parametric equalizer question

[JohnVo]

hi

in audition cc the parametric equalizer can be controlled by 7 ponts (L ,1,2,3,4,5 and H)

1)

may i ask you a plugin like fabfilter Q2 could be considerated a parametric equalizer ?

2)

i 'm asking because a friend of mine ,she is an audio engineering , in the master process , she used the parametric equalizer (i don't know which software did she use) with many and many points to obtain the right sound for her hears, it was a classic recording

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_ · Accepted solution]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

1)

may i ask you a plugin like fabfilter Q2 could be considerated a parametric equalizer ?

Fundamentally, yes. But I'd rather use the more useful one in iZotope's Ozone!

[JohnVo]

hi

you would use iZotope's ozone to equalize rather then fabfilter Q2 or DMG Equilibrium why and izotope's Ozone as pluging vst?

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

you would use iZotope's ozone to equalize rather then fabfilter Q2 or DMG Equilibrium why and izotope's Ozone as pluging vst?

Well you can use Ozone's EQ on its own as a plugin, but normally I'd use it within the suite, and do everything that was necessary in one go. There is nothing particularly wonderful about any of these other EQs - what it comes down to with all of them is the amount of distortion ('warmth' ) they add to what you are processing. As it happens, Ozone has a 'classic' EQ too that does the same thing, so I'd use that if I really thought that I had a recording poor enough to warrant it - Suite spot does indeed make a good point about what amounts to poor captures.

If you really want to make a recording sound like another using a multiple-instance tool, then the one you should really use is Har-Bal; https://www.har-bal.com/ - this can do some pretty amazing things, especially with restorations.

But with all of this stuff, I find that I only ever need to use it to clean up somebody else's poor recording - for my own, I tend to do better in the first place!

[JohnVo]

SteveG(AudioMasters)  ha scritto

Well you can use Ozone's EQ on its own as a plugin, but normally I'd use it within the suite, and do everything that was necessary in one go. There is nothing particularly wonderful about any of these other EQs - what it comes down to with all of them is the amount of distortion ('warmth' ) they add to what you are processing. As it happens, Ozone has a 'classic' EQ too that does the same thing, so I'd use that if I really thought that I had a recording poor enough to warrant it - Suite spot does indeed make a good point about what amounts to poor captures.      

Hi

SteveG in short ozone is better then fabfilter and Dmg in the poor captures/audio?

in the past , the years of cool edit pro 2000, there are around many audio editors , now are the multi track to be many (i guess because they can work in a non descruttive mode)

another questoin Steve , May i ask how many software (audio related) do you use or do you have? and why do you use audition cc like multi track and not for example avid pro tools?

off topic , Steve can i ask you which is the audio format industry standard ? flac?

thanks SteveG

[ryclark]

Probably the most common audio format I would have thought is of course the .wav file, used natively by Audition and probably most other DAWs, since it is a completely uncompressed sample by sample representation of the digitised audio signal.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

SteveG in short ozone is better then fabfilter and Dmg in the poor captures/audio?

another questoin Steve , May i ask how many software (audio related) do you use or do you have? and why do you use audition cc like multi track and not for example avid pro tools?

off topic , Steve can i ask you which is the audio format industry standard ? flac?

Ozone is better because it is a complete mastering environment - not just some EQ. Also, it's incredibly flexible - there's no set order in which you have to do things; you can have it just the way you want it.

I don't use ProTools, partly for historical reasons. For a long time, it a) wasn't that good b) relied on dedicated hardware and c) didn't do mix-downs correctly - the summing amp was screwed, and it also ran at a relatively low resolution, prompting some enterprising manufacturers to produce external boxes that did it better! I do have some other software available (Samplitude Pro), but I hardly ever use it, even though it's up to date. They claim that it's wonderful, but it can't even open a multichannel file! But as far as what I do is concerned (see below), ProTools is not really a contender with anybody, as there are several better alternatives, like Pyramix and Sadie.

Most of what I do is classical recording, and if you do this correctly, you simply don't need loads of extra processing - generally the less you do, the better it sounds, and any corrections I make are going to be subtle. Okay, I'll admit that none of the stuff I use for recording is cheap (and no, I don't record direct to Audition - I use dedicated hardware), but it has as much to do with assessing what you're going to record as anything, knowing how your mics work, and positioning things accordingly. After that it's plain sailing during the actual recording itself. If I have any real problems with locations, I will generally fix them with iZotope's RX, but I also try to minimise my use of that. But all mixes take place in Audition - I'm used to it, and it works very well!

