Retro Instruments 176 Uživatelský manuál stáhnout pdf (Strana 2)

I tried DeClicker on several test files I have. (When I run

into an issue during a project, I copy the worst offenders to

a “Save for Restoration Software Torture Testing” folder.) On

every one, the basic setting handled the problems; I didn’t

touch a single control. Finally, I pulled up a recording that

used a dirty clock connection — we’re talking real speaker-

destroying spikes. DeClicker grabbed almost everything right

away. I was able to use the Exclude Box to keep the hi-hats

out of the removal path. I also wanted to keep some snare

hits, but you can have only one Ignore Box at a time. To get

around that, I opened up the expert settings and tweaked

until the snare was allowed to pass unaffected.

The second title in the Restore collection is DeBuzzer

(think guitar amps and single-coil pickups — bzzzzzzzzz).

Most debuzzing applications use a standard comb filter that

removes the fundamental and its associated harmonics. For

60 Hz hum (or 50 Hz, depending on where you live), this has

been a straightforward process. However, when you run into

hums not associated with the electrical grid, this approach

falls apart. That’s because it is difficult to find the specific

source fundamental.

Sonnox has developed three tools to help users lock in on

these troublesome frequencies. First, there is a sweepable

Frequency Detect option. Just like it sounds, it allows you to

scan the area you suspect contains the problem energy. The

second is a large FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) display

specifically tuned to find consistent components while

averaging out other audio. As long as an instrument or voice

isn’t holding a note, the buzz should stand out visually on

this display. The third tool is a built-in tone generator.

DeBuzzer can generate a control tone that plays along with

the audio. As you sweep closer to the source of the buzz, the

control tone and the fundamental will have a slow beat

frequency. In use, this is very similar to tuning a guitar with

harmonics. Once you find the source fundamental, you select

it and tell DeBuzzer to attack. It will calculate a comb filter

specific to the source buzz and eliminate it. Fortunately, you

don’t need to remove buzz in audio very often; that being

said, when it’s present, it can ruin an entire track. Having

DeBuzzer, especially with its ability to seek and destroy non-

standard buzzes, is wonderful.

Reaching into my folder of horrors, I pulled out some

single-coil guitar buzz files. Not a problem for DeBuzzer. In

fact, the default setting removed the buzz as if it were never

there. Moving on, I used a live-sound recording where ground-

loop buzz tormented the bass and guitar tracks. With only

minimal tweaking to the defaults, DeBuzzer cleaned up the

audio. I finally found a recording that had fret buzz on an

acoustic. Chopping up the sections in Sequoia, I was able to

apply DeBuzzer to the sections that had the problem. Since I

couldn’t find a default that addressed this problem, I used the

FFT display to get an idea of where the problem was. Then I

used the tone generator to hone in on the fundamental. Once

I found the root, DeBuzzer did the rest. I wish I had DeBuzzer

back when we were working on that record.

Noise reduction is probably the first thing that comes to

mind when considering restoration software. There are a few

ways to go about noise removal; for example, one popular

application uses an approach based on digital imaging. But

most applications, DeNoiser included, use a “noise

fingerprint” method. This process works by isolating a region

where only background noise is present. The software

analyzes this noise and removes it from the entire file. Done.

In theory, this would be a perfect solution. But in the real

world, the noise is rarely static. DeNoiser takes a slightly

different route to determining what is noise and what is

desirable audio. It examines the entire audio spectrum to

determine where the noise occurs and how prevalent it is at

different frequencies over time. The “over time” part is the

key because DeNoiser evaluates the noise relative to the

general signal level. This means that DeNoiser shows

discretion as to the amount of noise it reduces. For example,

with traditional approaches, areas where there are pauses,

rests, or gaps will end up having the source audio removed

as the signal level drops to silence. Raising the removal

threshold would allow the source audio to stay. The trade off

is increased noise level. With DeNoiser, as the source audio

dips to the noise floor, only the noise is removed, leaving a

smooth decay into silence.

I used a couple of different sources to test DeNoiser. First, I

used a live recording done at the University of Pittsburgh’s

Bellefield Hall Auditorium with a spaced pair of Audio-Technica

AT4050 mics (Tape Op #33) set in omni. They picked up room

reflections and the HVAC system. This was a big test for

DeNoiser as the air conditioning would cycle at different times.

With other noise reduction applications, I would have needed

to slice the audio into segments — when the HVAC was on or

off. Then, I would have had to process each differently and

string them back together. This would have taken a long time

for a 70 minute concert. DeNoiser was able to change the level

of processing on the fly. The real secret here was using the Diff

button, which allows you to hear the audio that will be

removed by DeNoiser (all of the Restore titles have this

feature). It’s easy to get carried away and overdo noise

reduction. With the Diff button enabled, you can adjust the

aggressiveness of the software until you start to hear audio

content. At that point, simply back off the reduction amount

and you are at an optimal “noise-removed-to-signal-

untouched” ratio. And while no noise reduction program can

work miracles, the results with DeNoiser were very impressive.

