Another interesting video! I watch most of your videos, but this is the first time I've seen Lil Freq in your signal chain. Have you released a review video assessing the strengths / weaknesses of Lil Freq? If not, please consider doing so as time permits. Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words. Lil Freq has been in my chain for awhile now. I haven't done a review because it's more of a specialized plugin that I'm essentially using because of its de-esser. Since it's primarily an EQ, I also use it to take the edge off the mids in my voice so I don't have to run another plugin for that purpose. It's a bit overkill for most podcasters and the EQ section isn't really meant for corrective EQ, which most podcast editors need. It's not a plugin I use on client work.
@@jesse.mccune I think many of us would benefit from a seeing a side-by-side comparison between Lil Freq's desser vs Sonible's smart:deess. Sonible, of course, claims their algorithim "goes far deeper and creates a more natural, better balanced sound by harnessing the power of a fully trained neural network."
Thanks for the feedback. The issue that gives me mouth noise also gives me the gift of strong sibilance, so it's good to know that it's not problematic.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. It goes to show we are all capable of making mistakes. I've definitely overcooked thing in the past. So, I agree a lees is more approach is preferable.
We're all human and make mistakes and have room for improvement. It seems there are quite a few podcast editors with big egos and that stands in the way of them becoming better at what they do. It's why I open and honest about my journey as a podcast editor. There is always room for growth and improvement and you never know where you will learn something new. Sometimes, we become complacent and operate on autopilot, which is where I feel growth comes to a stop. It's one of the reasons why I teach and work with editors. It's why I create content. I learn more by helping others than I would otherwise. And part of helping others goes back to being open and honest about my experiences, good and bad. We can't improve when we work in a silo or keep our head buried in the sand.
It's funny, in this video I think the Sibilance removal sounds a little bit over-processed. It might be a result of accentuating the high end of the EQ while de-essing at the same time? This probably speaks to your point about over-processing and simplifying the process chain. Or, maybe I just never noticed this is what its like until today... I think I'd need the raw to be certain, as I don't know what UA-cam is doing to it... lol
Thank you for the feedback, Matthew. It's interesting how we hear things differently. Maybe it's my ears this morning, but I'm not hearing anything I'd classify as overprocessed. I hear a few edit points, which I'm ok with because it's just room tone, and I monitor at low volumes when I edit, so I'm going to miss these now and then. Most people won't hear them, and if they do, they probably won't find them so distracting that they'll stop watching. I have strong sibilance, so I have to apply aggressive amounts of de-essing, which could contribute to your hearing. There isn't any EQ boosting going on, though. When it comes to dialog, I almost exclusively use subtractive EQ...and always with my audio. There have been a couple times when I've used additive because cutting wasn't quite enough.
I noticed the phase issues with RX11 dialog isolate and voice denoise as well. Stopped using RX11 except for declick. Having better luck with Accentize Deroom.
I've heard it off and on over the years, but it's never been consistent. I'm on RX10 now, but heard it at least as far back as RX8. It was probably present further back, but my ears weren't developed enough to recognize it.
I'd guess your threshold nodes were bouncing up and down from adaptive mode being on? I'm not a fan of Voice Denoise simply because the threshold and amount of attenuation you want is tied to where you set the 'Threshold Nodes'. The 'Global Threshold' literally just offsets the 'Threshold Nodes', and the 'Global Reduction' just limits the amount of total reduction is being applied. I don't think a lot of people even realize this. I much more prefer the style of DNS/WNS where you have 'Attenuation Bands' that simply attenuates the band by the amount you want, and the 'Global Threshold' which behaves as expected and sets the threshold. If anyone's looking for a multiband-gate style denoiser like DNS, I'd check out Bertom Denoiser. It's free and even supports AAX for Protools users. I don't use it because I own Cedar but I've heard good things about it. (Don't expect it to compete with AI denoising). That said, I agree I don't think you really need denoising on this audio. The sibilance also sounds fine to me. There's a slight harshness to my ears around 13kHz but it's subtle. I think your audio sounds pretty good.
Thanks for the comment and feedback on my audio, Chris. I wasn't aware of that about Voice De-noise. I did have Adaptive mode engaged. Like I mentioned in the video, I was running it because someone claimed the noise on my recordings was distracting, but I never heard any noise unless I really cranked my headphones, and then, it becomes difficult to know if the noise is coming from the recording or the headphone amp. It's not worth my time to take each recording into RX to manually clean up with Spectral De-noise, so I just slapped Voice De-noise on. I know I've run into this issue with Spectral De-noise to on occasion. It's odd because there doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to it. I could never find a correlation. It would happen on audio that needed very little de-noising as well as things that needed a heavier hand. Since I've moved away from RX for day-to-day noise reduction, it's not much of an issue for me...at least now that I have decided to stop using Voice De-noise on myself. Now, I'm going to have problems if Mouth De-click starts producing artifacts.
That's why I encourage all my clients to work on improving the quality of their recordings, but It's either too much money or effort. No one wants to invest in it when they can't hear the differences or enough improvement to justify it.
By the way, I don’t like your microphone. I don’t like how close you are to the mic with someone that creates mouth noise I would think that it would be a lot better for you to use a mic that could be effective without being so close proximity. Just my humble opinion let me know what you think.
Thanks for feedback. Do you have any recommendations for mics that work well for someone with mouth noise and a quiet voice? I'm already 3" off the mic and any further away and I have to boost the gain too much and get noise in the signal.
