The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Audio Restoration Software: An Affordable Cedar Alternative?
Old 22nd December 2015
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Audio Restoration Software: An Affordable Cedar Alternative?

My friend Gary designed a highly successful pair of high res speakers. I couldn’t make the trip from Long Island to hear them, but as you can see his very enthused audience was quite pleased with the results when he demoed his system at a local Seattle audio club. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-wa ... -1356.html

In addition to the overall design and performance goals, I was so taken with his choice of drivers and how he used them that I went ahead and cloned Gary’s superb midwoofers-a pair of GPA Altec 416 midwoofers in sealed birchwood cabinets, with rounded corners for low diffraction. I was then going to begin ordering the expensive autoformers and film caps to build the crossovers; later the Azurahorns, Radian drivers and RAAL ribbon tweeters. But I then realized that as I couldn’t travel 3000 miles to hear Gary’s speakers that I had better perform one very crucial test first: How will most of my recordings sound on Gary’s speakers?

So I mailed to Gary a flash drive with about 70 uncompressed WAV files of CD track rips from my CD collection. That playlist was probably a fairly accurate cross section of my entire collection. Three weeks later I got Gary’s crushing news that his system found at least 67% of them to be poor sounding and fatiguing to sit through. Either too much compression was used or mixes that were “congested” during orchestral passages. And several were quite noticeably distorted, he said.

Presumably, Gary will be checking his system for any self-generating noise and distortions, but I’d be very surprised if he found any such problems. Furthermore, Gary has an Exasound DAC which avoids the often criticized delta sigma processing. Veteran audio design engineer Lynn Olson, who collaborated on the design of Gary’s speakers and designed the pair of 300B power amps that Gary built himself, was likewise very pleased with the tonality of the Exasound DAC. Nutshell High Fidelity and exaSound Audio Design > Home

Since many of the recordings in the rest of my collection are apt to have much the same flaws as those I sent Gary, I thought about restoration software. Googling [ audio restoration software ] readily turned up Cedar Audio. They offer a plugin dedicated to distortion removal, and at >$3500., their DeClip must be one very powerful algorithm. http://www.cedaraudio.com/products/camb ... clip.shtml

Their Phase Corrector can also likely work wonders with recordings with poor FR and other issues. http://www.cedaraudio.com/products/camb ... hase.shtml However, that one only comes bundled in Cedar's Cambridge DAW platform, starting at $18K. Not surprisingly, many of Cedar's clients are in government and forensic science.

So as Cedar’s software are beyond my budget, I emailed all of their US dealers for referrals to more affordable solutions-ones that would be effective but without leaving artifacts for Gary’s mercilessly telling horns to throw into my room.

Would Izotope RX5’s DeClip be the second best to Cedar’s >$3500. deClip plugin for distortion removal?

And is there an affordable counterpart to Cedar’s Phase Corrector? ~ $1000.?

I'd have ~ $1200. to spend on each.

But what’s equally important is that even if Gary only found the restored files to sound slightly improved, I might then need to resort to cone drivers rather than Gary’s horns and drivers to use above Gary’s Altec midwoofers. Those drivers in the right enclosures and with an appropriately designed crossover should make my less than perfect recordings sound reasonably attractive, without too much dumbing down the sound quality of my great recordings.

Of course, I’d much prefer building Gary’s speakers to spec, as he raved about how my good quality recordings sounded on his system. But I’d have to weigh that decision against my larger number of distorted or otherwise flawed recordings-and how well that Isotope RX5 or better yet still affordable restoration software can make them sound their best. Please advise.
Old 22nd December 2015
  #2
I am not sure if processes like RX5 or CEDAR will fix your friend Gary.
Old 22nd December 2015
  #3
Lives for gear
 
kosty's Avatar
You forgot to mention what speaker cable Gary is using !
Old 22nd December 2015
  #4
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d1966 View Post
Would Izotope RX5’s DeClip be the second best to Cedar’s >$3500. deClip plugin for distortion removal?
.
Im also unsure of the end goal here. If you are truly looking for resto software, look at the Acon Digital Restoration Suite. Its cheap, and compares with the better stuff.
Old 22nd December 2015 | Show parent
  #5
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kosty View Post
You forgot to mention what speaker cable Gary is using !
Though I could do without the apparent sarcasm, I happen to recall that its Audioquest Type 4. Not super expensive but not what I'd necessarily spring that high for.
Old 22nd December 2015 | Show parent
  #6
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDStudios View Post
I am not sure if processes like RX5 or CEDAR will fix your friend Gary.
I'm not sure either, but we will see what happens when I process some of those files with the RX5 trial version. I just hope the learning curve isn't too long, at least for distortion removal.
Old 22nd December 2015 | Show parent
  #7
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by producer 7 View Post
Im also unsure of the end goal here. If you are truly looking for resto software, look at the Acon Digital Restoration Suite. Its cheap, and compares with the better stuff.
What? Not sure of the end goal? I thought that was obvious. Like anyone who loves 60s pop music but insists on playing it through a high res system, I want to get rid of the various sonic flaws that often ravage these recordings.

To that end, has anyone ever done an Acon vs. Izotope shoot out?
Old 22nd December 2015 | Show parent
  #8
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d1966 View Post
What? Not sure of the end goal? I thought that was obvious. Like anyone who loves 60s pop music but insists on playing it through a high res system, I want to get rid of the various sonic flaws that often ravage these recordings.

To that end, has anyone ever done an Acon vs. Izotope shoot out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf2lgyzv8-8
Old 22nd December 2015 | Show parent
  #9
TNM
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by d1966 View Post
What? Not sure of the end goal? I thought that was obvious. Like anyone who loves 60s pop music but insists on playing it through a high res system, I want to get rid of the various sonic flaws that often ravage these recordings.

To that end, has anyone ever done an Acon vs. Izotope shoot out?
there are demos.. go for it.
Old 22nd December 2015
  #10
Lives for gear
 

It looks like total nonsense to me.. observed reduced dynamics, distortion etc. is just part of particular production of that music.
If we're talking about older pop music it is likely some chance to seek for older releases with higher dynamic range.. for instance CD pressing from early 90's vs its latest remaster. But it's subjective and older release is not always better sounding for all of its aspects.. eg. newer release can be compressed, but its transfer was done on better converter and mastered via better chain. So sometimes, you'll find old release is dynamic, but at the same time also bit dull and grainy sounding.
In area of classical music, quality usually reflects best mastering of the time of release, which can be possibly get from given source medium and recording. And this doesn't really follow loudness trends of last decades. So there usually applies, newer release, better sound, if original master tapes were used.
Also with some current technology it is possible to greatly reduce wow and fultter (eg. Celemony Capstan or Plangent Process).
But all of that improvements for old recordings works efficiently only, when you have access to original master tapes, it isn't process for home aftercooking.
Also restoration of already squashed dynamic range is almost impossible without introducing another artifacts, you can somewhat interpolate some amount of missing peaks after excessive limiter usage, but of course it has its limits. Current loud CDs aren't loud just because peak limiter is used, signal had already several steps of normal downward compression applied through production chain, before limiter is used. Idea of reverting that compression by use of some expander with fixed time constants is also quite optimistic, because it usually can't work well with complex material (eg. mixes vs single tracks). Finally you don't have access to other material than 44/16 CD rips, which has likely applied dithering with moderate noise shaping, which makes some processes bit more complicated to do without artifacts.

Anyway, back to beginning, all of that is inherent part of the particular production, something sounds better, something worse. And to me this aspect is also part of doing selection for personal music library. Some record doesn't really sounds great, but in some cases musical message is so strong, one will stop to thinking about it and just live with it..

To your question, get Acon and try, what it does with your music. Declipper performance among various restoration packages are very similar to me (it is usually technically simplest process from restoration toolset compared to declick, denoise or spectral repair) and despite Acon's affordable price, it performs pretty well to me.

And one correction, Exasound uses ESS9018 DAC chips, which are sigma delta. Unless Gary has some PCM converter with 16/20bit multibit chip (for example with Philips TDA154x, or BB PCM 1704), he's likely also exposed to sigma delta "evil" like rest of us

Michal
Old 22nd December 2015 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
It looks like total nonsense to me.. observed reduced dynamics, distortion etc. is just part of particular production of that music.
snip----
Michal
He certainly lost me. Hopefully he clarifies what he is looking for.
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by d1966 View Post
I'm not sure either, but we will see what happens when I process some of those files with the RX5 trial version. I just hope the learning curve isn't too long, at least for distortion removal.

