Laptops are compact, mobile, and can offer similar specs to introductory PC computers. Our best PC for podcasting guide is worth a look (even if you’re in the market for a laptop) because it also covers hardware specs and what they all mean. All that information will be relevant for laptops, too.

And quick heads up to say that we use the odd affiliate link, which helps to support all of our free content!

Let’s dive in…

What Am I Looking for in a Laptop for Podcasting?

The brand doesn’t really matter.  It’s what’s under the hood that counts. 

At a minimum, I would recommend 16GB of RAM, a six- to eight-core processor (Intel or AMD, which doesn’t matter) with a minimum base speed of 2.8 GHz.

Laptops typically come with “bloatware” that is proprietary to the company you are buying from. Some serve a useful/crucial purpose… some, not so much.  Pre-built PCs have this to an extent, and custom-build PCs have minimal.

How Does a Laptop Differ From a Desktop PC?

There are unique parts specific to laptops, such as trackpads, batteries, built-in keyboards, and manual extra fan controls (more on gaming laptops). Each feature that is required for the laptop to function eats up a piece of the finite resources, on top of the operating system itself (including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth functionality), before you even install an extra piece of software!

At a minimum, for podcasting, you will be using a DAW, USB mic or an interface/XLR microphone combo. The DAW software and drivers for either a USB mic or for the interface all eat into the resource pool shared by everything else.

Don’t Skimp on Power

The laptop I am using to write this article with is an eight-core 3.20GHz (Processor) with 16 GB of RAM. Running the machine idle uses 33% of my RAM.  Windows 11 is a fair bit more “gluttonous” than its predecessor, Windows 10. If you want to run audio software of any kind, don’t get an underpowered laptop unless you enjoy pulling out your hair with CPU overload messages.

This is just food for thought – you need to be a bit more resource-aware on a laptop.

Can I Use a Gaming Laptop to Podcast?

Yep, this can be a great choice!

If you don’t want to spec out a laptop yourself, you can always opt to invest in a laptop that’s marketed as a gaming laptop. You won’t have to worry about performance issues for podcasting when it’s under a higher processing load. These machines are built to perform FAST and come with SSDs (solid-state drives – i.e., super-quick hard drives).  An SSD can significantly enhance the performance of a laptop.

In 2025, it’s probably best to avoid HDD (hard disc drive). Since these are mechanical with moving parts, they are more prone to failure. Also, since parts are moving, that just adds to the noise.

These are a bit more expensive. “Budget-friendly” gaming laptops still start at around $900. These models typically go on sale on the regular too.

Gaming Laptop Recommendations

The few brands to check out for gaming laptops are:

• MSI: Check out a range of options here
• Asus: Check out options here
• Alienware: Check out options here

I’m currently rocking an Asus Vivobook Pro 15 OLED as a replacement for my MSI laptop, which was a bit more budget-friendly on a hefty sale. My only gripe is that the fan is a bit louder than I’d like, even for a laptop, but it performs well!

Entry-Level Laptops for Podcasting

Gaming laptops are, understandably, a financial step too far for some podcasters. You can most definitely opt for an entry-level laptop, depending on the software you use (more on that below!). These usually start around $300. 

If you’re going budget, try to look for at least 8GB of RAM and a quad-core processor with a base speed of 2.6GHz. This has become more common in entry-level laptops, but it might mean you have an HDD, rather than an SSD.

Having an HDD as the laptop’s hard drive can sometimes result in buffer issues (clicks, pops, and sometimes dropouts in a recording) as it’s not taking full advantage of the CPU’s speed.

Here are a few things to think about, if you’re podcasting on a more budget laptop

• Use a fully online recording and editing solution like Alitu. This is browser-based and requires a much less powerful laptop to run.
• Alternatively, opt for a lower-resource recording package, such as Audacity or Reaper.
• Save often (you should anyway)
• Set up backup save files when able in your recording software
• Only run what is absolutely necessary (you may not want to have 10+ tabs open in your browser while recording!)

Budget-Friendly Laptop Recommendations

Brands to look at for a budget-friendly laptop include:

• HP: Options here
• Dell: Options here
• Lenovo: Options here

Colin’s Laptop Recommendations

I go through laptops far too fast – too much desire for the shiny new thing Here are a couple of recommendations based on what I’ve used and loved over the past few years

1⃣ Lenovo Legion 7i

Any of the legion models will serve you well. They’re beasts for gaming, but pretty high budget. I’m working on the linked model right now.

2⃣ ASUS ROG Zepherus G14

I loved this laptop… pretty small and light (way more portable than my current Legion 7i) but still really powerful. Here’s one with a great spec, currently on sale. But go higher or lower on spec in the ROG range to suit your budget.

Have fun!

Upgrading a Laptop for Podcasting Purposes

Sometimes you can upgrade parts in a laptop.  Here, you might pick up a cheaper model and swap out certain parts.  If you want to go this route, you’ll want to make sure that the CPU is good quality as this is one component that usually cannot be swapped.  Remember, look for minimum six-core 2.8GHz.

Before attempting an upgrade, make sure the laptop can be altered in this way. Some can’t. If you’ve never done this before, consult your local computer store to see if a laptop can be upgraded, what parts are compatible, and for installation assistance, as much can go wrong

Can I Podcast on a Chromebook?

Chromebooks have become increasingly popular over the past few years. They can be great value laptops that are still quick and slick to work on.

The trouble is, they have their own operating system, which is neither Windows nor Apple OS, so quite a few standard audio editing packages won’t run on them. For example, the entire Adobe suite can’t run on a Chromebook, so that counts out Audition as an editing package.

The easiest solution to this is to go with a browser-based recording and editing package. These are often optimised for the Chrome browser, being the most popular on the market, and so they run perfectly on Chromebooks.

One option is The Podcast Host’s Podcast Maker app, Alitu, which includes call recording, audio cleanup, audio editing, episode building and podcast hosting. That’s everything you need to run your show, and it’ll all work perfectly on a Chromebook.

There are alternatives, too, all of which work great in a browser. For a full roundup, read our Best Podcast Maker Apps guide.

Cooling Solutions Specific to Podcasting

This is super important in a laptop, especially when working on heavy media-based processes. The warmer the internal temperature, the more likely the machine’s performance capabilities can be “throttled”, aka: unable to perform at peak performance. 

Any time a laptop comes under a heavy load using lots of processing power to run, the internal temperature will increase. Recording and editing are prime examples that cause temperature spikes.

To lessen this, you may need to:

• Swap out better cooling paste for the CPU – the stock out-of-box paste sometimes isn’t the greatest and, over time, degrades
• Place the laptop on a cooling pad
• Ensure the fan vent isn’t blocked
• Occasionally, clean out dust internally with compressed air

Make sure your CPU can be accessed to change the cooling paste. Consult your local computer store for assistance so you don’t break anything! A Laptop’s internal parts are very delicate, and what you can do with them varies by model and manufacturer!

Noise

Whether you opt for a gaming laptop or an entry-level one, the internal fan will likely ramp up, creating a significant level of noise. Noise and audio do not mix well! But, luckily for you, laptops are mobile! If you’re adding fans and cooling pads to protect the health of your machine, you can always have a longer cable run.  This won’t work with a USB mic setup, however.

If you are using an interface/XLR mic combo, it is much easier to place some space between you and the laptop to let the cooling protection do its job. You can set your recording levels and control the computer wirelessly using a keyboard, mouse, and via a tablet as a silent display.

Conclusion: Best Laptops For Podcasters

It’s tricky to recommend an extensive list of laptops for podcasting since there are hundreds of models to pick from. But here are some top-level takeaways:

For gaming laptops, anything made by MSI, Asus, or Alienware is worth your consideration. HP, Dell, and Lenovo are brands worth a look in the budget podcasting laptop category, too.

I currently use an Asus Vivobook Pro 15 OLED, and Colin recommends both the Lenovo Legion 7i and the ASUS ROG Zepherus G14.

Armed with the information and resources in this article, you should be better equipped to make a decision on which route you can take based on your personal needs and budget. Check user reviews, as well, and you should be able to narrow down the perfect laptop for your podcasting needs.

