Both Izo and Soap seem to have a very hard time
fore-grounding the speech. The slightest amount
of "watery-ness" both apps introduce plays havoc
with syllable intelligibility. I played with it
a bit and it seems like that "bacon sizzle"
responds reasonably well to side chain de-essing
and then one can go after the annoying peaked
pitches and HF noise with parametric EQ. I think
the results could turn out more intelligible, but
then one has to have the ear for the language to
judge that. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
At 11:39 PM -0800 2/28/09, Lou Judson wrote:
>Agreed, it can be messy. I had to try it with Izotope RX to see if it=A0
>can do better:
>
><files.me.com/loujudson/dv9hlx.mp3>
>It's hard to say after listening too close for a while... is this=A0
>more natural? I didn't get it quite so severely quiet, and it skips=A0
>on the bigger scratches so I didn't take them out.
><L>
>Lou Judson =80 Intuitive Audio
>415-883-2689
>
>
>On Feb 28, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Dan Dugan wrote:
>
>> Bernie, you wrote,
>>
>>> The audio clip contains a 30 second example of the original
>>> wax cylinder recording followed by the same clip cleaned up.
>>> Considering the quality of the original very few artifacts remain=A0
>>> when
>>> compared with other options.
>>
>> But all the naturalness is gone too, replaced by a strange robot-like
>> quality. I've done quite a bit of noise reduction work, and I often
>> hate myself in the morning. I get tuned into the noise, and it seems
>> great to get rid of it, but later I realize that the cost was too=A0
>> great.
>>
>> -Dan Dugan
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
|