms in real time (say phone with ARM chip, where you can tolerate higher amount of artifacts) to most demanding offline processing applications with full 24bit output.

Michal

Last edited by msmucr; 15th April 2017 at 12:39 AM.. Reason: correction+noise
Old 13th April 2017
  #21
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
That makes a sense, if you find it beneficial for your workflow.. I'm not really big believer of different dither algos impact, besides basic categories (flat, psychoac. shaped one). Mostly using TPDF or lightly shaped variants (say from Sonnox) in cases of 16bit output.
its indeed all about believes in audio, whats "small" to one is "big" to another...
Old 13th April 2017
  #22
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
So personally I don't really think, it will be some significant difference or clear preference among those three algos in some comparisons with mentioned def. settings.. Of course this can be very subjective, but I'd say in most cases one shouldn't be able to pick it in proper ABX.. nor it would have a potential to break the record..
Can anyone tell them apart in ABX test? (comparing, say, the 44.1khz 24 or 32 bit downsamples from 96KHz made in the different programs). I can't, but maybe it's just me, and a few thousand other people.

They all "null" to extremely low levels (with difference mostly above 21KHz). A few require microsecond time alignment in diffmaker to "null" (Saracon, Wavelab 6,7,8 Crystal Resampler, maybe others), but after that they "null" as well as any of the others. For phase I've only tried linear phase in Izotope and SoX. I guess it would be more fair to approximate filter settings if there are controls, like in Izotope and SoX. Seems similar settings could be approximated from the Infinitewave charts.

I've nulled and cranked monitors up to what would be painful listening levels and I hear - Nothing.

I'd really like to know if anyone can tell the difference in ABX test (Izotope, Apple, Saracon, Final CD, Merging, SoX, ProTools, or any others that look good in the specs). I'm pretty sure many others have better hearing than I do.

Last edited by walter88; 27th May 2017 at 08:18 PM.. Reason: added cranked monitors
Old 20th April 2017
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by walter88 View Post
Can anyone tell them apart in ABX test? (comparing, say, the 44.1khz 24 or 32 bit downsamples from 96KHz made in the different programs). I can't, but maybe it's just me and a few thousand other people.

They all "null" to extremely low levels (with difference mostly above 21KHz). A few require microsecond time alignment in diffmaker to "null" (Saracon, Wavelab 6,7,8 Crystal Resampler, maybe others), but after that they "null" as well as any of the others. For phase I've only tried linear phase in Izotope and SoX.

I'd really like to know if anyone can tell the difference in ABX test (Izotope, Apple, Saracon, Final CD, Merging, SoX, ProTools, or any others that look good in the specs). I'm pretty sure many others have better hearing than I do.
I definitely haven't tested everything and I usually also employ some measurement or existing plots, when doing so to match mentioned few parameters as close as possible, if it's possible to adjust.. But as you've said, in most cases with high quality re-sampling algorithms, I can't really positively pick it in ABX.. (I generally always try to underline also proper procedure of that, because otherwise such evaluation has only much lower anecdotal value to me).
Of course, it can be subjective or some difference might be provoked by some very specific material (for example I'm pretty curious about binaural recording, which Zino mentioned).

Michal
Old 20th April 2017
  #24
Lives for gear
 

New quick RX6 review by PT Expert..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EZ4KCMBi1Y
While it's not necessarily directly applicable to mastering (it's pity, he doesn't mentioned spectral de-esser for example), outcome from some other new modules looks just stunning. I'm not really aware of anything, which can do dialog isolation, de-rustle and de-bleed with such ease and output.

Michal
Old 20th April 2017
  #25
Deleted User
Guest
I find the ProTools Expert reviews are not a good illustration of the capabilities of a product. In each of the processed examples, I found the dialogue change not to be acceptable. The RX stamp is all over these examples.