And once you’re kitted out with a new laptop, don’t forget to take a look at Alitu, The Podcast Maker. It’s a browser-based software, so audio recording and production won’t stretch your valuable computer resources. On top of that, it’s packed full of features for beginners and time-strapped creators alike, from text-based editing to automatic EQ and volume levelling!

When deciding what computer or laptop to get to produce your podcast (or any audio), a lot depends on what DAW (digital audio workstation, or audio editing software in plain English!) and plugin software you use.

Often, upgrading the computer you already have will be fine. But what if you need to buy again from scratch? Let’s take a look at how I think about buying a great audio production computer.

A quick heads up before we get started: we use some affiliate links, which help support all our free content. If you want to skip ahead to our best computer for podcasting recs, then I’ll catch you down there!

What’s the Difference Between a Laptop & Computer for Podcasting?

I got into the nuances of choosing a laptop for podcasting in our dedicated article. But how do you decide between a laptop and a desktop PC? What’s the difference?

Generally, a desktop PC can be custom-built or pre-built (those from the store are ready to go) and will have more resource power and the ability for future upgrades as they arise, or when the funds are available to do so. 

With a laptop, there are not many parts that can be replaced should they fail. This affects upgrades, too.

I like to call building desktop PCs “future-proofing”, due to the customization ability.  However, the key factor to always keep in mind is that all parts must remain compatible with each other – see your local computer shop to check compatibility before purchase.

Why Choose a Desktop PC for Podcasting?

As mentioned earlier, you can generally get a more powerful machine in a desktop compared to a laptop.  You can also upgrade it slowly to make it more of a workhorse. 

Often, once you start getting into production on a laptop, the recording process itself can cause a fan to rev like crazy, which means it gets into your recording and makes it noisy.  I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve come across this in audiobook recordings from laptops that ruined the performance with excessive fan revs.  Plugins in editing can also be resource-hungry, meaning they need heavier performance from the CPU and RAM.

A DAW such as Audacity or Reaper may not be as resource-intensive, but you need to keep in mind that several other processes and programs must be running at all times, even with the Operating System alone. Add to that others, such as having a browser open, extensions, and anti-virus software, and the resource pool can run out pretty quickly these days, even on an 8-gig RAM computer.

Lastly, if you invest in a desktop PC, and if you’re a gamer, your machine can multitask in your downtime!

Desktop PC for Podcasting Resources

When I use the term “resources”, I’m talking about the symbiotic relationship that the RAM and the CPU share.  Back when I was new to desktop builds, I was under the myth of “the higher the RAM the better off you are”.  This isn’t necessarily true.  Well… it is and it isn’t.  Even if you invest in 64 GB of RAM, if your CPU is “slow” (i.e., not that many cores, and a lower base speed), your RAM won’t be utilized properly. 

This means you can still overload your system, causing it to freeze or crash. This may all sound overwhelming right now ,but don’t fret.

Recommended RAM and CPU

This is a personal preference, but I would recommend a custom build or pre-built machine that has at least 16 GB of RAM and a 6-core CPU like the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 processor, 3.8 GHz, 32 MB L3.  

AMD brings high-performance CPUs at a way more affordable price.  I use them in my custom builds, and I feel they perform nicely. A quad-core CPU is the bare minimum.

Brands like Corsair and Kingston are great for RAM. RAM has come down drastically in price over the years, so if you are going to build a PC, aim for 32 GB if you can.

Other Considerations for a Desktop Build for Podcasting

You don’t need a top-of-the-line video card, but you don’t want to completely cheap out either – I learned this the hard way.  Even though we are working with audio, DAWs (especially when auto-scrolling and using iZotope RX’s editor) are surprisingly heavy on graphic resources, which can impact your machine’s performance.  Learn from younger Sarah’s mistake!

You can also swap out fans in a desktop PC for “silent” fans.  They aren’t truly silent, but much better than the stock fans.  I’ve had good results with Noctua fans.  Just be sure they can fit in the case prior to purchase. My case is huge, and it barely fits.  Again, when in doubt, contact your local computer parts store.  These would be considered a luxury purchase, not a necessity.

If you have the budget, invest in two SSDs – one dedicated solely to the Operating System, and one dedicated to storing files and session files from your DAW.  This will help your machine run more efficiently.  Try to get minimum 1TB – files and installed software add up a lot quicker these days.

The prices have really come down since SSDs first appeared on the market, and watching for sales can help too.  You can start with one and add another later, as long as the case can fit it and the motherboard has the connections to add more.

Check your DAW Requirements to Figure out Your Minimum Spec

The Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) you choose has a huge effect on the computer you need. Remember to check out our podcast editing software article if you’re still trying to choose one for producing your show.

• Pro Tools Studio, for instance, is a resource-intensive program that requires a quad-core processor (Intel i5 or better) to run. For the average podcaster, a Pro Tools-capable system is likely overkill.
• Adobe Audition, by comparison, will run on nearly any system with a multicore processor and 4GB of RAM or better.
• Reaper does not have specifications for its software, and is often said “will run on a potato”.
• Audacity, like Reaper, has quite low requirements, asking for 2GB RAM and just 1GHz processor speed.

A non-DAW option for recording, editing, producing, and publishing your podcast is Alitu. Alitu is a web app, so if your computer is good enough to connect to the internet, it’ll be more than capable of running all of these processes, without the need for additional software.

Check DAW Plugin Requirements

Another factor that determines your computer needs is the requirements of the plugins you use with your DAW. Common plugins like iZotope RX or Ozone require more resources to handle the intensive processing the software does to your audio. Virtual instruments and synths like Kontakt often require more RAM to handle the number of audio samples processed and minimise latency.

What’s Latency?

Latency is a common concern in audio production, and for good reason. But if you follow our CPU recommendations below, it shouldn’t cause any problems.

Latency is the time between the input and output of a sound. It is the difference between when you press a key on your keyboard and hear a sound played from your monitors. It is also the delay between speaking into a microphone and hearing your voice played from your monitors.

Every system has some latency. But as long as the latency is below 20ms, your ears won’t notice the delay.

What to Look for in a Computer for Podcast Production

The two most critical factors that affect your computer’s ability to process sound are RAM and CPU. Other factors, like drive speed, can help, but your memory and processor are the key factors in how smoothly your system, and therefore your DAW, operates.

Memory Considerations

For most podcasters, 64GB of RAM would be overkill. If you do sound design or run a lot of high-end graphics systems or games on your computer, more RAM is better. But for the average user, 16GB of RAM is enough to meet most system requirements and have plenty of space to load stock plugins and audio.

More RAM means more tracks and more plugins.

Processor Speed & Type

Your central processing unit (CPU) is the brain of your computer. It takes data from the system memory and processes the calculations and machine language that allows your computer to perform its tasks.

A faster processing speed means the computer can complete each of its tasks faster. More processing cores are the equivalent of having more than one processor, which means your system is able to process more calculations at once. This leads to less stuttering, lower latency and the ability to handle more powerful plugins on more tracks at once.

Custom Builds Vs Pre-Builds

The information above is helpful if you want to venture down the road of a custom build, and can give you a starting point if you don’t have access to a place that can build one for you. 

The irksome thing with prebuilds is that they can have a few high-quality parts but then “cheap out” on others in the same unit.  A good starting point for prebuilds is to search for “gaming desktop”.  

Best Computers for Podcast Production: Our Recommendations

We’re happy to make some recommendations here, but remember, on something like computers, it’s impossible for us to actually try them all out. We’re basing this on advertised spec and reviews. So, if they work as advertised, they should do the job very nicely!

Budget-Friendly PC Recommendations

Brands to look at for a budget-friendly desktop computer include:

• HP: Options here
• Dell: Options here
• Lenovo: Options here

Gaming PC Recommendations

The few brands to check out for gaming PCs are:

• MSI: Check out a range of options here
• Asus: Check out options here
• Alienware: Check out options here

I also asked founder Colin Gray “If you were buying a new PC for podcasting today, what models would you consider?”

Colin’s Recommendations

I go through computers far too fast – too much desire for the shiny new thing Here are a couple of recommendations based on what I’ve used and loved over the past few years. They’re both laptops, because, like most people, I need to be able to work in a few different places. These two models don’t lose any power despite being in small packages, though!

