|
|
Post by tasteliketape on Jan 11, 2016 0:04:04 GMT -6
Not trying to start a hardware vs plugin debate but in this day and age are hardware gates and de esser that much better or any better than plugs
Yea I know there 2 different things and I'm totally into hardware but these two types of gear doesn't seem totally critical as long as they do what there supposed too could be wrong am I?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 11, 2016 7:41:15 GMT -6
IMO, the only reason to have hardware gates these days is if you are processing OTB, and using a console, to me silence is every bit, if not more valuable than most notes, it's where the weight lives, as far as software gates and D essers, one word
"FABFILTERS"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 11, 2016 8:01:17 GMT -6
ITB de-essers are a godsend. In the box editing completely destroys the need for external noise gates in the studio world.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 11, 2016 8:07:45 GMT -6
ITB de-essers are a godsend. In the box editing completely destroys the need for external noise gates in the studio world. not entirely if you're using a console, i'm coming out from ITB, entering my console, and inserting hardware OTB where it stays before final 2 buss capture, so even with a super quiet console, you need to gate off ambience, and hardware insert noise from certain tracks, so hardware gates are alive and useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 11, 2016 8:12:25 GMT -6
tonycamphd you can still edit and use plugz for coming out of the box into your console!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 11, 2016 8:17:35 GMT -6
tonycamphd you can still edit and use plugz for coming out of the box into your console! yes, but you're not going to be able to edit noise created from elements OTB processing is what i'm getting at, i misrepresented on the ambient thing, you can gate that off itb if you want, but some of us want to use the DAW as primarily a tape machine, channels untouched, with no processing/ dithering needed... It's a long story, we'll talk about it when I see you in a couple weeks 8) |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 11, 2016 18:23:23 GMT -6
 BTW I think the Bill Gates in Apple Logic Pro works perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 11, 2016 19:43:26 GMT -6
Trouble is, I can hear when every one of them start really working and it sounds like crap to me. Because of this, I hand de-ess. They just take too much around the centered area. I have 6 different ones, know how they all work inside and out and still don't like them. Gonna try the new Hofa one soon and see how that goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Jan 11, 2016 19:47:29 GMT -6
I've tried the Hofa Eq as a de esser. It is ok for a few db's but still always better to do by hand.
The fab filter de esser is also pretty ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by tasteliketape on Jan 11, 2016 19:47:44 GMT -6
Trouble is, I can hear when every one of them start really working and it sounds like crap to me. Because of this, I hand de-ess. They just take too much around the centered area. I have 6 different ones, know how they all work inside and out and still don't like them. Gonna try the new Hofa one soon and see how that goes. that's why I asked I only have a couple plugin de esser and they just changed the vocal way to much no matter how I tweeted them I could hear them in a bad way |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 11, 2016 19:49:45 GMT -6
Exactly. I have had a couple of singers that were pretty sibilant lately and had to spend some time de-essing manually, but it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 11, 2016 19:58:44 GMT -6
Exactly. I have had a couple of singers that were pretty sibilant lately and had to spend some time de-essing manually, but it's worth it. agreed, by hand is the way to go, but of the ones i've tried, i like the FF, i primarily use them to catch effects sends. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 11, 2016 20:02:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 11, 2016 20:17:01 GMT -6
I de-ess manually using reverse phase to attenuate the 'esses'.
We have a hardware SPL De-Esser and I have tried several plugin de-essers but nothing beats doing it manually if you don't want the sibilance to sound like it has been processed.
My de-essing technique is as follows...
1. In Reaper I make a duplicate copy of the vocal track (after comping, and editing)
2. Zoom in on each 'S' in the duplicate track until it is cleary identifiable.
3. Slice the waveform just each side of each 'S'.
4. As you go delete all the other audio parts in between the 'esses' so the esses are the only sections of waveforms remaining.
5. Phase reverse the 'esses' only track and assign it to the same bus as the original vocal.
6. Solo both tracks and you should notice the 'esses' completely vanish as the track plays.
7. By gradually reducing the level of the 'esses' track you will hear the sibilance gradually return.
By adjusting the level of phased reversed 'esses' track you exactly determine the amount of sibilance required.
