@xman_charl Denoise 2 works fine in my SF Pro 15 Suite.

@Ancien utilisateur Yeah, I know the feeling that the stock plugins may not be enough and there are so many choices out there.

So I got myself the Melda plugins which cover nearly everything audio related. Many people don't like the interface because it looks a little bit complicated. But the general framework is the same for every plugin. It is possible to subscribe to all plugins for 49€ per month (or 15 day free trial).

And it is rent to own which means that after some years the payments reach the price of the full version (or you upgrade earlier) they stop and you get the full package forever with all future plugins and updates included.

There is a free version of Meldas EQ here: https://www.meldaproduction.com/MEqualizer

The good thing is, you don't need time to search and learn other plugins if you stick with one developer.

@SP. Thanks for the suggestions, I will examine closer (just looked now, they are kind of pricey for me. I am somewhat getting more serious about audio so I need to allocate meager resources carefully. SFP and attendant suites come with a lot of plugins, but a major eq seems to be missing. I don't count the Ozone/iZotope stuff because that is too rich for my blood and grizzled veteran people in audio say the Elements stuff are not very good. I wonder why Magix did not put out a serious EQ like Equilibrium by DMG.

@xman_charl I am seriously looking at the Acon Digital stuff and waiting for a sale. I demo'd them and they do amazing stuff with problem audio. For someone with low skill like me, it really makes a rapid difference. Of course, it may not play well with SFP, so I would need to use something else.

This is a good place to learn about plugins and such, I find: https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/

https://www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/ <--- This is pretty good and people like Julian Krause uses it for his workflow.

There's nothing wrong with the EQs in SFP IMHO, where EQs are one of those processes where things tend to be less critical in regards to sound quality adjustment. The ones built inside of SFP are basically, what you see is what you're going to get.

Where EQs separate themselves is in the user "preference" and "Characteristics" categories where the built-in SFP EQs won't give you any of that. For instance, some prefer the sound of analog EQs from old studio consoles where there are characteristics of analog modeling phase shifts, tube, transistor, and analog op-amp noise characteristics. Some console EQs even had a harsh sound about them that some grew to like. For instance, the 1st console I learned to mix on was an SSL 4000G. What was great about the channel EQs was they were easy to use and you could could really dial in on what you wanted to adjust with pin point accuracy. However, they could also be some of the harshest EQs I ever heard when applying over 9dB of gain to a frequency due to the SSL used pretty standard transistor op-amps from that 80's era. However, that hasn't stopped a large majority of plugin designers from creating SSL 4000E and 4000G plugin channel sim EQs.

In that same studio it also had 2 Pultec EQs. The Pultecs were actually kind of noisy due to using tube amps in them and for some instruments, it tended to make things kind of muddy/dull sounding with not a lot of adjustment to try and correct it. However, it still had some very desirable characteristics that many studios sought after and I experienced that as well. One day I was doing a mix where the bass guitar just didn't feel like it had enough low-end "warmth" to it. The SSL channel EQs just weren't helping that at all. I patched the Pultec EQ into that bass guitar track. Sure enough it gave me a fuller warm sound. Additionally, to my surprise as I continued to adjust it, suddenly there were some low notes from the bass guitar that triggered a "growl" kind of sound. When my clients heard that growl on those certain notes, their jaw dropped to the floor and said to me, "Oh my Gosh! What did you just do? That sounds so awesome, that bass guitar now feels so much fuller and has that awesome growl to it!" It was all in the Pultec EQ where those certain notes were just causing the tube amps to saturate and reproduce a cool sounding type of distortion. I now own a couple Pultec EQ sim plugs, which do have some of those warmth characteristics, but I'm still searching to hear that growl sound come out of them.

We also had another studio with an API console. Many engineers loved the sound of the API channel EQs. Me...not so much, they had a high noise floor and didn't provide much fine tuning adjustment to them, but some loved those characteristics and made it work within their mixes. Anyways, SSL, Pultec, API as well as Neve analog EQs were widely used and many desire those characteristics about them now in plugin form.

Then there's the FIR EQs which apply eq adjustment with zero phase shift and those have their uses and desired characteristics as well.

Sonic signatures aside, the Ozone Elements EQ has a nice GUI. Sound Forge natively includes many of the legacy EQs from Sonic Foundry and SCS and includes others from Magix. I have not counted them, but there are at least ten EQs in SFP. There are literally hundreds more third-party EQ plug-ins available .. free and otherwise. Everyone has there go-to preferences for the type of work, sound and/or UI.

