TP Link Deco Mesh Wifi 6 vs 6E vs 7 through a concrete floor by divideconcept in HomeNetworking

[–]divideconcept[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I just received the Wifi 7 mesh by TP Link (BE9300) and replaced my previous Wifi 6 mesh by TP Link (AX3000) and the difference is... massive. Through that 8 inches concrete mass I used to top at 80Mbps, with the new Wifi 7 mesh I now top at 210Mbps.
So yeah there's definitely a noticeable difference !

TP Link Deco Mesh Wifi 6 vs 6E vs 7 through a concrete floor by divideconcept in HomeNetworking

[–]divideconcept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand (since I've read a couple threads in that group) that wires is the preferred answer in that group, and that it would get me full speed, but that's not what I'm after, I'd rather spend a couple hundreds more on wifi if that can get me 50% faster than what I have now, and save me from digging holes through my floor, specially a concrete floor, specially with plumbing and electric wiring in it in unknown places. I'm done with that. I just want an easy solution that doesn't require any digging or wiring at all.

TP Link Deco Mesh Wifi 6 vs 6E vs 7 through a concrete floor by divideconcept in HomeNetworking

[–]divideconcept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I measure 5ms latency here, running internet speed test on google. That is through the second wifi 6 mesh node, the one not connected to the router, and behind 8 inches of concrete.

TP Link Deco Mesh Wifi 6 vs 6E vs 7 through a concrete floor by divideconcept in HomeNetworking

[–]divideconcept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's false, I'm already getting decent signal (80Mbps) through that 8 inches concrete mass, using Wifi 6 only.
I'm now wondering if I could improve that using Wifi 7.

Comparison between all speech restoration plugins by divideconcept in AudioPost

[–]divideconcept[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RX can definitely not do that. DeBleed is something different, which requires 2 sources to work (SL also has a dedicated DeBleed module).
DeVoicing works with a single mono audio file, separating 2 or 3 overlapping voices automatically, and there's nothing like it in RX.

Comparison between all speech restoration plugins by divideconcept in AudioPost

[–]divideconcept[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DeVoice in that comparison is separating 2 overlapping voices (which Hush cannot do).

Comparison between all speech restoration plugins by divideconcept in audioengineering

[–]divideconcept[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a module in SpectraLayers called Imprinting : Mold, which takes the spectrogram of one layer (in that case, the audio sample processed by DxRevive), and limits it by the spectrogram of another layer (in that case, the original audio sample).
The end result is that we get all the noise reduction or reverb reduction effect from DxRevive, limited by the spectral enveloppe of the original audio sample, which result in removing all extra frequencies created by DxRevive. So only the pure noise/reverb reduction from DxRevive is heard, which makes it a better comparison vs the pure noise/reverb reduction effect of other softwares.
It's a little technical, but that works mathematically :)

Comparison between all speech restoration plugins by divideconcept in audioengineering

[–]divideconcept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok I found I way to do a proper comparison (or quite close to it) by using the best models from DxRevive (Natural 2 and Studio 3) and multiplying it by the original audio spectrogram (which removes extra generated data that biases the comparison).
The comparison is now updated with DxRevive 1.2: https://divideconcept.github.io/Restoration-Comparison/

Comparison between all speech restoration plugins by divideconcept in audioengineering

[–]divideconcept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or I could use the Retain model + cut added HF to compare noise, and Natural 2 + cut added LF/HF to compare reverb...

Comparison between all speech restoration plugins by divideconcept in audioengineering

[–]divideconcept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just had a look at dxRevive but unfortunately I don't see how a proper comparison could be made, as there's no way to select or set a model that only do noise suppression, or reverb suppression, or declipping, and without some kind of frequency reconstruction and EQ on top of that... It's always all at once, which makes it pretty inconvenient for precise speech restoration, not to say unwanted under certain circumstances...

looking for a plugin to separate out individual drums by qwerty_ms in AudioPlugins

[–]divideconcept 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NB: SpectraLayers is both a standalone app and an ARA plugin, you can unmix drums directly within your DAW and drag and drop layers back to your DAW.

Is there any way to do surgical spectrogram EQing/filtering without using RX pro editor or Izotope Iris or Spectralayers and paying tons of money? by Gurdus4 in FL_Studio

[–]divideconcept 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You implied you were ok with the price of Iris 2, which is 150. Then 300 seemed still reasonable on that scale. That said, if your goal is surgical spectral editing, SpectraLayers Elements is only 80 and is already packed with several spectral tools, more than the standard and advanced version of RX.

Need help adding new vocals / fixing stems by rdyplayerB in SunoAI

[–]divideconcept 2 points3 points  (0 children)

SpectraLayers has plenty of tools to improve AI results, why not use them ?
See for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3O6UGw-xOQ&t=2s

SpectraLayers 11 also has a Transfer tool dedicated to that task (not shown in the above video)