You can then glue the 'esses' track together once you determine it remains exactly in sync for the entire length of the track.
No artefacts, furry, or lispy esses.
Wind on some nice 16k high shelving without fear!
The SPL hardware de-esser now sits in the reverb send chain to stop any high frequency spikes hitting the 480L.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 11, 2016 20:28:25 GMT -6
I de-ess manually using reverse phase to attenuate the 'esses'. We have a hardware SPL De-Esser and I have tried several plugin de-essers but nothing beats doing it manually if you don't want the sibilance to sound like it has been processed. My de-essing technique is as follows... 1. In Reaper I make a duplicate copy of the vocal track (after comping, and editing) 2. Zoom in on each 'S' in the duplicate track until it is cleary identifiable. 3. Slice the waveform just each side of each 'S'. 4. As you go delete all the other audio parts in between the 'esses' so the esses are the only sections of waveforms remaining. 5. Phase reverse the 'esses' only track and assign it to the same bus as the original vocal. 6. Solo both tracks and you should notice the 'esses' completely vanish as the track plays. 7. By gradually reducing the level of the 'esses' track you will hear the sibilance gradually return. By adjusting the level of phased reversed 'esses' track you exactly determine the amount of sibilance required. You can then glue the 'esses' track together once you determine it remains exactly in sync for the entire length of the track. No artefacts, furry, or lispy esses. Wind on some nice 16k high shelving without fear! The SPL hardware de-esser now sits in the reverb send chain to stop any high frequency spikes hitting the 480L. works really great, used to do it all the time, but now i just use clip gain in Pro tools easy peasy |
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jan 11, 2016 21:04:28 GMT -6
I de-ess manually using reverse phase to attenuate the 'esses'. We have a hardware SPL De-Esser and I have tried several plugin de-essers but nothing beats doing it manually if you don't want the sibilance to sound like it has been processed. My de-essing technique is as follows... 1. In Reaper I make a duplicate copy of the vocal track (after comping, and editing) 2. Zoom in on each 'S' in the duplicate track until it is cleary identifiable. 3. Slice the waveform just each side of each 'S'. 4. As you go delete all the other audio parts in between the 'esses' so the esses are the only sections of waveforms remaining. 5. Phase reverse the 'esses' only track and assign it to the same bus as the original vocal. 6. Solo both tracks and you should notice the 'esses' completely vanish as the track plays. 7. By gradually reducing the level of the 'esses' track you will hear the sibilance gradually return. By adjusting the level of phased reversed 'esses' track you exactly determine the amount of sibilance required. You can then glue the 'esses' track together once you determine it remains exactly in sync for the entire length of the track. No artefacts, furry, or lispy esses. Wind on some nice 16k high shelving without fear! The SPL hardware de-esser now sits in the reverb send chain to stop any high frequency spikes hitting the 480L. Whoa - very cool! Haven't heard of this trick before. Will give it a try soon. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jan 11, 2016 21:09:25 GMT -6
Trouble is, I can hear when every one of them start really working and it sounds like crap to me. Because of this, I hand de-ess. They just take too much around the centered area. I have 6 different ones, know how they all work inside and out and still don't like them. Gonna try the new Hofa one soon and see how that goes. I manually de-ess and manually gate as well. I've always had a hard time with de-essers. By the time I've gotten the S's to a level I'm happy with Ive degraded the sonics too much. I just slice and turn them down with clip gain. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 11, 2016 21:29:53 GMT -6
Trouble is, I can hear when every one of them start really working and it sounds like crap to me. Because of this, I hand de-ess. They just take too much around the centered area. I have 6 different ones, know how they all work inside and out and still don't like them. Gonna try the new Hofa one soon and see how that goes. I manually de-ess and manually gate as well. I've always had a hard time with de-essers. By the time I've gotten the S's to a level I'm happy with Ive degraded the sonics too much. I just slice and turn them down with clip gain. Me too. |
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jan 15, 2016 19:01:15 GMT -6
For all you guys who turn the esses down manually - do you do this during the mix phase or during editing before mixing? Does it matter if you turn them down before or after compression?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 15, 2016 19:55:43 GMT -6
For all you guys who turn the esses down manually - do you do this during the mix phase or during editing before mixing? Does it matter if you turn them down before or after compression? Editing here. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 15, 2016 23:12:35 GMT -6
I correct before compression.