Can you tell us what tracks you are referring to that are 'too distorted'? The difference between the majority of people on this forum and people like Gary is the priority between equipment and music. People here use equipment to listen to and make music. Gary sounds like he chooses his music collection to listen to the equipment, and he wants you to follow suit.

I pass no judgement either way, but it isn't clear what side of the fence you sit on. Perhaps you could let us know? We like distortion in these parts. Saturating analogue tape. The lovely 1% RMS THD of a Neumann U47 microphone, highly revered and used by people like Frank Sinatra. Distortion isn't always a bad thing. What we do here is generally based on very simple things too. A cardboard cone attached to an electro-magnet for example. A pair of Duntech Sovereigns exhibit about 0.3% THD above 50Hz, and probably a lot worse below. They sound incredible. Record players have mechanic needles cruising through grooves in vinyl and are loaded with pleasing harmonic distortion.

Perhaps the music you enjoy is hard limited and has more distortion in it. If your goal is to have the most enjoyable experience listening to the music you like, I would ignore Gary. Quite frankly, you still have no idea how your recordings actually sound on Gary's speakers. Perhaps the problem is Gary's speakers, and not your recordings. Perhaps Gary just doesn't like your music and thinks it does an injustice to his speakers. The only way you can know is to use your own ears and make your own judgement. Get yourself in front of speakers and use your ears. Specs mean nothing. How Gary hears things mean nothing. What Gary likes means nothing. Find the pair that best suits you.

The only reason I would ever consider altering the original recording of music is if there has been an error related to a format change. Wav to MP3 back to Wav for example. Beyond that, I think to actually go through and alter your music collection to make a set of speakers sound better is 100% unadulterated audiophoolery. Music, recordings... its all about character. Something that was recorded in the 1960's has every right to sound like it was recorded in the 1960's. That is what music recordings are. Sound & performance captured in time and space.
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
sardi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDStudios View Post
People here use equipment to listen to and make music. Gary sounds like he chooses his music collection to listen to the equipment, and he wants you to follow suit.
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read the OP's post.

Well said.
Old 23rd December 2015
  #14
Gear Addict
 

Though RX 5 Advanced is nowhere near Cedar, it's the next closest alternative.

Nelson
Old 23rd December 2015
  #15
HSi
Lives for gear
 
HSi's Avatar
 

Pretty sure RX5 is considered forensic level, waves do this pack also aimed at forensic level editing

Covert Audio - Forensics Package | Bundles | Waves

Bit weird seeing L1 in there...

There used to be a demo of RX, probably still is. I would say that's going to be better for you, I used it years back, was pretty easy to grasp.
Old 23rd December 2015
  #16
TNM
Lives for gear
sorry but the waves noise reduction tools are complete junk.. what a waste of money when you can get acon for $149 - much better and newer algorithms.

If you want cedar level, only rx5 advanced will give it.

That said, RX has no realtime "extract noise from audio without isolated noise print" feature, but i can't remember if cedar does that either.

The best i ever heard removing noise from a source where there was no way to take a noise print, was tc powercore denoiser.
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsona View Post
Though RX 5 Advanced is nowhere near Cedar, it's the next closest alternative.

Nelson
It surprises me that youve tried every denoiser on the market.
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by producer 7 View Post
It surprises me that youve tried every denoiser on the market.
It's true that I haven't tried every de-noiser on the market.

That said, before purchasing RX Advanced (which was not a cheap purchase for a hobbyist such as myself), I performed a ton of research on many of the most popular de-nosiers.

There are two reasons for choosing RX over any of the other de-noisers in its price bracket.

1. RX actually licenses some of Cedar's de-noise algorithms (though the algorithms are most likely dated compared to Cedar's latest offerings).

2. RX scored consistently higher than it's competitors across a variety of publications (barring of course Cedar) since RX 2.