The audio industry standard working format is uncompressed Wav files (or the Mac equivalent, whatever that is - I never get involved with it). The distribution standard is still some sort of MPEG compressed format, and I think that video generally uses something else again.

[JohnVo]

Hi

do you know what do i miss in audition multi track?

working in the spectral view in the multi track

the waveform is descrutive , in multi track restauring audio would be amazing , having the spetral view

[ryclark]

Not really practical I'm afraid. You can't really have Spectral Frequency view available in the Multitrack because besides being non destructive most things have to work in real time whilst streaming the audio data off your hard drives. You just can't do the processing needed for Spectral Editing whilst live streaming multi channles of audio data.

[JohnVo]

ryclark  ha scritto

Not really practical I'm afraid. You can't really have Spectral Frequency view available in the Multitrack because besides being non destructive most things have to work in real time whilst streaming the audio data off your hard drives. You just can't do the processing needed for Spectral Editing whilst live streaming multi channles of audio data.

hi

but i can select some frequency in spectral view in viewform , i would like to work on this selection on multi track

what could i do select , copy , new audio file ,paste and insert in the multi track????

i mean lets i want to edit 1 audio track and i prefer to work in multi track , and i need to isolate and work on a selection of spectral view

how can i do it?

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

i mean lets i want to edit 1 audio track and i prefer to work in multi track , and i need to isolate and work on a selection of spectral view

how can i do it?

Open it in waveform view. That's the only way it's going to be able to be scanned. Scanning cannot happen in Multitrack view, as the file doesn't exist there - all you see is a marker to it - it's not 'real'. This goes for all tracks in Multitrack view - that's how non-destructive editing works!

What you want is NOT POSSIBLE.

[JohnVo]

Steve

but i did these step by step

1) load an audio file

2) spectral view

3) create a selection

4) copy

5) new file

6) paste

insert in the multi track

now i can see an audio file in the multi track that should be the selection in the step 3

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

That's not what you said - you said that you wanted to open the spectral view in multitrack, and that's what's not possible - for reasons already outlined. Obviously you can make a spectral selection in Waveform view, and copy and paste it, but that's not the same thing at all.

[JohnVo]

SteveG(AudioMasters)  ha scritto
That's not what you said - you said that you wanted to open the spectral view in multitrack, and that's what's not possible - for reasons already outlined. Obviously you can make a spectral selection in Waveform view, and copy and paste it, but that's not the same thing at all.

hi

but is there a multi track that can work in spectral view in multi track mode?

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

You can do it with Samplitude, but it's very resource-intensive, as it has to locate the appropriate part of the file, read it, calculate what its spectrogram is, and then display it, for each clip individually. And every time you change anything about a clip, it has to go through this process again. If you have a complex multitrack layout with a lot of tracks, it takes quite a while to change the display from waveforms to spectragrams, and quite frankly, it looks like a mess when you've done it.

[ryclark]

@ Giovanni. Can you explain how it would help your workflow to have the Spectral Frequency view available on Multitrack clips? As far as I am concerned any operation that need the SF view need to be done in the Waveform view anyway. And once the audio clips get to Multitrack tracks you are doing a completely different set of operations to mix various audio clips together where SF view is no longer required IMHO.

[JohnVo]

hi

just because i would like to work on frequecy selection , noise redution and equalization , in multi trak i can hear and change eq and denoiser always

in singlewave , i can't ,i have to remove the noise and change the equaliztion

thanks Ryclacrk

You can do it with Samplitude, but it's very resource-intensive, as it has to locate the appropriate part of the file, read it, calculate what its spectrogram is, and then display it, for each clip individually.

hi

maybe there are less exansive program like reaper multitrack , don't know if it allow to work in spectral view

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

maybe there are less exansive program like reaper multitrack , don't know if it allow to work in spectral view

thanks

Apparently it does - but reading between the lines, it's suggested that you only display it a track at a time if you're going to edit it.

The other thing about all of this is that this is still taking place in a non-destructive environment (or at least I'm assuming it does), so you're still not 'editing' the file as such; you're just creating a more resource-intensive playback situation. What that does in terms of what you need to save to reflect difference between the spectrogram of the actual file, and the spectrogram of your changes, I'm not sure. To me it's all a bit 'gimmicky'.

