| Author |
 Topic  |
ronnieh1
Posts: 18
|
 Posted - Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:06 pm |
|
|
Has anyone had success in using a Sound Laundry plugin with Cool Edit Pro 2.0?
Cool Edit opens my Sound Laundry plugin station as a DirectX extension, but it does not recognize the Denoiser module for the plugin station. The error message is "The selected PlugIn cannot be loaded as a DirectX PlugIn".
I assume that this means the PlugIn *Station* is written for DirectX and that the *Denoiser Plugin* that needs the Station to work is not written for DirectX?
The Cool Edit Denoiser is not an option. It works OK, but the Algorithmix denoiser works *significantly* better than any other Denoiser that I've tested.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:39 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | Has anyone had success in using a Sound Laundry plugin with Cool Edit Pro 2.0?
Cool Edit opens my Sound Laundry plugin station as a DirectX extension, but it does not recognize the Denoiser module for the plugin station. The error message is "The selected PlugIn cannot be loaded as a DirectX PlugIn".
I assume that this means the PlugIn *Station* is written for DirectX and that the *Denoiser Plugin* that needs the Station to work is not written for DirectX? |
You're right - the Algorithmix 'plug-ins' only work with the company's 'Station', although the latter will load as a Direct X plug-in on its own. Rather curoius behaviour, I agree, but the only way you can run SL is as a stand-alone application.
| Quote: | | The Cool Edit Denoiser is not an option. It works OK, but the Algorithmix denoiser works *significantly* better than any other Denoiser that I've tested. |
I'm wouldn't agree with you on this. If you listen carefully to the output from the Algorithmix de-noiser, you can hear all sorts of pumping going on. I agree that, for a 'quick fix', it might prove useful, but the CEP de-noiser introduces far less artifacts of its own.
|
|
ronnieh1
Posts: 18
|
| Posted - Fri Apr 19, 2002 5:29 pm |
|
|
Thanks for the confirmation.
Re: the difference between the Algorithmix and Syntrillium Denoisers…
I’m cleaning up early Decca LPs, 10-inch LPs, and some music pressed on that beautiful but noisy transparent vinyl. For these high-noise sources, the CEP denoiser falls far short of adequate denoising before introducing serious artifacts. The SL denoise does not.
Granted, the SL denoiser leaves artifacts behind (as does any denoiser algorithm), but the overall result with SL is considerably better. The worst artifact from either process is time phasing. CEP has a lot more of that. SL will go a lot further into the noise before warbling. I’d categorize pumping as a serious artifact, and I hear none of that in the SL results.
I concede that I’m comparing CEP v1.2 to SL 2.5. I’ll try CEP 2.0 and report back. I would really like CEP to come out on top. The SL user interface, to be polite, is irritating.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Fri Apr 19, 2002 8:29 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | Granted, the SL denoiser leaves artifacts behind (as does any denoiser algorithm), but the overall result with SL is considerably better. The worst artifact from either process is time phasing. CEP has a lot more of that. SL will go a lot further into the noise before warbling. I’d categorize pumping as a serious artifact, and I hear none of that in the SL results. |
Interesting.... I've been playing around with SL ever since it appeared on the market, but have never been impressed by its performance. Just goes to show, one man's meat and all that stuff  . Maybe I should have another look at SL.
| Quote: | | I concede that I’m comparing CEP v1.2 to SL 2.5. I’ll try CEP 2.0 and report back. I would really like CEP to come out on top. The SL user interface, to be polite, is irritating. |
I'm doing the same comparison. I don't think you'll find that CEP2 will be any different, since there appears to be little re-working of the 'restoration' algorithms.
I have to agree about the SL interface.
|
|
ronnieh1
Posts: 18
|
| Posted - Sun Apr 21, 2002 9:36 pm |
|
|
OK. I spent a long time using the CEP 2.0 Denoiser on a project today. Sad to say, it doesn’t come close to the performance of the Algorithmix Denoiser. Like you said, the Denoising performance in CEP 2 is not improved over the old version.
The CEP Denoiser creates so many artifacts, even at low levels of denoising, it’s virtually uselss on the old LPs I’m restoring. I redid the project using Sound Laundry and it sounds great now.
The SL denoise algorithm seems to be unique. Others I’ve tried, including CEDAR and ProTools, perform like the CEP one – lots of artifacts. SL seems to be less critical of settings and fingerprint sampling than CEP. And, it works a lot better – at least for the kind of stuff that I’m doing.
