Deesser Plugin
Moderators: Acoustica Greg, Acoustica Eric, Acoustica Dan, rsaintjohn
Deesser Plugin
Can anyone recommend a good (free) deesser plugin that's compatible with Mixcraft?
- Acoustica Greg
- Posts: 24562
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:30 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Deesser Plugin
I have not, but I will check it out. Thanks!
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:09 pm
Re: Deesser Plugin
Maybe I just haven't tweaked it enough, but I find spitfish to lower too much of the top end. It certainly does get rid of es sounds, but along with everything in the high frequency range as well!
- Mark Bliss
- Posts: 7313
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
- Location: Out there
Re: Deesser Plugin
I would tend to agree. The problem with many de-essing plugs can be that they can only approximate the offending frequency, and therefore tend to overdo any attempts at correction.
I would suggest a two tiered approach.
First, upon recording, attempt to angle the mic in a way that you are singing more past it than directly into it. This can reduce the worst sibilance. You know, reduce those frickin' fricatives before the make it to your track.
Next, where necessary, try locating the offending frequency and reducing it modestly with a parametric EQ, with a fairly narrow Q, and don't overdo it, leave some natural shs's.
And for the record, while there may be some plugs that achieve acceptable results as opposed to the majority of bad ones- the majority pretty much one way or another do the same thing I am describing.
I would suggest a two tiered approach.
First, upon recording, attempt to angle the mic in a way that you are singing more past it than directly into it. This can reduce the worst sibilance. You know, reduce those frickin' fricatives before the make it to your track.
Next, where necessary, try locating the offending frequency and reducing it modestly with a parametric EQ, with a fairly narrow Q, and don't overdo it, leave some natural shs's.
And for the record, while there may be some plugs that achieve acceptable results as opposed to the majority of bad ones- the majority pretty much one way or another do the same thing I am describing.
Re: Deesser Plugin
M@rkus/
Sweden
1. HP Pavilion DV6 Notebook PC, AMD A6-3410 MX APU, 1,60 Ghz, 8 gb RAM, Win 7 ultimate 64 bit. Mixcraft 7, Ampliube 3, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
2. Asus AMD FX-4100 Quad core 3.60 Ghz, 16 GB ram, Mixcraft 7, Win 7/64 Ultimate SP 1.
Sweden
1. HP Pavilion DV6 Notebook PC, AMD A6-3410 MX APU, 1,60 Ghz, 8 gb RAM, Win 7 ultimate 64 bit. Mixcraft 7, Ampliube 3, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
2. Asus AMD FX-4100 Quad core 3.60 Ghz, 16 GB ram, Mixcraft 7, Win 7/64 Ultimate SP 1.
Re: Deesser Plugin
THIS.mbliss wrote:I would tend to agree. The problem with many de-essing plugs can be that they can only approximate the offending frequency, and therefore tend to overdo any attempts at correction.
I would suggest a two tiered approach.
First, upon recording, attempt to angle the mic in a way that you are singing more past it than directly into it. This can reduce the worst sibilance. You know, reduce those frickin' fricatives before the make it to your track.
Next, where necessary, try locating the offending frequency and reducing it modestly with a parametric EQ, with a fairly narrow Q, and don't overdo it, leave some natural shs's.
And for the record, while there may be some plugs that achieve acceptable results as opposed to the majority of bad ones- the majority pretty much one way or another do the same thing I am describing.
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:35 am
Re: Deesser Plugin
Not free, but in this reviewer's opinion, it is the BEST DeEssing plug-in available for PC-based recording/production.
FabFilter Pro-DS. Costs around $200. Amazingly smooth and transparent while remaining unparalleled in terms of quality and effectiveness.
http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-d ... er-plug-in
FabFilter Pro-DS. Costs around $200. Amazingly smooth and transparent while remaining unparalleled in terms of quality and effectiveness.
http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-d ... er-plug-in
Re: Deesser Plugin
I use GLow as a de-esser. It's a simple low-pass filter but it does the job.
http://www.gvst.co.uk/downloads.htm
http://www.gvst.co.uk/downloads.htm
Re: Deesser Plugin
lol. $200 for basically a fancy 4-10kHz cut eq setting...Brother Charles wrote:Not free, but in this reviewer's opinion, it is the BEST DeEssing plug-in available for PC-based recording/production.
