Resolve 14 Finishing Audio

Looking for anyone with experience using Reolve 14 with Waves/Isotope plugins. Is anyone fishing audio mixes in Resolve 14 with heavy plugin usage? How's the experience?

You make no mention if you are OS X or Windows based, so it is worth noting that my experiences relate purely to OS X systems. Depending on your system, this may or may not prove useful.

I have yet to explore Linux VST or LV2 plugins behaviour with Resolve, as neither appear to be currently supported on a CentOS install of Resolve. The Fairlight EQ and Dynamics may be the only option on Linux, but that may not actually be as big of an issue as it may seem at first.

As a side note, VST plugin support appears to be further along in implementation within Resolve than AU plugins in beta 8. So, if a VST version isn't available only then will the AU version be installed. I have also disabled all the standard Apple installed AU plugins, which I never use (thankfully this also reduces list clutter quite nicely).

Currently, Resolve also doesn't support VST3 plugins, so for a few plugins (such as RTW Loudness Tools and RTW CLC which don't provide VST2 options) I have to install the AU plugin versions in order to use these tools which are now a standard part of my workflow.

Looking for anyone with experience using Reolve 14 with Waves/Isotope plugins.

I don't use Waves plugins at all (as I'm always better served by other options), so am unable to comment on their behaviour within Resolve.

And, while I currently have the iZotope RX 4 Advanced plugins installed, I don't actually use them much beyond testing how Resolve handles VST and AU plugins (and trying to bring Resolve to its knees), and again, this is due to the fact that I am better served by other restoration options (such as Cedar or Sonic Studio NoNoise).

Generally, though, there haven't been any major issues with the iZotope RX 4 Advanced plugins, besides the very occasional application crash with the Dialogue DeNoiser plugin and a few latency issues. I am unable to comment as to how RX5 Advanced or RX6 Advanced plugins behave, but unless they are seriously broken (which I doubt), I'd imagine they would behave similarly within Resolve, perhaps even better.

Is anyone fishing audio mixes in Resolve 14 with heavy plugin usage? How's the experience?

Processing intensive plugins (such as Exponential Audio Phoenix Surround and R2 Surround) tend to weigh Resolve down a lot more than other workstations, such as Reaper (which in my opinion is the most efficient workstation available). But, we're still only on beta 8 so there's still a lot of scope and time for improvement. The stereo versions of the Exponential Audio Reverb plugins appear to be much easier on Resolve.

Oddly, a processing intensive plugin such as Zynaptiq Adaptiverb (which takes many audio workstations down rather quickly) behaves extremely well within Resolve. Usually, to save resources, and if multiple instances are required, I will print these to another track and disable the "source" tracks.

It is also worth mentioning, that increasingly, and somewhat surprisingly, I am using the built-in Fairlight EQ modules a lot more, especially the Clip EQ, which often will be inserted first, before opening the Effects Library and inserting a 3rd party EQ plugin (such as Flux Epure) on a clip, or even on a channel in the Mixer. The Fairlight EQ options are at least equal to the Flux plugins in terms of transparency and clarity. I honestly don't feel hampered in any way sonically using the built in Fairlight EQ.

For multichannel work, though, the situation is somewhat different in that the Flux EQ plugin wins out due to its flexibility, such as the built in routing matrix, morphing slider between settings, and the M/S processing. Since the Flux plugins are 8-in and 8-out, on 8 channel wide fixed Busses or Mixer channels, each channel of the Buss or channel may have slightly different EQ changes (which may then also be automated) whereas the Fairlight EQ is applied equally to the entire Buss structure (which is often not what one wants).

The Fairlight Dynamics are also, surprisingly, used much more regularly, especially for light compression or expansion on a Mixer channel, and this is often preferred to say Flux Solera or the other Flux dynamics processors. But again, for 8 channel wide fixed Busses or wider Mixer channels, the Flux dynamics processors provide a lot more flexibility (which the Fairlight options lack) such as the morph slider providing processing adjustment between two different settings, wet/dry mix adjustment, multiple releases with different settings, et cetera (which are also all automatable).

We seem to have lost Fairlight Dynamics processing on Busses in later betas (if I recall beta 5 was the last time these were available), so on Master, Sub and Aux Busses, the Flux Dymanics processors (such as Solera or Syrah) are always inserted. Previously, the Fairlight Dynamics were often used on Master, Sub and Aux Busses.

Flux Elixir is always inserted, and only because the built-in Fairlight Limiter isn't True Peak capable, and it tends to let a lot of peaks through. With Elixir I know what I'm getting (i.e. a setting with -1dBTP will provide a deliverable with exactly -1dBTP, with no variance whatsoever), not so much the case at all with the Fairlight Limiter.

So that all prefaces another thing to keep in mind, which is also more pertinent to your question, is the fact that the Fairlight EQ and Dynamics processors are extremely light in terms of required system resources (more so than even the Flux plugins). You can easily insert an EQ, Dynamics and Limiter on 60+ audio tracks in the Mixer, on multiple Busses, as well as on hundreds of audio clips within the Timeline, with the system barely breaking a sweat. This should improve even further with the Fairlight Accelerator card, where perhaps even less thought to system overhead may be given.

