|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 19, 2019 9:41:49 GMT -6
Doing this by hand still seems to do the best job to me. Is there any program that identifies esses by waveform? Like I wish there was a way to “tab to transient sibilant waveforms” or something. Twould be handy. I’ve got a session I’m mixing now where the girl is pretty sibilant, and deessers haven’t worked the greatest. It’s like to get the esses down enough, it dulls the vocal. Editing the ess volume by hand has been the best solution...just a pita. I’m gonna see if I can cut all the esses, highlight the regions and then ctrl-shift the volume...but just by memory it doesn’t seem like it will do that.
I know FF DS shows the region it’s deessing in the graphical field. I’ve never paid much attention to it, but maybe that’s a better way to see how your frequency range is effecting things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Apr 19, 2019 10:30:55 GMT -6
I think Izotope RX can do this. Also the Eosis Deeser has a spectrum analyzer that does something similar
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 19, 2019 10:51:14 GMT -6
I haven't tried many software types, but I have RX7 and the build in de-esser in DP, the DP plug is far better than the new RX plug. You can see the 'S' in the real time display, and there are a good number of adjustable parameters. Any real time frequency display should make it obvious. Sometimes I have a singer who hits two different narrow band 'S', and two de-essers tuned separately to each frequency wins over a single wide band approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Apr 19, 2019 12:44:10 GMT -6
DMG's "Essence" shows the waveform, and you can fine tune its action by boosting the sidechain EQ in that area. The Eiosis/Slate deesser shows some kind of waveform, too. Both of those can be pretty transparent - sometimes a little toooo transparent, if you know what I mean.
I haven't tried Pro-DS, but i hear it's great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 19, 2019 13:20:06 GMT -6
I guess I'm just saying that doing it by hand seems to result in much better results...
|
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Apr 19, 2019 13:59:21 GMT -6
I guess I'm just saying that doing it by hand seems to result in much better results... Right - and I'm just saying that Essence shows you which esses are being caught as the waveform rolls by. You can then increase or decrease its sensitivity, attack, and release to catch more or less of the ess transient. It may or may not get you where you want to go, but you can visualize what you're doing to the esses, which can be helpful. It sounds like maybe Pro- DS does this too? At any rate, I just thought I'd mention it. It sounds a bit like what you were asking about. EDIT: and yes, I agree that sometimes, no plug seems to do the job like I want it to. |
|
|
|
Post by bartacusad on Apr 19, 2019 14:09:04 GMT -6
I guess I'm just saying that doing it by hand seems to result in much better results... Stop being lazy John😂!! Computers can’t replace us....yet. I just had to do that exact same process except for it was esses and T’s. It really made all the difference. I was able to add all the air to the vocal that I wanted to without the fear of it being a spitty mess. Dare to be old school! |
|
|
|
Post by besonique on Apr 19, 2019 14:45:59 GMT -6
I've had good results editing in the spectral view with izotope rx, it's more flexible as sometimes just lowering the gain of part of the spectrum does the trick better than lowering the waveform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 19, 2019 15:14:11 GMT -6
I guess I'm just saying that doing it by hand seems to result in much better results... Stop being lazy John😂!! Computers can’t replace us....yet. I just had to do that exact same process except for it was esses and T’s. It really made all the difference. I was able to add all the air to the vocal that I wanted to without the fear of it being a spitty mess. Dare to be old school! HA...you're right. Still need to see if I can cut all of the esses, highlight them, and ctrl-shift to bring all the volumes down at the same time. Ain't nobody got time for that... |
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Apr 19, 2019 15:32:54 GMT -6
Samplitude : you have a spectral view of the waveform. The esses are very easy to spot. You select them all, and apply whatever processing you wish. I usually cut 2-3 dBs, and apply some filtering just to these regions. The object-oriented approach is amazing for these tasks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 19, 2019 16:07:27 GMT -6
Samplitude : you have a spectral view of the waveform. The esses are very easy to spot. You select them all, and apply whatever processing you wish. I usually cut 2-3 dBs, and apply some filtering just to these regions. The object-oriented approach is amazing for these tasks. Ooo. Didn’t think about audiosuite in PT. Wonder if I can select them all and then audiosuite them down a few dbs? |
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Apr 19, 2019 16:13:06 GMT -6
You should demo the Fabfilter one. I can’t imagine getting better results by any means. It simply makes the problem go away instantly with no side effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 19, 2019 17:55:04 GMT -6
I own it...sometimes with bad sibilance, even it doesn't seem to completely do the job...
