# Video: What’s new in iZotope RX8?



## Dave Hilowitz (Sep 12, 2020)

I’ve made a new video that goes through all the new features in iZotope RX 8!


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

What’s clear from RX8 is that iZotope has hit a technological brick wall. It had two years to develop RX8, and there isn’t a lot to show for it. The result, in the absence of genuinely new or significantly improved features for RX’s main market, is a focus on trying to expand the market to people recording podcasts and acoustic music.

Unfortunately, almost all of the “reviews” fall into the cheerleader category and rehash features that have been in RX for years.

For a lot of people, it would make more financial sense to purchase RX7, especially RX7 Advanced, via license transfer. If you don’t need to process more than two tracks at a time, RX6 Advanced is attractive too.

While I upgraded to RX8 Advanced myself, I did so for specific reasons that don’t apply to most users.


----------



## Kent (Sep 12, 2020)

I dunno, the ability to scroll horizontally seems pretty next-gen!


----------



## telecode101 (Sep 12, 2020)

..


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

telecode101 said:


> Anyone tried that guitar sound cleanup feature?



iZotope itself made a video demonstrating guitar cleanup as part of promoting RX7


----------



## telecode101 (Sep 12, 2020)

..


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

As someone who has been using RX since RX3, I just think that people should think carefully about their needs before purchasing iZotope’s most expensive product. Also, the reviews for past releases were often done by people who are quite knowledgeable about RX. This time, most of the “reviewers” appear to have discovered RX last week.

This demonstration of Spectral Recovery by Josh Carney (MusicTechHelpGuy) inadvertently shows why people should be skeptical. Spectral Recovery does not recover anything. It extrapolates from the existing frequencies in a recording to add higher frequencies. In the video, he applies Spectral Recovery to a smartphone call. The phone caps out voice at about 8,000Hz, which is completely normal. Carney uses Spectral Recovery to “fix” the recording by adding frequencies above 8,000Hz.

The frequency width of cellphone calls was chosen with intelligibility specifically in mind and is understood and accepted by literally everyone. There is not only nothing wrong with the original recording, it sounds more natural than the “fixed” version. It’s not like Spectral Recovery is going to make a phone call sound like it was recorded on a sound stage. This is being touted as one of the major “new features” in RX8, but in my view doing what Carney does in this video is a complete waste of time.





My understanding is that Spectral Recovery can also be used to extrapolate from frequencies that are within call bandwidth. In theory, this might be useful in some cases for things like Zoom calls. However, I’ve also seen a video showing Spectral Recovery applied to a Zoom call, and I was not exactly blown away.


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

telecode101 said:


> really? I didn't know that.



Yes, iZotope started pitching RX to musicians when RX7 was released in September 2018. It hired Toronto composer/recording engineer Geoff Manchester, whose personal channel is Manchester Music, to be iZotope’s voice in its tutorials. Manchester made a number of videos focused on using RX in music production. I don’t recall off the top of my head, but there may even be some that use RX6. You’ll find them on iZotope’s YouTube channel.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 12, 2020)

guitar noise cleanup. I watched some video demos and it was impressive.


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

Further to post #5 and #8, this is the video that iZotope uploaded in September 2018, just after the launch of RX7, on using RX in music production. It’s a 23 minute long overview. Among other things, it includes a segment on removing noise from guitar strings.

RX can be very useful software. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have been using it since RX3. I just think that people should be sure of why they are buying it and ignore most of the "reviews" that are currently flooding YouTube. With a few exceptions, these "reviews" are being made by people who appear to have no serious experience with the software. For a lot of people, a license transfer for RX7 would be a lot less expensive, certainly for RX Advanced, and many people would do just fine with RX6.

In the film sound editing and sound design worlds, which are RX's core markets, people are scratching their heads. iZotope has yet to upload a single RX8 video targeting those markets, probably because there isn't much to say. I do think that iZotope will target newcomers to those markets by making videos that canvass RX8's features, but there won't be much new in them.




