by FabienTDR; Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:53 pm
This is a dedicated vocal de-esser designed for precise and unobtrusive reduction of offending sibilance.
The concept is based on accurate band extraction via linear phase filters (either bell or shelf shaped) and a highly specialized, level-independent sibilance detection algorithm.
Two modes are available, full-band and split-band.
I am still working on a few things, but you can expect the beta-phase to start very soon! Ideas and suggestions are highly appreciated!
by FabienTDR; Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:43 am
vaisnava wrote:Seems awesome. All I can suggest is for you to look into FabFilter's new DeEsser plugin and steal some ideas.
I haven't tried the fabfilter device, but most conventional compression based de-essers fail to de-ess fresh/raw/erratic recordings due to their inherent level dependent behaviour. That is, they only work fine with pre-processed, well balanced input. IMHO sibilance issues should be fixed at the source, not after several processing stages.
Without going too much into details, the sibilance controller is not a naive multi-band compressor or "EQ in the sidechain" based de-esser. It is truly relative in it's operation (i.e. not level dependent) and is designed to work well with untreated material.
Are you looking for a specific feature?
I still need to improve 2-3 things before releasing the first beta version.
by jethrobull; Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:13 am
This is so nice and easy to use, i love it.Great work sir.
Sorry for the hijacking, i tried to console myself but...
by filter303; Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:56 pm
Endor-8o8 wrote:By judging the quality of your compressor, I think this plug is gonna be a killer one ! Keep up the good work !
These are my thoughts exactly. I just happen to need a good de-esser too, so the timing for this couldn't be better for me. I was just about to start saving my money on fabfilter's de-esser but I think I will wait for this one to come out first. I also suggest you checking that fabfilter de-esser
Any estimation when the beta is available for download?
by darkflame23; Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:44 am
by FabienTDR; Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:45 am
darkflame23 wrote:So it's more aimed at tracking/mixing than mastering? I usually use the old freeware SpitFish when mastering (sometimes in an M/S matrix), to get rid of nasty vocal sibilance or splashy hats and cymabls, but it would be nice to have more options! Couldn't you adapt it to work well on full mixes, and with an M/S mode as well?
The current state of the prototype only processes the LR sum, the LR difference is passed untouched.
btw, the term "Mid/Side" is plain wrong for stereo processing. Even if some companies based their whole marketing on fooling people with their strange misunderstanding of what Mid/Side really is, the term is still incredibly confusing for the user and totally wrong from the technical point of view.
Let me explain it, the Sum and Difference (this is the proper term!) of a regular stereo source does neither describe the "Mid" nor the "Side". Just an example:
Say, the input signal contains a snare fully panned left and a centered bass kick. Now, the "Mid/Side" marketing infected user would assume to find find his snare in the "Side" and bass-kick in the Center" channel, but it doesn't! Both will land in the "Mid", so the terms "Mid/Side" are wrong. It's more useful to use the terms "Sum and Difference", because they accurately describe what happens technically - even if it sounds much less exciting now.
The actual source of this confusion is that Mid/Side is a stereo microphone recording technique, and in this case, "Mid" truly describes the center of the recorded image and "Side" also truly represents all side event.
But these expectations are wrong for the stereo processing technique called Sum & Difference. In this case, the "Sum" contain both side and center events (!) and the "Difference" only contains the "anti-phase" elements between both channels (i.e. the stuff that would cancel out if summed). These important details basically fvck up the whole "Mid/Side" metaphor for the user.
Unbelievable, whole companies are based on this straight lie.
Ok, pls excuse this small excursion
Back to your question: The plug-in is definitely not designed to process specific elements of full mixes, in fact, the algorithm expects a monophonic signal to work best. However, it can still precisely control the amount of sibilance of a complex signal. But it will equally "attack" other signal-parts that look similar to vocal sibilance. High frequency drums most notably or sustained cymbals. But from my experiments, competitors have similar "polyphonc input" problems too (Fabfilter, Eliosis, ect).
by darkflame23; Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:50 am
Good to know it's mainly designed for mono sources during tracking or mixing.