How do you remove reverb from audio?

[Shooshie]

Hey Shooshie! I'll give it a go here, on a theoretical level, as I wrap up my Labor Day weekend...

Thanks, that makes sense, and it was well stated. I appreciate the time it took to explain it. We're not actually removing the room sound or reflections, but essentially shortening the tail.

Which brings up another question: do any of these reverb removers attempt to recreate the dry sound? That seems a lot like trying to put the Jinni back into the bottle. Or are they essentially doing what the C4 Expander is doing?

[mikehalloran]

Which brings up another question: do any of these reverb removers attempt to recreate the dry sound? That seems a lot like trying to put the Jinni back into the bottle. Or are they essentially doing what the C4 Expander is doing?

Attempt, yes, but the most that any promise is to remove a significant amount — and the better ones do just that. Tons of before/after demos on YouTube etc.

As for trying to duplicate the effect using other plugs, not interested. RX 6 is easy and works well for the very few times it has ever been an issue.

Life is too short.

[HCMarkus]

Do any of these reverb removers attempt to recreate the dry sound? That seems a lot like trying to put the Jinni back into the bottle. Or are they essentially doing what the C4 Expander is doing?

My guess is the reverb removal tools do what C4 does but with more, narrower bands.

[Shooshie]

That's possible. I was hoping to hear there is an AI that searches for repeating, broad-spectrum patterns, and suppresses them. That kind of thing usually leaves artifacts, such as the "Adaptive" mode in Waves Z-Noise, which can take a noise pattern and track it as it changes over time. It's good up to a point. You just have to listen to the "removal" side of the equation and if you hear intelligible, musical signal, back off the threshold or the intensity of the noise removal. Seems like it could be done with a reverb remover, too.

Well, I'm just thinking out loud. Er... metaphorically speaking. I'll stop wasting space.

Shoosh

[HCMarkus]

I was hoping to hear there is an AI that searches for repeating, broad-spectrum patterns, and suppresses them. That kind of thing usually leaves artifacts, such as the "Adaptive" mode in Waves Z-Noise, which can take a noise pattern and track it as it changes over time. It's good up to a point. You just have to listen to the "removal" side of the equation and if you hear intelligible, musical signal, back off the threshold or the intensity of the noise removal. Seems like it could be done with a reverb remover, too.

In could see AI-driven thresholds and release times being used in connection with a C4-like many-band expander to create a powerful audio shaping tool that was, like Z-Noise, "adaptive".

Comparing reverb reduction and noise removal is interesting. Similar in some ways, yet reverb reduction is dealing with an ever-shifting target, whereas noise reduction is generally removing fairly static audio pollution.

Does one take a noise print with Z-Noise, like you do with RX's (most excellent) noise reduction tool?

[Shooshie]

Comparing reverb reduction and noise removal is interesting. Similar in some ways, yet reverb reduction is dealing with an ever-shifting target, whereas noise reduction is generally removing fairly static audio pollution.

Does one take a noise print with Z-Noise, like you do with RX's (most excellent) noise reduction tool?

One does. Even capturing a 10th of a second will do the trick. I find that clicking "adaptive" usually makes a mess of things, or is more limiting because of artifacts unless the threshold can be set minimally, so I rarely use that feature and just go with a regular negative noise-print. It's a very good noise reducer, and extremely easy to use.

I have the RX3 package, but last time I looked it required a lot of fiddling around in external windows and such, so I haven't used it much, opting for the easier and quicker Waves Z-Noise (and X-Click, X-Hum, etc.)

I guess I should look into the RX stuff a little more. Maybe there are upgrades that are easier to use.

Shoosh

[mikehalloran]

I have the RX3 package,

Oh dear... I started with RX 2, IIRC. What a RAM/CPU hog!

RX 6 is quite a bit improved with a lot more tools and a much shorter learn time for those that require one (De-noise etc.). Although you can always use either version as a stand-alone external wave form editor (and a few of the tools require that), most now also run as plugins also such as De-noise.

With the Standard version, you arrange the modules and engage the ones you like in the order that you chose. With the Advanced version, each plugin is a stand-alone and they offer levels of control not available in the Standard. Even though I have Advanced, I can see that it's not really necessary for most users with 6 (couldn't say the same with 5 and earlier).

One thing nice about Izotope is that upgrading from any version to 6 is the same price. Ok... since I keep up, I'd like it if the single version upgrade (5 to 6) was cheaper for me. Oh well...

[spitfire31]

Unveil is the weapon of choice for several sound designers I know. DeVerb not so much. http://www.zynaptiq.com/unveil/

Another vote her for Zynaptiq Unveil. It really can work wonders.

/Joachim