Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Best Wave Editor
#1015674 - 26/10/12 05:08 PM
|
|
|
|
I’ve been cleaning up clitches recently using Soundforge 7 (crap I know but Wavelab
causes freeze problems with my PC).
When I use the pen to smooth out spikes
and flat tops, it would be great if it could also average out the wave rather than just
let me draw anything and make it worse and require undo. I’m wondering what can be done
with other programs. How advanced are the actions for these kind of jobs?
Thanks
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 9709
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1015695 - 26/10/12 07:26 PM
|
|
|
I've never really got on with Sound Forge. I'd suggest you take a look at Adobe Audition
for decent de-clicking tools and a whole host of other features. If you want really high
quality de-clicking and noise reduction then you could also take a look at Izotope's RX2
which is on special offer at the moment. James.
-------------------- JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|
Martin Walker
Watcher Of The Skies
Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 16482
Loc: Cornwall, UK
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: James Perrett]
#1015807 - 27/10/12 12:57 PM
|
|
|
+1 for James' recommendation of izotope RX
Martin
-------------------- YewTreeMagic
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016079 - 29/10/12 03:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Are these just fancy equalisers really?
|
Neokoenig
Joined: 24/05/08
Posts: 274
Loc: Oxford
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016087 - 29/10/12 03:38 PM
|
|
|
RX has a visual spectrum analyser where you can literally paint out offending noises etc -
it's really rather impressive...
-------------------- Web Design ~
Drum Studio
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4305
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016088 - 29/10/12 03:44 PM
|
|
|
|
I think any decent editor will have spectrum analysis and error correction.
Hmm... Shouldn't you just try to get Wavelab to work if you already have it? What kind
of issues are you experiencing? How do you make it freeze?
-------------------- I'm All Ears.
|
The Red Bladder
Joined: 05/06/07
Posts: 2100
Loc: . ...
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016093 - 29/10/12 04:32 PM
|
|
|
Quote Josif A. Soterίou:
I’ve
been cleaning up clitches recently using Soundforge 7
When it comes to editing out glitches,
nothing works as well as Reaper. Izotope's NR packages are really good and even the
budget priced ones are excellent.
Soundforge 7 is now so old (10 years? 8
Years?) that you will be amazed at what is on offer from just about everybody - even
Soundforge 10 is sort of OK for some of this work.
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4305
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
|
Quote The Red Bladder:
When
it comes to editing out glitches, nothing works as well as Reaper for me.
Fixed that for you.
-------------------- I'm All Ears.
|
BJG145
Joined: 06/08/05
Posts: 2187
Loc: Norwich UK
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016110 - 29/10/12 05:26 PM
|
|
|
Sony now have their own dedicated spectral editing package.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/spectralayerspro
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 9709
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016119 - 29/10/12 05:51 PM
|
|
|
Quote Josif A. Soterίou:
Thanks.
Are these just fancy equalisers really?
No, they're much smarter than than. Basically they look at the
audio either side of the glitch and substitute something sensible instead of the glitch.
James.
-------------------- JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|
Mixedup
active member
Joined: 03/09/03
Posts: 4265
Loc: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ken long]
#1016129 - 29/10/12 07:42 PM
|
|
|
Quote ken long:
Quote The Red Bladder:
When it comes to editing out glitches, nothing works as well as CEDAR's bureau
service, but Reaper works well enough for me.
Fixed that for you.
Ditto.
|
The Red Bladder
Joined: 05/06/07
Posts: 2100
Loc: . ...
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: Mixedup]
#1016131 - 29/10/12 07:52 PM
|
|
|
Quote Mixedup:
Quote ken long:
Quote The Red Bladder:
When it comes to editing out glitches, nothing works as well as CEDAR's bureau
service, but Reaper works well enough for me.
Fixed that for you.
Ditto.
I get the distinct impression that someone is trying to jerk my chain. Well, let
me tell you, I shall ignore you all and go back to rubbing Sudocream into my testicles.
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4305
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016142 - 29/10/12 08:18 PM
|
|
|
|
I don't think CEDAR provide anything distinctly different anymore. What they do have is
expertise. So yes, go ahead and pay them a fortune to remove clicks or use just about any
decent editor and DIY and you will achieve the same results. As an aside, Sudocream is
not meant to be rubbed into balls. You're supposed to work it into your pubes to prevent
them from becoming angry shredded wheat.
-------------------- I'm All Ears.
|
Zukan
Zukan
Joined: 12/09/03
Posts: 8556
|
|
Quote The Red Bladder:
Quote Josif A. Soterίou:
I’ve been cleaning up clitches recently using Soundforge 7
When it comes to editing out glitches,
nothing works as well as Reaper. Izotope's NR packages are really good and even the
budget priced ones are excellent.
