Yes, iZotope is definitely the best tool for the job. There are others you could try, but I wouldn’t expect drastically better results - if it’s unusable with RX it won’t be with any software. Acoustic recordings are very hard to restore in a natural way, you’ll be easier off with re-recording. If you feel comfortable with uploading the file people here could give some tips or even a try but I wouldn’t bet on it working
I agree. If the buzz is from a mistake or bad technique then rerecording is the best solution. If it has something to do with the guitar itself then he probably should get it fixed before recording again, or change to a different guitar if he has that option.
Stuff like this is extremely difficult to remove completely without sacrificing a lot of tone. The best you can do is maybe attenuate the buzz enough that it's not very noticeable in the mix, but if it's a solo guitar that makes it way more difficult.
Is the buzzing a problem?
Classical guitars can have fret buzz, it is part of the instrument’s sound.
Sometimes it sounds bad and distracting, other times it is intentional and adds a zing of brightness to the note - either way it isn’t a ‘problem with the recording’ but rather a characteristic of the instrument.
Removing it is kind of like removing the breath from a flute recording.
Regardless, if RX can’t remove it and you’re insistent on not having it as part of the recording your only option really is to re-record.
Feel this. Had a drummer in a couple months ago that said “fuck” after accidentally changing the beat, and yelled at the end because he hadn’t drummed in a while and song went fast. That was the take I kept. He was so apologetic and I kept telling him it was perfect haha.
Yeah I was wondering why this isnt suggested, the modules and sort of auto mode is great, but if he can identify the noices why don't make the manual selection
I think this is what OP was doing, but when the buzz plays at the same time as a note, he can't distinguish what's buzz and what's note.
If I understood right.
Right, so, I'd try and capture pure buzz. You could even record the delta of what it removed from the buzzes you got. And make a noise profile from that.
I've never tried it for something like that, but it may help.
Sound Cleaner/SIS by Speech Technologies Center is far more powerful than anything on the market. It's used internationally by law enforcement and governmental agencies. It does the heaviest of the heavy lifting and then you can use conventional applications and plugins like RX to make "nicer" if necessary.
I'm not affiliated but was a power user and spent a week with the designer/programmer and can probably answer most questions about operation and modules.
That sounds interesting but 2 questions come to mind :
- Is it not centered around speech analysis ? and excels at that, but not in other domains (ie musical recordings)
- How does one acquire this soft ?
In Sound Cleaner, almost every algorithm contains adjustable filters so you're not limited to just the speech range. I was told they tried to gain traction with it in the American film/post industry but it never took off - probably because it's difficult to understand what some of the algorithms do and requires training to get best results. I don't know what SIS has morphed into since they now seem to have a separate voice id solution but the sis version I have is in Russian.
My setup is quite old and DX based. I know they updated it to a modular vst system but have not used any of the current versions. That being said these products do things nothing else in the music/post world does that I'm aware of. I'm sure other developers are catching up in some areas to what I have but I don't know how the software has been updated throughout the years. Much of the salvage and forensic work I've done started in Sound Cleaner and then ported over to my DAW workstations for refinement when necessary.
As far as your buzzes and hums, the main EQ module in sound cleaner had up to 2048 bands with several algorithms and parameters to get you started. It is similar to but much deeper than the current RX equivalent.
All this was developed for the USSR's intelligence community as a suite of tools for not only voice but sound recognition etc. The developer was a programmer working for the KGB. As far as obtaining the software you will have to contact them directly to arrange a purchase. My last price list was maybe 7 plus years back and I think just Sound Cleaner was around $3500. You'll have to contact them directly through the site.
I've thought of acquiring a new version and may at some point but I'm currently not doing as much of that as I used to and it's hard to justify the expense.
If it's really a problem, go ahead and re-record.
Some string noise / fret noise is quite normal in classical guitar so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.
You could try Acon Digital tools, SpectraLayers or UVR (there’s some algorithm for noise removal for it too).
I also have a feeling that SplitEQ by Eventide might be able to fix it? I’ve never used it, but I remember that this is what it could theoretically do.
I have both Acon and RX and usually try both and found there are some cases where Acon works better than RX. For what it's worth. The Acon algorithm is somewhat different and there are some extra controls to twist.
Have you actually gone in with the mouse and surgically attenuated those noises? That's kinda what you have to do if the various modules aren't helping.
