Another incredibly informative and detailed review. Just curious...were you using DxRevive or DxRevive Pro? Do the underdesirable artifacts / vocal coloring improve with the Pro Version? Big price jump from $99 to $300 for the Pro version.
I was using the regular, cheap version of dxRevive. The Pro version now has a mode that disables the EQ and I believe it adds another mode unavailable to the regular version. I might upgrade to Pro if I find a decent sale on it, but it would primarily be for videos like this more than to use it when editing.
If it's of any interest, I thought Accentize dxRevive had the most pleasing tone - though it didn't remove all of the fan noise. Jesse, do you have somewhere that you post your own sings / guitar stuff?
It’s interesting how we hear things differently. I’ve never been a fan of Accentize’s noise reduction algorithms. I’m not a singer and no one would want to hear it if I tried. Oddly enough, I’m not much of a guitarist…more of an engineer and sound creator for my wife who has actual music talent. We haven’t finished any music in a long time, though.
@@jesse.mccune Perhaps I'd hear things differently with younger ears. 50 years with tinnitus from 8kHz and up band has had an effect on my hearing - I do appreciate midrange warmth - being well under the frequencies that give me grief. That's a nice collection of guitars behind you. ;^)
I don't test Spectral Layers for four reasons: • It's not a program I own or use, and I don't have the desire to learn a program like that which I won't use outside of comparisons • It's not a commonly used program by podcasters and podcast editors. I think I've only seen one or two others mention it. • I look at it the same way as I do RX's standalone editor, which is that most clients aren't paying enough to do manual work in an outside program • The majority of people who are considering Riverside's Magic Audio are looking for an easy-to-use solution, which RX and Spectral Layers are not
My focus tends to lie in tools that are either free or can be purchased. I'm not a fan of SAAS for things I can do myself, or learn to do myself, but I have though about doing a shootout with Auphonic, but it won't be a regular player in my typical noise reduction shootouts and comparisons.
I think it's a bit of both. At least that's what it sounds like to me. They apply very aggressive noise reduction and then mix in an AI clone underneath to fill in the rest. Whatever it is, it does not sound good.
The weird thing is that with in-ear monitors it’s hard to notice this bad effect, Only with Speaker monitors, So maybe this is why some people tell say that it sounds good and other people say that it sounds bad, At least this is my experience with my monitors, did you notice it too?
That interesting because I find it easy to hear with headphones. I think a big part of it is many people hear that the noise and reverb have been removed and are happy. They aren't listening to how the voice has been changed or the artifacts that are now present. Some may not even be able to hear these things. Many podcasters are playing the role of engineer, producer, writer, editor, mixer, and all the other things without necessarily having the knowledge and experience needed to play all of those roles. All we can do is hope that these tools get better because there's way too much low quality content being put out by people using these AI tools to compensate for a lack of skill.
I totally can see how the wrong using term makes YOU crazy. Bu try to remember: They are not using this term for YOU (and me), but for the people who dont know anything about audio and just need a solution for fixing their problems with their shitty recording, full of "Echo" ;-)
I do understand why they are using it, but they help reinforce that the problem people are talking about is echo. This makes it extremely challenging to help people because, unless they post a sample of the issue, we never know if it's truly echo that's the problem, reverb, or mic bleed. We need to all use the same language if we're going to help each other. It also makes it more challenging for people to find the solution themselves. If I say RUclips's logo is yellow, we would agree that is not correct. If I say it's the moon that illuminates the sky during the day, we'd agree that is not correct. If I referred to a RUclips video as VHS or a DVD, we'd agree that is incorrect. Why is it that we can't all agree that echo is different from reverb and mic bleed?
Another incredibly informative and detailed review. Just curious...were you using DxRevive or DxRevive Pro? Do the underdesirable artifacts / vocal coloring improve with the Pro Version? Big price jump from $99 to $300 for the Pro version.
I was using the regular, cheap version of dxRevive. The Pro version now has a mode that disables the EQ and I believe it adds another mode unavailable to the regular version. I might upgrade to Pro if I find a decent sale on it, but it would primarily be for videos like this more than to use it when editing.
If it's of any interest, I thought Accentize dxRevive had the most pleasing tone - though it didn't remove all of the fan noise. Jesse, do you have somewhere that you post your own sings / guitar stuff?
It’s interesting how we hear things differently. I’ve never been a fan of Accentize’s noise reduction algorithms.
I’m not a singer and no one would want to hear it if I tried. Oddly enough, I’m not much of a guitarist…more of an engineer and sound creator for my wife who has actual music talent. We haven’t finished any music in a long time, though.
@@jesse.mccune Perhaps I'd hear things differently with younger ears. 50 years with tinnitus from 8kHz and up band has had an effect on my hearing - I do appreciate midrange warmth - being well under the frequencies that give me grief. That's a nice collection of guitars behind you. ;^)
Whats about SpectraLayers?
I don't test Spectral Layers for four reasons:
• It's not a program I own or use, and I don't have the desire to learn a program like that which I won't use outside of comparisons
• It's not a commonly used program by podcasters and podcast editors. I think I've only seen one or two others mention it.
• I look at it the same way as I do RX's standalone editor, which is that most clients aren't paying enough to do manual work in an outside program
• The majority of people who are considering Riverside's Magic Audio are looking for an easy-to-use solution, which RX and Spectral Layers are not
What about Auphonic?
My focus tends to lie in tools that are either free or can be purchased. I'm not a fan of SAAS for things I can do myself, or learn to do myself, but I have though about doing a shootout with Auphonic, but it won't be a regular player in my typical noise reduction shootouts and comparisons.
This is not a noise removal, it is clear that this is a text to speech AI voices.
I think it's a bit of both. At least that's what it sounds like to me. They apply very aggressive noise reduction and then mix in an AI clone underneath to fill in the rest. Whatever it is, it does not sound good.
The weird thing is that with in-ear monitors it’s hard to notice this bad effect, Only with Speaker monitors, So maybe this is why some people tell say that it sounds good and other people say that it sounds bad, At least this is my experience with my monitors, did you notice it too?
That interesting because I find it easy to hear with headphones. I think a big part of it is many people hear that the noise and reverb have been removed and are happy. They aren't listening to how the voice has been changed or the artifacts that are now present. Some may not even be able to hear these things. Many podcasters are playing the role of engineer, producer, writer, editor, mixer, and all the other things without necessarily having the knowledge and experience needed to play all of those roles. All we can do is hope that these tools get better because there's way too much low quality content being put out by people using these AI tools to compensate for a lack of skill.
I totally can see how the wrong using term makes YOU crazy. Bu try to remember: They are not using this term for YOU (and me), but for the people who dont know anything about audio and just need a solution for fixing their problems with their shitty recording, full of "Echo" ;-)
I do understand why they are using it, but they help reinforce that the problem people are talking about is echo. This makes it extremely challenging to help people because, unless they post a sample of the issue, we never know if it's truly echo that's the problem, reverb, or mic bleed. We need to all use the same language if we're going to help each other. It also makes it more challenging for people to find the solution themselves. If I say RUclips's logo is yellow, we would agree that is not correct. If I say it's the moon that illuminates the sky during the day, we'd agree that is not correct. If I referred to a RUclips video as VHS or a DVD, we'd agree that is incorrect. Why is it that we can't all agree that echo is different from reverb and mic bleed?