Un-mix components using multiple frequency ranges?


Just wondering if anyone else would find the option to have the “un-mix components” command provide user chosen frequency ranges within each component?

So for example, in the noise component, you could pre-select splits of the noise at say 150hz, 300hz, 500hz, and above. That way you could just work with the first 150hz of the noise component or 150hz to 300hz, etc. Same for the transient and tonal layers.

I know this can be done with multiple selections and cuts to new layers, but that is cumbersome and time consuming and you need to sit and wait for each “un-mix” to process the file. Or if there were macros/chains where you could automatically process a file with multiple selections and un-mixes with a single keystroke.



1 Like

If you want to know if an app has a particular feature, the best place to look is the manual.

Hi Mike,
maybe I misinterpretated your question but wouldn´t it be an easy solution to just unmix the whole audio file and then make fequency selections in the 3 different layers (one at each time) until you find the ranges you like since you can listen to the selection? So adjustments to the selected area(s) would be quick without unmixing again. And then just crop it to the selection (or inverse the selection and delete the rest). Just an idea…

Cheers, Andreas

Thanks Amberfields,

I’m kinda doing that now. Maybe I need to mess around with Spectralayers more to get more comfortable with it.

What I was dealing with is a podcast and noise throughout various sections of it in the same frequency ranges. So if I could split off a frequency range within an unmixed layer then I could play with that whole frequency range in isolation, i.e., muting the whole thing, changing the volume, etc. I was thinking it would just be easier if the offending frequency selection for the whole podcast was in its own layer. I can do it manually, but thought that if it could be split out as part of the initial unmix command it would be more efficient. Maybe not.

Thanks again for the suggestion.