| Author |
 Topic 
|
Blaine
Posts: 19
|
 Posted - Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:55 am
|
|
|
|
I have tried X-Crackle that comes with the Restoration Bundle. It is fantastic removing crackling from old damaged records. The only problem is that it is way too expensive. I own Sonic Foundry Noise Reduction and it works well but it just can't do the things X-Crackle does. Does anyone know of a more affordable Crackle plugin?
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:37 pm
|
|
|
The Waves uses algorithms which were originally developed by Algorithmix. You might have a look at http://www.algorithmix.com and try a demo version of their de-scratcher. If it works for you, it's a lot cheaper  .... but it's not the same, so try before you buy.
|
|
ozpeter
Location: Australia
Posts: 3200
|
|
Posted - Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:47 pm
|
|
|
Is 'ClickFix' relevant here? Or 'DePopper'?
- Ozpeter
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:19 pm
|
|
|
| ozpeter wrote: |
| Is 'ClickFix' relevant here? Or 'DePopper'? |
ClickFix is totally irrelevant in this context. I'm not sure about DePopper - it's in my 'Evaluate these when you've got the time' directory - but I suspect not.
|
|
Blaine
Posts: 19
|
|
Posted - Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:58 pm
|
|
|
Thanks to all. Graeme, I tried the algorithmix software but it really wasn't up to par with the X-Crackle, X-Click and X-Noise. It is interesting that the interface has virtually the same features and parameters. I guess after getting the algorithms they expanded them? Anyway, the three X's seem to work extremely well together with better success on damaged grooves - records that were played dirty. It's quite amazing actually. X-Click gets most of it and X-Crackle does the rest. The X-Noise is quite good with far fewer artifacts than CEP or Sonic Foundry. I guess I'll just have to wait until I have a lot of free cash! Does anyone know about CEDAR? Does it cost as much as a new car or is it in the two to three thousand dollar range?
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:29 pm
|
|
|
| Blaine wrote: |
| I tried the algorithmix software but it really wasn't up to par with the X-Crackle, X-Click and X-Noise..... I guess I'll just have to wait until I have a lot of free cash! |
Just about sums it up. Personally, I find that CEP's de-clicking is more effective than X-Click - but a lot trickier to learn, due to the wide number of variables. OTOH, X-Crackle seems to be the best of the lot.
| Blaine wrote: |
| Does anyone know about CEDAR? Does it cost as much as a new car or is it in the two to three thousand dollar range? |
Ermmm... yes, I know something about it.
CEDAR is an extremely effective, real-time, system. In capable hands it can produce some really good results. However, in less-than-capable hands, the results can be truly horrendous - far in excess of the damage you can do with other systems!
A full suite will cost you more than a new car  . If the Waves software cost is currently proving an obstacle, I'd forget all about CEDAR.
|
|
AndyH
Posts: 1425
|
|
Posted - Tue Dec 03, 2002 6:03 pm
|
|
|
I don't kknow about this X-Click (anything that is good at declicking has to be on the side of the angels), but the younglove procedure seems very well on crackle. It is obviously much cheaper for a CE user. Does X-Crackle really do something different/better?
By the way, DePopper only works with 16 bit files.
|
|
Blaine
Posts: 19
|
|
Posted - Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:05 pm
|
|
|
Thanks again, Graeme. Andy - the X-Crackle / X-Click combo does an amazing job of dealing with the crackle associated with a damaged groove. I can't say how well it will work with a large range of damage, but I can say that on a Ray Charles record that I got at a garage sale cleaned up better than I would have ever though possible. There weren't a lot of scratches, but damage when the horns or vocal got loud - particularly in the inner grooves. I have used CEP and Sonic Foundry - neither one had much success at this type of noise.
Graeme, if your still out there. The X-Noise seems to be more of a downward expander rather than a straight FFT subtraction. Very interesting when you listen to the difference. Until things get quiet, nothing is removed. Maybe the best solution to noise reduction would be a light application of CEP Noise Reduction followed by some other downward expansion module. I think I'll poke around for something like that or fool with CEP's dynamics algorithm.
A nice feature to add to CEP 2.0 (AFTER the bug fixes, of course) would be a transform / plugin chainer.
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
|
|
|
| Blaine wrote: |
| The X-Noise seems to be more of a downward expander rather than a straight FFT subtraction. |
That was my take on it as well - as also seems to be the Algorithmix de-noiser (which is hardly surprising, since they are both from the same stable).
| Blaine wrote: |
| Very interesting when you listen to the difference. Until things get quiet, nothing is removed. Maybe the best solution to noise reduction would be a light application of CEP Noise Reduction followed by some other downward expansion module. I think I'll poke around for something like that or fool with CEP's dynamics algorithm. |
I find the CE NR quite effective for most things. Occasionally, it doesn't work so well and I start playing with alternative software, but CE usually gets very good results. There has been quite a lot of discussion in the past about the use of this tool and you might care to check the archives for some tips and tricks which some people are using and getting good results.
Personally, I would hesitate to expand, I like to retain the dynamic range of the original material as far as possible (no matter if it is good or bad).
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
X-Crackle