Acon Digital

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:58 am

Restoration Suite 1.7 can totally remove noise without any annoying artifacts. In 1.8 you can no longer create these kinds of denoising results. In 1.8 the artifacts are clearly audible at all times, you can hear "monkey noise" or "chirping" as it is sometimes called. In 1.7 the worst artifact is some low frequency bumps which is a lot less noticeable because it's in the low frequency. In 1.8 you have artifact noise that spans across the entire spectrum PLUS the low frequency bumps.

I reported this problem via e-mail but I was "shot down".

As a matter of fact, here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's crazy because In 1.8 you have all the unwanted artifacts of 1.7 (which is not bad) plus all the new unwanted chirpy artifacts. Granted, in 1.8 you get a slightly slightly better result for transients, but that does in NO WAY make up for the horrible new artifacts. I prefer the slightly less perfect transient response in return for a very clean denoising result.

Original: http://www.elanhickler.com/_/acondenois ... iginal.wav
Denoiser 1.7:http://www.elanhickler.com/_/acondenois ... e(Old).wav
Denoiser 1.8: http://www.elanhickler.com/_/acondenois ... e(New).wav

As you can see, the new version has all that high frequency crap that the old version does not.

In 1.7 there is one little weirdness that 1.8 does not have, 1.7 tends to suffer from high frequency resonance which I don't know where it comes from, it's almost beyond human hearing range and it's very quiet. So ultimately we need a best of both worlds, the fixes in 1.8 + the denoising ability of 1.7.

Acon Digital Denoiser 1.7 is better than RX denoiser. On the other hand 1.8 is NOT!

Please respond to this thread and convince Acon Digital to investigate this horrible step backwards.

rasmusklump · Post by **rasmusklump** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:10 am

I can only say that with 1.8 I can get better results than with 1.7

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:32 am

rasmusklump wrote:I can only say that with 1.8 I can get better results than with 1.7

For your usage and your needs, sure, I can see someone getting better results with 1.8. Like I said it has better transient response. But that doesn't discredit my usage and my needs. The fact is 1.8 has chirpy artifacts, 1.7 does not. That's a huge difference. It is clearly demonstrated in my examples.

I'm not saying we should revert to 1.7. I'm saying we should combine and/or allow 1.7's denoising ability in 1.8. Make it version 1.9 or whatever. It would be up to the user to setup the denoiser to suit their needs. Whatever causes chirpy artifacts in 1.8, let the user be able to turn that effect off.

I make a living processing samples for well-known sample library companies. People trust my opinion, and my opinion right now is that 1.7 is better than 1.8 for sample libraries. If Acon Digital wants my continued support, they need to fix this.

Edit: Yes I have 1.7 installed. I will not be installing future versions.

rasmusklump · Post by **rasmusklump** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:40 am

arrogant idiot

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:05 am

rasmusklump, I'm looking for a mature discussion. Sharing my opinion and my successes in my line of work does not warrant your insults. I'm trying to help improve Acon Digital's denoiser for everyone. If we take this thread seriously, we might all gain something.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:49 am

rasmusklump, I think you are getting hung up on the whole "continued support" thing. Anyone can say that as a legitimate motivator for a developer to act, whether you are "well-established" or not. It is not arrogance. It is also not arrogant to say where you are coming from. I am coming from experience in the sample library industry. rasmusklump, you may be coming from another line of work where denoiser 1.8 is better for you. If the developer doesn't care for the support of their users, well... you can't not care, that's part of the business. Not caring will lead to loss of business, reduction in word-of-mouth advertising, possibly negative reputation, etc.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:34 am

A 'mature discussion' would have started differently, and possibly even included a method of testing the theory. Given the history of the OP, I'd also suugest that the addition of a microdose of salt to the notion of where the fault/blame lies is advised.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:57 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:included a method of testing the theory.

Barely had enough time to create the above post and post the audio examples. I'm pretty sure the only method of testing you need is to compare results of 1.7 and 1.8. If it's not that simple, then we can tackle the issue from there.

dorianmarko · Post by **dorianmarko** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:16 pm

In all fairness, there is a huge difference between the two examples, and I'm only listening on a normal pair of headphones, so you don't really need studio grade equipment to hear it. Wonder why this is?

