ryan streber wrote on Mon, 06 April 2009 20:15 |
The only exception there is that the Sony stuff had a great hum removal plug which was better than any other I've used including the RX. |
evil robot wrote |
Are the extra features in the Advanced version "must-haves"? It's a pretty big jump in price ($350 vs $1200) |
fantomas wrote on Fri, 10 April 2009 00:54 |
The only downside is that the offline algorithm in the noise reduction plug in takes a lot of time to bounce. |
fantomas wrote on Fri, 10 April 2009 00:54 |
The only downside is that the offline algorithm in the noise reduction plug in takes a lot of time to bounce. |
Rowdi wrote on Fri, 02 October 2009 07:02 |
Ive got a live band recording which was done through the computers internal mic which isnt the best sounding as you can imagine I dont expect miracles but would it make this recording audible and how would you go about using it to do this? |
ssltech wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 13:02 |
Revisiting this thread, my fingerstyle-guitarist friend sent me a track which was blighted by finger-squeaks. It was a mono track which they'd laid down as a guide, and not concerned themselves with the noises... but the 'vibe' of the playing was excellent. When they came to lay down the REAL takes... well, I'm sure you can see where this is heading... After several re-visits to the tune, he eventually sent me the sound file, and after an hour or so with Rx, I sent him back the same sound file, but with the squeaks 90% removed. -I also did one with the squeaks ALL gone, but it sounded a little 'perfect' to my ears, and I felt that leaving in the 'sense' of left-hand movement made it sound a little more 'human. Anyhow, I let him know that if he still objected to the 'ghosting' which I'd left in, that I had another 'more perfect' version. All I ever heard back from him was a string of superlative terms, like 'stunning', 'miracle-worker', 'genius' and so on... I guess he likes what Rx does! Keith |