1⃣ Lenovo Legion 7i

Any of the legion models will serve you well. They’re beasts for gaming, but pretty high budget. I’m working on the linked model right now.

2⃣ ASUS ROG Zepherus G14

I loved this laptop… pretty small and light (way more portable than my current Legion 7i) but still really powerful. Here’s one with a great spec, currently on sale. But go higher or lower on spec in the ROG range to suit your budget.

Have fun!

Common Myths Around Audio Production Computers

Mac v. PC

Mac v. PC is the Coke v. Pepsi of the computer world. At one time, there was a significant division between Mac and PC in terms of capabilities, and especially, available software. However, as Macs picked up the Intel chipset over Motorola and as software programmers began developing more for both OSX and Windows platforms, the differences became less and less meaningful.

Ultimately, the answer to the Mac vs PC question depends on user preference and budget. If you are already a PC or Mac user who is satisfied with your operating system, there’s no real gain to switching between them.

You can opt to buy an Apple computer for the first time, but they are definitely on the pricey side.  Currently, there are some software compatibility issues with their M1 technology.  As a personal opinion, I’d hold off while more software developers catch up and iron out the kinks, since it is very new tech.

Is Pro Tools the Industry Standard?

Yes! And no! It all depends on the industry.

For the music recording industry, as well as film and TV, Pro Tools is hands down the most common software you will see in studios around the globe.

If you produce EDM, you’re more likely to work in Logic or FL Studio. If you work in gaming sound, the standards are murkier, with some working in Pro Tools, and some working in some other DAW of their choice.

Across the board, I am seeing more and more sound designers make the switch to Reaper. And in podcasting, no standards for software choice currently exist.

More and more, like the Mac vs. PC argument, the tools you use to create your podcasts or music are largely dependent on personal choice and the needs of your production.

Again, check out our Best Podcast Editing Software roundup for a full range of options here.

DAW Alternatives to Save Resources

Whether you’re running a PC from 1998 that can barely process a Word doc within an hour, or if you’re intimidated by the thought of learning DAW-based audio production, then be sure to check out Alitu

Alitu is a podcast-making app designed to make recording, processing, editing and publishing as simple as humanly possible. It enables users to create and publish a podcast without knowing the slightest thing about audio production.

Whether you record inside Alitu or import your audio from elsewhere, its production tools do all the cleaning up and volume levelling for you, automatically.

Podcast editing is made simple with the episode builder’s drag-and-drop features. Alitu auto-generates transcriptions, and you can delete text in those, which deletes the matching audio in your recordings. There’s even an automatic filler word and silence remover tool.

To top it all off, you can publish directly to Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and dozens of apps, directories, and platforms directly from the Alitu interface.

Alitu is completely browser-based, so it won’t drain on your computer’s valuable resources like some other DAWs can. Even Apple are apparently impressed, having mentioned it during their recent WWDC keynote!

Best Computer for Podcasting: Conclusion

This is based solely on personal experience, but if you are in the position to budget or save for a custom build, then this is the way to go for the best bang for your buck.

Here, you’ll have little to no manufacturer bloatware eating your processing resources, and part replacement is much easier, too.  Many computer parts stores can help you select and assemble parts.

You can do prebuild, but READ, READ, READ all their spec charts, research reviews from multiple sites, and double-check if they can be upgraded or modified. You can end up with a nice machine, but it may take a bit more research on your end. Hopefully, with the information provided here, you can make a better-informed choice.

Think of a desktop PC as a long-term investment.  You don’t need to drop a ton of money, but if you go down this path, make sure you start with a sturdy foundation!

Not sold on a desktop computer or PC? Then maybe a laptop for podcasting is a better option for your own needs and budget.

Have you ever heard an aggressive harshness in the high end of a person’s voice in a podcast, movie, or show? In audio, we call this sibilance. And it can be grating on the ears as a listener.

Why?

Unfortunately, our ears are super sensitive to the frequency range where sibilance occurs. Sibilance can even disrupt immersion by hurting intelligibility for certain listeners. 

But what is sibilance exactly? And how can we, as podcasters, prevent it from infiltrating the earbuds of our listeners? Keep reading, and I’ll break this down while introducing a brand-new sibilance-fighting tool from iZotope: Velvet.

What is Sibilance?

‘Vocal recordings, especially if made with very close microphones, are often characterized by excessive loudness of the voice sibilants…The most difficult sibilants to reproduce accurately are the sounds “s” and “sh”. The effect is accentuated by high-frequency peaks in microphones…,’

The Audio Dictionary 

The simplest breakdown of sibilance are the sounds of “ch, sh, s, and f”. Think of the words such as cheese, shed, fleece and sausage as a few examples.

The frequency range of sibilance is roughly between 5 kHz and 10 kHz.  This range will slightly vary from person to person, however.

Sibilance: Traditional Fix

The traditional solution for sibilance is to use a de-esser.  The majority of DAWs have these as stock plugins.  A de-esser is a compressor that specifically targets only the frequency range of sibilance. De-essers can employ a broad frequency approach or a multiband approach for more control, allowing you to choose which frequencies to attenuate. 

You can bypass a de-esser altogether and do the manual approach with clip gain. However, who has time for that?!

Introducing Velvet by iZotope

Velvet is an interesting tool because it combines various forms of traditional de-essing with tone-shaping abilities. And that’s not all… it has an automatic mouth de-clicker built in, too. 

As a dialogue editor and mixer, I cannot stress how much time this saves me!

Let’s take a closer look under the hood.

Velvet and Sibilance

Velvet provides optimal control for users familiar with audio tools.  We have a staggering number of methods to target sibilance, with such features being:

• The ability to choose the filter shape
• Manually adding frequency bands nodes while adjusting their Q (bandwidth)
• Choosing between dynamic downward compression,  dynamic upward expansion, or static gain processing, where you set the gain amount
• Soloing the sibilance-only signal
• Wet and dry signal blend
• Solos for the selected EQ band

Now, if all this sounds confusing, fear not. Velvet has presets to help you get started, in addition to a “Learn” function that can analyze the voice you’re working on to make suggestions for settings.

Velvet and Mouth De-Click

The Mouth De-Click section in Velvet is a streamlined version of iZotope’s Mouth De-Click plugin. It allows you to:

• Toggle the de-clicker on or off
• Solo the detected clicks
• Focus on high-frequency or low-frequency clicks
• Adjust the Amount control, which sets how sensitively the tool detects and removes clicks

It’s worth mentioning that on a moderately powerful computer, a user can bypass all other features of Velvet to run another instance as a plugin. Doing so allows both high- and low-frequency clicks to be targeted in real-time.  Or, if a user wishes, you can bypass the mouth de-clicker altogether.

Velvet and Tonal Shaping

This is what iZotope calls spectral shaping, and from what I can tell, it works similarly to their Sculptor tool, which was first introduced in Neutron 4 Advanced. 

The Lift knob is designed to add clarity and presence based on the target sound which, in a podcaster’s case, would fall on one of the dialogue options.

The Tame knob is a resonance control feature, which is handy to have built in.

We have tonal controls split into three bands: Low, Mid, and High.  This appears to control how much processing is applied to these frequency ranges in a simplified layout.

Testing Velvet by iZotope

I’ve broken down the three major sections of Velvet.  On paper, it all sounds nice, but how does it perform?

Take a listen to a raw recording where I asked a voice actor to eat peanut butter to get them extra clicky:

Now listen to the processed file that used Velvet:

As you can hear, the spit clicks are gone. The whistle sound has been tamed, and the sibilance overall has been toned down. To achieve this, I needed to use the tool manually.  It works better than a stock plugin but not as well as a premium plugin.  I was expecting this, however, with the price tag of $49.00 USD.

User Friendliness

The UI is sleek and clean. It offers enough complexity for seasoned users but nothing overwhelming for those new to audio tools. I didn’t run into any glitches or performance issues with CPU usage while using it for a week in a mid-sized Pro Tools session. 

Each parameter, when hovered over, provides a brief description of its function.  However, the user manual PDF is summarized nicely and won’t overwhelm a user who needs more information. Velvet is jam-packed with features that make dialogue enhancement easy and speedy!

