REVIEW: Sonnox Oxford SuprEsser
After a lot of trying different de-essers I’m finally ready to post a review of the new Sonnox SuprEsser. I’ve also made a video for you to watch where I’m basically showing it in operation. So how does it fare against the rest of the new breed of de-essers? Read on and thou shalt know!
Technicalities and other yada, yada…
There are three different instances of SuprEsser to choose from - regular, low latency and high res. The regular has an insane amount of delay, close to 3000. Well, you consider it “insane” until you fire up the high res. Now we’re talking something along the lines of 12 000. You better be on HD for this one, or use audio suite. Despite the name of low latency instance, we’re still talking over 500 in delay.
Despite a fairly advanced looking GUI it’s actually kind of easy to figure out what controls are for what (and you can put it in ‘easy view’ if you want to). After only a couple of minutes (without the manual I might add) I seem to have gotten the hang of it. The first thing to set is in what area you want the SuprEsser to work. This is fairly customizable and very graphical (as everything else with this plug-in). Next you have the ability to set the threshold, the ratio as well as ‘reaction envelope’. SuprEsser also have a couple of listening options as any de-esser worth it’s salt should. If you wonder why I don’t show the reaction envelope in the video it’s because I basically never feel the need to touch those controls! Same goes for the ‘mode’ switches - you can set the SuprEsser to target the full range of the audio, I just never do it.
I’m surprised to see how CPU friendly it seems to be with all real-time metering going on. Things are flying all over the graph the entire time. My experience tells me that plug-ins that does these kinds of things usually like to crap out the CPU. Not this one though. I wouldn’t say it’s ‘easy’ on the CPU just ‘easier’ than I thought.
De-essing… and more!
As a plain de-esser I find SuprEsser very easy to work with, transparent and a step up from the Digirack de-esser. With only this in regard, the SuprEsser passes the test. But who’s looking for a plug-in that just ‘pass the test’? My favorite de-esser at the moment is Eiosis E2deesser (reviewed here) so I of course had to put them against one another in a steel cage de-essing death match. I had a really hard time picking a winner. I kind of liked the SuprEsser better on some sounds, and the Eiosis on other. It made it really difficult to choose one. I finally picked the Sonnox SuprEsser for this track but could’ve really gone with either. And who knows? Next time I might pick the Eiosis. Initially I couldn’t really pick a winner. Both had their strengths, and seemingly no real weaknesses.
SuprEsser in easy mode. Click image for full size.
Time passed by and I got more used to SuprEsser. At this time McDSP had released their DE555 de-esser so I did a couple of new shootouts with SuprEsser, DE555 and E2Deesser. E2Deessers strength is obvious in that it doesn’t dull out the sound like any de-esser does but I still wasn’t convinced it was my favorite. The graphical nature of the SuprEsser makes it very easy and quick to work with compared to most of the competition, furthermore it can be very surgical. I think (without knowing) that E2Deesser is the most CPU heavy of the three. As I’m writing this I’m still not sure which one of the three will get to stay in my plug-in folder - there can be only one, and the decision will be made this week.
I think that people who like to dig deep into mixes will find even more pleasure for SuprEsser than just de-essing, as it’s almost immediately apparent when you start using it that it can be applied for other things as well. Sonnox definitely had this in mind, it’s very apparent from the presets available which include categories such as ‘analysis’ and ‘bass treatment’ side by side with more traditional uses such as ’strings’ and ‘vocals’.
Conclusion
It’s terribly hard to pick a winner in the de-essing field but there’s no doubt that SuprEsser is there to fight the battle. The graphical nature of it and close-to-genius interface makes it a tough contender. It can be very surgical and because of this it might be suitable for other applications than just basic de-essing. But it has a few problems as well. For one thing the latency it induces - even in low-latency mode - is very high making it harder for LE users to justify. Another issue is it’s by no means CPU friendly, while a lot friendlier than I thought, because it’s so advanced it’s tougher on the CPU than some of the older de-essers out there. If you can live with this or have a setup that overcomes these obstacles then you should give SuprEsser a go.
Be sure not to miss the interview with Sonnox.
I was wondering how you thought about the remaing sound of the vocal.. when i tried the supresser it sounded as if i converted it to an mp3..
Maybe I’m the only one
Grtz Nando
By Nando Eweg ~ June 6, 2008 kl 6:12 pm
Hey Nando. Sorry for the late response, I took a long weekend.
I didn’t notice what you describe (if I did I’d bash it!
). What version were you using?
By stiff ~ June 8, 2008 kl 3:38 pm
i have to agree, i felt i could hear some strange effects to the processing, something that reminded me of my old days messing with fft transformations in cool edit pro, at the time i liked the weird artifacts (for making noise music) but on a lead vocal in acoustic music it might not be desirable.
however, i’d have to have another listen to confirm what i thought i was hearing. i did find it VERY useful for taming crazy resonances in a steel pan recording though!
demo’s expired now and i didn’t really get to put it through it’s paces… dunno how i feel about this one…
haima
By haima ~ July 12, 2008 kl 6:43 am