As a user of both, RX has an advantage when doing what I call “bulk” work, plus the Spectral Denoiser plug-in is really good, and works in WaveLab (even though Izotope still refuse to list it as an officially supported host; petty!)
SpectraLayers is a different tool, with different strengths, and (I think) a higher learning curve, but the results that can be obtained leave RX in the dust. The difference for me is also one of workflow – I’d like to be able to replace WL+RX-plug-ins with WL+SL-ARA2, but it’s still not working out smoothly for me.
So of course, as so often in these discussions, it depends on your source material, and what you need to do with it. Both products have their strengths, and that’s why I continue to use both, but more and more of SL and less and less of RX.
@cparmerlee (NB: Voice DeNoise is different to DeNoise - the claim here is about Voice DeNoise. But there are multiple strategies and tools to denoise musical performances in SL, not limited to DeNoise. Unmix Song and Unmix Components are 2 different preparatory approaches prior to denoising itself for instance)
There’s a technique for this called masking where you can carve out(casting) the main tonal layer into the noisey layer and then reapply the noisey (carved out layer) back into the tonal/partials layers. Masking allows you to get any quality of sound in a non-destructive way however there’s no way to do masking in a controlled environment (making that task a lot more tedious). If there was a way to do overall selections (like the idea of the magic wand tool that applies selections to all partials/harmonics) then masking would be a lot more intuitive.
I share the same opinion (and experience) about iZotope and RX. They discouraged me from making any more updates and they would need to put a really crazy discount for me to do it.
About denoising, I don’t use the unmixing feature as I don’t need it (yet) and for the voice, I already have dxRevive which is simply mind-blowing and in real-time.
These days everything is about denoising voice which is already covered by so many solutions, but there are other denoising cases (like mine) that are left behind.
IMO static noise from USB devices is so common and horrible that I would love to see even a separate plugin made just for this purpose
Hi Robin,
I’m wondering if there’s any plan for Spectralayers to address tape print-through? I have archived recordings, some going back 50 years with mild to pronounced print-through. It would be great to have a de-print-through filter.
It would seem to be a little like deverb, with a very long initial delay, and the delay would vary a little depending on where, on the tape reel, you are.
It will take me a while to set up the R2R deck (it’s in mothballs for now) and grab a track. I’ll get on it. Thanks, Robin.
In the meantime, as a mental exercise, I thought of isolating the print through track in Spectralayers if that’s possible then creating an inverse wave to wipe it out. However this raises the question of spectral damage to the rest of the track and whether or not it can be rebuilt. I haven’t tried it yet but when my deck is ready, I may give it a try.
I found SL Pro 10 at a very good price second hand. That means I wouldn’t qualify for a free upgrade to 11, right? Also in the next update sales, I will get on the 11 bandwagon.
@Robin_Lobel - I know you can’t tease too much atm but is batch processing on the cards? I work at a sync music library and the older portion of our catalogue doesn’t have stems or alt mixes. Would be awesome to be able to dump batches of files in and get drumless/drums and bass/no lead/no drums or lead (underscore) mixes for those tracks without going one by one!
Hi Robin,
I use an old notebook for Cubase 13 pro and Wavelab 11 pro. It is an Intel i7-5500U 2.40 GHz, 16.0 CB Ram, Windows 64 bit. Is enough for the future Spectralayer 11 pro ? Thanks