Algorithmix must be working on a DirectX Denoise plugin. I would think that there would be quite a market for it once the word got out about how well their algorithm works.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Sun Apr 21, 2002 10:40 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | Like you said, the Denoising performance in CEP 2 is not improved over the old version. |
No - there's not a lot in it for the restoration guys. A couple of neat tricks (like the band splitter, for example) that have some possibilities, but I've found CEP2.0 too unstable in its current release and I've deleted it for the moment.
| Quote: | | The CEP Denoiser creates so many artifacts, even at low levels of denoising, it’s virtually uselss on the old LPs I’m restoring. I redid the project using Sound Laundry and it sounds great now. |
I find this quite surprising - there must be a load of people here who are using it to exclusion, so perhaps someone else might like to comment on this aspect of CEP?
| Quote: | | And, it works a lot better – at least for the kind of stuff that I’m doing. |
If it works for you, then I'm the last person to say don't use it :-)
| Quote: | | Algorithmix must be working on a DirectX Denoise plugin. I would think that there would be quite a market for it once the word got out about how well their algorithm works. |
As I understand it, the Waves plug-ins are based on the same code from Algorithmix. Considering the cost of the Waves stuff, it's hard to see quite how Algorithmix could release their own DX version, at a lower price, without upsetting their customer.
|
|
ronnieh1
Posts: 18
|
| Posted - Mon Apr 22, 2002 12:59 pm |
|
|
I tried the Waves version of the Algorithmix Denoiser under Peak on my Mac. That's how I discovered Algorithmix. It's not DirectX on the Mac, of course. The user interface is significantly better under Waves, so I guess that's the selling point. I am considering running the denoiser under Waves on my new Mac dual 1GHz for that very reason. The Waves implementation is indeed overpriced, but if it saves a few minutes per day it's worth it.
I too was using CEP's denoiser exclusively until I stumbled across Sound Laundry. The CEP denoiser works as well or better than other denoisers I've tried regardless of cost. The Algorithmix denoiser is an exceptional value. It is both cheap ($100) and effective.
All this raving suggests that a disclaimer is in order. I have no connection whatsoever to Algorithmix, Syntrillium or any other software developer. I am a hobbiest doing my own thing.
|
|
Rod
Location: USA
Posts: 294
|
| Posted - Wed May 08, 2002 10:58 pm |
|
|
|
I have to jump in here and say that I DO really like Sound Laundry a lot. It's very fast and usefull even though it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of CEP's Hiss Reduction. It is along the same lines, differing from what most are calling "noise reduction". Direct X plug-ins from Algorithmix are MOST welcome to use in a user friendly envionment such as CEP, and I agree WAVES seems to be marketing this format for Algorithmix. The problem? It costs way to much! So the way I see it, we can have patients and tweak CEP to our liking, use the clunky "station" of algorithmix, or spend a fortune on the WAVES pack to use with CEP... (assuming there are no known issues between WAVES and CEP 2.0, since some in this forum have reported problems such DX plug-ins problems). Long live Syntrillium! Rod
|
|
beetle
Location: USA
Posts: 2591
|
| Posted - Sun May 26, 2002 1:13 am |
|
|
Since I'm another resident restoration guy, I 'll have to say that CEP's NR is tops, but highly sensitive. The soundcard you use can make the difference of getting clean results and artifacts.
I have used the WAVES demo and the NR didn't do anything for me. But the new declicker...OH! It got some hardcore cases CLEANED UP! It did things that NO other program, including Cool Edit, had ever been able to do!
Arboretum's Ray Gun will not work with 24 or 32-bit so it is totally useless to me.
Sound Laundry will now work with 32-bit files BUT it converts them to 16-bit automatically. NOT acceptable for me.
Believe it or not, Sound Forge's NR is really good! I have been using it with NO ARTIFACTS the way I have been using it.
Edited by - beetle on 05/26/2002 01:16:21 AM
|
|
Philippe Legros
Location: France
Posts: 195
|
| Posted - Sun May 26, 2002 2:03 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Since I'm another resident restoration guy, I 'll have to say that CEP's NR is tops, but highly sensitive. The soundcard you use can make the difference of getting clean results and artifacts. |
I beleive that my approximate understanding of English is the culprit: I don't understand where and how and why the soundcard may be involved in the NR algorythm?
PS: I am new (only some months experience...) in the restoration area, but the more I use the CE2k NR, the more I try to set it at a lowest level (except for the YoungLove script).
|
|
beetle
Location: USA
Posts: 2591
|
| Posted - Sun May 26, 2002 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Soundcards add noise, especially cheap cards like Soundblasters. the nore noise and distortion you have in your file the harder the NR has to work. It will be harder for the NR to differentiate between legitamate noise and music.
|
|
Philippe Legros
Location: France
Posts: 195
|
| Posted - Sun May 26, 2002 10:55 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | Soundcards add noise, especially cheap cards like Soundblasters. the nore noise and distortion you have in your file the harder the NR has to work. It will be harder for the NR to differentiate between legitamate noise and music. |
OK. It is BEFORE the NR reduction, not in the process itself, as I wrongly understood from your previous message. Now, I can agree!
PhL
|
|
beetle
Location: USA
Posts: 2591
|
| Posted - Mon May 27, 2002 12:03 pm |
|
|
Sure! Just trying to get that "gold" status I so rightly deserve!:)
Edited by - beetle on 05/27/2002 12:04:19 PM
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
| Posted - Wed May 29, 2002 11:07 pm |
|
|
Well, congratulations, beetle, you've apparently made it!
To stay on topic - I haven't had a chance to try SL yet, but it might be worth a look. Of course, I don't really do a lot of cleanup work - most folks here probably know that I'm a studio rat. This has been an intriguing thread so far, though!
All the best... -Jon
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
Algorithmix Denoiser