Hi Debbi--
I agree with Phil, excellent job of zapping the "lead vocals" to
reveal the tenor, Red-Legged Rhythm Singers. I happened to listen to
the EQ'd file first and was shocked at how loud the Tree frogs are in
the original. For grant purposes, there should be no question that
the other species is present.
Aesthetically, (if this is an issue at all) the EQ'd file sound to me
like the frogs are muted by a landform or distance-- almost like you
recorded them from your car or over a hill ;-). Maybe try letting
some more of the treble above 3K Hz and more of bottom end survive?
If you didn't take this approach already, I'd start with deep/narrow
parametric notches at the heart of the "tinny" tree frog' calls. The
Red Legged calls should have frequency enough separation to survive.
The "space" will probably seem to shrink as you keep "hitting" the
tree frogs @~2K (it may take many narrow parametric bands) but I
suspect much less so if you leave some "sparkle" at the high and some
distance "bass" cues at the bottom.
I'm surprised you original isn't a little more saturated given the
sound levels you describe. Personally, I'd shoot for a little more
saturation in the field, but others disagree with me and argue its
safer to have the headroom. When you are confronted with a "wall of
sound" like this, there's not much need for headroom, though.
I usually "bump-up" to 24bits before starting to process a field
recording this intensively. Rob D.
At 8:38 AM +0000 3/4/08, Philip Tyler wrote:
>Hi Debbi
>
>I think you did pretty good yourself, in the first
>sample all I could hear were your very noisy frogs. OK
>there was a hint of your other frog but not much. In
>the your second example I could definitely hear the
>frog you were after. In fact it was after listening to
>your second example that I then could make out the
>call in your first example, and I am no frog expert!
>So you are doing quite well so far.
>
>The pacific tree frogs are fairly broad band so will
>be difficult to remove them without affecting your
>target frog call. You could try Auditions noise
>removal process.
>
>You need to take a sample of the 'noise', called a
>noise profile, in your case a section of tree frogs
>without the target species calling. Then do successive
>passes removing the 'noise' and see how it goes. If
>your target tree frog is in the lower registers then
>when you sample the 'noise' try doing it on a copy of
>the file which you have applied some LF cut then apply
>that noise profile to the full bandwidth version.
>You may want to try cleaning up the recoding as much
>you can with one of the parametric eq's in Audition
>before trying the noise removal as another approach.
>But I suspect that eq may be the way to go in the end,
>it all depends on the result you want. The noise
>removal function is quite powerful, for instance lets
>say you had a recording of a conversation which was
>unintelligible because water was running out of a tap
>filling a bath and masking the voice. Using noise
>reduction you can get to a point where you can hear
>what the people are saying but it will sound very
>strange as it makes various strange sounds due to the
>noise removal process. But you will be able to hear
>what they are saying, any budding spies be warned!
>
>So try some parametric eq and try some noise reduction
>and see if you can get it any better.
>
>Phil
>
>--- Debbi B <<dgb_lists%40sbcglobal.net>> wr=
ote:
>
>> I posted two clips from a recording of a pond at
>> which the Pacific
> > Treefrogs were LOUD and there was a Red-legged Frog
> > calling. One is from
>> the original, and the other is my attempt to bring
>> out the Red-legged.
>> This is for documenting the existence of the
>> Red-legged at this
>> particular location in order to get funding. The
>> filenames begin with
>> "s" and description "Clip...".
>>
>> The Treefrogs seemed to get louder and louder as
>> dusk passed. I'm sure
>> there's a better way to bring out the
> > Red-legged--can anyone give me
>> some suggestions/instructions (Audition)? Thanks.
>> --
>> /Debbi Brusco/
>>
>
>__________________________________________________________
>Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
>A Smarter Inbox.
><http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html>http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyouca=
n.html
>
>
--
|