These are the timestamps:

00:00 Intro
00:41 Using Repair Assistant
00:49 Fixing clipped audio with Repair Assistant
2:23 Fixing hum with Repair Assistant
4:00 Eliminating pops and clicks with Repair Assistant
5:49 Advanced Repair Techniques
6:10 Removing headphone click bleed with De-bleed
8:00 Removing bleed without the source through Music Rebalance
9:44 Removing plosives in a vocal performance
11:00 Taming breath sharp sounds with Breath Control
12:38 Eliminating sibilance with De-ess
14:19 Removing guitar string squeaks with Spectral Repair
16:12 Music Rebalance
18:10 Shifting percussion and vocals with Music Rebalance
19:07 Removing vocals from a stereo track with Music Rebalance
19:37 Isolating a vocal for a remix with Music Rebalance
21:14 Multichannel workflows in RX 7
22:13 Using Spectral Repair and Interpolate to remove unwanted orchestral sounds in a surround file


----------



## Guy Rowland (Sep 12, 2020)

Yes, it's the most disappointing RX release I can remember for Post customers. I usually get the new version with little thought, knowing I'll be out of date in weeks if I don't - its staggering how fast producers expect miracles. But in this case, there's no killer new trick.

I've listed for years the kind of thing that I'd like to see in RX in Post, tons of features that are all technically possible, so I don't think there's a lack of potential in new features. I think instead we're seeing that their focus now is in recruiting musicians to the RX platform.

Spectral recovery is the closest to a useful feature, but I too am a bit sceptical based on what I've heard. Usually a bandwidth limited source has other issues beyond a limited high end that are actually more important.

There are some nice refinements, but quite happy to wait for a better deal - $300 is just too much for the limited enhancements, and the Post Pack has nothing else new in it either.


----------



## zeddsdeadbaby (Sep 12, 2020)

Rory said:


> What’s clear from RX8 is that iZotope has hit a technological brick wall. It had two years to develop RX8, and there isn’t a lot to show for it. The result, in the absence of genuinely new or significantly improved features for RX’s main market, is a focus on trying to expand the market to people recording podcasts and acoustic music.
> 
> Unfortunately, almost all of the “reviews” fall into the cheerleader category and rehash features that have been in RX for years.
> 
> ...



That's so not true. Let's just say someone I know was involved in the RX 8 beta, beginning to end and the testing cycle was hardly short. Much of the feature development occurred in tandem with all testers’ input.

In addition to the new features many of the algorithms were overhauled, the batch processor got a massive revamp, stem separation is substantially more accurate. There are massive changes that took place under the hood. Not to mention that developing AI that can detect and remove multiple types of guitar noise takes a heck of a lot more testing and refining than you seem to realize.

It's also interesting that you complain about RX yet you still upgraded. What makes your reason for upgrading so unique?




Rory said:


> As someone who has been using RX since RX3, I just think that people should think carefully about their needs before purchasing iZotope’s most expensive product. Also, the reviews for past releases were often done by people who are quite knowledgeable about RX. This time, most of the “reviewers” appear to have discovered RX last week.
> 
> This demonstration of Spectral Recovery by Josh Carney (MusicTechHelpGuy) inadvertently shows why people should be skeptical. Spectral Recovery does not recover anything. It extrapolates from the existing frequencies in a recording to add higher frequencies. In the video, he applies Spectral Recovery to a smartphone call. The phone caps out voice at about 8,000Hz, which is completely normal. Carney uses Spectral Recovery to “fix” the recording by adding frequencies above 8,000Hz.
> 
> ...


Do you have any idea just how complicated it is to resynthesize missing content from the human voice? Maybe you take this for granted because we live in an age where virtual voice assistants are everywhere. In reality recreating harmonics that simply do not exist in a recording is a much complex operation than it may seem.

RX is used *heavily* in forensic audio. If you don’t have a background in forensic restoration you clearly don’t understand the purpose of this feature. It’s intended specifically to restore intelligibility in situations where intelligibility is critical. Legal cases, law enforcement, archival audio, there are so many instances where this is useful. Not to mention the obvious post-production use case of increasing intelligibility in extreme cases where ADR is simply not possible and production dialogue is the only option available.




Rory said:


> Yes, iZotope started pitching RX to musicians when RX7 was released in September 2018. It hired Toronto composer/recording engineer Geoff Manchester, whose personal channel is Manchester Music, to be iZotope’s voice in its tutorials. Manchester made a number of videos focused on using RX in music production. I don’t recall off the top of my head, but there may even be some that use RX6. You’ll find them on iZotope’s YouTube channel.