But, Mike Thornton is correct that the omission of multichannel support is a big oversight (and I'm pleased he actually mentioned it, seeing as his opinions seemingly carry some weight in the minds of the iZotope decision makers). I've been asking for this since RX3 was released. Suspect, though, we'll have to wait for the release of RX7.
Old 20th April 2017
  #26
Lives for gear
 
lowland's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
Very interesting. I guess I need to check out Cedar. I mean, they are legendary.. that's for sure.

Thanks for the list!

EDIT: Ouch. Forgot how expensive Cedar is. For the things I use RX I can't justify the cost of Cedar. But if I was doing post for movies/dialogue or forensics for a living, then I would definitely demo it.
I have RX5 Advanced, but IMO for one-shot denoising Cedar Retouch wins every time. As you say though, expensive: the SADiE version I have (seamlessly pastes treated audio back into the playlist) was £2k some years ago, although paid for itself in short order.

However, RX is no slouch in other areas: I'm in the early stages of a multi-thousand track cleanup of archive material recorded from the 40s to the 60s, and results from the de-hum and de-click modules in particular have sometimes verged on magical - let's face it, any tool that makes me look good is going to get my vote!

EDIT: And while I think of it, using RX to adjust the azimuth on old stereo classical recordings has been a winner too.
Old 20th April 2017
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
I find the ProTools Expert reviews are not a good illustration of the capabilities of a product. In each of the processed examples, I found the dialogue change not to be acceptable. The RX stamp is all over these examples.

But, Mike Thornton is correct that the omission of multichannel support is a big oversight (and I'm pleased he actually mentioned it, seeing as his opinions seemingly carry some weight in the minds of the iZotope decision makers). I've been asking for this since RX3 was released. Suspect, though, we'll have to wait for the release of RX7.
Hmm.. Personally I don't see showed processing results as unacceptable.. given to what was the input (for instance dialog ineligibility enhancement was quite miraculous to me ), maybe it's bit heavy handed in the presentation.. but of course I'm looking forward to try it out.

I see your multichannel concerns, but frankly maybe they don't see it as critical feature.. for instance how many contact dialogues are being captured with more channels stereo.. Well sometimes I needed to do to spectral cleanup of some atmoshpere or like to do denoise pass, but it was rather rare, and wasn't as problematic to open three stereo files in tabs and simply repeat those tasks.

Maybe one day they will really add also those native multichannel capabilities.
I'd personally vote for more flexible processing chains (last version, which I've tried doesn't support preview and it's not really easy to preview multiple effects at once) and sometimes it would be better to process audio in M/S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowland View Post
I have RX5 Advanced, but IMO for one-shot denoising Cedar Retouch wins every time. As you say though, expensive: the SADiE version I have (seamlessly pastes treated audio back into the playlist) was £2k some years ago, although paid for itself in short order.

However, RX is no slouch in other areas: I'm in the early stages of a multi-thousand track cleanup of archive material recorded from the 40s to the 60s, and results from the de-hum and de-click modules in particular have sometimes verged on magical - let's face it, any tool that makes me look good is going to get my vote!

EDIT: And while I think of it, using RX to adjust the azimuth on old stereo classical recordings has been a winner too.
Well Cedar tools might be also interesting option to test.. I had some brief experience long time ago. Honestly Cedar plugin suite (not just their de-noiser) or hardware never really fit into any budget , although I was always really curious about it and heard very positive references.
Maybe they are golden, but maybe if they somewhat reflected current competitive software market (for instance, no way I'd go to purchase any plugins for 9000EUR.. just never, when the cheapest similarly aimed suite from Acon is 99EUR.. I perceive such price ratio close to the one for audiophile power cords), maybe it could be again perceived as real alternative for me.

As you're speaking about Izotope de-hum, while it's working pretty well, it's one thing, which I like to do process with Sonnox DeBuzzer (I call it as a plugin from RX interface), when there is some more complicated piece, because it has IME better tracking of fundamental frequency (recently I've done few experimental things from '60s, where they often varied speed of the tape) and can sound more transparent (there are two operation modes.. more conventional notch filters bank or internal hum synthesizer which is then mixed with input with reversed polarity).