@Rednroll Those EQ's you mentioned are for music production, whereas I am interested in something more for audio-for-video, voice-overs, and documentary type stuff. Those are done with decent mic's. Am looking for something to help bring clarity to audio I record. There are some of interview old tapes I am trying to clean up plus some skype conversations. 1) Any good EQ's you can think of ideal for that sort of job? Perhaps what SFP has is all I need.

@rraud I was told that Ozone elements is not a good plugin because deliberate limitations are added so you are compelled to buy the full version. Since I am not experienced in this field, maybe you can advise otherwise. I would take your word at higher value. I do, however, have Ozone 5, advanced (is that good enough?). I can get a paid eq, as an investment, just one not as expensive as Ozone (current). There is also the matter of making sure it works with SFP. Given my goals, maybe you can suggest I stick with stock, elements, or get something?

I was told that Ozone elements is not a good plugin because deliberate limitations are added so you are compelled to buy the full version

It depends on what processes you need. If you only need an EQ and limiter for dialog the 'guitar and vocals type' effects in the Ozone Standard and Advanced are not needed, EQs that have a specific 'sonic character' are sometimes preferred for music, though they could be used for dialog.

For a basic broad band graphic EQ, I often go to the Kjaerhus 'Classic EQ', which can sound good on just about anything, it has multiple sonic signature options and can be linked for dual-mono operation.

@rraud Thanks for the advice, I will go ahead and use Ozone elements. As for the Kjaerhus Audio stuff, I have located the plugins, but am not sure if it will work on the 64 bit version of SFP. Would this have to be used only on 32 bit?

Like most VST-2 plug-ins, all the 'Classic' series plugs work perfectly in 64 bit host apps.

Despite KVR stating 'unavailable', it is easy to find the Kjaerhus 'Classic' plugs elsewhere. Download and place the <Classic EQ.dll> file in yo' favorite (Program files x86) VST folder.

@Rednroll Those EQ's you mentioned are for music production, whereas I am interested in something more for audio-for-video, voice-overs, and documentary type stuff.

Ahhhhhh? Ok?

Think you may be way over thinking things.

@Rednroll It depends. Sometimes you have to really think and strategize. You have interviews and mains hum creeps in the audio. Or you convert interviews to digital from tape and there is a lot of noise to clean up, plus hums and harsh tones to excise. Sometimes you have field interviews and you cannot drag an interviewee into a sound treated room so you have to do your best to get the person to sound clear. Whereas maybe you found an EQ that makes bass recordings 'punchier', my concerns are, 'Okay, can we get rid of that nightmare demon tone from hell and make make the interviee not sound like Soundwave from the Transformers. Some EQ's are good at that. While you say, 'iZotope', the reality is, sometimes it does not work. I have observed other tools produce much better results. I have heard Acon Digital kick ten kinds of s--- out of iZotope or someone who really knows what he is doing use the EQ on Reaper to filter out a specific sound. 'Noise profile' and 'remove' works in some scenarios, but not all. You cannot always tell the world, "SHHHHH, I am interviewing" or you can, but the world ignores you. But what the subject is telling you is damn important and maybe they do not sound great, but hopefully you can get it 'good enough'. I also have a feeling, if you look hard enough, there probably are tools out there much better than iZotope that can achieve these objectives while not mortgaging your life to them and tethering your computer to their auditing programs. It's creepy using iZotope anything.

However, now you are getting into another subject of noise reduction category tools. With EQ you can reduce some noise but in most instances you are targeting a specific frequency range that the noise is most present. For example 60Hz hum is a common noise where you can use any "parametric" EQ including the ones built into SFP to go after and target that problem. What can aid in visually targeting that noise is the use of a spectral graph, all of which SFP has or some EQ plugins include both.

Another example of reducing noise with an EQ is with noise floor hiss type of problems. You mentioned voice recordings. Most voices are in the frequency ranges of 200Hz to 7Khz. So if the hiss noise has a high level of noise above 7Khz, then you can apply a low-pass shelf set at 7Khz, so it essentially reduces everything above 7Khz, thus reducing the noise without impacting the voice. A Low-pass shelf is a basic EQ function option available in most any parametric EQ, including the ones I previously mentioned which you stated were used for music. No....there is no such thing. All EQs are intended to be used for "Audio" purposes.