With all that said, I will say that the downside to RX is that it's hardly as easy as any of the demo's / tutorials online make it out to be. For example, though you'll see demo's for RX regarding acoustic or clean guitars, you'll never see a demo / tutorial for electric guitars with a high amount of distortion.

Highly distorted guitars was precisely the reason I purchased RX (to clean up an album which I recorded at a small studio which suffered from some tracking issues). Rather than re-track the guitar parts, I decided to fix the parts myself as the studio was unable to EQ out the problematic issues. It took me nearly 6 months to finally figure out:

1. Which RX module to use (as there are a few modules which seemingly overlap or serve similar purposes).

2. How to use that particular module (as I needed to use extreme settings to clear up the issue - which many of the tutorials warn you not to do).

3. Where to use the module (as I couldn't use it globally over the entire track as it heavily degraded the audio - I needed to use it within 0.1 and 0.2 second sections of audio).

4. How to handle multiple tracks of audio with similar issues (as almost every problematic instance had to use different settings / values). Furthermore, after applying a fix, I'd need to listen to that particular part many times over to ensure that the audio hadn't been degraded.

5. Know when that particular module (the de-click) would not work (due to extreme issues), and of course which module to use as an alternative (usually the de-construct module).

So after 6 months of practice and research I was able to cleanly fix a distortion issue, which ultimately should've been fixed in the studio via re-recording of the parts in question. That being said, I was able to fix something that neither the studio I recorded at or a more professional studio (with at least 30 years of experience if not more, plus a few big name clients) was able to fix.

So if Cedar can fix something, it's a good chance that RX can as well (though RX will likely not be anywhere as easy to use as Cedar). On top of that, given that many times (for difficult situations) you need to use multiple RX modules (and the order of those module is very important), it may take you quite a while to figure out how to fix something (which is made even more difficult due to the lack of tutorials online - even the 5+ hour ones from Groove3 or other sites).

One last thing, unless you plan on fixing something trivial you will need to purchase the advanced version of RX. For example, though the Spectral Repair module exists in both the standard and advanced version of RX, the advanced version contains an extra option (Multi-Resolution check box) which more cleanly repairs audio than the standard version (I always have it enabled).

This same sort of thing applies to other RX modules, so when you compare the two version at Izotope's site, though both version may list most of the same modules, you must understand that the modules in RX 5 Advanced are oftentimes more powerful.

Nelson
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsona View Post
It's true that I haven't tried every de-noiser on the market.

That said, before purchasing RX Advanced (which was not a cheap purchase for a hobbyist such as myself), I performed a ton of research on many of the most popular de-nosiers.

There are two reasons for choosing RX over any of the other de-noisers in its price bracket.

1. RX actually licenses some of Cedar's de-noise algorithms (though the algorithms are most likely dated compared to Cedar's latest offerings).

2. RX scored consistently higher than it's competitors across a variety of publications (barring of course Cedar) since RX 2.

With all that said, I will say that the downside to RX is that it's hardly as easy as any of the demo's / tutorials online make it out to be. For example, though you'll see demo's for RX regarding acoustic or clean guitars, you'll never see a demo / tutorial for electric guitars with a high amount of distortion.

Highly distorted guitars was precisely the reason I purchased RX (to clean up an album which I recorded at a small studio which suffered from some tracking issues). Rather than re-track the guitar parts, I decided to fix the parts myself as the studio was unable to EQ out the problematic issues. It took me nearly 6 months to finally figure out:
1. Which RX module to use (as there are a few modules which seemingly overlap or serve similar purposes).

2. How to use that particular module (as I needed to use extreme settings to clear up the issue - which many of the tutorials warn you not to do).

3. Where to use the module (as I couldn't use it globally over the entire track as it heavily degraded the audio - I needed to use it within 0.1 and 0.2 second sections of audio).

4. How to handle multiple tracks of audio with similar issues (as almost every problematic instance had to use different settings / values). Furthermore, after applying a fix, I'd need to listen to that particular part many times over to ensure that the audio hadn't been degraded.

5. Know when that particular module (the de-click) would not work (due to extreme issues), and of course which module to use as an alternative (usually the de-construct module).

