de-esser - which is the absolute best in your opinion

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

No holds barred - absolute best de-essers and why

weiss ds-1
spl 9629
dbx 902
drawmer mx-50
valley DSP
bss dpr-901

your favorite compressor + sidechain EQ

???

yes - I'm in the market and using google until the giganews account is
accessable - my comcast account is in "area 51" with a service issue

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dbx 902. If you can find one...
No color added...
Real EZ to use...
I have to thank Fletcher for suggesting that one...
What ever happened to that guy...?
--
Steven Sena
XS Sound Recording
www.xssound.com

<rsmith@bsstudios.com> wrote in message
news:1108530068.663002.171070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> No holds barred - absolute best de-essers and why
>
> weiss ds-1
> spl 9629
> dbx 902
> drawmer mx-50
> valley DSP
> bss dpr-901
>
> your favorite compressor + sidechain EQ
>
> ???
>
> yes - I'm in the market and using google until the giganews account is
> accessable - my comcast account is in "area 51" with a service issue
>
> bobs
>
> Bob Smith
> BS Studios
> we organize chaos
> http://www.bsstudios.com
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What are the best software De-Essers?

Would using a different mic be a potential solution?

John Phillips

"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:LEAQd.47488$iC4.46670@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <rsmith@bsstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:1108530068.663002.171070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> No holds barred - absolute best de-essers and why
>>
>> weiss ds-1
>> spl 9629
>> dbx 902
>> drawmer mx-50
>> valley DSP
>> bss dpr-901
>
> dbx 902, without a doubt, IMNSFHO. As to why? Well, geez, they just work
> better in terms of sibliance removal than anything else out there without
> ripping the rest of the signal to shreds. #2 is the Valley 415, one of
> which I have and unfortunately do not find myself using due to the fact
> that I'm pretty much on 100% software processing now.
>
> Neil Henderson
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil Henderson wrote:
> "John Phillips" <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AkGQd.5737$VI1.1310080@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > What are the best software De-Essers?
>
> My personal favorite is the Spitfish from:
>
> http://www.digitalfishphones.com
>
> And remarkably, it's FREE!
>
>
> > Would using a different mic be a potential solution?
>
> Yes, sometimes... or also not using as much compression going to
track, if
> you happen to be doing so. It obviously depends partially on the
singer,
> though - some people are just more sibilant than others.
>
> Neil Henderson

Using a different mic or changing the talent would be my first choice.
I've never really needed a de-esser for music work. I'm doing spoken
voices that get put in products where the voice talents are speaking
their respective languages and I don't have as much say about the
talent selection. In other words, I have to work with what is sent.
Usually I hand edit the offending shrill phrase but when I get a lot of
them it can be tedious. I'm looking for a less labor intensive way of
fixing, say 80% of the shrillness without losing the S consonant. Maybe
there is no better way than how I currently handle it.

I did download the SpitFish. It appears to need a VST host. Cool Edit
Pro doesn't appear to handle VST. Is there a DirectX to VST wrapper
available for CEP or Adobe Audition?

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The best IMO, is the Orban 536 (I think that's the number) with the mod (the
one that Bob Orban himself gave - replace 1 chip and a couple of resistors
and a cap)...VERY transparent and the most NATURAL sounding de-esser I've
heard (I think it sounds way more natural than the DBX 902 and I've A/B'd
them side by side and that's how it sounded to my ears)...

I thought the Valley DSP added a little color...

Haven't heard the SPL, Weiss or BSS...

IMO, the best way to test a de-esser is to record something "as is" (mic
into pre into converter) and then record the same thing thru the
de-esser(mic-pre-de-esser-converter). Then listen back to both tracks and
you can hear what the additional circuitry is doing to the signal...you can
do this by ear, without recording the tracks, if you can truly remember the
subtle, and not so subtle, differences between the two.

Good Luck.