Soundforge 7 is now so old (10 years? 8
Years?) that you will be amazed at what is on offer from just about everybody - even
Soundforge 10 is sort of OK for some of this work.
Too many issues with 10 that they still haven't resolved. Mainly
the Batch processor; has too many bugs and is flaky as hell.
Plugins don't
always behave in dry/wet mode and result in only a wet output. I must have about 3 sets of
manufacturers plugins that have been left redundant because of this. It's beat detection
tool is not the best and it's lacking a decent pitch detector unlike Wavelab.
However, it does have some really good tools, envelope shaping being one of them along
with Acid tools and cd authoring.
Shame though because it really does work
nicely bar the bugs.....
-------------------- Samplecraze
Stretch That Note
|
SecretSam
active member
Joined: 29/10/02
Posts: 1498
Loc: Officially, I do not exist.
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016300 - 30/10/12 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Wavelab has a good feature set, and works well for most people most of the time. The
problem with Steinberg is that their tech support veers between utterly unacceptable and
completely non-existent. So if Wavelab isn't working for you, you are stuck with a very
long fault-finding job. On your own. With no help from Steinberg. At all.
-------------------- Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4305
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: SecretSam]
#1016330 - 30/10/12 09:09 PM
|
|
|
Quote SecretSam:
The problem
with Steinberg is that their tech support veers between utterly unacceptable and
completely non-existent. So if Wavelab isn't working for you, you are stuck with a very
long fault-finding job. On your own. With no help from Steinberg. At all.
Not very fair, Sam. Philippe, the WL
developer, is on the forum all the time to answer questions and help troubleshoot.
http://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=47
He goes
by the handle PG and usually responds to threads within 24 hours.
-------------------- I'm All Ears.
|
Martin Walker
Watcher Of The Skies
Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 16482
Loc: Cornwall, UK
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ken long]
#1016354 - 31/10/12 12:39 AM
|
|
|
He does indeed, and answers all these questions single-handedly. A fine
developer  Martin
-------------------- YewTreeMagic
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: Martin Walker]
#1016799 - 02/11/12 03:08 PM
|
|
|
I got Adobe Audition CS5 in the end …seems great so far. I quite like the noise reduction features too, at least to knock
back hum and hiss a bit (like reverse phase cancellation). But I hate that digital
metallic sound you sometimes get from higher settings on these things. I’ve not tried
the adaptive noise feature yet. How does AA compare with Izotope’s RX2? Thanks (P.S. Installing Wavelab seemed to cause my PC to freeze (not the
program) even when it was not running. When I uninstalled it, the problem stopped. I can't
really mess about with it, and I got it bundled free anyway.
|
Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor
Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 18540
Loc: Worcestershire
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1016803 - 02/11/12 03:19 PM
|
|
|
These kinds of noise reduction work best if you take several small bites at the cherry
instead of one whopping big one! And be sensible about the amount of noise reduction you
can achieve without damaging the wanted audio. Think noise 'reduction' rather than noise
'removal'!  H
-------------------- Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 9709
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: Hugh Robjohns]
#1016824 - 02/11/12 04:17 PM
|
|
|
I'd echo Hugh's suggestion to do several passes of noise reduction. I'll usually aim for
10-12dB for each pass although I've gone as low as 6dB per pass when artefacts have been a
problem. James.
-------------------- JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: James Perrett]
#1016927 - 03/11/12 03:53 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree. I also record just the noise itself (e.g. dry amp & dry electric static noise
from pickups). I process a copy>pasted version of the track with noise reduction while
keeping the original track. Then when I come to mixing, I can fade out the noise-reduced
track during the parts where the noise is adequately masked by the level of wanted sound
(or other instruments).
I really worry about what is being lost much more
than non-intrusive noise. The more I listen, the more my mind plays tricks (e.g.
exaggerates). That’s why I put everything into quarantine for a while before any final
decisions.
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 9709
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1017058 - 04/11/12 09:45 PM
|
|
|
Quote Josif A. Soterίou:
Then
when I come to mixing, I can fade out the noise-reduced track during the parts where the
noise is adequately masked by the level of wanted sound (or other instruments).
That's exactly what properly set
up noise reduction should be doing so you shouldn't need to worry about using two tracks
if you're using the right noise reduction settings.
Quote Josif A. Soterίou:
I really worry about what
is being lost much more than non-intrusive noise. The more I listen, the more my mind
plays tricks (e.g. exaggerates). That’s why I put everything into quarantine for a while
before any final decisions.
The great thing with Audition is that it lets you listen to the noise that it is
removing. It should sound like random noise - if you hear something that sounds too much
like the wanted sound you know that you're removing too much.