Conclusion: Tackling Sibilance With iZotope Velvet

I was pleasantly surprised by this plugin. It streamlined some of my plugin chain to consolidate a few tools into one. It’s my personal preference to have a cleaner/leaner plugin chain. 

Is it the best sibilance and tonal correction tool I’ve used? No. However, it’s still a good time-saving tool for real-time mouth click removal, utilising the tonal and sibilance tools. I found myself having to round-trip from my DAW to RX less, and that, in itself, is worth it.

iZotope products come with a 10-day trial. Check it out for yourself to see if it can elevate your workflow!

• UI: 5/5
• User-friendliness: 4.5/5
• Performance: 4/5
• Price for Performance Quality: 5/5
• Total: 4.6/5   

In this article, I am excited to introduce to you a new reverb tool from iZotope/NI, Equinox.  This tool has the potential to elevate your podcasts to the next level, whether you’re a beginner or a seasoned pro.

What is Equinox?

Back in the not-too-distant past, soundies worldwide drooled over the sound of the reverbs from Exponential Audio. Equinox is reviving the sound of these reverbs by utilizing the Exponential Audio algorithms and combining them with the adaptive unmasking technology we’ve seen from Aurora. 

Equinox boasts 1,250 presets geared toward giving you a lush, immersive sound for dialogue, soundscapes, or experimental music. 

The best part? Equinox is a multichannel reverb, which means it supports immersive formats like surround/atmos/binaural for mixing.

For individuals with a license for the Exponential Audio reverbs Stratus and Symphony, Equinox allows you to replace these plugins in a Pro Tools session with Equinox while carrying over plugin settings. At this time, only Pro Tools is supported for this feature.  Automation and auxiliary output information is currently not supported at the time of this review.

Zotope provided me with a review build of Equinox.  Some elements may differ slightly from the official release.

Crafting Reverb in Seconds

The team at iZotope has taken care to assist users who are new to more complex tools like Equinox without hindering control for more experienced users. Equinox features a “Filter” section where users can select what “flavour” of reverb they would like to have. 

For podcasters, you’ll mostly focus on the Space and Size filters, but you may want to play with the Effect filter if you are doing sound design for audio dramas. 

So, what do these filters do exactly? They suggest factory presets based on your needs. For example, under “Space,” I clicked “Tight,” and for “Size,” I selected “Small,” which brings up the Smooth Vocal Booth preset.

As you can see, the settings are changed, but you can make manual tweaks, add more effects for more complex textures, or enable unmasking. If you’re ever unsure what a setting does, hovering over it will give a brief explanation.

Equinox and Unmasking

Equinox has an unmasking function, but what exactly does that mean?

Frequencies need a lot of coaxing to “play nice” with each other.  When you have the dry signal of say a voice recording and add reverb, you are adding frequency content to the overall signal.  This can lead to frequency build-up, also better known as “mud”. This can have an ill effect on the intelligibility of both the dry audio and the reverb.

Did you know you’re supposed to EQ your reverb? This is how audio professionals deal with frequency buildup issues. However, now, with unmasking tools, you no longer need to listen for this manually, saving you a tremendous amount of time and leading to cleaner-sounding mixes. Equinox uses a simple UI to set up unmasking between the dry and reverb applied to the audio. 

What Does This Mean for Me?

Your dry audio will remain intelligible with little to no loss in transient details, while your reverb will be more defined. That means you can have a large reverb with a long tail without the source audio sounding washy or muffled, or with tight/short reverbs to make a voice-over recording sound “larger”.

Now, is it 100% effective? Not always, but the unmasking technology has vastly improved since I first came across it in Neutron 4 Advanced from iZotope. With letting Equinox unmask the reverb applied to a source sound in real-time, there is definitely a noticeable difference!  Equinox allows a user to make manual adjustments if needed.  Having this tool built-in also helps with plugin insert clutter. This can help simplify plugin chains inside a DAW.

Equinox: UI

The UI has a lot going on, but iZotope did a good job of balancing sections that separate features so as not to overwhelm the user and keeping it concise enough that there’s no need to constantly flip between windows to make adjustments. It uses a “dark mode” colour pallet, which is great for people with screen brightness sensitivity.

Equinox: Performance

It’s always recommended that if you haven’t built your own PC for audio productions, at the very least, use a laptop that is advertised as a gaming laptop to meet the minimum hardware specs of the audio processing applications you’ll be using. 

In my testing, Equinox wasn’t a glutton on CPU/RAM and ran quite smoothly. The version of the plugin I tested was in its review build, and I didn’t run into any time crippling glitches or performance issues. I was running it in a 100-track session with multiple occurrences on auxiliary sends (FX sends) with no issues. 

This is a breath of fresh air for a Windows user, as QC for tools on the Windows side has started to take a downward hit again as developers favour Mac stability.

Sound Samples

Here’s a quick spoken-word before-and-after. I used a darker-sounding mic, and Equinox opened it up, making it brighter and livelier, but the effect is subtle in this use case. The tool will undoubtedly shine more with multi-sound source sessions like audio drama.

Equinox Cost & Conclusion

Equinox is set to be priced at $249 USD. A special discount price of $149.20 USD will be available until April 30^th, 2025. 

This plugin is a great addition to a toolset for time-saving capabilities with professional results. Its filter feature can help a less experienced user zero in on where to start with a preset, yet it has enough manual functionality for tweaking for a more seasoned user.

Reintroducing the sound of Exponential Audio for reverbs is very exciting, as those sounded amazing! They were an industry favourite for many years. With Equinox, a user will be able to easily create ear candy for their listeners! 

Rode, the podcaster’s trusted microphone company, is back with a new wireless device – the Interview PRO.  But what sets the Interview PRO apart from other wireless microphones? How does it perform? And what sort of features does it have to compete with what seems like an unending number of microphones aimed at podcasters? I’ll be answering all these questions and more in my Rode Interview PRO review:

What is the Rode Interview Pro?

It is a wireless microphone that requires a receiver to transmit its signal to a recording device. It is important to note that not any receiver will do, nor does it come with one. Currently, the Rode Interview PRO can only be paired with Rode Series IV receivers like the Wireless Pro, Rodecaster Pro II, Rodecaster Duo, and Streamer X.

You can still use it without a transmitter, just not on a wireless basis.

The Interview PRO can be used as a standalone field recorder, but for wireless operation, a RØDE Series IV receiver or compatible product is required.

Rode

In the box, you get:

• The mic itself
• 1 Mic Clip
• 1 SC34 superspeed USB C to USB C cable
• 1 USB C to USB C cable (long)
• 1 foam sock (pop filter)
• 1 zipper pouch

Features of Note for the Rode Interview PRO

This mic definitely has bells and whistles geared toward live audio usage. However, it can still be used for an edited after-the-fact show. The Rode Interview PRO can record internally. It gives you about 30GB of storage and records at 32-bit floating point. This means two really neat things—it can be used as a 32-bit floating point field recorder OR as a backup source. Wireless recording devices can drop signals without warning; when that happens, it’s dead. There’s no way to recover the missing audio from a dropout. 

With the Rode Interview PRO, you have the ability to record internally as a backup source.  If you pair it with a compatible Rode Receiver, you can utilize a time code track to more easily sync afterwards if you’re working with video with audio.

Cost of the Rode Interview PRO

At the time of writing, you can buy the Rode Interview PRO brand new for $249 USD. Bear in mind, though, that you’ll need a Rode Series IV receiver to use it to its full capacity.

Our link to the Rode Interview PRO is an affiliate link, meaning we’d earn a commission if you buy through it. Affiliate income helps support all of our free content, though it never clouds our judgment when reviewing products or services. You’ll always get our honest opinions, no matter what!

Check Rode Interview PRO prices on Amazon

Quality of the Rode Interview PRO

Onwards to some audio testing, then. Overall, I thought the tone was very neutral, which is great! The Rode Interview PRO is marketed as an omnidirectional handheld wireless mic.  So, of course, I simulated what an on-camera journalist would do, moving the mic from me to an interviewee. There was no handling noise, which is a huge plus!