Jim
Matrix Audio


<rsmith@bsstudios.com> wrote in message
news:1108530068.663002.171070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> No holds barred - absolute best de-essers and why
>
> weiss ds-1
> spl 9629
> dbx 902
> drawmer mx-50
> valley DSP
> bss dpr-901
>
> your favorite compressor + sidechain EQ
>
> ???
>
> yes - I'm in the market and using google until the giganews account is
> accessable - my comcast account is in "area 51" with a service issue
>
> bobs
>
> Bob Smith
> BS Studios
> we organize chaos
> http://www.bsstudios.com
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The Dave Brown de-esser is my fave software one.

)

"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:CoIQd.10570$D34.2298@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "John Phillips" <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AkGQd.5737$VI1.1310080@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > What are the best software De-Essers?
>
> My personal favorite is the Spitfish from:
>
> http://www.digitalfishphones.com
>
> And remarkably, it's FREE!
>
>
> > Would using a different mic be a potential solution?
>
> Yes, sometimes... or also not using as much compression going to track, if
> you happen to be doing so. It obviously depends partially on the singer,
> though - some people are just more sibilant than others.
>
> Neil Henderson
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1108530068.663002.171070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> rsmith@bsstudios.com writes:

> No holds barred - absolute best de-essers and why

> spl 9629

I'm not sure about the model, or if SPL has ever made more than one
de-esser, but the one I'm thinking about would be my choice. It isn't
just a frequency sensitive compressor, it works on a different
principle. I have a friend who has one and it just always does what
it's supposed to do without doing anything audible that it's not
supposed to do.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks to everyone for your collective comments and suggestions. I've
been reading manuals as I find them.

Mike R. - the SPL 9629 does appear to use a different algorithmic
approach to D-S. It also appears on the equipment list in many studios.

Ricky H. - Thankyou for the pointer about DirectiXer - wow another
universe of possibilities just opened.

Neil - Spitfish was a no brainer, thankyou - now installed and working
via DirectiXer

So at the top of the audition list I have

dbx 902
spl 9629
Spitfish

Others as I find them. Thanks again to everyone.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The SPl is my fav. Th SPL uses phase inversion to cancel the silibance
instead of compression. To me and my ears that works better.

I Have found it quite useful in the studio and live.

There used to be an SPL plugin (which prompted me to sell my SPL, but
now that the plugin is no longer being updated, I miss my SPL)

I had my SPL for 5 years and it was a serious work horse.




On 2005-02-16 22:27:11 -0500, rsmith@bsstudios.com said:

> Thanks to everyone for your collective comments and suggestions. I've
> been reading manuals as I find them.
>
> Mike R. - the SPL 9629 does appear to use a different algorithmic
> approach to D-S. It also appears on the equipment list in many studios.
>
> Ricky H. - Thankyou for the pointer about DirectiXer - wow another
> universe of possibilities just opened.
>
> Neil - Spitfish was a no brainer, thankyou - now installed and working
> via DirectiXer
>
> So at the top of the audition list I have
>
> dbx 902
> spl 9629
> Spitfish
>
> Others as I find them. Thanks again to everyone.
>
> bobs
>
> Bob Smith
> BS Studios
> we organize chaos
> http://www.bsstudios.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Digital Performer wrote:
> There used to be an SPL plugin (which prompted me to sell my SPL, but
> now that the plugin is no longer being updated, I miss my SPL)

From what I know, that's the same plugin that is now included in Nuendo
(Dynamics -> DeEsser).

Johann
--
Oliver lebt auch in seiner 'RN-Welt' wo ihn keiner mehr erreichen kann.
Das hat nichts mehr mit Empfehlungen zu tun, sondern das ist
Fetischismus und gestoertes Netzdenken.
(*Tönnes in <aj3phq$m80$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de> )

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On or about 16 Feb 2005 10:55:25 EST, JK allegedly wrote:

> IMO, the best way to test a de-esser is to record something "as is" (mic
> into pre into converter) and then record the same thing thru the
> de-esser(mic-pre-de-esser-converter). Then listen back to both tracks and
> you can hear what the additional circuitry is doing to the signal...you can
> do this by ear, without recording the tracks, if you can truly remember the
> subtle, and not so subtle, differences between the two.

I've tested a couple of software de-essers by inverting a processed file
against the original. What's left is what the de-esser removed. If it's
a good one (and you've tuned it well), the difference will only be esses,
with silence between.


Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)