naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Some basic processing questions

Subject: Re: Some basic processing questions
From: "Peter Shute" pshute2
Date: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:41 am ((PST))
Being also na=EFve, that was the very first thing I tried. It sounded odd b=
ecause the section that needed bringing down was a series of loud notes spa=
ced by a fraction of a second. I found that the reduction in the background=
 noise between the notes made the change very noticeable.=0D
=0D
Similar things happened if I tried to make the selection include the reverb=
eration, and I don't think that would be avoidable no matter how careful on=
e was.=0D
=0D
I don't know about the loss of quality. Audacity converts to 32 bits for it=
's internal format. Surely that lets you do a few operations before it star=
ts doing too much damage?=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
=0D
--------------------------=0D
Sent using BlackBerry=0D
=0D
________________________________=0D
From: =0D
To: =0D
Sent: Sun Feb 12 01:22:37 2012=0D
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Some basic processing questions=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:34 +0000, hartogj wrote, in response to a=0D
question from Peter Shute:=0D
=0D
> > 2. If the above will result in clipping of the loudest parts, what=0D
> >should I do about them? Audacity has a Compress function which looks=0D
> >like it might help bring them down a little without affecting the=0D
> >quieter parts. Is there a better way? (An example of the problem=0D
> >would be where for a few seconds a bird sings just a couple of=0D
> >metres from the microphone.)=0D
>=0D
> I am currently faced with a similar dilemma in one of my recordings. I=0D
> had not considered using a limiter, but maybe I will give that a try.=0D
> My other option was to treat the sections as three discrete tracks and=0D
> save the close-up section as a nice species example.=0D
=0D
Another approach I have naively used when faced with this problem will=0D
probably make the professionals here shudder, but here goes:=0D
=0D
- normalize=0D
- identify the peaks, and bring them down in volume manually by working=0D
with selections=0D
- repeat until it sounds right (or wrong, in which case back up one=0D
step and stop :-))=0D
=0D
Apart from the risk of getting jumps in the sound through choosing the=0D
selections sloppily (which did not seem to happen) I guess that repeated=0D
processing of material in this way (even just for volume) is going to=0D
result in some loss of quality?=0D
=0D
Richard=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D









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

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