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Apr 19, 2019 18:09:16 GMT -6
We have the Fabfilter De-esser, amongst others, along with a SPL hardware de-esser but the best results are still done manually.
I prefer copying the file I want to de-ess, then slicing and removing everything but the 'esses, plosives and hard consonants and then regluing the wavefile together so I'm left with everything I want to attenuate.
I then send this 'esses' file and the original to the same bus, phase reverse the 'esses' file and then adjust the gain of the 'esses' file to control the amount of phase cancellation and therefore the amount of de-essing.
Nothing else is as transperant as this method although it is time consuming and only gets used occasionally on problematic tracks when other methods don't cut it as no one generally wants to pay for the additional time involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Apr 19, 2019 18:55:39 GMT -6
I guess I'm just saying that doing it by hand seems to result in much better results... There's a joke in there somewhere, just begging to get out! BTW these kinds of discussions-as high level as they are-only tempt me more to add a ribbon microphone to the arsenal. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Apr 19, 2019 19:05:29 GMT -6
We have the Fabfilter De-esser, amongst others, along with a SPL hardware de-esser but the best results are still done manually. I prefer copying the file I want to de-ess, then slicing and removing everything but the 'esses, plosives and hard consonants and then regluing the wavefile together so I'm left with everything I want to attenuate. I then send this 'esses' file and the original to the same bus, phase reverse the 'esses' file and then adjust the gain of the 'esses' file to control the amount of phase cancellation and therefore the amount of de-essing. Nothing else is as transperant as this method although it is time consuming and only gets used occasionally on problematic tracks when other methods don't cut it as no one generally wants to pay for the additional time involved. this is a very cool method - thanks for sharing, rowmat. |
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Apr 20, 2019 1:33:25 GMT -6
Rowmat's phase reverse method is for mine as good as it's got - being able to automate the edited channel volume gives great non destructive control.
It is of course initially labour intensive but feels worth it if the project is cool.
Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by Gustav on Apr 20, 2019 4:16:55 GMT -6
How about filtering the problematic frequency area, rendering a duplicate, and tabbing to transient with the original track above for manual editing.
Gustav
|
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on May 5, 2019 19:14:13 GMT -6
www.airwindows.com/deess-vst/no aax, but WOW! Identifies problems via slew rate instead of frequency. You can transparently obliterate the ess, or retain and sculpt it 
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 5, 2019 19:27:24 GMT -6
www.airwindows.com/deess-vst/no aax, but WOW! Identifies problems via slew rate instead of frequency. You can transparently obliterate the ess, or retain and sculpt it Wow. That’s impressive |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 7, 2019 9:49:14 GMT -6
Holy crap, that Airwindows Deesser is the best I've ever used.
|
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on May 7, 2019 10:06:15 GMT -6
Holy crap, that Airwindows Deesser is the best I've ever used. I need to try it again. I used to use one of Chris's deessers years ago (8-10 yrs ago), but I'm not sure if it was the same algorithm as the one you guys are talking about. The one I used back then didn't thrill me, so it makes me think this one is different. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 7, 2019 10:32:45 GMT -6
www.airwindows.com/deess-vst/no aax, but WOW! Identifies problems via slew rate instead of frequency. You can transparently obliterate the ess, or retain and sculpt it DL'ed with gratitude. |
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on May 7, 2019 10:54:27 GMT -6
Holy crap, that Airwindows Deesser is the best I've ever used. If only I could figure out his website! |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on May 7, 2019 12:17:42 GMT -6
We have the Fabfilter De-esser, amongst others, along with a SPL hardware de-esser but the best results are still done manually. I prefer copying the file I want to de-ess, then slicing and removing everything but the 'esses, plosives and hard consonants and then regluing the wavefile together so I'm left with everything I want to attenuate. I then send this 'esses' file and the original to the same bus, phase reverse the 'esses' file and then adjust the gain of the 'esses' file to control the amount of phase cancellation and therefore the amount of de-essing. Nothing else is as transperant as this method although it is time consuming and only gets used occasionally on problematic tracks when other methods don't cut it as no one generally wants to pay for the additional time involved.
Something about this reminds me of a method Bob Clearmountain used on consoles. I can't remember where I read about it but he claimed he got better results than any de-esser. Hmmmm.
|
|