Another interesting video! I watch most of your videos, but this is the first time I've seen Lil Freq in your signal chain. Have you released a review video assessing the strengths / weaknesses of Lil Freq? If not, please consider doing so as time permits. Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words. Lil Freq has been in my chain for awhile now. I haven't done a review because it's more of a specialized plugin that I'm essentially using because of its de-esser. Since it's primarily an EQ, I also use it to take the edge off the mids in my voice so I don't have to run another plugin for that purpose.
It's a bit overkill for most podcasters and the EQ section isn't really meant for corrective EQ, which most podcast editors need. It's not a plugin I use on client work.
@@jesse.mccune I think many of us would benefit from a seeing a side-by-side comparison between Lil Freq's desser vs Sonible's smart:deess. Sonible, of course, claims their algorithim "goes far deeper and creates a more natural, better balanced sound by harnessing the power of a fully trained neural network."
@OregonCoast426 Thanks for the suggestion. I'll get it added to my list of ideas.
The sound is fine! A little sibilant but not a problem. I'm probably only noticing it now because you mentioned it. :)
Thanks for the feedback. The issue that gives me mouth noise also gives me the gift of strong sibilance, so it's good to know that it's not problematic.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. It goes to show we are all capable of making mistakes. I've definitely overcooked thing in the past. So, I agree a lees is more approach is preferable.
We're all human and make mistakes and have room for improvement. It seems there are quite a few podcast editors with big egos and that stands in the way of them becoming better at what they do. It's why I open and honest about my journey as a podcast editor. There is always room for growth and improvement and you never know where you will learn something new. Sometimes, we become complacent and operate on autopilot, which is where I feel growth comes to a stop. It's one of the reasons why I teach and work with editors. It's why I create content. I learn more by helping others than I would otherwise. And part of helping others goes back to being open and honest about my experiences, good and bad. We can't improve when we work in a silo or keep our head buried in the sand.
It's funny, in this video I think the Sibilance removal sounds a little bit over-processed. It might be a result of accentuating the high end of the EQ while de-essing at the same time?
This probably speaks to your point about over-processing and simplifying the process chain. Or, maybe I just never noticed this is what its like until today...
I think I'd need the raw to be certain, as I don't know what UA-cam is doing to it... lol
Thank you for the feedback, Matthew. It's interesting how we hear things differently. Maybe it's my ears this morning, but I'm not hearing anything I'd classify as overprocessed. I hear a few edit points, which I'm ok with because it's just room tone, and I monitor at low volumes when I edit, so I'm going to miss these now and then. Most people won't hear them, and if they do, they probably won't find them so distracting that they'll stop watching.
I have strong sibilance, so I have to apply aggressive amounts of de-essing, which could contribute to your hearing. There isn't any EQ boosting going on, though. When it comes to dialog, I almost exclusively use subtractive EQ...and always with my audio. There have been a couple times when I've used additive because cutting wasn't quite enough.
I noticed the phase issues with RX11 dialog isolate and voice denoise as well. Stopped using RX11 except for declick. Having better luck with Accentize Deroom.
I've heard it off and on over the years, but it's never been consistent. I'm on RX10 now, but heard it at least as far back as RX8. It was probably present further back, but my ears weren't developed enough to recognize it.
I find it extremely frustrating because it’s so random.
@richardsisk1770 That's been my experience as well. Most of the time it sounds fine, but every once in awhile, those artifacts are there.
I'd guess your threshold nodes were bouncing up and down from adaptive mode being on?
I'm not a fan of Voice Denoise simply because the threshold and amount of attenuation you want is tied to where you set the 'Threshold Nodes'. The 'Global Threshold' literally just offsets the 'Threshold Nodes', and the 'Global Reduction' just limits the amount of total reduction is being applied. I don't think a lot of people even realize this.
I much more prefer the style of DNS/WNS where you have 'Attenuation Bands' that simply attenuates the band by the amount you want, and the 'Global Threshold' which behaves as expected and sets the threshold.
If anyone's looking for a multiband-gate style denoiser like DNS, I'd check out Bertom Denoiser. It's free and even supports AAX for Protools users. I don't use it because I own Cedar but I've heard good things about it. (Don't expect it to compete with AI denoising).
That said, I agree I don't think you really need denoising on this audio. The sibilance also sounds fine to me. There's a slight harshness to my ears around 13kHz but it's subtle.
I think your audio sounds pretty good.
Thanks for the comment and feedback on my audio, Chris. I wasn't aware of that about Voice De-noise. I did have Adaptive mode engaged. Like I mentioned in the video, I was running it because someone claimed the noise on my recordings was distracting, but I never heard any noise unless I really cranked my headphones, and then, it becomes difficult to know if the noise is coming from the recording or the headphone amp. It's not worth my time to take each recording into RX to manually clean up with Spectral De-noise, so I just slapped Voice De-noise on.
I know I've run into this issue with Spectral De-noise to on occasion. It's odd because there doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to it. I could never find a correlation. It would happen on audio that needed very little de-noising as well as things that needed a heavier hand. Since I've moved away from RX for day-to-day noise reduction, it's not much of an issue for me...at least now that I have decided to stop using Voice De-noise on myself. Now, I'm going to have problems if Mouth De-click starts producing artifacts.
Too many plugins may beat against on another… the simplest the better.
That's why I encourage all my clients to work on improving the quality of their recordings, but It's either too much money or effort. No one wants to invest in it when they can't hear the differences or enough improvement to justify it.
By the way, I don’t like your microphone. I don’t like how close you are to the mic with someone that creates mouth noise I would think that it would be a lot better for you to use a mic that could be effective without being so close proximity. Just my humble opinion let me know what you think.
Thanks for feedback. Do you have any recommendations for mics that work well for someone with mouth noise and a quiet voice? I'm already 3" off the mic and any further away and I have to boost the gain too much and get noise in the signal.
less is more !