What’s your angle, and why are you so concerned about who does their voiceovers when it’s completely irrelevant to the quality of RX's algorithms? This theoretical tester I may or may not know *ahem* has done a ton of beta testing alongside Geoff over the years and you have absolutely no clue as to why they chose him for that gig. He's articulate, super perceptive, and totally deserves that gig. I hardly doubt him being a musician with an *absolutely* *tiny* YT presence at the time had anything to do with it. Unlike you I can make a series of informed decisions based on his input as a tester.

And why is it an issue that Izotope are broadening the scope to music?

Mastering engineers have been using RX since version 1. Izotope haven’t watered down its ability to repair dialogue and forensically clean speech. RX’s entire purpose is to remove unwanted noise and repair audio. Why is it a negative thing if it has an even broader range of noises it can identify now than it did before?

Are you suggesting musicians shouldn't have RX-quality tools for noise removal?

Not to mention - have you looked at their other products? Musicians and mix engineers are conservatively 50% or more of their users. Why wouldn't they broaden RX's appeal to musicians and mix engineers?


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

zeddsdeadbaby said:


> That's so not true. Let's just say someone I know was involved in the RX 8 beta, beginning to end and the testing cycle was hardly short. Much of the feature development occurred in tandem with all testers’ input.
> 
> In addition to the new features many of the algorithms were overhauled, the batch processor got a massive revamp, stem separation is substantially more accurate. There are massive changes that took place under the hood. Not to mention that developing AI that can detect and remove multiple types of guitar noise takes a heck of a lot more testing and refining than you seem to realize.
> 
> ...




It appears that this is your only post on this forum. That's interesting, given that you have effectively said that you were an iZotope RX beta tester. You're looking for an argument where there isn't one. You are also twisting reality, which is not cool. I wonder whether you were half-cut when you wrote that. In any event, I have a question of my own at the end of this post.

As I said, I've been using RX since RX3 and I think that the app is very useful.

Your comments on my reference to Geoff Manchester are offensive. I have a high regard for Geoff, I engaged him to do some work for me and he did a great job. I think that iZotope was very smart to hire him. I make a point, as I did here, of mentioning him when the context is appropriate. I have made several posts on this forum, including one yesterday, that include links to his videos. This is the one from yesterday: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/vibraphone.88436/post-4638996

I owned RX3, RX4, RX5 and RX6, all Advanced from whenever iZotope split the product into Standard and Advanced. Like many people, I passed on RX7 because the improvements were mostly incremental or met specific needs that I didn’t share.

I didn't say that my reasons to upgrade to RX8 are "unique". I said that they "don't apply to most users". Since you specifically asked for my reasons, here they are. For me, it's a workflow issue that arises from the use of Sound Devices's new MixPre v.2 recorders. Those recorders have a special record mode that makes clipping a non-issue. Recordings made in that mode require initial processing to bring any "clipped" audio below 0dB. Several apps can do that processing, but doing it in RX8 saves me a step.

Like I said, not a reason that applies to most users. I've also started doing a fair number of recordings using three to five microphones on a single sound source. For those kinds of recordings, the ability of RX7/RX8 Advanced to handle multiple channels is very useful.

Not only do I think that it's good that people who are recording music have a tool like RX, I posted a 23 minute iZotope video in this very thread that shows how to use RX for music production.

It is just a fact that people who use RX for film sound editing and sound design are struggling with finding a reason to upgrade. This is being openly discussed on film/sound forums. The post immediately above you starts off with "Yes, it's the most disappointing RX release I can remember for Post customers". That is a widespread view, and I note that nowhere in your post do you challenge that.

Instead, you say that iZotope has spent two years making significant improvements “under the hood”. If so, iZotope is doing a lousy job of explaining that work, which is odd, because iZotope’s marketing department appears to be quite capable. To date, it has not uploaded a single video making that case. In the past, outfits like Westlake have been active in making videos that target the film/sound design community. So far, Westlake's only video on RX8 for that community demonstrates features that have existed in RX for years.

What did I actually say in this thread? I said that people who are recording music should think carefully about their needs before spending up to US$1,200 ($1,000 intro price) on iZotope's most expensive product. I also said that many people may be served just as well by purchasing a license transfer for RX7 Advanced or RX6 Advanced. Finally, I said that people should take a lot of the reviews that are appearing on YouTube with a grain of salt, and I stand by that.

Now I have a question of my own. Does iZotope endorse the idea that its RX beta testers should lash out at RX customers, under cover of anonymity, on Internet forums?

