 |
 |
Hi Carl: Aren't you still in Rochester NY? In past times, the Eastman Theater has served as a superb recording venue, for very successful records. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] AZIMUTH (was recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24) > You guys can fight over what's preservation, restoration, or falsification, but I can say that for > making new recordings, the Izotope stuff can be indispensable. Where I am, there isn’t a venue in > town that combines good acoustics with a quiet enough background to make commercially acceptable > recordings. Software makes it possible. > > But, now that I have some exposure to the effects of this stuff, I think it's obvious why so many > contemporary classical recordings sound so anonymous - the over-use of spectral cleaning. Who > needs 24 bits when the content is restricted to - what - 14 bits? The cure is worse than the > ailment. The beauty of the RX3 tool is how finely it can be targeted. I use it mostly to reduce > rumble, leaving higher frequencies alone. But, even when I have to attack higher-frequency tonal > noise, it is very good at telling the difference. > > I have to thank Lou for encouraging me to overcome my audiophile purity and try this product. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of John Haley > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 4:49 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] AZIMUTH (was recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24) > > Tom, I have to agree with your last sentence, and also with your comments about the hype that > surrounded CEDAR and Sonic Solutions in the past, both highly flawed programs as initially > released. Those tradenames became more like selling points than any guarantee of good sound or > excellent restoration work. Also, if you are remastering great sounding analog recordings, I > agree that less is more in terms of "fixing" them. But the great worth of Izotope RX3, which I > have been using for several months, is that it does a lot of things better for sources that are > NOT pristine or wonderful. You can't make something sound wonderful that inherently doesn't, but > it is amazing how much better compromised sources can sound when they are well restored. This is > especially true for live recordings, which almost always have serious sonic defects built in. > Even recordings of broadcast material almost always have problems. > > This all relates to your musical point of view as a listener--my own is that with a whole century > of great recordings available to pick from, I do not want to be limited to any particular time > frame or era when recordings sounded a certain way. I don't expect 78 recordings to sound like > they were made in a later era, but I do want them to sound as good as their limitations will > allow. > > Best, > John Haley > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> The hype about RX in the engineering community is somewhat worrying to me. >> I remember this hype for CEDAR and for Sonic Solutions NoNoise. A >> bunch of really bad-sounding reissues touted CEDAR and Sonic in their >> liner notes. I will just about guarantee that RX will be purchased by >> every tin-eared hack and will be misused to the point of cliche. >> >> We should remember that digital processing AFTER analog playback is >> ALWAYS a crutch. In theory, a great analog recording should need no >> processing if it's been played back correctly into a "transparent" high-resolution ADC. >> "Fixing flaws" for all the other recordings ever made is a very >> slippery slope and should be approached with great caution and taste. >> Digital technology has not yet figured out how to create out of thin >> air some sort of "good" that was never there in an analog recording >> (or photo or 3D object). It merely gives us ways to try and make a >> digital transfer (virtual facsimile of something once real) "less >> bad." The track record of typical audio engineers with newfangled >> powerful digital tools in their hands is not impressive. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Coe" >> <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 4:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] AZIMUTH (was recording "cleanup" plugins and >> 192/24) >> >> >> I think your last two lines about the hum and tonal noise removal >> just >>> cost me $299! >>> >>> -Aaron >>> _______________________ >>> The Cutting Corporation >>> 4940 Hampden Lane, Suite 300 >>> Bethesda, MD 20814-2925 >>> P: 301.654.2887 ext.19 >>> http://cuttingarchives.com <http://cuttingarchives.com/> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Richard L. Hess >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I see that the announcement is out and I love CONNECT. I was >>>> involved in the Beta test of RX4, but I couldn't say it until it was >>>> announced. >>>> >>>> In Samplitude, you make a cut in the timeline (leave it long enough >>>> to do a crossfade), Open Connect as an object off-line effect and >>>> send it to RX4. You then open RX4 to process the clip and send it >>>> back to Samplitude where you then reopen the Connect effect and it >>>> pops into the timeline in place of the piece you originally sent. >>>> Caution--allow long handles if you're sending out for de-clip as you >>>> will need to seamlessly adjust for the level differences. >>>> >>>> It worked wonders on a concert I recorded last Friday -- first one >>>> with my RME BabyFace which was useful since the power was out for >>>> the whole concert. Fortunately, candle light was part of the planned >>>> effect, so only the PA went away. The organ was still hand-pumped. >>>> But, I had not aligned the gain in the BabyFace to the gain in the >>>> FireFace--it was just there in case of a power failure of more than >>>> a few minutes (I had the FireFace on a UPS). I heard the clipping >>>> and dropped the gain for the rest of the concert >>>> -- back to 20 dB which was where the FF had been set. Grrrr. >>>> >>>> Connect works with other editors as well. >>>> >>>> The de-hum now has a tracking mode because the hum frequency is >>>> never the same at the start of the tape as at the end -- not the >>>> same enough to allow you to use very high Q notch filters -- now you can. >>>> >>>> The main screen allows selecting full-length very narrow frequency >>>> bands >>>> -- and several of them -- to treat tonal noises that are able to be >>>> removed with this method as opposed to the noise reduction and are >>>> above the 8 harmonics in the tracking hum filter. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2014-09-11 12:56 PM, Aaron Coe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> >>>>> Looks like RX 4 has a new "RX Connect” that may solve your issue: >>>>> >>>>> "Use RX in conjunction with your video or audio editing software of >>>>> choice without slowing down productivity. A round-trip workflow >>>>> enables you to send audio from your host application to RX, so you >>>>> can repair and enhance and then send the new audio back to your host." >>>>> >>>>> I love this app! >>>>> >>>>> -Aaron >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> The Cutting Corporation >>>>> 4940 Hampden Lane, Suite 300 >>>>> Bethesda, MD 20814-2925 >>>>> P: 301.654.2887 ext.19 >>>>> http://cuttingarchives.com <http://cuttingarchives.com/> < >>>>> http://cuttingarchives.com/ <http://cuttingarchives.com/>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:16 PM, Richard L. Hess < >>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto: >>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Aaron, >>>>>> >>>>>> I stopped using Insight for a while as I was using Alloy for my >>>>>> processing and RX only had one plug-in slot. Insight has not been >>>>>> high on my list of sub-systems to learn, but your suggestion just >>>>>> bumped it up when I get RX4. >>>>>> >>>>>> Samplitude has a sound-field view, but I will check out Insight's. >>>>>> >>>>>> The challenge is I need it farther upstream in the workflow than >>>>>> where I generally use iZotope RX. >>>>>> >>>>>> StereoTool's automatics can sometimes be a useful starting point >>>>>> for further work on the access copy, hence my dual record. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2014-09-10 8:48 PM, Aaron Coe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Richard, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have you checked out the Sound Field meter in Izotope’s Insight >>>>>>> metering plugin (comes free with RX Advanced)? I used to used >>>>>>> StereoTools too but prefer using Insight now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Aaron >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> The Cutting Corporation <http://www.cuttingarchives.com/ < >>>>>>> http://www.cuttingarchives.com/> <http://www.cuttingarchives.com/ >>>>>>> < http://www.cuttingarchives.com/>>> >>>>>>> 4940 Hampden Lane, Suite 300 >>>>>>> Bethesda, MD 20814-2925 >>>>>>> P: 301.654.2887 ext.19 >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto: >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>>>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800 >>>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm < >>>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm> < >>>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm < >>>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm>> >>>>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800 >>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm >>>> <http://www.richardhess.com/ tape/contact.htm> Quality tape >>>> transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. >>>> >>> >>> >>> > >