In fact, average listeners who were unaware of the HVAC issue

never noticed it in the final render.

After using the Restore bundle for several months, I have

the following thoughts. (1) For many users, simply

instantiating the appropriate plug-in will solve your audio

woes. The default settings were perfect for a surprisingly

wide range of issues. However, if set-and-forget is not

enough, the advanced controls provide additional control

over processes. Actually, “additional” might not be the

correct term — extensive is more appropriate. (2) It’s easy

to get lost in the controls. I recommend having a copy of

the manual nearby when going into a tweaking mode. There

are also about a dozen other interesting features that were

not covered here due to space constraints. Be sure to check

those out should you demo the software. (3) Finally, at a

street price of about $1900, Restore is a significant

investment. However, once you realize that Restore goes

head-to-head with offerings from CEDAR and other top-

notch titles, the price is but a fraction of what the other

options would cost.

Mastering and mixing engineers should strongly consider

the Restore bundle. It handled some of the toughest tasks I

gave it — many times at the default setting. Impressive

indeed. ($1895 street; www.sonnoxplugins.com)

–Garrett Haines, www.treelady.com

Universal Audio

Manley Massive Passive plug-in

for UAD-2

There are probably two groups of people reading this

review. First is the group that shelled out around $4800 for

a hardware Massive Passive. This gang (myself included)

wants me to conclude that the plug-in is not the same as

the real thing. The second bunch is comprised of those who

have suffered through the rest of us raving about our

hardware. That group wants me to conclude that the plug-in

is a virtual twin, hence removing the need to purchase a

physical version.

I’m in trouble no matter what.

The Massive Passive plug-in requires a UAD-2 Card (Tape Op

#67, 73, 76) to run. One stereo instance takes up more than

half of the DSP of a UAD-2 Solo, while a Duo can run two,

and a Quad can support four — with change to spare for

other plug-ins on all three cards, depending on the DSP

footprints of the other plug-ins. Mono instances of Massive

Passive require half the DSP power. Sample rates of

44.1–192 kHz are supported. The license also includes the

mastering version. The differences are filter values more

suited for mastering and the re-creation of the stepped

controls. Mastering engineers like those kinds of knobs for

recall purposes. Since the plug-in can already recall values

exactly, I don’t see a need to use the mastering version

unless you want different filter values. Also, you can’t sweep

the controls the way you can on the regular version. I think

sweeping the controls is one of the hallmark experiences of

using a Massive Passive.

I already see there are questions from the audience. I’ll

take a few now. Isn’t this just a newly built Pultec? No, it

has Pultec-like characteristics at times, but it’s very

different. I’ve heard it’s a very colored box, and some people

don’t like it. Why is that? Mastering engineers might find it

to be colored, but mixing engineers will consider it to be

musical and even neutral. In my opinion, there is a

difference when comparing the Massive Passive on

individual tracks versus a whole mix. Do you have any tips

for using it? Yes, ignore your eyes and use your ears; the

values that provide good results on this EQ are different

from other hardware you’ve used. What else is different

about the Massive Passive? Well, the bands are in parallel

instead of serial; therefore, they interact. The bandwidth

controls can create some crazy response curves, so it’s best

to experiment with them. Also, bandwidth changes the

amount of boost or cut. This is commonly referred to as

proportional-Q. Conversely, small changes have wider

curves, and bigger changes have narrower curves. Where

can I go to learn more about this thing? Everyone, and I

mean everyone who engineers, should download the

manual from Manley’s website. It contains a very detailed

discussion of EQs, history, and topology from Craig

Hutchinson, who was the long-time Chief Designer at

Manley Labs. I’ll take more questions in a moment. I need

to get back to the review.

One problem with an exact comparison between the plug-

in and the hardware is that the plug-in lives in the digital

domain, and the original gear is analog. For some, this is

obvious, while others may need to draw a picture. Depending

on your source (digital or analog) there will always be an

extra D/A and/or A/D conversion.

I hate to get all “audio-snob magazine writer” and go

through setup, but I think it’s warranted in this case.

Gear Reviews/

(continued on page 58)/

Tape Op#79/

T a p e O p i s m a d e

p o s s i b l e b y o u r

a d v e r t i s e r s .

Please support them and tell them

you saw their ad in Tape Op.

1 2

RETRO Instruments 1
Universal Audio 2

Komentáře k této Příručce

Žádné komentáře

Retro Instruments 176 Uživatelský manuál Strana 2

Komentáře k této Příručce