So after 6 months of practice and research I was able to cleanly fix a distortion issue, which ultimately should've been fixed in the studio via re-recording of the parts in question. That being said, I was able to fix something that neither the studio I recorded at or a more professional studio (with at least 30 years of experience if not more, plus a few big name clients) was able to fix.

So if Cedar can fix something, it's a good chance that RX can as well (though RX will likely not be anywhere as easy to use as Cedar). On top of that, given that many times (for difficult situations) you need to use multiple RX modules (and the order of those module is very important), it may take you quite a while to figure out how to fix something (which is made even more difficult due to the lack of tutorials online - even the 5+ hour ones from Groove3 or other sites).

One last thing, unless you plan on fixing something trivial you will need to purchase the advanced version of RX. For example, though the Spectral Repair module exists in both the standard and advanced version of RX, the advanced version contains an extra option (Multi-Resolution check box) which more cleanly repairs audio than the standard version (I always have it enabled).

This same sort of thing applies to other RX modules, so when you compare the two version at Izotope's site, though both version may list most of the same modules, you must understand that the modules in RX 5 Advanced are oftentimes more powerful.

Nelson
Great post!
Quote:
It took me nearly 6 months to finally figure out:
Nerves of steel. I dont have the patience to demo (more importantly - thoroughly understand) programs that i may or may not use.

Initially i purchased Acon Digital Resto Suite to clean up a voice over.....That and it was $40 or $50 second hand, but i ALSO had hopes that it would work well on high gain guitars and at least offer SOME control over excessive room sounds on drums (yeah i know deverberate is the one you want there - im not dealing with highly problematic stuff)

I'll be venturing those waters in my next endeavor. the guitars.
Old 23rd December 2015
  #20
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
A little known fact about RX...(see photo)
Old 23rd December 2015
  #21
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
A little known fact about RX...they license CEDAR technology. See the program's About page.
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
kosty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
A little known fact about RX...they license CEDAR technology. See the program's About page.
They only licensed the spectogram interface (just the representation) but not any algorithms.

CEDAR Audio announces licence agreement with iZotope Inc.
Patent US7978862 - Method and apparatus for audio signal processing - Google Patents
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #23
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDStudios View Post
Can you tell us what tracks you are referring to that are 'too distorted'?
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. However, distortion-even if there are different flavors-can be fatiguing at best beyond a certain percentage.

If distortion is your pleasure (??), particularly the tube-generated variety, I’d take it up with easily the most knowledgeable tube amp designer I’ve ever encountered, Lynn Olson, the designer of Gary’s Amity 300B amps. Info on the Yamaha JA-6681 compression driver - Page 43 - diyAudio Also, check out The Amity, Raven, and Aurora And I really enjoyed this one The Art of Speaker Design

As for my distorted recordings, I won’t be vastly upgrading the rest of my electronics until after my speakers are built (either cloning the rest of Gary’s or collaborating with Jim Salk for what to put above my Altec 416 midwoofers). But even with my Sennheiser HD 650s plugged into my ancient Revox integrated amp, I could tell that the CD rips which Gary found the most objectionable were definitely harsh sounding compared to other tracks that he either found acceptable or even raved about through his speakers.

Yes, I'm sure that Gary's disliked the music of a several files I sent him, though again most of those were the distorted ones. But I'm very sure that Gary's too fair and objective to be swayed by personal tastes when making assessment regarding audio purity.

And as msmucr emphasizes, I always go the distance to find CDs from the artist’s original labels and/or using the original master tapes transferred by a reputable engineer or studio. But as msmucr laments, sometimes there’s no discernible difference in sound quality between one “Greatest Hits” compilation and other done several years later. But of course, better converters, tape machines, a cleaner AND shorter signal chain and no more “sweetening” than necessary are essential, regardless of the analog source tapes.

If allowable, I could upload two or three of my WAV files here, or pm someone, if they want to take a crack at distortion removal. They can download them from my Outlook Account’s One Drive cloud.

Needless to say, being a music teacher and orchestra conductor, this is Gary’s busy season. Even more than two weeks ago, he had no time to get anywhere near his system. But soon after New Years I’d expect him to be on it.

