Re: [ARSCLIST] Restoration Software

[Dave Nolan <davenolanaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:51:02 -0600, Jon Noring <jon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>
>>> I recall one of the presenters at the conference gave Waves the
>>> best overall rating in his evaluation. You may have missed that
>>> presenter.
>
>> I believe the presenter only tested broadband noise removal,
>> not click/pop/crackle removal.  The presenter's conclusion
>> will be less applicable to phonograph record restoration.
>
>The Waves bundle is *reputed* to have a very good declicker and a
>wonderful decrackler. Some have gone so far to claim that they are
>the equal of the declickers/decracklers found on the ultra-expensive
>software/firmware tools such as Cedar and Sonic Solutions (or whatever
>Sonic Solutions is now called.) But I don't know the accuracy of these
>claims -- people make all kinds of unverified claims, including yours
>truly.
>
>Interestingly, the Waves denoiser (dehisser) is not considered that
>good, but again that's just what I heard through the "grapevine".

I have to agree that for broadband denoising, the Waves X-Noise really
isn't as great as its $1000+ price tag might suggest.  Invariably when
friends have played me audio denoised with X-Noise that "sounds great" to
them in their studio monitors (or on the home stereo), I could hear all
sorts of flange-y underwater-y artifacts by listening through a basic pair
of Sony 7506 headphones.  Many monitors, even fairly expensive ones in
common use (Genelecs, Mackies, KRKs, etc...) seem to mask a lot of those
artifacts at normal listening volume, but they're there.

The only way I trust whether a denoising job has been truly "transparent"
is by putting on the phones (usually at a higher-than usual volume for a
brief period of time) and making sure the denoise parameters were not so
aggressive as to create those artifacts.

dave nolan
nyc