[Top] [All Lists]

Re: S'ware mic noise reduction

Subject: Re: S'ware mic noise reduction
From: "Dan Dugan" dandugan_1999
Date: Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:11 pm ((PST))
Peter Nielsen, you wrote:

>How effective is shareware noise reduction software in allowing the
>results from a cheap "noisier" mic to approximate those of a more
>expensive less noisy one? To what degree is this practical for
>regular use?

I've been involved with restoring recordings for many years. I have 
used Digi's DINR and currently have the Waves Restoration Suite and 
Bias Soundsoap Pro. I don't have the most expensive ones, Cedar and 

I can tell you they all suck. Sometimes you can work magic, but it 
takes a lot of effort in tweaking, and usually I hate myself in the 
morning. It seems that concentrating on the noise makes me lose 
perspective of what I'm doing to the sound.

The problems with noise reduction algorithms are 1) taking the life 
out of the recording, and 2) artifacts. Both can be conquered by 
mixing ambience back in after cleaning, creating an artificial mix 
that would be suitable for production...but it would no longer be a 
document of a natural soundscape.

For an example of typical artifacts, listen to:

Turn up the volume to hear the background between the calls.

-Dan Dugan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU