Analog or digital De-Esser?
#442390 - 03/04/07 08:19 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
hey,
i'm using a SPL DE-ESSER 9629 for vocalrecordings. This 19" device is from
1997. I always read about the latest VST De-Esser and wondering which is better.
Is my device still worth to use or are those new digital VST De-Esser better nowadays
?
Re: Analog or digital De-Esser?
[Re: Man-At-Arms]
#442426 - 03/04/07 09:26 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Is this the only outboard processing to be performed on the vocal track? If so, it might
be an idea to go for a VST plugin - the Waves renaissance De-Esser is pretty special, for
example.
Re: Analog or digital De-Esser?
[Re: Man-At-Arms]
#442673 - 03/04/07 07:09 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
I would (and do) use an outboard de-esser over a plug in any day of the week. I've tried
a few plug ins and have yet to find one which really works. De-essing is (overwhelmingly
IMO) a job for physical knob-twiddling, not messing about with a mouse, while you sweep
for the relevant frequency.
-------------------- Dynamite with a laser beam...
Re: Analog or digital De-Esser?
[Re: Man-At-Arms]
#443111 - 04/04/07 02:54 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
I agree with Steve here. I have an old DBX analog rack-mounted de-esser (the model number
escapes me at the moment) that sounds *much* better than anything I have found in the
plugin world. (I have several: Waves RenDesser, Spitfish, SPL, etc.)
I try to
fix the problem at the source first with mic and mic positioning, and watch
over-compression with sibilant vocalists. But if all else fails, or I really want to use a
certain mic for its overall tone yet still get sibilance with certain singers, than it is
the DBX to the rescue.
-------------------- James
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" ~Napoleon Bonaparte~