So if someone with the software and the know-how here really succeeds against the distortion, I certainly would like to get those better sounding files to Gary. There were just 4 distorted files and 2 that Gary said got “congested” during louder passages. Also, one of those files is a duplicate-a remastered version from a boxed set issued in 2008, after the initial 1993 release. Might have better source tapes! Gary never heard that one.

And I wonder if the two “congested” tracks could be helped by RX5’s OR Acon’s phase correction, if perhaps not as well as Cedar’s Phase Corrector? CEDAR Cambridge Phase Corrector
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #24
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsona View Post
Highly distorted guitars was precisely the reason I purchased RX (to clean up an album which I recorded at a small studio which suffered from some tracking issues). It took me nearly 6 months to finally figure out:

1. Which RX module to use (as there are a few modules which seemingly overlap or serve similar purposes).

2. How to use that particular module (as I needed to use extreme settings to clear up the issue - which many of the tutorials warn you not to do).

3. Where to use the module (as I couldn't use it globally over the entire track as it heavily degraded the audio - I needed to use it within 0.1 and 0.2 second sections of audio).

One last thing, unless you plan on fixing something trivial you will need to purchase the advanced version of RX. For example, though the Spectral Repair module exists in both the standard and advanced version of RX, the advanced version contains an extra option (Multi-Resolution check box) which more cleanly repairs audio than the standard version (I always have it enabled).

This same sort of thing applies to other RX modules, so when you compare the two version at Izotope's site, though both version may list most of the same modules, you must understand that the modules in RX 5 Advanced are oftentimes more powerful. Nelson
Thanks Nelsona for this very comprehensive review of RX5. I must say that I am not happy to hear that you found RX5 Advanced ultimately giving better restoration quality than Standard. This is NOT how the two products are compared at Izotope's site.

I am also dismayed by the huge learning curve. My goodness SIX MONTHS!

The other big worry I have is over how badly the recording's quality may be degraded, after restoration, due to how much it is distorted. My bad ones are all mono or stereo CD rips. The distortion mostly shows itself during loud passages. But one or two recordings may have lower but still notable amounts throughout. How difficult do you think it may be to "paint away" the distortion?

Would you care to work on one or two of my WAV files? Do they allow uploading them from here or can I pm you?

Maybe after evaluating them you might determine that I don't need the more costly Advanced version.
Old 23rd December 2015 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
GearAndGuitars's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d1966 View Post
What? Not sure of the end goal? I thought that was obvious. Like anyone who loves 60s pop music but insists on playing it through a high res system, I want to get rid of the various sonic flaws that often ravage these recordings.

To that end, has anyone ever done an Acon vs. Izotope shoot out?
It's the sonic flaws that make those recordings great!
Old 23rd December 2015
  #26
Lives for gear
 
kosty's Avatar
I'm not sure what you want to do with the phase corrector.
This plugin is used during multi mic recording to reduce anti phase cancellation caused by bad mic placement.
It has nothing to do with hiss / noise removal or fixing clipped signals.

Don't believe the mambojambo that you read from "hifi" or "audiophiles". It's all marketing BS.
Old 24th December 2015 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d1966 View Post
Thanks Nelsona for this very comprehensive review of RX5. I must say that I am not happy to hear that you found RX5 Advanced ultimately giving better restoration quality than Standard. This is NOT how the two products are compared at Izotope's site.

I am also dismayed by the huge learning curve. My goodness SIX MONTHS!

The other big worry I have is over how badly the recording's quality may be degraded, after restoration, due to how much it is distorted. My bad ones are all mono or stereo CD rips. The distortion mostly shows itself during loud passages. But one or two recordings may have lower but still notable amounts throughout. How difficult do you think it may be to "paint away" the distortion?

Would you care to work on one or two of my WAV files? Do they allow uploading them from here or can I pm you?

Maybe after evaluating them you might determine that I don't need the more costly Advanced version.
@ d1966 : I highly doubt what I had to fix in my guitar tracks is remotely similar to the issue you're referring to in your original post. That being said, working on your audio files might be another multi-month project and I'm busy as it is with my current albums (one that needs to be fixed, one that is about to be recorded and one that is being written).

I recommend that you try out RX 5 Advanced (consisting of a 10 day trial with the only limitations being that on playback you will hear a tone every 30 or 60 seconds and you can't save any of your work).

