At 5:17 PM +1100 10/4/09, Paul Jacobson wrote:
> On 01/10/2009, at 5:18 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul--
>> Amazing birds and recording. You obviously knew where to set-up your
>> rig!
>>
>> When fiddling with Izotope, I usually have a hard time judging how
>> much noise reduction to use. Its appealing to lose all the hiss but
>> the edge of the higher pitched sounds can become dulled and the space
>> can feel less airy. I took your original snippet and played with EQ
>> and made a comparison movie which may make what I'm trying to
>> describe somewhat audible:
>>
>> QuickTime Movie 12mb uncompressed AIFF soundtrack
>>
>><https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/temporary/IzoTopeNoiseReductionVsEq_Lrg.mov>https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/temporary/IzoTopeNoiseReductionVsEq_Lrg.mov
>>
>> QuickTime Movie 3mb compressed AAC soundtrack
>>
>><https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/temporary/IzoTopeNoiseReductionVsEq_AAC.mov>https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/temporary/IzoTopeNoiseReductionVsEq_AAC.mov
>>
>> There seems to be some stridency in some bandwidths during the louder
>> calls that were possibly produced by the mp3 compression step.
>> Addressing this with EQ would be either unnecessary or easier when
>> working with the original. Rob D.
>
>Apologies if this turns up on the list twice I suspect the spam filter
>ate the original so I'm resending.
Hi Paul--
I've experienced this odd occurrence over the past 2-3 weeks too. A
few posts never reached the list.
>
>Hi Rob,
>
>Thanks for making the comparison. I always find your approach to very
>educational, and I try to follow the less is more method as far
>possible.
>
>I'd noticed when listening to the filtered recording that there seemed
>to be a slight phasing effect in the wing beats. Looking at a
>spectrograph display the is a slight but visible loss of detail in the
>calls and wingbeats. I was using the plugin version in Wave Editor
>so didn't have access to the spectrogram display for selecting the
>training sample, so I'd expect to get better results using a licensed
>copy of the standalone app.
>
>I've put up a 15 second edit of the raw file that corresponds to the
>section you used in the comparison. There is no post-processing of any
>kind, so it might be a better basis for comparing?
>
><http://www.urbanbirder.com.au/audio/download/241/RoundHill_edit_for_RD.wav>http://www.urbanbirder.com.au/audio/download/241/RoundHill_edit_for_RD.wav
The high frequency complexities of the wing whirs was the first thing
I noticed when I heard the unprocessed mp3 material. I'll take a
listen to the original and see what else we might be able to learn.
Did you reach an opinion about whether there is some "sizzle" in the
recording from the vegetation? My memory of the situation can be
useful in guiding tone shaping in post. Rob D.
>cheers
>Paul
--
|