And, as mentioned, besides the lack of flexibility for multichannel work, the Fairlight options aren't actually a step down sonically from many 3rd party options. Just something worth keeping in mind, especially on much larger and more intricate sessions where the processing requirements may increase and where the demands of increased processing may be a concern (especially on older systems).
.

My personal experience with Resolve beta 8 on a windows machine and VST plugins is that they still crash Resolve quite a lot. Doing things like pulling up the plugin GUI while the session is playing will bring it to its knees and this has happened with RX6 plugins, Exponential Audio plugins and Waves.

Apart from that, I've also noticed that the plugins will sometimes reset their values or change to some other random parameters when I reopen my previous sessions

I can verify that the iZotope RX Advanced and Waves plug-ins do appear in the menu, and I've tried a couple of them and they do seem to function. I have yet to use them on anything serious beyond testing, however.

My suggestion to @Reynaud above is to jump to 64GB of RAM and see if that helps. I'm told by ProTools users that many of them are going to this much RAM to help with more complex situations, higher track counts, and more plug-ins.

I wonder if BM will also offer specific hardware to speed up Fairlight in complex operations. This has always existed and they probably bought the rights to it as well.

I'm sure they'll offer control surfaces soon, but integration of hardware acceleration might take some time.

My suggestion to @Reynaud above is to jump to 64GB of RAM and see if that helps. I'm told by ProTools users that many of them are going to this much RAM to help with more complex situations, higher track counts, and more plug-ins.

Resolve barely uses more than 5GB of RAM even on larger audio sessions with 80 minute 1080p footage, with many plugins inserted, and even less if only relying on the Fairlight options alone, where RAM usage is typically less than 3GB.

There's a reason ProTools users (even with HDX cards) require more RAM and CPU, since that system is possibly the biggest resource hog and woefully inefficient due to its legacy code and sloppy coding. The larger the system, the longer ProTools requires just to start up, on larger systems that means over 5 or 10 minutes. Resolve which is a much more complex and intricate system requires a fraction of that time, even loading larger sessions.

Contrast ProTools with, say, Reaper, which is a 16MB download, runs 200+ of audio channels on the identical test system outlined in my signature, with many processing intensive plugins on each channel and on multiple "Busses", and VCAs, and starts in less than 10 seconds, even recalling larger Projects. It too requires a fraction of the system resources other system insist on to perform the same job.

This test system runs both Resolve and Reaper with similar sessions open simultaneously with plenty of system resources to spare.

Same experiences.
Most plugins run smooth, problemfree on latest beta with little resource requirements only beaten by Reaper. Dropped protools beginning this year and never looked back. On Reaper session can easily be a factor of 10 larger ,without reaper still giving an inch, where protools struggled and died a horrible death at 1/10th on same system.
Have yet to do a full on mix in Resolve , but seems closer with every beta, specialy now i have full working access to all my key vst/au stuff. Until then it lives in a perect symbiosys with reaper side by side due to the amazing Vordio tool.
Also as since recent betas full multichannel monitoring support was finaly activated, as well as some general audio related bug where fixed, which was a key point holding me back to make the permanent move from 12> 14.
I go all in now

Have yet to do a full on mix in Resolve , but seems closer with every beta, specialy now i have full working access to all my key vst/au stuff. Until then it lives in a perect symbiosys with reaper side by side due to the amazing Vordio tool.

Interested in your Resolve <- Vordio -> Reaper workflow.

Presumably I could fairly easy do an interview stringout in Resolve and get that across to Reaper for the mixer to start sorting out/sweeten interviews (eq/comp/noise removal).

I would then be refining my radio edit / tightening / losing breaths / adding SOT/fx etc

Presumably I could now use Vordio and have him conform my 2nd pass but keep his work so far no problem?

Mixer then continues to refine audio, tidying/adjusting edits/sync etc, adding his own fx, replacing some of my music etc, normal dubbing work. Should still be no issues?

Here's the difficult bit where keeping ownership of changes is difficult as I am still further refining edit, reordering both sections and individual quotes, adjusting edits & sync, adding new material etc.

I don't see how this then successfully gets reconfirmed in Reaper without losing either some of my changes or some of the mixers changes? Love to hear how it could work as currently we have to have the mixer do audio post (we edit on Avid) in an additional Avid Media Composer on tight turnaround work (and still have to handover in sections so only 1 person is making changes at any 1 time)

Sorry if this is taking the fairlight discussion off-topic! Hope Resolve/Fairlight will be the answer for this eventually...