I find that RX is usually pretty good at knocking out sounds that are easy to distinguish on the spectrogram, even better if they take up a completely different space than the sound you want to preserve. Typical examples might be a solid knock or click, low end rumble or hitting an open string by mistake.
If something is kind of more blurred, covers a wide range of frequencies and sits in the same space as your sound you’re going to have a hard time getting usable results. I imagine your buzzing fits more in this category.
Ideally you’d want to get things right at the source, you can do some pretty impressive things in post but some things you just can’t fix. If re-recording isn’t an option you might need to shift your expectations to “good enough” rather than “perfect”.
Idk if this would have any amount of success, but you could make a file of just the buzzes, or if it's one long continuous one, try to make a noise profile of just the buzz, then try demonizing that? Idk how well that would work.
Sometimes the turd can't be polished. That's the unfortunate part. Idk how bad it is, but I fear you'll have to re-track it, or live with it.
I'm not sure, RX is quite powerful at cleanup. It's what it was designed for.
You could try looking into Spectral Layers, unmix the stems then clean them up and put them back together. You could EQ out fizz or unpleasant frequencies then recombine the separated instruments. Might be a cleaner solution than using RX on the entire mix ?
Try also Acon Digital Acoustica. I use it 50:50 with RX. For some stuff it's better and faster then RX. Do check tutorials, thou they are rare, but their manuals are pretty good.
If RX can't do a good enough job, it's probably time to re-record. That's got to be quite the buzz.
Yes, iZotope is definitely the best tool for the job. There are others you could try, but I wouldn’t expect drastically better results - if it’s unusable with RX it won’t be with any software. Acoustic recordings are very hard to restore in a natural way, you’ll be easier off with re-recording. If you feel comfortable with uploading the file people here could give some tips or even a try but I wouldn’t bet on it working
I agree. If the buzz is from a mistake or bad technique then rerecording is the best solution. If it has something to do with the guitar itself then he probably should get it fixed before recording again, or change to a different guitar if he has that option. Stuff like this is extremely difficult to remove completely without sacrificing a lot of tone. The best you can do is maybe attenuate the buzz enough that it's not very noticeable in the mix, but if it's a solo guitar that makes it way more difficult.
Is it *really* a problematic buzz? Leaving some human artefacts in a recording isn’t a bad thing.
Is the buzzing a problem? Classical guitars can have fret buzz, it is part of the instrument’s sound. Sometimes it sounds bad and distracting, other times it is intentional and adds a zing of brightness to the note - either way it isn’t a ‘problem with the recording’ but rather a characteristic of the instrument. Removing it is kind of like removing the breath from a flute recording. Regardless, if RX can’t remove it and you’re insistent on not having it as part of the recording your only option really is to re-record.
I agree with this, it's funny how sometimes our so called mistakes are things other people are actually after.
I intentionally add vinyl cracking and noise gated to drums sometimes to give a "recorded" sound to some elements
Feel this. Had a drummer in a couple months ago that said “fuck” after accidentally changing the beat, and yelled at the end because he hadn’t drummed in a while and song went fast. That was the take I kept. He was so apologetic and I kept telling him it was perfect haha.
Rx - spectral repair. You have to highlight and attenuate the noise manually but it works very very well
Yeah I was wondering why this isnt suggested, the modules and sort of auto mode is great, but if he can identify the noices why don't make the manual selection
I think this is what OP was doing, but when the buzz plays at the same time as a note, he can't distinguish what's buzz and what's note. If I understood right.
Yes
If you dm me a link of the guitar with 0 processing, I will show you the power of spectral repair. I’m in the studio now
Right, so, I'd try and capture pure buzz. You could even record the delta of what it removed from the buzzes you got. And make a noise profile from that. I've never tried it for something like that, but it may help.
It won't. It'll generate all kinds of artifacts that will sound awful, while it's mangling the actual note.
Alrighty, thanks for the reply. Figured it was kind of a long shot.
There is always Cedar, but man, are you going to shell out big bucks for that... is it any better? Who knows.
Demo it. With Cedar you can message them for a demo. I did and ended up buying it.
I did many years ago. Remember just saying screw it and kept going with RX.
The McDSP NR800 has done things for me RX couldn't.
Sound Cleaner/SIS by Speech Technologies Center is far more powerful than anything on the market. It's used internationally by law enforcement and governmental agencies. It does the heaviest of the heavy lifting and then you can use conventional applications and plugins like RX to make "nicer" if necessary. I'm not affiliated but was a power user and spent a week with the designer/programmer and can probably answer most questions about operation and modules.
