Last year I gave a presentation at #ADC24 about #AbletonMove and finally that presentation is online. it's in a much longer video so I've shared where my bit starts, which is around the 1 hour 21 minute mark. I was told to keep it to 10 minutes, so that's what I did. youtu.be/ZkZ5lu3yEZk?si=zXyftn…
in reply to Erion

@erion Well, better... i'd argue against it. Dx Revive is basically a "fill the gap" for dialogues, where hard to understand voice overs kinda get auto-completed and polished. Thing is, it trains your voice on the materials, and in parts that are really hard to understand, it tries to guess what you just said, and it can go terribly wrong with that. I once tried to fix a bad WhatsApp recording of two dudes, it messed up all that was said really badly.
in reply to Toni Barth

There is no training involved, it just simply uses your source material as a reference. It has a model trained on various voices in various languages, which it uses for multiple steps (these are what you mentioned as polish). Compared to Adobe, it does more and locally on your computer without you having to send your audio files to their servers to process. That's definitely better in my book, but of course you may think otherwise.

As far as the quality goes, this largely depends on the source material, you will usually get better results if you use one plugin instance for one voice only. Some models may work better for a specific voice, as an example their Studio 2 model deals with lower frequencies better.

in reply to Erion

@erion "it simply uses your source material as reference", that is training, lol. Apart from that, yeah, being able to use it locally is definitely a plus, and i'm not saying that it can't do well, but in my experience it heavily depends on the source material, sometimes it even makes up words that were never spoken and don't make sense at all, that is something that IMO is important to remember.