Without going to deep in reaper, the re-conforming with vordio works only if you use vordio from the start and for every iteration (using a fcpx xml as input) . It adds metadata (in the form of clip notes) / colorcoding etc to each clip and thats how it can keep track of changes/addition in vordio and changes/additions in resolve for second/third etc passes.
The reconform process itself uses a similar graphical timeline comparison tool as now in resolve 14 (vordio had it first ) .
For more detail i suggest you check out the website with links to videos etc and contact the developer , which is a super nice guy happy to explain any questions you might have. The original design was and still is for FCPX<>Reaper, but Resolve works very good as well in the mean time because of its FCPX xml support.
First tool that can deal "properly" with resolves dynamic track count audio tracks !!
If i have a single dynamic track with 20 channels in resolve , I get all info in Reaper and with a single reaper action explode it into 20 individual tracks or if i want to treat it as vocal takes for comping as a single track with 20 switchable , cuttable etc etc takes (reaper takes handling is amazing). This helps the decision on 'do we edit with 20 mono tracks' or 'just a single dynamic to be replaced later' a lot easier.

But as with all conforming and workflow tools YMMV and test test test test and test again before commit and largely depending on your preffered workflow.
As so much is continously changing in Resolve 14 betas still and specialy on the audio end, i have postponed a rigorous re-test / adjust of my vordio workflow with 14. I do expect some issues with it as audio engine and the way tracks/clip are routed is completely different and likely affects the fcpx export file and its interpretation. The developer is also playing with Resolve 14 since the betas and also seems to wait for it to stabilise i believe, but is eager to get most out of resolve as possible as well.

Looking at Fairlight so far it seems an amazing (not so very far in the future) option, for initial mixes and some (pre) finishing or even complete smaller mixes. Maybe later some ADR/loop style recording with takes etc.
For hard sound designs/midi etc it will likely live next to other daws that are more tailored to those things, which can then feed these things into Resolve or visa versa. But the future is open and for BM to write and they seems to constantly surprice us with going farther then we thing (look at the recent basic HUI support we likely did not see coming) .

I wonder if BM will also offer specific hardware to speed up Fairlight in complex operations. This has always existed and they probably bought the rights to it as well.

I'm sure they'll offer control surfaces soon, but integration of hardware acceleration might take some time.

They do have the old Fairlight CC2 cards which increase track counts to 1000+

Thanks for everyone's input. Sounds like it's getting there in the latest beta. I'll have to run a test project in it soon and see how it goes.
Cheers,

Has anybody noticed when using the Izotope De-Hum plugin, that you here the "hum" for a short bit when that clip is played? Anybody know how to get around this?

Resolve barely uses more than 5GB of RAM even on larger audio sessions with 80 minute 1080p footage, with many plugins inserted, and even less if only relying on the Fairlight options alone, where RAM usage is typically less than 3GB.

You ask for free advice on the internet -- don't be surprised if sometimes the advice is not what you expected, or doesn't validate your opinion. I gave you the truth as I see it, and I stand by what I say. When I'm using 4K camera originals and have 20+ nodes, noise reduction, lots of keys, blur nodes, and OFX plug-ins, I need all the help I can get.

All I can say is, I think you'll see a lot of performance increases if you use much heavier-duty hardware for Resolve. I also used Pro Tools for 15 years (and still do), and both Pro Tools and Avid can be very fussy with certain kinds of hardware. I think many demanding professional programs require high-end hardware, and it's kind of the way things are.

You ask for free advice on the internet -- don't be surprised if sometimes the advice is not what you expected, or doesn't validate your opinion.

Marc, I was not asking for, nor expecting free advice.

My initial comments on Fairlight system usage were based on actual usage and in comparison to other systems I use daily, and which I have for extensive periods and on a variety different sessions.

My attempt was to assist a fellow user of the Fairlight page, based on my actual experiences over the few months I was extensively using the software, with a few solutions I have found to improve the experience of using the Fairlight page.

My response, then, to your post back in August was merely presenting my actual experiences based on extensive usage with ProTools over a very long period, on many different systems, which happens to also match the experiences of many of my colleagues working in both music and post (both locally, in Hollywood, and other major markets such as India, London and Nigeria).

This isn’t the opinion of a lone user with the LE version of ProTools, over a short period, on a single system.

All I can say is, I think you'll see a lot of performance increases if you use much heavier-duty hardware for Resolve.

That may be true for Edit and Grading, none of which I am interested in, nor am I experienced in either skill.

Based purely on using Fairlight audio (solely the reason for investing in Resolve) over the last year on a variety of Projects, while Resolve's system usage is extremely low, it will also not access all of the available system resources on either test system. Most capacity remains completely idle on audio sessions.

On both my Resolve test systems, I can use almost all of the available system resources on large Reaper sessions, with counts of over 1000 tracks with a ton of inserted plugins, working with NHK22.2 Projects.

I also used Pro Tools for 15 years (and still do), and both Pro Tools and Avid can be very fussy with certain kinds of hardware.

As a user of ProTools when it was still Digidesign (long before the Avid purchase) and when it was still known as SoundTools in the late 1980s, my comments on ProTools are based on extensive time and experience over the decades.

I was even a Digidesign “expert certified” ProTools operator for both Music and Post. So that's part of my background, I did not make my comments lightly and by-the-by.