Michal
Old 20th April 2017
  #28
Lives for gear
 
lowland's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post

As you're speaking about Izotope de-hum, while it's working pretty well, it's one thing, which I like to do process with Sonnox DeBuzzer (I call it as a plugin from RX interface), when there is some more complicated piece, because it has IME better tracking of fundamental frequency (recently I've done few experimental things from '60s, where they often varied speed of the tape) and can sound more transparent (there are two operation modes.. more conventional notch filters bank or internal hum synthesizer which is then mixed with input with reversed polarity).
That's interesting Michal, I'll have a look at the Sonnox. One thing I've learnt from a restoration colleague who really knows his stuff is that within reason you can't have too many denoisers: it isn't always easy to predict what will work best, and price may not correlate with effectiveness in a given situation.
Old 20th April 2017
  #29
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
frankly maybe they don't see it as critical feature
If it were just me barking at the moon, sure. But, many audio post and music engineers have been requesting it over the years (with each version update since version 2), always followed by silence.

Once you stop listening to your customer base, those customers inevitably move on, as many already have.


Quote:
I'd personally vote for more flexible processing chains
I have sent lists of over 150 new features to iZotope over the years that would not only increase workflow, but also also expand the basic set of functionality, and only a handful have ever been incorporated over the years (such as multiple files open in tabs which was requested since version 1 and only arrived in version 4).

If iZotope released a new version, sans any new or updated processing modules, but with workflow enhancers, offering more flexibility which save me time and money, I would update in a flash. RX6 doesn't do any of that, and RX hasn't since version 4.

By contrast, all the audio software, plugin and hardware manufacturers I beta test for, continually add requested features and workflow enhancers with each release and update (my running feature request lists are forever shrinking). Clearly, in these cases I'm not the only one calling for these improvements and features, but that's responsive development.


Quote:
sometimes it would be better to process audio in M/S.
Another often requested feature since RX version 1. Sure, you can now select Channel Ops and use the M/S Encoder/DeEncoder, but native support in select modules would always win out. Every time.


Quote:
Honestly Cedar plugin suite (not just their de-noiser) or hardware never really fit into any budget
...
Maybe they are golden, but maybe if they somewhat reflected current competitive software market (for instance, no way I'd go to purchase any plugins for 9000EUR.. just never, when the cheapest similarly aimed suite from Acon is 99EUR.. I perceive such price ratio close to the one for audiophile power cords), maybe it could be again perceived as real alternative for me.
The plugin modules in Cedar Studio are the same algorithm as the Cambridge system's modules. That fact alone makes them a bargain, let alone the OS X support.

History has proven that Cedar hardware retain their value very well. The now recently discontinued Cedar Duos or the older Cedar X séries, on those rare occasions that they do appear on the used market, often sell for not much less than new units would have. They are still very much in demand, decades later.

Sure, the initial outlay is difficult, but if you use them often enough, they pay for themselves very quickly.

In the case of Cedar Studio, at one stage each plugin module was available separately, not sure if that is still true. Upgrade as you expand, or needs change.
Old 20th April 2017
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowland View Post
That's interesting Michal, I'll have a look at the Sonnox. One thing I've learnt from a restoration colleague who really knows his stuff is that within reason you can't have too many denoisers: it isn't always easy to predict what will work best, and price may not correlate with effectiveness in a given situation.
That's also my experience, it's material dependent and sometimes even effect, which is cheaper can work better for the particular case.
Friend had for example otherwise retired MacOS 9 G3 computer with Sonic HD and NoNoise just for some special occasions, although he was working primarily at other DAW.

Anyway Sonnox package is also very good in general, but mentioned DeBuzzer is something extra to me.. Maybe with your records there won't be as apparent difference from RX module, but it's definitely worth of test IMO. Besides good sound and added flexibility, it's also pretty effecient with removal of harmonic patterns from mids or highs (fundamental frequency can go up to 20k).

Michal
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump