probably get a "who knows?" but I am thinking of getting Izotope's RX2 which is quite a bit better/easier to use than Audition's noise reduction system. However if there were improvements in the wings for Audition I'd hold off til the upgrade and check that out. Any news?
Simple answer is 'I don't know'. But you should bear in mind the following - which is that the advanced version of RX2 is three times the cost of Audition, and I'd say was worth it; some serious effort has gone into it and it works stunningly well. With the best will in the world, Audition's noise reduction simply isn't in that league, and it's unlikely ever to be, I'd say.
But with care, you can get exceedingly good results from Audition's NR - although you have to put quite a bit of effort, and multiple passes to do it. With RX2, you can get better results in one go - but I'd say that you really need the (expensive) Advanced version to do so. One thing that RX2 definitely does better is to deal with threshold results in a more sophisticated manner - which means that you get less issues with reverb tails, for instance.
thanks - even the standard RX2 is quite a bit better I think - both in speed and quality. This is not meant to be a negative criticism of AA - I have had good success with the noise reduction in AA, and AA is of course much more than a restoration suite anyway.
Not much to add to Steve's comments other than "it depends on your needs". Audition's NR is as good as most non-specialist efforts and a good deal better than many. I use NR as a last-ditch thing to correct mistakes or technical problems, not as part of my mainstream work flow.
However, if restoration is a main goal then something like RX2 is probably what you need. On the other hand, if, like me, you use NR occasionally then you might be better off putting the effort and cost into curing nose problems at source rather than after the fact.
Europe, Middle East and Africa