Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Post Production > Post - Surround - Video

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-07-2010, 07:14 AM
diamondschwin diamondschwin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nashville/NYC
Posts: 468
Default RX or RX Advanced?

Hey everyone,


Right now I am looking to purchase Izotope RX, I have gotten tired of X Noise and Z noise, both have rescued things in the past but seem too heavy handed compared to the video I watched about Izotope...


I see the large price gap between RX and RX Advanced and was wondering what everyone was using and why.

I mostly need spectral repair, declipper, and the gap fill function.
__________________
Max Holland
Producer / Re-Recording Mixer
Nashville / NYC

MKD Creative

HOBO Audio
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-07-2010, 07:25 AM
Newpostguy Newpostguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 263
Default Re: RX or RX Advanced?

You get what you pay for IMHO. +1 for rx advanced
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-07-2010, 08:43 AM
hummerZ hummerZ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 264
Default Re: RX or RX Advanced?

I think it depends on how you're going to use it. If you plan to use the standalone program extensively, then you might want to consider the Advanced version. But even then, I don't think the price difference is justified. There's really fancy dithering and sample rate conversion options in the advanced version, only available in the standalone app. Also, the manual declick/interpolator in the Advanced version is only available in standalone mode.

If you want it primarily for plugins inside of pro tools, the regular version is probably (definitely) adequate.

But you know, demo it and decide for yourself.

The spectral repair is worth the cost. It's great. But I think the noise reduction sucks, as does the declicker. For those tasks, demo the new Sonnox restoration package.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-07-2010, 09:12 AM
Brandonx1 Brandonx1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: RX or RX Advanced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummerZ View Post
I think the noise reduction sucks.
I don't see how you can say that. I get very good results with the denoiser. It's the only broadband NR I use.

Agreed the declicker doesn't work well for me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-07-2010, 09:55 AM
BScout BScout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,922
Default Re: RX or RX Advanced?

First off, I think RX (Advanced) is much better to run standalone than as a plugin. The spectral/waveform (hybrid) window is much easier to work with when cleaning things up than doing it blindly as a plugin.

I also think that you should do the whole demo thing before putting money down. You can demo each mode for I believe 15 or 30 days. You'll know pretty quickly which you need. I come from a Cedar Cambridge ($40k+ for the system not including the plugins) background in noise reduction (I've also used the System 6000 restoration, Waves and Sonnox) and outside of the Cambridge, the RX version is the best software I've found.

I could, of course, come up with a laundry list of things I'd change about the program to make it more efficient (and honestly, steal a little from the way the Cambridge's Debuzz, NR-5, and Declick work) but you can get very good results by cranking up the processing in RX (these options are limited in the non-RX to only preset algos/settings) for many of the modules and using the spectral repair on frequency bands (if only to adjust thresholds.)

The one module that I think is useless is the Hum Removal. It's really poor compared to the Debuzz module in the Cambridge where you can track changing fundamentals and it's pretty useless since you can't do an active adjustment (running audio is loop while targeting the fundamental and adjusting the thresholds for harmonics.)

I don't use the Declip module -- so no opinion there.

Declick works well but the visual waveform doesn't track with the audio well (the click is actually a few waves ahead or behind from where you're seeing the playhead move), so usually I narrow the time-area down by listening and placing markers and then go wave by wave processing, listening, undoing until I find the click. The smoothing algorithm for drawing the waveforms hides the usual tell-tale shape unless you're at sample zoom-level, which drives me nuts since then your panning vertically and horizontally alot to keep the waveform in view; doing wave by wave is actually easier/faster. Once you find the waveform with the click, zooming to sample level and then adjusting which processing algo you use on the section of the wave that will do the least damage is easy (an algo choice is RX only)

I think the Denoiser is a great one -- especially if used jointly with frequency band selection. The algos they use rival the Cambridge (though the Cambridge's module-chain system and freq analyser make it a bit more laser-precise.) I've worked with the Sonnox one and both X-Noise and Z-Noise from Waves that they both do a lot more damage to the sound -- especially mudding things up; with the RX denoiser, I'll usually try to leave high-freq bands alone or at a lower threshold/reduction when doing broadband removal so that the "air" is left in the room. I also find the digital artifacts can be near non-existent (better than the NR-4 from Cedar and on par with the NR-5.)

Then there's the Spectral repair -- which there are far too many options to go into. I'll only say that in the choices between the Attenuate/Replace/Pattern/Partials+Noise tabs, I've many times found that I'll use a different function that I'd original thought applicable. For instance, attenuating instead of replacing or using pattern instead of attenuating to get rid of a sound. Readjusting the analysis windows here and the strength of the influence of surrounding material makes a huge difference in what actually happens to the processed area. I once removed just the sound of the keys of a solo trumpet hitting the valve casings (which had been over-emphasized by compression) buried under full orchestral strings and you could not hear anything different other than the lack of the previously-distracting noise; room reverb sounded the same and the violin harmonics still sounded clean.

I'd say 90% of what I've done wouldn't have been possible without the RX version. I'll also say that you need to run it on the fastest computer possible because when you crank up the algos to the highest settings it can take quite a bit of time to use the denoiser (done on a core2duo laptop, a 4 min section at 96k took over an hour); also the spectral redraws can take a lot of time on long files (especially if you're working at 88.2 and up.)

One note about Protools integration...
Working on/as mono files, you can leave protools open, fix the file in standalone Izotope (if you have a secondary audio card) --even upsample and downsample back to the original sample/bit-depth, save it, and the file will playback in protools with the fix (ie, izotope will leave the protools' metadata intact.) [if you want to see the updated waveform, you have to tell ProTools to redraw it]

Can't do that directly with stereo (multi-mono) files because though it will open .L and .R files as a stereo file, it interleaves the results when saving and gives no option to save back as multi-mono files. That's a PITA for my workflow.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-07-2010, 12:28 PM
diamondschwin diamondschwin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nashville/NYC
Posts: 468
Default Re: RX or RX Advanced?

yeah I will have to download a demo, I didnt realize some features in the standalone version would be changed in the plug in version.

I am leaning towards the regular RX, but I will know soon enough I am sure!


I will check out the Sonnex stuff too.




Thanks
__________________
Max Holland
Producer / Re-Recording Mixer
Nashville / NYC

MKD Creative

HOBO Audio
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone having trouble with RX2 Advanced in 9.0.5? whitecat Post - Surround - Video 12 09-23-2011 01:04 PM
Advanced Techniques bigtrep 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 04-21-2005 12:29 PM
OT - Advanced Acoustics lwilliam General Discussion 3 10-30-2001 10:26 PM
advanced PT skills twarren General Discussion 0 10-31-2000 01:34 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com