Rode Interview PRO Auto-Gain Test

I transmitted the Rode Interview PRO to the Rodecaster Pro II, where I was able to take advantage of its auto-gain features.  Both auto and dynamic settings resulted in mostly healthy recording levels of -28LUFS.  It’s not as nice/tight as Shure’s auto gain from the MV7 or MVX2U, but it’s by no means bad.  My personal sweet spot is -24LUFS for healthy recording levels, but -28LUFS is still okay.

Rode Interview PRO Plosive Test

Take a listen to the following audio sample that was recorded with the foam sock on:

As you can hear, there are no popping plosives with very little effort put in to prevent them!

Directional Test

In theory, an omnidirectional mic should not have tonal issues caused by off-axis recording… in a perfect world.  So, again, I simulated myself as a reporter, perhaps not aiming the mic towards the mouth as much as they should.  Take a listen:

The Rode Interview PRO compensates very well for poor mic-to-mouth placement. There’s virtually no change in tone—perfect!

Distance Test

Below is an audio file of me talking about this mic from a distance of 20 feet from the receiver, with a wall between me and the receiver and a bunch of wireless devices streaming. How would it handle this test?

The actual recording is a lot longer, but no drops occurred. No hums were introduced. The Rode Interview PRO is advertised to be able to transmit up to 200 meters (656.168 feet) but with a direct line of sight. The more physical obstacles and other wireless signals you introduce, the more this can fluctuate. However, the Rode Interview PRO seems to be fairly stable in undesirable circumstances.

Rode Wireless PRO Review: Specs

Here’s the technical lowdown…

Frequency Response

This microphone doesn’t have a flat response. There is a slight boost around 100Hz and a slight boost around 10kHz where the sibilance sounds like “ess” are more prominent. However, with my voice, this response didn’t cause any issues.

Maximum SPL

This mic has a maximum SPL (sound pressure level) of 122dB SPL. This means that, in theory, it shouldn’t overload the mic’s capsule in most interview situations, like on the floor of a large convention with lots of people making noise.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio

The Rode Interview PRO has an SNR of 74dB. Performance-wise, it means any self-noise it may create is still lower than most recording studio room levels.

Rode Interview PRO Review: Conclusion

Now that you’re clued up about what the mic does, what it costs, and how it sounds, let’s summarize with a few pros and cons:

Pros

• Internal 32-bit-float recording internally
• Internal recording can be used simultaneously while transmitting to a receiver
• Sounds good
• No handling noise
• No interference issues when used around other wireless devices – though this can fluctuate on a case-by-case scenario
• Fairly user-friendly when setting up as a wireless microphone
• There’s a detailed user manual on the Rode website

Cons

• Doesn’t come with a receiver
• The number of compatible devices it can transmit to is limited
• To take advantage of the auto-gain functionality, you need one of the supported gears from Rode, like the Rodecaster Pro II or Rodecaster Duo

If you’re only recording in your home or studio or you’re looking for your first startup gear, the Shure MV7+ is still probably a better choice (other great podcast mics are available). However, the Rode Interview PRO really shines in live and/or on-location scenarios, where it has some very useful options.

• Build Quality: 5/5
• For Studio Use: 4/5
• For live/on location: 5/5
• Features for Price: 5/5

Back in 2021, I reviewed a dynamic microphone from Shure, the MV7.  It took the podcast world by storm and soon found a home in many podcast studios, big and small.  Now, in 2024, Shure is back with the MV7+, the next generation of the MV7.  In this review I’ll put the Shure MV7+ through my microphone testing regiment while making comparisons to the original.  Read on to see how the Shure MV7+ performs with the:

• Auto-Level test
• Plosives test
• De-noise test
• Tone Switch test
• And more!

The Shure MV7+ At a Glance

Much like its predecessor, the Shure MV7+ is a dynamic microphone that doubles as a USB and XLR microphone.  The ShurePlus MOTIV software seems to be retiring and is being replaced with the Shure Mix desktop software. This software is required to access all of the DSP features, which only works when the MV7+ is used as a USB microphone.

At a glance, not much has physically changed with this microphone. The connections on the back are the same – XLR port, 3.5mm headphone jack, and a USB-C connection for the cable that runs from the microphone to the computer. 

Speaking of USB-C, this is the only connection available out of the box. With a USB-C to A adapter, it was a bit wonky. The computer could see the microphone, but I was unable to access many of the DSP features within the Shure Mix software. I ran into similar problems using a USB hub. So, this microphone seems to work best with its software when it’s plugged directly into a USB-C port on the computer. The microphone itself still sits in a swing stand. It doesn’t really have shock absorption, so be careful not to knock it, as you may get a slight resonance in your recording.

Shure MV7+ Pricing

Our link to the Shure MV7+ is an affiliate, so we earn a small commission should you buy through it. Affiliate income helps support all of our free content, though it certainly never clouds our judgement when it comes to giving honest opinions on products and services!

At time of writing, the Shure MV7+ comes in at $279 on Amazon, which is competitive against other hybrid USB-XLR microphones. It’s also £279 on Amazon UK.

 Check prices on Amazon

Shure MV7+ Review: Testing

Now that you know a bit more about what the mic is, as well as how much it costs, let’s get to the crucial stuff: What does it sound like?

Auto Gain

Except for the compressor test, all of my recordings using the auto gain feature of the MV7+ outputted healthy recording levels of -24LUFS, and a true peak of -4dBFS.  That’s the perfect sweet spot for a raw recording!

Plosives

I think microphone companies’ marketing teams are starting to take the hint that a foam sock/built-in pop filter is not really a pop filter. There’s no mention of a built-in pop filter from Shure for the MV7+.  What they did do was add a “Popper Stopper” as a DSP feature in the Shure Mix software. Let’s take a listen:

There are definitely popping plosives with the Popper Stopper disabled.  Once I enabled the Popper Stopper, the plosives were tamed significantly.  I was a bit skeptical about how well this feature would work but it seems to work quite well.  Well done Team Shure!

Tone Switching

Much like the original MV7, the MV7+ in USB mode has three tone profiles to pick from: Dark, Natural, and Bright.  Take a listen to me switching in real-time:

To my ear, there’s been a slight improvement to the Dark tone profile. Voice is not muddy, but has a hint of warmth.  Bright is still too bright for my voice. With the improvements to the tone profiles, you’ll be able to shape the tone of your voice a bit better at the recording stage.

Noise Reduction

The MV7+ has the bonus protection from environmental recording factors naturally just by being a dynamic microphone.  However, I’ve noticed its noise rejection without using any de-noise was pretty good. Rather than listen, take a look at this spectrogram:

I recorded this test with a ceiling fan turned on high, and the image above was boosted to -16LUFS. The noise still wasn’t overly prevalent in the recording, especially with constant speaking.  Where it darkens in the above image is where the noise reduction is enabled. I didn’t notice any damage to the tone from having noise reduction. People with less-than-ideal recording spaces may have a bit more leeway with the MV7+.  However, that doesn’t mean you should record with your window open or music on in the background!

Compression

This effect is only available while the MV7+ is being used as a USB microphone and in manual mode (auto gain is turned off).

Less is more, which is usually the case with compressors. Light is best, medium is okay, and hard is quite noticeably crushing my voice. 

MV7+ as an XLR Microphone

It’s becoming commonplace for microphones to be a hybrid of USB and XLR.  However, the MV7+ made no improvements from its predecessor to be any less gain-hungry when used with an interface.  As with its predecessor, I tested it on an SSL2+, and it still required the gain knob to be at almost 80% to set a decent signal level. But that introduced distortion from the interface itself, having the gain that high. Unless you have a Rodecaster Pro II, which has a bit more power in its preamps, you’ll need a cloud lifter.

Shure MV7+ Review: Some Other Thoughts

I’m not a fan of the Shure Mix software. It feels like it needed a bit more time prior to public release.  I can only attest to a Windows experience, however. Yes, it has a “beta” slapped on it but, and again this is only my opinion, a beta shouldn’t be released with a commercial product. It’s less user-friendly than ShurePlus Motiv.  It’s trying to act like a DAW on top of controlling the DSP features, but it’s very restrictive in its current stage. I’m unable to change recording pathways and recording specs like sample rate and bit depth. 

However, I see the potential of the Shure Mix software with the virtual routing it offers.  Hopefully, it’ll provide a better experience once some kinks are ironed out.

Currently, there is no support for mobile devices like cellphones and tablets like there was with the original MV7.  I feel like this is a step backwards, but perhaps this will be added in the future. I have recommended the original MV7 to many clients because of its mobile support. Some people just aren’t computer savvy, and it was easier for them to do everything with a mobile app as they were learning podcasting from the ground up.

Conclusion: Shure MV7 Vs Shure MV7+?

The biggest change with the MV7+ is that it utilizes new software to control it.  The tonal profiles and noise reduction features slightly improved over the original software.  The lack of mobile support is currently a bit of a letdown. 

Is it a good microphone? As a USB mic, it definitely is.  At its price point of $279, if you only need an XLR mic, you may be better suited to go with something like the Shure SM58 or the Rode PodMic.  It all depends on your needs. The MV7+ didn’t make as big of a splash as its predecessor, but time will tell if it receives any further improvements.

Check out our full guide to The Best Podcast Mics on the Market if you’d like to do some more shopping around.

• Build Quality of Microphone: 4/5
• Features for a USB Microphone: 5/5
• Flexibility as a USB Microphone: 3.5/5
• Price Point for a Hybrid Microphone: 5/5 

In this article, I will:

• Describe when and why you may need to convert from WAV to MP3
• How to convert from WAV to MP3
• Demystify terms related to file compression

Why Do We Use MP3?

Most DAWs are automatically writing an uncompressed audio file as you record. This is the wave format (WAV). When we convert to MP3 upon exporting audio, file compression is applied to the WAV file.

In the podcasting world, podcast hosting companies charge monthly plans that are usually based on bandwidth uploads per month. This means you have a set amount of file space per month you can upload based on your chosen plan. Thus, the smaller the file, the cheaper the hosting costs for RSS distribution will be.  MP3 is also the most widely recognized format by the general public.  Lastly, people generally care more about storage space than audio fidelity, especially as more devices have removed storage expansion options.

How to Convert WAV to MP3

There are many recording software out there that can convert WAV to MP3. They work similarly, so if you follow these steps, it should overlap with your recording software of choice:

1. Select all the audio you want to convert to MP3
2. Click on File and look for either Export, Render, or Bounce (these all mean the same thing)
3. Find MP3 in a list of supported file formats
4. Choose your desired bit rate (for just spoken word shows, 96kbps CRB is a recommendation on some sites or 256kbps or higher if the show contains sound effects and music)
5. Choose the slowest convert speed if your software has that option
6. Click Export (or however your software words it to confirm) and start the conversion and export process. It usually is a button in the bottom right of an export window

How to Convert WAV to MP3 via iZotope RX

As a DIY podcaster, you may have some version of iZotope RX such as Elements.  If you’re new to podcasting, you can take a gander at RX for the DIY Podcaster.  The RX standalone editor can convert to every common audio compression format.  It’s fairly easy to use with a simple UI, as seen below.

You’ll notice there’s a checkbox to prevent clipping using a limiter or normalization. Sometimes, during the conversion process, peaks will clip where they previously weren’t in the uncompressed file.  Personally, I prefer using the limiter option over normalization. Normalization can affect your LUFS level, so you could potentially become louder or quieter than what you mixed for.

If some of the terms above are confusing, or you’d like to learn more about what goes into converting WAV to MP3, read on!

Can I Convert MP3 to WAV?

Converting from MP3 to WAV has no benefits. You can’t gain information back that has been lost. If you convert from MP3 to MP3 several times, each instance will compress the audio file further. This results in more loss of vital information that affects audio quality. It’s important to only convert to MP3 for the final file used for distribution.

What is Audio File Compression?

Simply, it is the process of making the file size smaller for audio via a codec. The codec used will determine how your computer/software calculates the math used to achieve this.

There are two types of audio compression methods:

• Lossless
• Lossy

Lossless, as you may have guessed from the name, makes calculations to keep vital bit information while shrinking file size. In contrast, lossy formats aren’t so delicate with the file compression of data, which leads to information loss and can affect audio fidelity.

Common Types of Audio Compression Formats

MP3 (lossy): the most popular format for its ability to significantly decrease file size.

Ogg Vorbis (lossy): this utilizes a variable bit rate conversion (I’ll get to that in a bit). Generally, on paper anyway, it is more transparent with its compression than MP3 but enjoys similar file shrinkage.

FLAC (lossless): Stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. Probably the most transparent audio compression format since it utilizes lossless algorithms while getting the benefit of file shrinkage.  However, file sizes will most likely still be larger than MP3 or Ogg Vorbis since more information remains intact.

Since MP3 is the most common and supported format for podcasting and other audio-related distribution platforms, I’ll focus on its other nitty-gritty details.

Common Terms When Converting WAV to MP3

Some people work at 48kHz or higher, and there are benefits to doing so. If you do this, you’ll want to convert to 44.1kHz for the final mix. 48kHz and 44.1kHz are what’s known as sample rates.

Sample Rate: Affects the playback speed while working in a DAW.  If you change sample rates in your DAW but don’t convert the audio’s sample rate, you’ll either end up with sound higher or lower pitched, depending on which way you go.  However, MP3 conversion going from 48kHz to 44.1kHz means you go from 48,000 samples per second to 44,100 samples per second.  This means less data.  Less data means smaller file size. Here’s our full guide to podcast sample rates.

It’s worth noting, too, that, just like trying to convert MP3 to WAV, converting from a lower sample rate and bit depth will not receive the benefits of the higher numbers. These must be used during the recording process.  You can always downsample, but you cannot upsample, as this information is not captured. Upsampling will only ensure your audio plays back at the correct speed.

Bit Depth: The word size of samples in digital audio. The more bits used at recording, the higher the audio fidelity and the larger the file size.  For example, it’s common to record at 24-bit, but now we’re entering the 32-bit era. However, we use a process called dithering to cleanly convert to 16-bit for distribution. Why? Fewer bits mean smaller file sizes.

Bit Rate: A unit of time in bits per second. 128bps is 128 bits (information) transferred in a digital setup per second. The lower the bit rate, the lower the audio quality will be in the file.

Constant Bit Rate (CBR): The amount of information transferred in the compression process is the same for the entire file. This makes things like file size and audio quality more predictable. Podcast hosting providers recommend you upload CBR MP3s rather than VBR MP3s.

Variable Bit Rate (VBR): The amount of information transferred in the compression process fluctuates based on the algorithms of the converter and codec used.  The potential drawback is file size, and the audio quality of the compressed file can be unpredictable.

Average Bit Rate (ABR): This calculates the average amount of bits in bps for the audio compression process.

Potential Issues of Converting WAV to MP3

If you want to podcast, then there’s no real getting around the fact you’ll need to convert WAV to MP3. Here are some potential technical issues to be aware of:

• Harmonic distortion can occur and be heard in the final file when using lower bit rates.
• A loss of bass detail may occur.
• A loss of transient detail may occur.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of podcasts are spoken-word conversations, and the vast majority of listening takes place on the go through a set of earbuds. This means the likelihood of any audio degradation—if it occurs at all—will be noticeable to absolutely no one.

But if you’re looking to create more highly produced audio with rich soundscapes, music, and sound effects, exporting your MP3s at a higher bitrate will help protect them from issues.

Conclusion & Next Steps

The biggest reason we use the MP3 format for podcasting is to decrease file size for podcast hosting distribution and lessen the burden on home consumer devices and listener data plans. MP3 has improved since its inception to lessen the blow of information loss in the conversion process.  Is it perfect? I personally don’t think so. But for now, it’s the gold standard for audio file compression.

Now that we’ve covered the ins and outs of converting WAV to MP3, here are some follow-up resources:

• How to Record a Podcast
• How to Edit a Podcast
• Best Podcast Editing Software

As I write this, in early 2024, there is a popular trend among audio plugin developers, both old and new. That trend is “dialogue enhancement” tools. 

But what exactly are “dialogue enhancement” tools?

In theory, they “simplify” the audio processing process by only using knobs vs. individual settings for each task.  The tradeoff is that the plugin estimates which parameters to use based on how far you turn a knob, which leads to little control should the plugin overdo one of the parameters that aren’t editable. 

