wip Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Software plug-in de-essers seem to be the main weak point of today DAWs and i have been trying quite a few alternatives, Lagerfeldt's compressor-option being the best so far (see this forums tips and tricks section). Now, today i came across this old article on Logic 7. Using the sample editor's gain-function. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep03/articles/loginotes.htm (scroll half way down the page) Anyone here who still stick to this technique? k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lagerfeldt Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Sure, I sometimes do that. But it's just another option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I used to do it that way, but nowadays I prefer to do manual de-essing with automation, by automating either volume (of channel or some plugin) or better yet, de-esser threshold. Completely non-destructive, and almost as accurate as doing it in the sample editor. I'm still waiting for a smart de-esser that would really keep sibilance under strict control. It seems that you can never get away with just a single setting, most songs and vocalists still need some automation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camillo jr Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I use mostly compressor de-essing combined with a bit of gain reduction in the sample ed which I reserve for the really spitty esses. One of the sweetest de-essing techniques I've ever used was to copy all the esses on to a second track and reverse the phase of that track, while varying the level of some of those esses via automation. This does give a very different result then anything else I've tried, very smooth, but it's pretty labor intensive so I haven't used it in a long time. One thing NOT to use is Logic's dedicated de-esser plug which is almost useless for that task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wip Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 One of the sweetest de-essing techniques I've ever used was to copy all the esses on to a second track and reverse the phase of that track, while varying the level of some of those esses via automation. This does give a very different result then anything else I've tried, very smooth, but it's pretty labor intensive so I haven't used it in a long time. That's an interessting technique! I'm all for trying out different stuff and there's so many techniques out there not just for de-essing. I will make sure to try that one out next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
route-electrique Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is very interesting topic. I just hate that Logic can't do proper offline processing, which has mentioned many times on the forum . Just hate to see PT guys making audio selections which spans over multiple tracks, dip some 7k and hit process . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lagerfeldt Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah, if I have one wish for a future Logic update (apart from fixing the automation bugs) it would be fast and intuitive offline processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
route-electrique Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 One of the sweetest de-essing techniques I've ever used was to copy all the esses on to a second track and reverse the phase of that track, while varying the level of some of those esses via automation. This does give a very different result then anything else I've tried, very smooth, but it's pretty labor intensive so I haven't used it in a long time. I was experimenting with this and have to admit that it gives pretty nice result. My only question is that is there any downside ?. I mean, playing with phase a lot dosen't sound like it's healthy? 8). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camillo jr Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 In this case, if done right, it's healthy! Just a bloody PITA to set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lagerfeldt Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I was experimenting with this and have to admit that it gives pretty nice result. My only question is that is there any downside ?. I mean, playing with phase a lot dosen't sound like it's healthy? 8). As long as you make sure it's the whole signal you're using when you invert the polarity. Try Eiosis E2 if you want a de-esser that uses this approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamthecrank Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Somewhat off-topic - but on topic at the same time... I was given an acoustic guitar + vocals song to mix (it's a demo for a school entrance requirement) a few days ago for a client. The tracking was done somewhere else and when I was given the files, it was apparent that they recorded the vocals and guitar at the same time. Lots of audio bleed happening, but not a problem as it sounded ok. While getting both tracks to sit nicely together, I noticed some nasty sibilance happening on the "vocal" track... using the Waves RenDeEsser was easy, but I also noticed that it sounded really nice while "hitting" the guitar parts in the DeEsser since the vocal mic was picking up quite a bit of guitar. I'd never thought of using a DeEsser on another instrument before - and I'm sure it's an old-school kind of thing that's probably been done for decades. The guitar tone was really quite amazing while being slightly hit at the mid 7k range on the de-essser. (and yes, it would have been great to be able to simply EQ that out of the guitar, but it would have lost 'something' in the cut) Just a little something I'll keep in the back of my mind ... just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.