The problem with using an EQ on voice is that often the noise isn't limited to being above 7Khz, it is additionally present in that 200Hz-7Khz voice range where it is mixed with the audio and therefore you can't use an eq without it also effecting the voice. This is the area where you get into the use of noise reduction type of plugins.

When you start using noise reduction plugins, you may notice the better ones have a "Learn" or "Capture Noise Print" function. These work on the basic audio principles that if you have a sound/noise and you mix it with that "Exact" same sound/noise flipped 180degress out of phase, then that sound will essentially cancel itself out when they're mixed together. These type of plugins work well if the noise is a constant type of noise, so that the primary function of phase cancellation is present. Therefore, the better you can isolate just the noise when you capture a "Noise print" without the voice being present, the better your noise reduction results will be.

It becomes more challenging when your noise source is not a constant sound/tone. If it varies, such is the case with wind and reverberation noises then the primary function of phase cancellation will not be very effective.

Someone else had a similar problem you're working on. I provided 4 different solutions with improved but varying results. In reality, I only spent about 5 minutes on each. I could have spent hours on each and likely achieved better results, regardless of the tool by just understanding the principles of how phase cancellation works while using each tool.

https://www.magix.info/us/forum/removing-hum-from-a-live-recording--1276784/

Interesting enough, I felt the best results with the least amount of artifacts added were achieved when I used the Waves "X-noise" plugin and not the iZotope RX-7 noise reduction plugins. However, with that said if I spent more time, I'm certain I could have achieved similar results with any of the noise reduction plugin since the results are heavily dependent on getting the best initial captured noise print. I could have done a better job by capturing a noise print, reducing that noise slightly instead of over 30dB like I had, then going back and capturing a new noise print which is now more representative of the noise that is still present, and applying the process over again. Rinse, wipe, repeat, etc.

This is all based on the principles of basic phase cancellation understanding and tactics. Get more familiar with the principles of phase cancellation, and the better results become more about the user's knowledge than the actual tool. The same applies with EQs. You're currently chasing after ghosts which don't exist.

It's more like a carpenter/tradesman using a hammer. A skilled carpenter can make much better use of the same hammer than the home DIYer based on their experience and education. Sure some hammers are built for a specific use better than others, but in the end a skilled carpenter will better know which hammer to reach for and how to make the best use of that hammer once they've taken a a moment to best understand the job that is being asked to be done.

@Rednroll Thanks for the detailed response. My tools are limited to Spectra Layers Pro (which seems to be working better on that recent audio piece I posted), Acon Digital De-noise (which helped with most of the bad audio I have), and iZotope RX5 (less helpful) and whatever other de-noiser tools come with SFP. iZotope rx8 is out of reach for me at this time. I have tried SoundSoap5, but that could not launch on my desk or laptop. Am using a free version of 'Spline Eq', a linear phase eq which looks promising for some noise. Spectra layers could be better help if I understand how to use the tools better.

You are correct that my knowledge of phase cancellation is limited, for sure. There are few controls and only so many permutations I can try.

SLP has a bit of a leaning curve, especially surgically editing the spectral content. Experience with photo editing apps helps some. Some of the AI tools are amazing. (un-bake the cake).

FWIW, Steinberg has a forum for SLP-7, the developer moderates the group. SL was initially a SCS (Sony) product.

@rraud It may very well be that in terms of audio tools, I could be cutting with a fork and eating with a knife. My experience with 'deep problem audio' is limited and realize that there is a special way to handle this, where an experienced person might do something seemingly counter-intuitive to get those favorable results. My main asset here is that I realize I know very little.

Hah! Yes, I did try the Steinberg forums, not a helpful bunch. Just a post from someone who said he does not have time to help. Heh. So it goes.

SLP has a bit of a leaning curve, especially surgically editing the spectral content. Experience with photo editing apps helps some. Some of the AI tools are amazing. (un-bake the cake).

FWIW, Steinberg has a forum for SLP-7, the developer moderates the group. SL was initially a SCS (Sony) product.

Yes, very powerful tool. One which I have not fully wrapped my head around as well.

Which version of SLP do you have?

I have version 5.0 which was one of the last Magix versions before it got sold off to Steinberg.