[JohnVo]

SteveG(AudioMasters)  ha scritto

Giovannivolontè   wrote

maybe there are less exansive program like reaper multitrack , don't know if it allow to work in spectral view

thanks

Apparently it does - but reading between the lines, it's suggested that you only display it a track at a time if you're going to edit it.

The other thing about all of this is that this is still taking place in a non-destructive environment (or at least I'm assuming it does), so you're still not 'editing' the file as such; you're just creating a more resource-intensive playback situation. What that does in terms of what you need to save to reflect difference between the spectrogram of the actual file, and the spectrogram of your changes, I'm not sure. To me it's all a bit 'gimmicky'.

Hi

but SteveG when you want to clean and equalize an audio , let's say to have to use audition cc (and not izopope rx and ozone) but you have to use audition cc , i guess you will use the multi track , seeing you can for example use the denosier and equalization

right?

working in waveform , it's worse

by the way , i using fabfilter q2 trial it's amazing but does it store its settings in audition?

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

but SteveG when you want to clean and equalize an audio , let's say to have to use audition cc (and not izopope rx and ozone) but you have to use audition cc , i guess you will use the multi track , seeing you can for example use the denosier and equalization

working in waveform , it's worse

If I want to clean up audio in Audition, I do it before it gets anywhere near a Multitrack session. I'd only ever perform Multitrack EQ to make two separate sounds 'fit' with each other. And I'd do this using my ears, because ultimately that's what counts - what you can hear, not what you can see. In general I tend to keep a separate file after each stage of processing, so that it's easy to revert if I need to.

Fundamentally I wouldn't use spectral editing for EQ purposes - that's really not what its function is. The real purpose of it is, as I've suggested, to enable you to isolate individual items that are causing you problems, and let you treat them - and all this happens before you go anywhere near a multitrack session, where spectral view is essentially redundant. Noise Reduction has no place in Multitrack view either.

What you want in Multitrack view is files that you can make the simplest job of mixing down. You really don't want to go doing a lot of playing about there, as it eats up resources, and also, doing a lot there makes it much harder to keep track of what you're doing. If you want a relatively smooth process, then you need to get sensibly organised first, or you're going to waste a lot of time.

[JohnVo]

hi

ok i got it

but noise reduction is sometime not an easy task

in singlewave i have to take a choice , in multi track i can fine tune the reduction with several effects like izopote denoiser no aggressive till i can have a right sound

and i can work on it for days without damage the source

thanks

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Giovannivolontè  wrote

but noise reduction is sometime not an easy task

in singlewave i have to take a choice , in multi track i can fine tune the reduction with several effects like izopote denoiser no aggressive till i can have a right sound

and i can work on it for days without damage the source

Personally I've never had a problem with this, but I'm not surprised that you have, if you go about trying to process NR in Multitrack!

Noise Reduction always works best if you use a multi-pass approach, only taking off a few dB at at time, and using several different FFT settings. And to do this is only possible in Waveform view, as it's a process effect. Adaptive NR, which is the only one that will work in Multitrack, is nowhere near as good, and is much harder to set up, as the results will inevitably vary with the content in your file.

In short, I would not dream of trying to do that!

[JohnVo]

SteveG(AudioMasters)  ha scritto

Giovannivolontè   wrote

but noise reduction is sometime not an easy task

in singlewave i have to take a choice , in multi track i can fine tune the reduction with several effects like izopote denoiser no aggressive till i can have a right sound

and i can work on it for days without damage the source

Personally I've never had a problem with this, but I'm not surprised that you have, if you go about trying to process NR in Multitrack!

Noise Reduction always works best if you use a multi-pass approach, only taking off a few dB at at time, and using several different FFT settings. And to do this is only possible in Waveform view, as it's a process effect. Adaptive NR, which is the only one that will work in Multitrack, is nowhere near as good, and is much harder to set up, as the results will inevitably vary with the content in your file.

In short, I would not dream of trying to do that!

hi

After several tests , I agree you are right

it's much better work in single wave form & rack effects

sadly i can not save as project keeping the source in flac

i should save the rack effects hoping they keeping my izotope denoiser profile and settings and fabfilter eq settings

and with effect rack , i can create a favorite with several effects to i can use in bach process

[SuiteSpot]

You could always add up to, say, 16 instances of the parametric EQ which would allow you to control around 112 points.

However, if you need to be doing that then you might want to rethink how that audio is actually being recorded - just a thought