That's a serious question, and I'd like an answer. Your characterisation, in particular, of my reference to Geoff Manchester is just plain offensive. We'll see whether the iZotope beta tester has the integrity and class to apologise.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Sep 12, 2020)

I have to admit that I pretty much ignored RX, not really understanding what it was. I just figured that it was some kind of post-processing noise reduction tool. Not something I need and I really don't want to start gassing for yet another plugin. 

But recently was a thread here on VI-C where all these folks were talking about it being the most useful plugin they own and that caught my attention. So I read up and watched some video. Suddenly it was like "Crap.... I could really use that!" 

So I'll probably pick up when it's on sale or get a used copy.


----------



## Rory (Sep 12, 2020)

Tim_Wells said:


> I have to admit that I pretty much ignored RX, not really understanding what it was. I just figured that it was some kind of post-processing noise reduction tool. Not something I need and I really don't want to start gassing for yet another plugin.
> 
> But recently was a thread here on VI-C where all these folks were talking about it being the most useful plugin they own and that caught my attention. So I read up and watched some video. Suddenly it was like "Crap.... I could really use that!"
> 
> So I'll probably pick up when it's on sale or get a used copy.



I'd suggest that you look at iZotope's comparison chart between the three versions of RX to decide which one you want. Depending on your needs, the differences may not be minor. In my case, only Advanced will meet my requirements. This is not just a matter of substantive features. For example, if you want to process more than two tracks at once, you will need Advanced.

I don't recall RX Advanced ever being on sale. The core audience for the product is pretty captive. It is the most widely used app of its kind in post, with a very large installed base, and there's no obvious reason to go elsewhere. Maybe RX8 Advanced will go on sale, but I wouldn't count on it.

RX does not work like magic, and there's a definite learning curve. An online course is a good idea.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Sep 13, 2020)

Rory said:


> I'd suggest that you look at iZotope's comparison chart between the three versions of RX to decide which one you want. Depending on your needs, the differences may not be minor. In my case, only Advanced will meet my requirements. This is not just a matter of substantive features. For example, if you want to process more than two tracks at once, you will need Advanced.
> 
> I don't recall RX Advanced ever being on sale. The core audience for the product is pretty captive. It is the most widely used app of its kind in post, with a very large installed base, and there's no obvious reason to go elsewhere. Maybe RX8 Advanced will go on sale, but I wouldn't count on it.
> 
> RX does not work like magic, and there's a definite learning curve. An online course is a good idea.


I actually did look at have a look at the comparison chart and believe I could get by with Standard. (Of course I thought that about Ozone too... and later wished I had Advanced  ).

The big thing that jumped out at me was Music Rebalance. I know it's not perfect, but it appears to do a surprisingly decent job of isolating the different parts. Seems this could be of great assistance in analyzing reference tracks and capturing potential grooves. Plus there are some other very cool features.

I saw Standard on sale for $99 recently, so that's in my ball park.


----------



## ManchesterMusic (Sep 14, 2020)

Rory said:


> What’s clear from RX8 is that iZotope has hit a technological brick wall. It had two years to develop RX8, and there isn’t a lot to show for it. The result, in the absence of genuinely new or significantly improved features for RX’s main market, is a focus on trying to expand the market to people recording podcasts and acoustic music.
> 
> Unfortunately, almost all of the “reviews” fall into the cheerleader category and rehash features that have been in RX for years.
> 
> ...




What were you hoping for in RX 8? What features would have made you feel like they hadn’t hit a technological brick wall?


----------



## zeddsdeadbaby (Sep 14, 2020)

Tim_Wells said:


> I actually did look at have a look at the comparison chart and believe I could get by with Standard. (Of course I thought that about Ozone too... and later wished I had Advanced  ).
> 
> The big thing that jumped out at me was Music Rebalance. I know it's not perfect, but it appears to do a surprisingly decent job of isolating the different parts. Seems this could be of great assistance in analyzing reference tracks and capturing potential grooves. Plus there are some other very cool features.
> 
> I saw Standard on sale for $99 recently, so that's in my ball park.


Music rebalance is shockingly good. You need to have realistic expectations in terms of stem separation though, the sparser the mix the better the results. But expecting it to isolate and recreate artifact-free stems is obviously just not possible with the current technology... They can be mixed in with the original file and processed separately however, which is where the stem separation concept really shines... For turning elements up or down a few dB though it's incredible... I've used it to master artist tracks and remaster old personal tracks.


----------