James.
-------------------- JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: James Perrett]
#1017206 - 05/11/12 06:26 PM
|
|
|
Quote James Perrett:
The great
thing with Audition is that it lets you listen to the noise that it is removing. It should
sound like random noise - if you hear something that sounds too much like the wanted
sound you know that you're removing too much.
James.
Great tip! Thanks
|
Martin Walker
Watcher Of The Skies
Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 16482
Loc: Cornwall, UK
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1017281 - 06/11/12 06:03 AM
|
|
|
Many noise reduction plug-ins provide this feature, and I agree that it's invaluable. Just turn up the amount of noise reduction until it changes from noise to a little
bit of music, and then turn it back down a little to make sure you're not throwing out any
baby with the bathwater  Martin
-------------------- YewTreeMagic
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4305
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1017288 - 06/11/12 08:00 AM
|
|
|
|
or just re-record with a better SNR...
-------------------- I'm All Ears.
|
Zukan
Zukan
Joined: 12/09/03
Posts: 8556
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1017292 - 06/11/12 08:22 AM
|
|
|
Surely you mean the chipmunk Martin?
-------------------- Samplecraze
Stretch That Note
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ken long]
#1017574 - 07/11/12 03:52 PM
|
|
|
Quote ken long:
or just re-record
with a better SNR...
Thanks... but if I wasn't capable of thinking up that solution I wouldn't be able to tie
my own shoelaces, let alone write a forum post. 
In practice, I'd choose a Take 2 with more musical spontaneity and passion -but a bit of
unfortunate noise- than a Take 20 with no noise but less spontaneity. Sometimes it is
better to deal with it as it is.
|
C.LYDE
member
Joined: 22/10/02
Posts: 209
Loc: South Africa
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ken long]
#1019559 - 21/11/12 06:49 AM
|
|
|
Quote ken long:
Quote SecretSam:
The problem
with Steinberg is that their tech support veers between utterly unacceptable and
completely non-existent. So if Wavelab isn't working for you, you are stuck with a very
long fault-finding job. On your own. With no help from Steinberg. At all.
Not very fair, Sam. Philippe, the WL
developer, is on the forum all the time to answer questions and help troubleshoot.
http://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=47
He goes
by the handle PG and usually responds to threads within 24 hours.
+++1 = 3!
-------------------- C.LYDE
http://soundcloud.com/c-lyde
|
Martin Walker
Watcher Of The Skies
Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 16482
Loc: Cornwall, UK
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: C.LYDE]
#1019865 - 23/11/12 01:05 AM
|
|
|
-------------------- YewTreeMagic
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1021073 - 27/11/12 02:08 PM
|
|
|
Quote James Perrett:
The great
thing with Audition is that it lets you listen to the noise that it is removing. It should
sound like random noise - if you hear something that sounds too much like the wanted
sound you know that you're removing too much.
Is this being used for creative purposes as well as quality
control? For example, imagine if you needed a didgeridoodar but only had a crappy
cardboard tube. What if you recorded your didge part through that, then recorded just air
flowing through the tube and cut that sound from your 'didge' recording using noise
reduction... then processed that deleted sound through an IR taken from a good didgeridoo
(so that it reasonable fits the length of the tube), then mixed it back with the (noise
reducted) audio... wouldn't that get closer to a real didge? There might be countless
other applications of this kind too. Cutting certain frequences and processing these, or
the remaining frequencies that are chosen for effect rather than because they're
noise-free. Just a thought.
|
slightly
Joined: 14/09/05
Posts: 83
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1021132 - 27/11/12 09:13 PM
|
|
|
|
help a learner here, why would you use noise reduction programs over a gate? I have
two Juno so I'm pretty much using a gate on everything for the chorus hiss, but lately
forgetting and just eqing it out.
would I be alright in what I'm doing, I'm
managing to get the hiss removed with little difference to the orig recorded synth patch
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: ]
#1021234 - 28/11/12 05:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Others can probably explain better, but... modern noise reduction enables you to target
and remove specific frequencies across all frequency bands, whilst wanted frequencies can
remain more or less intact. EQ means you have to shop the head or legs off, or cut a
frequency range that might include wanted sounds.
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 9709
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
Re: Best Wave Editor
[Re: slightly]
#1021601 - 30/11/12 04:10 PM
|
|
|
Noise reduction is most useful if you are using a synth patch with long tails as it splits
the noise into narrow frequency bands and gates each band separately. With a gate, you
could end up cutting the tails suddenly while noise reduction might give you more natural
sounding tails as the frequency bands containing only noise would close before the
frequency bands that contain wanted sound. James.
-------------------- JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|