Furthermore, when you try out RX 5 Advanced, I strongly recommend that you look into learning how to use the De-Construct module (available only RX 5 Advanced). The De-Construct module is fairly simple (consisting of only 3 sliders).

One slider (entitled Tonal gain) removes or increases the tonal portions of an audio file (ex. music).

A second slider (entitled Noisy gain) removes or increases the noisy portions of an audio file (ex. distortion).

I third slider (entitled Tonal / Noisy balance) shifts the weight of either tonal or noisy audio removal / addition.

Lastly, make sure to first play with the presets to get an idea of how to use the module (the presets tend to be handy for most of the RX modules - though I personally don't use them).

If the De-Construct module doesn't work for you, you have 3 other options (listed in order of importance):

1. Corrective EQ (haven't used it myself, but it claims to: mitigate unwanted resonances, codec compression artifacts and proximity issues).

2. De-Noise module (primarily used to reduce long droning sounds, ex. a plane passing overhead, but with some light settings or at least when used in conjunction with another module, it may work for you).

3. De-Crackle (primarily used to reduce vinyl surface noise, so it may not work for you but it's worth a try).

As for your clipping issues, the De-Clip module in RX 5 Advanced allows you to quickly correct any clipping issues (as far as that goes, using De-Clip is painless and easy). That being said, the Advanced version does a better job at de-clipping than the standard version (it gives you one extra setting which is useful in getting a better result).

Best of luck,
Nelson
Old 24th December 2015 | Show parent
  #28
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearAndGuitars View Post
It's the sonic flaws that make those recordings great!
Maybe they would sound "great" on many systems,
but I strongly doubt it on high res systems like Gary's. It's true that nothing is perfect and that compromises are inescapable. But the fact is that most DIYers, particularly those at threads like this one
Beyond the Ariel - Page 781 - diyAudio or this one My new Beta 12LTA over H-frame Alpha build or this one
http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project0..._Crossover.pdf build speakers and the electronics to drive them to make their best recordings sound their best. The ugly other side is that such transparent systems invariably make their bad recordings sound especially horrible, or fatiguing at best.

Indeed, if one reseller of a few other AR software besides Cedar is unable or unwilling to restore four of WAV files to play satisfactorily on Gary's system then the only solution is to build TWO speaker systems-one for my great recordings and one for my distorted or otherwise flawed ones.
Old 24th December 2015 | Show parent
  #29
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kosty View Post
I'm not sure what you want to do with the phase corrector. This plugin is used during multi mic recording to reduce anti phase cancellation caused by bad mic placement. It has nothing to do with hiss / noise removal or fixing clipped signals.
I do not understand the mechanism behind the in/out phase cancellation problems due to mic placement. Could someone please explain that in detail-or refer me to specific literature?

At the same time, I suspect that many pop music recordings-from the 1950s to date-suffer from this problem. So I thought that Cedar's Phase Corrector (however unaffordable) could fix this problem on CD recording or WAV file CD rip.
Old 25th December 2015
  #30
Gear Head
 

From my findings i found two ways that will remove distortion from audio.

First is Declicker in RX4 or RX5. You need to put M-Band (periodic clicks) for algorithm and incrase Frequency skew to +5 and even +10, then increase sensitivity that much to not hurt rest audio but to eliminate distortion, You can do more passes with lighter sensitivity...

Second is X-Crackle from Waves... Does the magic but... can be very destructive if use too high trash and reduction. Usualy 50-60 does good job but can be incrased up to 80-80.

As nelsona mentioned also Decrackle from RX also can do some job...

For Phase corrector, i found that Adobe Audition CC Automatic Phase corrector does best job, RX Phase and Azimuth correction are not that good, but they can do a job...

Cheers,
shon3i.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 0 views: 1169
Avatar for RadioMoo
RadioMoo 27th December 2007
replies: 24 views: 7781
Avatar for kk@jamsync.com
[email protected] 3rd April 2009
replies: 54 views: 7299
Avatar for kywoman
kywoman 8th December 2016
replies: 126 views: 16423
Avatar for Neptune45
Neptune45 3 weeks ago
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…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump