Izotope RX Audio Restoration Tools

These look very interesting. Nothing much that Audition can't do but a very different interface that may be easier to use. Standalone software at the moment but Izotope promise them to be supplied as plugins for next year. Free non saving trial version available.

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/#features

Just giving the trial a very quick go and I can't say I'm particularly impressed, especially given the price. There's really nothing (at first glance) that AA hasn't been able to do better since v1.5 (and of couse AA does a whole lot more), and it's really slooooowwww.....

The standard version is certainly inferior to AA yet costs £349. But to get some features that are standard on AA you have to shell out $1199 for the Advanced version, and I'm still not quite sure from their website (and the lack of information and trial version) how exactly the advanced version is supposed to be worth so much extra.

Basically you're getting 5 tools: a clipping fixer, a single declicker, a single denoiser, a single hum remover and a 'spectral repair' tool. Most of this has been standard on AA since the early days of Cool Edit one way or another. There's no EQ, and though you can reconfigure the hum tool to work as a notch filter (with a Q of up to 3000!) it's nowhere near as flexible as AA's parametric filter. Spectral selection is limited to a marquee (as with AA 1.5) but there's no lasso or any of the new tools promised in AA3.0.

And the one tool that AA lacks, for which I paid Waves a never-regretted $1200, isn't there either - decrackle.

Sorry Izotope - I love Ozone, but this sucks. It's inadequate for professional restoration work and overpriced for the amateur enthusiast market. Audition already easily out-guns it, and I get the impression AA3.0 will completely blow it out of the water. Overpriced, under-featured, slow and cumbersome, I find it hard to understand exactly where they're pitching this and how they came up with their prices.

I feel I ought really to give it a longer trial before completely writing it off, but frankly, given the tools I already have in Audition, I really see no point. Uninstall imminent...

Thanks, Andrew, for a "working man's" POV. I, too, had wondered about downloading the trial and putting it through it's paces. It would pretty much have to be an OUTSTANDING piece of software to justify the price, IMO. But, being an "if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" type of guy, I've stubbornly stayed with Audition.

Looking forward to 3.0, however! I never upgraded to 2.0, either...

-Phil

I do have 2.0 installed on my system, but I can count the number of times I've used it on one hand. I found the visual interface confusing and the new features for restoration to be very, very rarely needed. As such I stuck with 1.5, and will leapfrog direct to 3.0, I think - there's a whole lot in there for restoration that'll make a real difference, and a more user-friendly interface too, from what I can see.

Actually there is a parametric EQ in there but on the Process menu not on an obvious button. Gain control is also there.

However I like the visual interface that shows the Wave view superimposed on the Spectral view. But, as you say, not anything new that Audition doesn't already do. But I think the interface to the tools might be easier for the less experienced to use. Some of the adjustments in AA can be a little obscure until you get used to them.

I also like the Undo History that easily allows you to go several steps back knowing exactly what you are undoing. And also the Compare feature which allows you to try out several different settings and immediately switch between them before finally Applying the effect.

When the plugins are available I think that they might be useful additions to the Audition armoury for the varied restorations that I work on.

Also the price is $349 not GBP with a special offer until the end of October for $199 or just over £100.

I also like the Undo History that easily allows you to go several steps back knowing exactly what you are undoing.

Yes, I just discovered the undo history in Ozone last night.  I (and others) have asked for a history log in AA in the wishlist forum.  This is certainly something the AA team can learn from (though ideally I'd still like to export the history list as a record of what I've done).  Though maybe they have already learned?  We can live and hope for AA3 (otherwise, we'll just bump it in the wishlist for v4).

Yep, just got that email.  OK, so the undo history is the one thing it does that Audition doesn't. 

Wow, Andrew, thanks for the review, which confirms my suspicions enought to not bother with the demo, cause if you in your profession can't make use of it, I am sure not going to....  and I think Ozone is a great product too.  The blurb says they're introducing this "after years of R&D" -- but apparently not enough of them!     

WORTH A SECOND LOOK?


Well since my original comments I've had a chance to use it some more. I've also had a major upgrade to my PC, which makes some aspects of the RX software more usable.

What I've found is that it is a valuable tool alongside AA3.0 - but thus far for specific purposes only. There are a number of niggles over the interface, which suggest to me that I'd be more comfortable working with it as a series of DX modules within AA. I think the claims for what it can do are somewhat over-enthusiastic. The hum removal tool is tricky to set up, though it has an incredibly fine Q if you can find the frequency you're looking for. The declicker doesn't seem too hot. The spectral fixer (AKA fill single click now) comes with four options, and in some circumstances proves more effective than AA, in others less so. I haven't used the clip repair tool.

However, as a fine finishing tool, the noise reduction module has a transparency that surpasses anything I've seen or heard before. I say as a finishing tool - for hardcore restoration work I'll stick with AA to get really nasty heavy duty noise out. But once that's been achieved I'm finding myself more and more often switching over to RX to carry out final noise reduction. The controls take a little getting used to, not helped by as-yet inadequate documentation, but then it did take me several years to get the most out of AA's NR as well. If you get your hands on the advanced version of RX you get twice as many control options, which certainly are useful.

So, is it worth spending $1150 on something that may get little use other than as a noise reduction tool? A question only you can answer. Unfortunately I suspect that once you've heard what it's capable of you might find yourself struggling to accept anything less, at which point you may find yourself reaching for your wallet and praying quietly to the god of bank managers - especially when you find the processing time for the very highest quality NR might be the final shove needed to get you upgrading your PC as well. (You could of course get your hands on a slightly less configurable version of the same tool for $350...)

I guess this is priced up against Waves Z-Noise, which costs a rather hefty $800 and does none of the other stuff. I trialled the Waves product shortly before hearing about RX, and frankly heard little to persuade me to abandon their X-Restoration suite, from which the NR gets little use here anyway. Nope, the Waves tool is not on my shopping list. Is RX worth almost 50% more than the Waves NR-only release? Most certainly, if NR is vital to you - but do consider using it alongside AA rather than as a replacement for it.