These tools can be a good starting point for those who don’t wish to learn how to process audio manually for optimal control. This means they’re vigorously marketed towards small DIY content creators or podcasters. In this post, I’ll be comparing iZotope’s new VEA tool vs. Supertone’s Clear. Let’s see, or rather hear, how these tools stack up in unfavourable recording conditions.

What is iZotope VEA?

VEA uses AI technology to determine how to process your audio using three knobs:

• Clean: noise reduction simplified into one knob
• Shape: EQ based on a handful of EQ profiles
• Boost: audio leveler/compressor/limiter into one knob

What is Supertone Clear?

Supertone Clear is another dialogue enhancement tool, also with three knobs.  It uses neural network technology where it processes:

• Ambience: noise reduction simplified into one knob
• Voice: boosts or attenuates the voice recording
• Voice De-Reverb

iZotope VEA Vs. Supertone Clear

The major difference, on paper, is that VEA’s Shape works as an EQ, whereas Clear doesn’t have EQ functionality.  However, Clear has a voice de-reverb tool, whereas VEA doesn’t.

Boost (VEA) vs. Voice (Clear)

Both Boost and Voice work similarly.  There are only two notable differences. VEA uses a scale of 0-100, whereas Clear works in dB. This isn’t a huge deal.  However, Clear can attenuate the voice if desired.

The top waveform is the raw test recording, and the bottom is processed only with boost.

Again, the top waveform is the raw version, and the bottom is processed only with Voice.

These waveforms aren’t clipping. The screenshot was taken with a zoom-in-on-waveform setting.

Overall, Clear was a bit gentler than Boost. Boost was a tad on the crunchy side.  However, after using more than 6dB on Voice, the crunch effect did show up with Clear.

Noise (VEA) vs. Ambience (Clear)

First up is VEA and its noise reduction via the noise knob.

Here is the raw test recording that was used for all of the testing going forward:

 Now listen to the recording processed with noise:

The product page for VEA mentions recording under an AC, so I simulated this with a bathroom fan to get a similar volume of background noise.  As you can hear, it’s riddled with audio artifacts.  The noise is still there, but worse yet, it’s wobbly. I used the Noise knob at the 50 mark.

Now listen to Clear’s Ambience cleaning the same file:

As you can hear, the noise is gone. There’s a bit of tonal audio artifacts going on that degrade the tone of my voice a bit.  To get to this result, I turned the Ambience knob to around 50%.

Shape (VEA) vs. De-Reverb (Clear)

For this test, I allowed all three knobs to be utilized.  Boost brought out some hiss, which the Noise Knob did clean out.  However, the Shape function couldn’t help much with the natural reverb of the room I recorded in.

The voice de-reverb tool from Clear eliminated the room’s natural reverb, but there were a few tonal artifacts.  Occasionally, this causes some wonky resonances, but it’s manageable in taming down with a separate EQ pass, as most of the voice integrity has remained intact.

iZotope VEA Vs. Supertone Clear: Test Findings

These tools aren’t perfect. The result of my testing still strengthens the mantra of treating your recording space and recording at healthy levels for the best results, both of which are easy to do and won’t break the bank. That said, I am personally leaning towards Supertone Clear as performing better than VEA for tools having similar functionality. 

This note only applies to Pro Tools users and possibly only on Windows (I don’t have a Mac computer to test this glitch).  Audiosuite functionality is extremely broken upon the release version for VEA.

Pricing

• VEA: $29
• Clear: $99

There is a clear (no pun intended) difference in pricing. Clear features a de-reverb module. De-reverb tools are not something typically found in stock plugins for DAWs. These tools are a bit more complex to produce, so the price difference can most likely be attributed to having a de-reverb tool built into Clear.

Computer Resources

VEA was lighter on CPU usage compared to Clear, but Clear has an eco-mode that lessens the load. I found that the processing wasn’t as good when this mode was active, though it still got the job done.

iZotope VEA Vs. Supertone Clear: Conclusion

You’ve read my two cents on VEA and Clear and hopefully know a bit more about what to expect from each. I’d encourage you to test out these tools via trial periods before making a final purchase decision. I typically test these types of tools under extreme circumstances as a worst-case scenario. This helps me evaluate marketing copy claims made on product pages. 

If your recording space is adequate but still needs a bit of polish, VEA might be for you. However, if you’re regularly dealing with less-than-ideal audio, Clear might be more worthwhile.

VEA:

• UI Friendliness: 5/5
• Performance: 2/5
• CPU Resources: 4/5
• Total: 3.6/5

Clear:

• UI Friendliness: 5/5
• Performance: 4.5/5
• CPU Resources: 3.5/5
• Total: 4.3/5

Still shopping around for audio software options? Check out our recommendations for the best tools to edit and produce a podcast.

Choosing the right noise-reduction tool can feel daunting if you don’t have a background in audio.  Truth be told, each one does their job a little differently. This is not necessarily good or bad, but it can add to the confusion. In this article, I’ll dissect the differences between two popular noise-reduction tools, RX Voice-Denoise from iZotope and Clarity Vx from Waves. I’ll also run some tests to see how they perform with podcasting in mind.

What is Noise Reduction?

Noise reduction can be traced to its infancy all the way back to the 1940s. Initially, it resembled more of a filter where high frequencies were targeted. Today, this would resemble a low-pass filter.

Fast-forward to modern times, and noise reduction is primarily in software format. It became far more advanced once spectral technologies were introduced for more complex removal.  The primary purpose of noise-reduction software is to lessen or remove room tone-like sounds that distract from the voice, for example – fans, HVAC systems, hiss, etc… 

This technology is ever-evolving. For instance, some can remove or lessen transient sounds like doors or footsteps, but it’s still very much hit-or-miss, so manual repair is often needed if re-records are not an option. That’s why it’s always important to treat your recording space as best as you can!

But, despite our best efforts, sometimes noise seeps into recordings. Here are a couple of tools to help temper it.

RX Voice De-Noise from iZotope is one of the popular plugins you’ll come across in podcasting. That said, you can’t buy it as a stand-alone tool – you need RX Standard or Advanced to use it. 

RX Voice De-Noise implements the traditional style of early de-noise software:

As you can see, it uses a Threshold and Reduction slider with a “learn noise profile” system, which can be a bit confusing at first.  Luckily for beginners, it has an automatic setting where the threshold will, as the name suggests, automatically adapt throughout the recording. The trade-off is that it usually processes at lower amounts to avoid audio artifacts – unwanted sounds introduced from plugin processing.

Clarity Vx by Waves

Clarity Vx has a pro version that utilizes a similar method to RX Voice De-Noise for settings, but the standard version with one knob will more than suffice for a podcaster.  Yes, that’s right, one knob! For settings, all you do is use one knob that is equivalent to telling the plugin how much processing to apply.  Clarity takes care of the other tech stuff under the hood, so to speak.

Noisy Neighbour Test

I’ve used the same test recording for both Clarity and RX. Take a listen to the raw recording of a simulated noisy neighbor slamming doors.

Noisy Neighbour Test: Clarity Vx

First up is Clarity Vx.  I used the Broad 2 setting at 67.8. 

Unfortunately, there are still some door slams, but even worse, major artifacts are introduced. Where the voice and door overlap, there’s some tonal weirdness that doesn’t exist in the raw recording.

Noisy Neighbour Test: RX Voice De-Noise

I used Voice De-Noise’s podcast preset, which operates with their automatic settings.  As you can hear, it doesn’t touch the doors at all.

I fully expected Clarity Vx and Voice De-Noise to operate as they did.  Noise reduction technologies aren’t designed to target transient material like doors… at least not yet.  

Sometimes, you can luck out with Clarity Vx, but most of the time, manual repair is needed for such noises.  For the average podcaster, if you hear doors, footsteps, dog barks, etc, you’re better off holding off on recording, as inconvenient as that is, if your space doesn’t keep external sounds out.

Fan Test

Here is the raw file I’m using for the fan test where a loud fan/vent is within my recording space:

Fan Test: Clarity Vx

Now the processed file using Clarity Vx:

As you can hear, the fan noise has been tamed. I am using the Broad 2 setting at 60.1.  There is no noticeable degradation to my voice.

