It is clear that there are two camps using Vogone 2. This, by itself, is an interesting evolution. I will try to call and talk to some of you who are having problems to see if it is "pilot error" or "product deficiency".
My post at the bottom of page 1 of this Thread is what we expect to change before releasing. Note that there is no further polishing of the removal algorithm. Before we released for your testing, we beat on the algorithm several times, and we currently believe it is as good as this technology can deliver.
FYI BACKGROUND:
1. There is a fundamental tradeoff between the steepness of the high and low filters rolling off and what is call their "passband ripple". The steeper the rolloff, the more ripple there is. The problem is that the amplitude of the ripple is limiting how much of the actual master vocal can be removed. You can think of the ripple as causing a 'residual" amount of vocal to remain. However, this is very slight, and probably cannot be heard when the adjustments are made correctly.
The second thing that some of you may not understand (or recognize that is what you are hearing) is that the reverberation effect added to the vocal before mixing cannot be removed. These are the low amplitude "echoes" you hear. Reverb changes the phase of the audio in the left and right channels on the echoes that it creates. Since vocal eliminators invert the phase of one channel and mix it to the other to get the cancellation of identical phased signals, you can see that when the phase is changed, the left+right(inverted) will not cancel. Thus, the reverb echoes will not be removed. They usually are down -40dB to -60dB and thus very low. They usually are not objectionable unless you are listening to only the removed music in a quiet enviroment. If the intent is to use the vocal reduced song to add lyrics to and sing to it, then the echoes will not be audible with the singer.
The third point I would like to make involves economics and survival. First, the problems some of you are having indicates MTU will have support problems with Vogone 2 unless I can clear up where the misunderstandings exist, assuming that is the problem. Second, the development effort we have undertaken to this point, and the expert programmer we have on this project say that we have done about as good as can be expected with this technology. As the saying goes, we can't "squeeze any more blood out of this turnip." There is a different technology we could use, but it will be more difficult to control, however it may deliver superior vocal removal. The cost to switch now is currently prohibitive.
In closing, let me inject one final word. It is very difficult to provide professional quality audio tools at bargin-basement prices. The return is just not there, and the risk is high. There also is a bit of "ego" in turning out superior product. To not make a sufficient profit on a superior product, is a bit of a slap in the face. As MikeP has pointed out (in comparing Vogone 2 to his $1,600 Thompson VE box, and 3 programs), we have done an excellent job. We could rewrite with a new technology in our posession, but that would dictate that we more then double the price. However, if we accomplish what we might be able to with that technology, it could sell in the pro-audio market for - IMHO - $3,000 or more because of the power it would provide in separating sounds from a mixed song. Thus, it is hard to conceive of selling it for $199. Such are the strategic decisions of business.
I currently am on target to release Vogone 2 within the next two weeks. We will make my posted changes (see thread below) and I will attempt to discover "misunderstandings" if they exist. If so, I will upgrade the manual to make it even clearer. I also will modify our web page to indicate the types of songs that won't eliminate, and make it clearer that users should expect to "reduce" not eliminate with this tool.
Your feedback and testing has been of tremendous help. As we all can understand, vocal "modification" or muting is an art, and also very much affected by the "ear of the listener".
