Re: [ARSCLIST] Restoration Software

[Scott Loiselle <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I never normally chip in - just lurk - because I don't really do 
restoration but I do use the Waves stuff daily, including the 
restoration bundle. My application is doing post on classical location 
recordings. I frequently mic with Omnis (which come with the baggage of 
recording the most room/ambient noise) and I find the waves denoiser 
outstanding. It's important to choose your fingerprint (sample) 
carefully and then monitor the difference signal. I also frequently 
automate some of the parameters (primarily threshold) so that the 
process intensity changes dynamically with the program material. When 
used in this manner, the artifacts are minimal and the benefits 
considerable. Just my $.02

Scott Loiselle

On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Erik Dix wrote:

> Algorithmix made the declicker and decrackler for waves and sells 
> their own
> restoration plugins.
>
> This is what their sales person told me in an email: "The Waves 
> product is
> based on a subset of the algorithms used in our pro-Descratcher, so 
> there
> actually is a difference between them (both in quality and price...)."
>
> I am using their declicker and decrackler with good results but i 
> still am
> not a 100% comfortable in using the denoiser which almost always will 
> take
> some of the signal material away when you use it, but it works a lot 
> better
> than the other denoisers i have used before.
>
> their webpage is www.algorithmix.com
>
> Erik
> Notre Dame Archives
>
>  At 12:51 PM 4/28/2005, you 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 don't believe anyone has done a definitive, objective study of the
> > various available declickers/decracklers/dehissers suitable for 78
> > restoration. If such a study has been done, I'd certainly like to see
> > the results.
> >
> > Jon Noring
> >
> > (Hasn't Waves been renamed or bought by another company? Is it now
> > called Algorithmix?)
Scott Loiselle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  
PH:  978-772-7725
FAX: 978-772-7726
http://www.meadowmedia.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *   
Meadow Media
94 Jackson Road, Suite 104
Devens, MA 01432