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:29 pm

I should have done this from the beginning. Here's the above examples compressed and boosted to insanity so you don't have to turn up your speakers or drag it into your DAW for boosting:

http://www.elanhickler.com/_/acondenois ... oosted.wav

Original -- 1.7 -- 1.8

I honestly think 1.7 is remarkable in how much noise it removes vs the artifacts vs the preservation of the desired signal. This is why 1.7 is a real contender to RX. Unfortunately 1.8 is unremarkable and closer to RX in performance. RX has the advantage of having a cleaner/natural background noise after denoising.

stian · Post by **stian** » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:01 am

Hi Elan,

Architeuthis wrote:Restoration Suite 1.7 can totally remove noise without any annoying artifacts. In 1.8 you can no longer create these kinds of denoising results. In 1.8 the artifacts are clearly audible at all times, you can hear "monkey noise" or "chirping" as it is sometimes called. In 1.7 the worst artifact is some low frequency bumps which is a lot less noticeable because it's in the low frequency. In 1.8 you have artifact noise that spans across the entire spectrum PLUS the low frequency bumps.

I reported this problem via e-mail but I was "shot down".

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. We definitely care about user feedback and our products. On the other hand, you will not receive more attention than other users by threatening us with negative comments in public fora.

Yours is the only negative user feedback regarding sound quality in Restoration Suite 1.8 that we have received and there has been a large number of positive reports.

I have listened to your examples and still feel that version 1.8 delivers better results. Here is the result of my processing with version 1.8:
https://acondigital.com/audio/AconDigital-1-8.wav

I realize that this is very subjective, but I prefer version 1.8 mainly because of the better transient response (listen to the attack phase).

We want to position Restoration Suite as an easy to use package that delivers excellent results quickly and we would like to avoid having too many parameters to adjust. That would make it harder to achieve optimal results quickly. That is why we don't necessarily keep older algorithms (along with their parameter set) in newer versions.

Best,
Stian

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:24 am

Architeuthis wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:included a method of testing the theory.
Barely had enough time to create the above post and post the audio examples. I'm pretty sure the only method of testing you need is to compare results of 1.7 and 1.8. If it's not that simple, then we can tackle the issue from there.

I think you'll find that comparing the results of two processes gives absolutely no information about the processes themselves, especially when user error is a potential factor.
An appropriate means of allowing testing would be to provide the source material, and an exact description of the steps involved in carrying out the processing, with documented parameters.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:50 pm

stian wrote:We want to position Restoration Suite as an easy to use package that delivers excellent results quickly and we would like to avoid having too many parameters to adjust.

Alright, you have spoken. I won't be pursuing this further.

I did not threaten you, I simply stated facts. Anyway, I still think 1.7 is worth some attention from the sample library dev community so I will continue to direct people to you and let them know to ask for version 1.7

embertone · Post by **embertone** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:10 pm

We'd prefer a tool that gives all the options... version 1.7 had some of the cleanest reduction we've ever heard, and if that has changed in the newest version, I'm not sure if we could continue using the tool!

Better transient response of 1.8, great! But to sacrifice that pristine reduction -- seems like a pretty big compromise to me.

Thanks for making great tools,

Alex

stian · Post by **stian** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:06 am

Hi Alex,

embertone wrote:We'd prefer a tool that gives all the options... version 1.7 had some of the cleanest reduction we've ever heard, and if that has changed in the newest version, I'm not sure if we could continue using the tool!

Better transient response of 1.8, great! But to sacrifice that pristine reduction -- seems like a pretty big compromise to me.

Thanks for making great tools,

Alex

Thanks for your input, Alex. Is this based on your own experience with version 1.8 or from what you have read? I wouldn't agree that version 1.8 sacrifices pristine noise reduction.

Best,
Stian

Acon Digital

KVR Audio

Denoiser 1.7 is better than RX, new update 1.8 is NOT!! 1.8 is a step backwards.