Fan Test: RX Voice De-Noise

Again, I am using the podcast preset for this test. 

Rx gets the job done, but I think Clarity Vx does a better job.  There’s still a bit of fan noise left, but there’s also some slight artifacting going on.

Pros and Cons Of Clarity Vx

Pros

• Regularly goes on sale
• Less likely to create audio artifacts
• User-friendly UI

Check the current price of Clarity Vx. This is an affiliate link which helps support our free content, at no extra cost to you!

Cons

• CPU heavy
• Not a lot of manual control for the standard version if needed/wanted

Pros and Cons of RX Voice De-Noise

Pros

• Less CPU intensive compared to Clarity Vx
• Manual control and automatic options available
• Clean UI

Cons

• Cannot purchase JUST RX Voice De-Noise as it’s only available in a bundle
• Easier to overuse, resulting in artifacts with noise still left over
• Doesn’t clean as detailed as Clarity Vx (in my opinion)

Conclusion: Best Noise Reduction Plugin?

There is no perfect audio repair tool.  Depending on the scenario, I rotate between four to five different noise reduction tools (both Clarity Vx and RX tools included).  Some tools work better than others in a given situation but fall short in another. 

For podcasters, either Clarity Vx or RX Voice De-Noise will assist you in noise cleanup. Voice De-Noise sometimes needs a bit more manual tweaking to its settings to hone in on the issue.  Clarity Vx is very much a set-and-forget.  However, at the end of the day, it’s always best to record as cleanly and properly as possible rather than “fix it in post”.

• UI Friendliness 5/5
• Ease of Use 5/5
• Performance 4.5/5
• Computer Resources to Run Smoothly 4/5

• UI Friendliness 4/5
• Ease of Use 4/5
• Performance 4/5
• Computer Resources to Run Smoothly 4/5

Noise Reduction Alternatives

There are no shortage of noise reduction alternatives out there on the market. You can use Audacity for free, which does a pretty good job, especially at that price point. There’s also Alitu, a complete all-in-one podcast maker software for podcasters. It runs things like noise reduction, compression, and EQ for you automatically, and you can record, edit, and publish your podcast from within its easy-to-use interface!

There’s always a cost for poor prep, though, which usually comes in the form of audio artifacts. These are the undesirable audible sounds introduced into your recording from heavy plugin processing. Before I begin, I want to stress these tools are not always a 100% fix.  Getting the best quality possible at the recording stage will always be the optimal approach rather than the dreaded “fix it in post”. 

That said, sometimes the world can throw you a few curveballs (or, hard walls!), and we don’t always get it right. So here are a handful of dialogue de-reverb tools that can improve the quality of a roomy recording.

Just before we dive into the testing and recommendations, though, what exactly is this reverb that we’re trying to fix?

What is Reverb?

The answer to the “What is reverb?” question gets a whole article to itself. A quick summary, though, is that the “reverb” you hear in a recording is the result of sound reflecting off of hard surfaces in your recording environment. Of course, most folks don’t really care about the science of acoustics, they just want to eliminate excess reverb as best they can. Unless they’re testing de-reverb tools for a roundup, that is…

Here is my test recording in its raw form:

I recorded in a larger bathroom that is full of glass and tile.  You can clearly hear the sound of my voice reflecting off of all the hard surfaces! As you can imagine, it would make for a pretty poor listening experience.

So, can any of these de-reverb tools work their magic on it?

Just before we crack on, a quick heads up that we use some affiliate links to de-reverb tools in this roundup. We’d earn a small commission should you choose to buy through them, though never at any cost to yourself!

1. DX-Revive

I’ll be giving Dx-Revive a bit of special attention since it can do more than just remove reverb, and is a newer tool on the scene! Dx-Revive from Accentize can:

• de-noise
• de-reverb
• spectral patch conference call audio
• repair clipped audio
• restore absent frequencies

I am using the standard version for this test. It’s a one-knob tool. The knob determines how much processing the plugin does.  I wouldn’t push it past 50 as, in my testing, I found it can introduce artifacts if you’re not careful.

The only other con is that it is CPU HEAVY.  Accentize is upfront about this on their website, and advise on which DAWs are compatible. For this reason, dx-Revive works best if you use it clip-by-clip rather than as a plugin insert.  You can use it as a plugin insert, but you need a much powered-up processor and RAM to avoid CPU overload issues.  There is a trial version for both standard and pro versions.

However, this is the first plugin I’ve used that can make Zoom call audio sound less “zoomy” with minimal effort.  Is it perfect each time? No, but it has saved me hours in repair/restore time! 

I could counteract most of the artifact issues by using the low setting with multiple processing passes and/or in combination with other tools for the best results. In some scenarios, throughout my preliminary testing, it performed well.  The most common issues, when used by itself, were overly boomy or “odd” sounds in the higher end.  Once I got a handle on how this tool behaves, it became a regular in my toolset.

Accentize is clear on their site that this machine-learning tool does not upload or share any audio processed. Everything stays private and local to your machine.

Dx-Revive price: $99USD

2. Clarity Vx-De-Reverb

Next up, we have Clarity Vx-De-Reverb from Waves.  This plugin is mostly a one-dial, one-dropdown menu and one-slider tool.  From a menu, you pick what type of voice work you’re treating, like singing or VO, and the algorithm adjusts accordingly.  The slider affects the “presence”, which smooths out the high frequencies.  

So, how did this de-reverb tool work on my sound sample?  

Overall, it performs well.  From my testing, it ran into artifact issues in the high end that could make the voice sound “brittle”.  A little bit of the high-end frequency reflections of the room reverb occasionally peek through.

Waves does not say, specifically, whether or not your audio is used for training the AI for this software.

Waves Clarity Vx De-Reverb price: $99USD

Waves currently have 60% off Clarity Vx and 40% off Clarity VX Pro!

3. GOYO/Supertone Clear (Beta)

At the time of writing this article, this tool isn’t quite available for purchase.  GOYO was available as an open beta and will cease function on Dec. 1^st, 2023.  All we know is that, in November 2023,  GOYO will be rebranded as Supertone Clear upon its official release.

Supertone Clear is a multi-purpose tool that can:

• de-noise
• de-reverb
• de-voice

In my test, a little bit of the room’s reverb squeaks through near the end, but the same was true of every other sound sample at that point.

Overall, GOYO is CPU-heavy.  It is unclear if the final release addresses this issue.  However, it’ll be worth trialling before purchase based on the beta performance. It does a decent job of removing noise and reverb from a voice recording.

This is also a machine-learning tool.  On Supertone’s website, they state that no audio processed is used for algorithm training or stored on their end.

GOYO/Supertone Clear price: Estimated to be $99USD

4. RX De-Reverb

RX De-Reverb has been around for a while via the RX Editor.  This tool is now available across every version of RX.  RX De-Reverb’s UI is a little more involved, in that you need a bit more understanding of audio to get a full grasp if you need to adjust manually.  It does have a “Learn” feature to learn the reverb profile – much like traditional noise reduction tools, which need to learn the noise profile.

RX De-verb performs similarly to the other de-reverb tools I have tested above.  However, it’s not for sale by itself. You need to purchase a version of RX to gain access. 

The UI may be a put-off for those unfamiliar with audio, but great for those who like precision control.  I have used RX De-Reverb less in recent years as it’s easy to introduce artifacts, even at lower-setting processing. But this depends on a case-by-case scenario – like most things when dealing with audio.

Price: RX Elements: $99USD & RX Standard: $399USD

Conclusion: Budget-Friendly De-Reverb Tools for Podcasters

There are a lot of de-reverb tools on the market and hopefully you’ve found one that suits in this roundup.  From my testing, Dx-Revive and GOYO have been my newer favorites, and the ones I’ve added to my workflow recently.  I favour multi-purpose software, but any tool listed above will do the job. Just keep in mind the need to watch out for artifacts as no perfect tool exists (not yet, anyway).  However, these de-reverbers can do what was considered impossible only a few years ago.

Each of the tests was conducted with processing using only the featured tool.  Currently, none of them are a “process and done” method. For best results, you’ll still need to combine tools, but each one listed is a great first step and a major time-saver!

Finally, remember that prevention is always better than cure, so try to optimize your podcast studio for the best possible results!