algorithmix plugs

[Donald S]

Hello,

I'm looking for a denoise plug. The algorithmix was suggested. Anyone have it, use it , or like it?
Also, were do we get this software? Browsing the web I only found it sequoia DAW.

Don

[Professor]

Hello,
Also, were do we get this software? Browsing the web I only found it sequoia DAW.

Don

http://algorithmix.com/en/pro_products.htm

[Graemme]

Hi Don,

There are two versions of this plug-in: One built for the Pyramix VS3 mixer and another written in the Direct-X format.

The DX version sounds better to my ears. But, you can't automate it like can be done with the VS3 version.

There's now also CEDAR broadband noise reduction available for Pyramix. It also works rather well.

Best,

Graemme

Hello,

I'm looking for a denoise plug. The algorithmix was suggested. Anyone have it, use it , or like it?
Also, were do we get this software? Browsing the web I only found it sequoia DAW.

Don

[Donald S]

I also should have asked, do they work with PMX native?
Thanks professor and Graemme - I'm asuming that the algorithmix is more affordable than cedar? Is cedar available as software?

Don

[Graemme]

Hi Don,

Both the DX version of the Algorithmix and the Cedar software work in Pyramix Native. I haven't tried the VS3 version-not sure if it was ported or not.

Best,

Graemme

I also should have asked, do they work with PMX native?
Thanks professor and Graemme - I'm asuming that the algorithmix is more affordable than cedar? Is cedar available as software?

Don

[tim lofts]

I played with the cedar denoise, decrackle etc. Wow!

[Roland Clarke]

Hi Don,

There are two versions of this plug-in: One built for the Pyramix VS3 mixer and another written in the Direct-X format.

The DX version sounds better to my ears. But, you can't automate it like can be done with the VS3 version.

There's now also CEDAR broadband noise reduction available for Pyramix. It also works rather well.

Best,

Graemme

I would also add that the Algorythmix noise plugins are available in DX form rebadged by Waves. That being said good as they are I would personally look to buy the Cedar ones. I am led to believe that the Nova plug will not be sold as of ver 5, but Graemme is probably better informed on this than I.

Regards to all



Roland

[Graemme]

Hi Roland,

It's my understanding that the Waves versions of the Algorithmix De-Noise plugs are not exactly the same as the Algorithmix De-Noiser Pro, etc. It would be best to check with Christoph Musialik of Algorithmix for the real answer...

I haven't tested them side-by-side, but I recall not really liking the Waves de-noiser very much. I've used the Algorithmix De-Crackler on DXD material and it was very impressive.

As for future Nova availability, I'm not touching that wasp's nest of a topic with a ten-foot pole...


Algorithmix also make the *best* sounding digital EQ that I've ever heard, the possible exception being some of the convolution-based EQs in the Sintefex Replicator...but hey - that's 'cheating'

Best,

Graemme

Hi Don,

There are two versions of this plug-in: One built for the Pyramix VS3 mixer and another written in the Direct-X format.

The DX version sounds better to my ears. But, you can't automate it like can be done with the VS3 version.

There's now also CEDAR broadband noise reduction available for Pyramix. It also works rather well.

Best,

Graemme

I would also add that the Algorythmix noise plugins are available in DX form rebadged by Waves. That being said good as they are I would personally look to buy the Cedar ones. I am led to believe that the Nova plug will not be sold as of ver 5, but Graemme is probably better informed on this than I.

Regards to all



Roland

[Roland Clarke]

Hi Roland,

It's my understanding that the Waves versions of the Algorithmix De-Noise plugs are not exactly the same as the Algorithmix De-Noiser Pro, etc. It would be best to check with Christoph Musialik of Algorithmix for the real answer...

I haven't tested them side-by-side, but I recall not really liking the Waves de-noiser very much. I've used the Algorithmix De-Crackler on DXD material and it was very impressive.

As for future Nova availability, I'm not touching that wasp's nest of a topic with a ten-foot pole...


Algorithmix also make the *best* sounding digital EQ that I've ever heard, the possible exception being some of the convolution-based EQs in the Sintefex Replicator...but hey - that's 'cheating'

Best,

Graemme

I too have tried both and didn't notice any significant difference. I can understand why it would be assumed there was as there is quite a price differential. I still view the algorythmix noise plugs (with the exception of Nova) as being mid range tools, for me the upper end Cedar stuff has always represented the "Holy Grail".

I'd be interested in the Algorythmix EQ, haven't heard of that. Must do some more web research!!

Regards



Roland

[Mark Lemaire]

I'm reawakening this thread to see what information might be new. I'm seriously considering a de-noise plug and am looking for the best one.

Between the Cedar and the Algorithmix- one difference I'd like to confirm with you all- the Cedar is a rendering process and the Alg is a realtime plug that is automatable thru PMX- is this correct?

If so, I find the Cedar to be less easy to use for my methods. Individual events in a program might require a change in settings to sound their best, and I prefer to hear and adjust as I go. Also I don't relish the idea of denoising a multitrack file that might be an hour long and then having no easy way to 'undo' a section that I might find questionable.

Is this really the only way to use the Cedar product?

The price difference is several hundred, but not insurmountable if the Cedar is that much better sounding and I can make it work for me.

Any other options between these two products? Is ther Algo the only choice if I want to automate in PMX?

thanks!

Mark Lemaire

[NICK LOWE]

The last time I used either the decrackler or the denoiser from Algorythmics they both required a rendering process with considerable latency - about 3 frames. That being said, both were of very high quality with the caveat that 'less is better', in other words you needed to 'chip away'at the offending signal several times rather than go all out for a one-off render that would always produce audible artifacts. Both are better than the Waves plugs, particulary the decrackler but I have to say the Cedar denoiser is the best I've ever heard.

[Graemme]

There are two different Algorithmix flavours available:

The one written for Pyramix VS3 to run on the Mykerinos card, which can be used as both a render process and inserted on a mixer strip with automation

The other is a Direct-X plug-in, which is, according to both my ears and the developer's explanation, better than it's dedicated Pyramix sibling. This of course can't be automated and is subject to the current DX limitations in Pyramix.

As Nick points out, there is a 3000+ sample latency (I forget the exact number right now) using the Mykerinos version and empirically, something similar with the DX version.

Ahhh...here's a thread (see last message) with the real answer:

http://forum.merging.com/viewtopic. ... cfc60d3b99

There is no delay compensation for this process within Pyramix. That will happen in Version 6.

As to which is better, you should try them both and see for yourself. The user interfaces are different enough that you'll probably favour one over the other, sonic differences/preferences notwithstanding.

To further confuse the issue, another contender is PureNotes. If Merging can ever get around to writing a stable version, the NR quality is amazing.

Best,

Graemme

[Mark Lemaire]

Thanks, all!

Here is a quote from that earlier thread from N Cavin:

"The Algorithmix real-time restoration plugins (Descratcher and Denoiser) are indeed a bit special as these are highly complex processes requiring several tens of milliseconds of audio material buffering to perform their tasks. The exact latency of the Denoiser plugin is of 3072 samples (3 x 1024) corresponding to approx. 70 ms at 44.1 kHz while the Descratcher latency is even higher at 7168 samples (7 x 1024) corresponding to 162 ms at 44.1 kHz. "

Is this all still true? Just checking.

I'm aware that the delay would be longer with more complex processes, like denoise. Is this process still 'uncompensated"?

Mark

[Mark Lemaire]

Oh! Sorry, Graham- there's my answer- I have to wait till Ver 6.

Mark