FabFilter Pro-DS. Costs around $200. Amazingly smooth and transparent while remaining unparalleled in terms of quality and effectiveness.
http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-d ... er-plug-in
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:35 am
Re: Deesser Plugin
Au contraire, gypsy101. Pro-DS is a highly intelligent, ultra-transparent processor. If it were a matter of simply "cutting" frequencies, then a parametric EQ would suffice. Of course, professional engineers know that this is not the case.
Gypsy101, you are mistaken about its range as well.
Gypsy101, you are mistaken about its range as well.
gypsy101 wrote:lol. $200 for basically a fancy 4-10kHz cut eq setting...Brother Charles wrote:Not free, but in this reviewer's opinion, it is the BEST DeEssing plug-in available for PC-based recording/production.
FabFilter Pro-DS. Costs around $200. Amazingly smooth and transparent while remaining unparalleled in terms of quality and effectiveness.
http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-d ... er-plug-in
Re: Deesser Plugin
I have played de-esser using a multi band compressor with just one band. Sounds contradicting. A band filter in the sidechain of a single band compressor would probably do the same, but Mixcraft won´t let you fool with that.
This arrangement makes the de-essing function heavily level dependent, in other words it only works for levels below the threshhold. The signal resp. the sidechain signal would need to be heavily treated to reliably cut out s-sibliants independent of the signal level.
The implementation of a proper de-esser is not so easy which will be reflected on the price. However 200 bucks is hefty.
This article is a good read because it helps you to understand and tame all the controls of such a device.
-helmut
This arrangement makes the de-essing function heavily level dependent, in other words it only works for levels below the threshhold. The signal resp. the sidechain signal would need to be heavily treated to reliably cut out s-sibliants independent of the signal level.
taken from: Rane Note 155, Dynamics Processors -- Technology & ApplicationsTrue de-essing involves comparing the relative difference between the troublesome sibilants and the overall broadband signal, then setting a threshold based on this difference, therefore it is our experience that Relative Threshold Dynamic EQ (as described above) is the best dynamics processor for this task as it is able to maintain proper sibilant to non-sibilant balance regardless of level.
The implementation of a proper de-esser is not so easy which will be reflected on the price. However 200 bucks is hefty.
This article is a good read because it helps you to understand and tame all the controls of such a device.
-helmut
C# or Bb!
Re: Deesser Plugin
you don't get sarcasm do you.lolBrother Charles wrote:Au contraire, gypsy101. Pro-DS is a highly intelligent, ultra-transparent processor. If it were a matter of simply "cutting" frequencies, then a parametric EQ would suffice. Of course, professional engineers know that this is not the case.
Gypsy101, you are mistaken about its range as well.gypsy101 wrote:lol. $200 for basically a fancy 4-10kHz cut eq setting...Brother Charles wrote:Not free, but in this reviewer's opinion, it is the BEST DeEssing plug-in available for PC-based recording/production.
FabFilter Pro-DS. Costs around $200. Amazingly smooth and transparent while remaining unparalleled in terms of quality and effectiveness.
http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-d ... er-plug-in
cutting the sibilance is much more effective using pinpoint eq & even compression than just some plugin,but whatever works best for you.
Re: Deesser Plugin
I tried this and it works. I once had borrowed a fine large diaphragm mike, the spider and all but I forgot the pop protection. My "p"´s were very prominent. Talking into it from the side was curing that although I had to take care that the rear, which is most insensitive, was still pointing to the only noise source in the room, the pc fans.mbliss wrote:(...) attempt to angle the mic in a way that you are singing more past it than directly into it.
I had tried a few name brand large diaphragm mikes, amongst them some AKG and a rodent.
From the AKG´s one was very dull, bass heavy, one very prone to sibilance and the most balanced (although not the most expensive of those) was the rodent.
The one I spoke of beforehand was a Behringer which appeared pretty balanced.
A steal for the price.
Before I´d get an expensive tool for palliative measures I´d check out a good mike.
-helmut
P.S.: If you are determined (or don´t mind) to knit your own - here you go! http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may09/a ... essing.htm
C# or Bb!