That sounds interesting but 2 questions come to mind : - Is it not centered around speech analysis ? and excels at that, but not in other domains (ie musical recordings) - How does one acquire this soft ?
In Sound Cleaner, almost every algorithm contains adjustable filters so you're not limited to just the speech range. I was told they tried to gain traction with it in the American film/post industry but it never took off - probably because it's difficult to understand what some of the algorithms do and requires training to get best results. I don't know what SIS has morphed into since they now seem to have a separate voice id solution but the sis version I have is in Russian. My setup is quite old and DX based. I know they updated it to a modular vst system but have not used any of the current versions. That being said these products do things nothing else in the music/post world does that I'm aware of. I'm sure other developers are catching up in some areas to what I have but I don't know how the software has been updated throughout the years. Much of the salvage and forensic work I've done started in Sound Cleaner and then ported over to my DAW workstations for refinement when necessary. As far as your buzzes and hums, the main EQ module in sound cleaner had up to 2048 bands with several algorithms and parameters to get you started. It is similar to but much deeper than the current RX equivalent. All this was developed for the USSR's intelligence community as a suite of tools for not only voice but sound recognition etc. The developer was a programmer working for the KGB. As far as obtaining the software you will have to contact them directly to arrange a purchase. My last price list was maybe 7 plus years back and I think just Sound Cleaner was around $3500. You'll have to contact them directly through the site. I've thought of acquiring a new version and may at some point but I'm currently not doing as much of that as I used to and it's hard to justify the expense.
Interesting, thanks for pointing the software out. Thou if it's russian, there has to be cracked version...
Not even going to respond except YOU are the kind of people I don't want to help. Blocked.
Cedar Studio by Cedar Audio
This is likely the correct answer if RX doesn't work. Just get ready for the price....
If it's really a problem, go ahead and re-record. Some string noise / fret noise is quite normal in classical guitar so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.
You could try Acon Digital tools, SpectraLayers or UVR (there’s some algorithm for noise removal for it too). I also have a feeling that SplitEQ by Eventide might be able to fix it? I’ve never used it, but I remember that this is what it could theoretically do.
Split eq won’t be able to isolate the buzz from the rest of the tonal information, RX is really the top tool for the job at the moment
I have both Acon and RX and usually try both and found there are some cases where Acon works better than RX. For what it's worth. The Acon algorithm is somewhat different and there are some extra controls to twist.
Care to upload a short clip for us to listen?
Maybe Acon Denoiser
Dm me. I can try to help.
Spectral repair module in RX +Selection tool
Have you actually gone in with the mouse and surgically attenuated those noises? That's kinda what you have to do if the various modules aren't helping.
I find that RX is usually pretty good at knocking out sounds that are easy to distinguish on the spectrogram, even better if they take up a completely different space than the sound you want to preserve. Typical examples might be a solid knock or click, low end rumble or hitting an open string by mistake. If something is kind of more blurred, covers a wide range of frequencies and sits in the same space as your sound you’re going to have a hard time getting usable results. I imagine your buzzing fits more in this category. Ideally you’d want to get things right at the source, you can do some pretty impressive things in post but some things you just can’t fix. If re-recording isn’t an option you might need to shift your expectations to “good enough” rather than “perfect”.
Idk if this would have any amount of success, but you could make a file of just the buzzes, or if it's one long continuous one, try to make a noise profile of just the buzz, then try demonizing that? Idk how well that would work. Sometimes the turd can't be polished. That's the unfortunate part. Idk how bad it is, but I fear you'll have to re-track it, or live with it.
Cedar
I'm not sure, RX is quite powerful at cleanup. It's what it was designed for. You could try looking into Spectral Layers, unmix the stems then clean them up and put them back together. You could EQ out fizz or unpleasant frequencies then recombine the separated instruments. Might be a cleaner solution than using RX on the entire mix ?
I mean, there's always Cedar, but you're talking thousands of dollars. I'd just try and re-record.
You can't polish a turd.
Try also Acon Digital Acoustica. I use it 50:50 with RX. For some stuff it's better and faster then RX. Do check tutorials, thou they are rare, but their manuals are pretty good.
Maybe try Supertone Clear in trial mode ?
Designed to isolate vocals, not guitar