Date:         Mon, 2 May 2005 08:28:00 -0500
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Restoration Software
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Dave Nolan wrote:

> 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.

I agree on both points, but have found the x-noise to work well when used
carefully and when monitoring with headphones. I found it much better that
DINR which is available from digi. If you monitor the difference signal
with x-noise and adjust the frequency, you can do a decent job, but you
need to be mindful that it will not let you totally isolate what you want
to remove. I will often use a parametric eq in conjunction with the
x-noise.

Also, from my own experience, sometimes, or so it seems to my ears, and
eyes, that using the x-crackle before the x-click works can be better on
some discs, especially LPs.

Karl