So I’ve just demod spectral layers pro and am quite impressed.
It denoises well and has other quite functional repair options.
Steinberg obviously know how to lure people in as I didn’t even know what spectral layers was until I upgraded to cubase 11 and discovered spectral one. And man now thinking about getting it.
Is it on par with Izotope rx repair software though. Anyone ABd the two. I have but am curious on other opinions.
The fact that spectral layers is built in is a huge plus for me. Even though it seems to take up to one minute or more to load it up, and that’s with a super fast Mac. (Is that normal for an 8 second audio clip ?)
There’s a big difference between the stripped-down SL One and the fully-fledged SL Pro. An apples-to-apples comparison would be SL Pro to RX 8 Standard or RX 8 Advanced.
I’ve used RX 6 Standard and RX 7 Elements. RX has the best declicking algos of any NR program I’ve ever used. I can’t imagine SL One competing in that department. It appears, though, that the ‘heal’ function in SL Pro offers a way to compensate for the RX advantage in declicking. But you’ll have to do more experimenting yourself to confirm this in your own mind.
Fortunately, there’s a dedicated declicker in SL Elements as well, and SL Elements is what I’ve been playing with for the last few months. According to the instruction manual, the declicker is identical to the one in SL Pro.
The SL declicker seems to do its job without leaving artifacts, which is a significant plus – no noticeable effects on transients, e.g., hand claps, snare hits. The problem is you can’t remove the really nasty, high-amplitude thumps with SL declicker that you can with RX declicker, even RX Elements declicker.
Nevertheless, SL Pro seems better equipped to deal with nasty thumps than SL Elements, because SL Pro has the manual ‘heal’ function that SL Elements doesn’t have. That should go a long way towards repairing real scars in a recording that you can’t do with the automated declicker.
RX and SL take different approaches to NR, and both of these approaches have their plusses and minusses. In case this matters, though, RX still doesn’t have ARA2 support.
drdrdrdr, is it the first time only, or opening a second short audio sample in the same project also leads to a minute loading it ?
What do you see during that mimute ? Is there a message somewhere ?
I see 3 scenarios:
-SL takes a long time to initialize, but then loading the audio file is very fast (possible, but SL only takes 5 seconds to initialize on my mac)
-SL initialize fast, but Cubase takes a long time preparing the audio file before transferring it to SL (possible, some users have reported some long time when Cubase prepares the data)
-SL initialize fast and Cubase prepare the file fast, but transferring it to SL takes a very long time (unlikely)
Rx8 seems it has more to offer such as dedicated vst plugins for most of its processes (excluding unmix)
Also rx8 has a built in batch converter… Very very useful!
I own both… Currently sl7 pro is unusable (with c11 and ara) as anything I do bloats the .cpr file to eventually unusable/corrupt filesizes.
Rx8 is certainly more refined… Most processes work as a plugin… And the batch converter is a a major plus
I would rather stay within the Steinberg ecosphere… but the qa is sorely lacking
With rx8 I can batch process all the files I need… everything works fine
With sl7… using your ara implementation I get a corrupt .CPR file
Luckily these were test projects!
My only advice coming from someone that has both…
Use rx8 and enjoy… You may need to batch process some tracks externaly…
If using spectral layer’s “pro” 7 be prepared for a bloated unusable corrupted CPR file
There are three versions of RX, Elements, Standard and ‘Advanced’ RX Adv. cost significantly more than SL Pro. I am not familiar with the differences between RX-8 Standard and SL Pro 7 which are in similar price range.