if you only need to correct after your mix processing--it's likely mostly your fault with what you're doing to it--and THAT is what you want to fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jan 16, 2016 0:02:01 GMT -6
I de-ess manually using reverse phase to attenuate the 'esses'. We have a hardware SPL De-Esser and I have tried several plugin de-essers but nothing beats doing it manually if you don't want the sibilance to sound like it has been processed. My de-essing technique is as follows... 1. In Reaper I make a duplicate copy of the vocal track (after comping, and editing) 2. Zoom in on each 'S' in the duplicate track until it is cleary identifiable. 3. Slice the waveform just each side of each 'S'. 4. As you go delete all the other audio parts in between the 'esses' so the esses are the only sections of waveforms remaining. 5. Phase reverse the 'esses' only track and assign it to the same bus as the original vocal. 6. Solo both tracks and you should notice the 'esses' completely vanish as the track plays. 7. By gradually reducing the level of the 'esses' track you will hear the sibilance gradually return. By adjusting the level of phased reversed 'esses' track you exactly determine the amount of sibilance required. You can then glue the 'esses' track together once you determine it remains exactly in sync for the entire length of the track. No artefacts, furry, or lispy esses. Wind on some nice 16k high shelving without fear! The SPL hardware de-esser now sits in the reverb send chain to stop any high frequency spikes hitting the 480L. cool trick , gotta try it ! |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 16, 2016 5:06:56 GMT -6
^Cool^ - So do any commercial de-essers work this way? I.e., with phase reversal? Also, and in order to preserve the 'air,' wound't it be a good idea to hi and low pass the phased reversed 's' track?
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 16, 2016 8:11:16 GMT -6
^Cool^ - So do any commercial de-essers work this way? I.e., with phase reversal? Also, and in order to preserve the 'air,' wound't it be a good idea to hi and low pass the phased reversed 's' track? Decided to try and answer my own question.. So I just tried the inverted phase technique. For some reason I found it a bit tricky to get Logic to perfectly line up the tracks visually, even nudging at SMPTE bit rate. I wonder that I got a perfect 180 inversion, but it must've been close enough because, it worked AND I found that applying HPF and LPF to the inverted track gave me control of the color of the remaining 'S' if that makes any sense. The process was a bit of a pain, but I only needed to cherry-pick less than a dozen problem areas ..and I declare it well worth the work. I was never able to wipe out the S, but then come to think of it, I didn't send the tracks to a shared buss so it occurs to me that all processing applied to the original track is messing with the efficacy of the inverted track. Like others, I've never liked any de-esser I've tried. I'll probably still use one when there's a ton of problem areas, but for fixing the occasional outlier due to variance in mic technique etc.. this is a winner. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 16, 2016 8:16:52 GMT -6
^Cool^ - So do any commercial de-essers work this way? I.e., with phase reversal? Also, and in order to preserve the 'air,' wound't it be a good idea to hi and low pass the phased reversed 's' track? Decided to try and answer my own question.. So I just tried the inverted phase technique. For some reason I found it a bit tricky to get Logic to perfectly line up the tracks visually, even nudging at SMPTE bit rate. I wonder that I got a perfect 180 inversion, but it must've been close enough because, it worked AND I found that applying HPF and LPF to the inverted track gave me control of the color of the remaining 'S' if that makes any sense. The process was a bit of a pain, but I only needed to cherry-pick less than a dozen problem areas ..and I declare it well worth the work. I was never able to wipe out the S, but then come to think of it, I didn't send the tracks to a shared buss so it occurs to me that all processing applied to the original track is messing with the efficacy of the inverted track. Like others, I've never liked any de-esser I've tried. I'll probably still use one when there's a ton of problem areas, but for fixing the occasional outlier due to variance in mic technique etc.. this is a winner. You should flip the phase with an eq plug (or another plug with a phase button) rather than nudging and lining up. |
|
