Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    160
    Default
    I'm glad you liked it Aram! I used spectral repair to kill that steady tone. I selected just it on the whole file using the rectangular selection tool and used attenuate in spectral repair to get it. I used the same selection technique to select from around 500 hz on down and reduced that whole range by 3 db using the gain module. I shifted the selection around until I found the muddiness. I did do some eq with some high and low pass and a small boost around 4K. I may also have done some spectral noise reduction on the over all file learned from the empty space at the head of the file. The plosives were addressed with the mouth declick module. To finish it off I selected some areas that had some interference sounding noises and used dialog isolate. This was all done in RX 6 on my small desk top speakers. I have another room all set up for just this type of work with RX7 but I wanted to see what I could do under less than ideal conditions. I've since tried some other techniques that also worked to an extent. The dewind module worked to thin out the boxiness a little more than the attempt I posted. The down side with that technique was it caused sibilance that wasn't easily addressed. The harshness you were hearing in some of the other efforts comes through on my small desk top speakers fairly obviously. I think certain frequencies were boosted too much and the result was greater clarity at the expense of a natural sound. I didn't find the mic to be that awful sounding and the levels were peaking at -9 in RX which to me is ideal. That's the level I strive to peak at when i'm doing location sound. That tone was the most annoying thing in your recording and spectral repair took care of it very easily. With better mic placement the Rode would definitely sound a bit better.
    Last edited by berniebeaudry; 08-30-2019 at 12:08 AM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Default
    Thank you for the explanation!
    I see you used mostly tools that I have (I am on RX5 standard, although got RX7 elements when it was on sale for 10 dollar and there some useful things there) and, more importantly, know how to use them!

    I had not considered using de-click for plosives, that's clever. I was surprised to see that the plosives instead of being just in the low frequencies were pretty much all across the spectrum, which is quite similar to a click, so it totally makes sense.

    Maybe one day I feel like I can splurge for advanced and get dewind and see what else it can do.

    And yeah, I think the biggest issue with the recording in the end, bigger than the microphone itself, was the mic placement. Chin shadow lesson learnt (also it is not one that takes well to being put under clothes).


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    160
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by aram View Post
    Thank you for the explanation!
    I see you used mostly tools that I have (I am on RX5 standard, although got RX7 elements when it was on sale for 10 dollar and there some useful things there) and, more importantly, know how to use them!

    I had not considered using de-click for plosives, that's clever. I was surprised to see that the plosives instead of being just in the low frequencies were pretty much all across the spectrum, which is quite similar to a click, so it totally makes sense.

    Maybe one day I feel like I can splurge for advanced and get dewind and see what else it can do.

    And yeah, I think the biggest issue with the recording in the end, bigger than the microphone itself, was the mic placement. Chin shadow lesson learnt (also it is not one that takes well to being put under clothes).
    This was all done in RX6 Advanced in stand alone. The mouth declick is a bit different from declick and is designed to work on mouth noises. Declick does work on some mouth noises however. Dewind had the unwelcome side effect of increasing sibilance. You have a good ear and most of the tools you need to get good results. For inexpensive mics I also like the Oscar Sound Techs and have a few in each model. I mostly use COS 11Ds but when I need more mics the Oscars work well.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    160
    Default
    Here is another version I did. No EQ at all on this one. Thoughts? https://www.dropbox.com/s/13ek68tqtn...s_CU2.wav?dl=0
    Last edited by berniebeaudry; 08-30-2019 at 01:05 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by berniebeaudry View Post
    Here is another version I did. No EQ at all on this one. Thoughts? https://www.dropbox.com/s/13ek68tqtn...s_CU2.wav?dl=0
    That's really good (or at least it sounds great to my ears).

    I can see you did not cut nearly as much with the low and high passes and that you did a bit more intense noise reduction, but somehow you managed to keep it natural sounding. I've just spent 30 minutes tweaking the noise reduction parameters to see if I could approximate your results and failed.

    I assume you did multiple passes with a maybe 5 or so dB decrease in noise to such transparent results. Any other tip?


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    160
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by aram View Post
    That's really good (or at least it sounds great to my ears).

    I can see you did not cut nearly as much with the low and high passes and that you did a bit more intense noise reduction, but somehow you managed to keep it natural sounding. I've just spent 30 minutes tweaking the noise reduction parameters to see if I could approximate your results and failed.

    I assume you did multiple passes with a maybe 5 or so dB decrease in noise to such transparent results. Any other tip?
    Glad you liked it! Actually I didn't do any high or low pass this time, nor did I boost any frequencies. I used Spectral Repair to get rid of that tonal hum, then I selected from around 500 Hz down to the bottom with the rectangular selection tool across the whole file. Then I used the Gain module to reduce it by 4 db. I did 3 db in the first example. I followed that with Mouth DeClick. Then I learned the noise in Spectral de Noise from the front of the file and did a fairly big reduction in one pass with that. Reducing the noise revealed a slight smearing of one word which I think was a subtle mic rub on fabric. I used Dialogue Isolate on just that area to take care of that. Less is often more and trust your ears. I practice all the time with my own files and with others that people ask for help on. Your original file sounds far better than some of the terrible recordings I've taken a crack at. Yet, from your file I learned some new approaches that I will be able to use in the future. Finding the right order of processes and not over doing them I think is key to making things sound as natural as possible. Multiple light passes is a good approach for some noise reduction but sometimes it doesn't work as well as you would hope. Spectral deNoise when used properly can often work better in one pass with higher amounts of reduction. I tried getting that hum plus the noise with noise reduction alone and no matter what I did that tone wouldn't completely go away. Spectral repair was the best tool to use on that by far, then a separate pass of noise reduction could really be effective.
    Last edited by berniebeaudry; 09-01-2019 at 08:31 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #57
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by berniebeaudry View Post
    Glad you liked it! Actually I didn't do any high or low pass this time, nor did I boost any frequencies. I used Spectral Repair to get rid of that tonal hum, then I selected from around 500 Hz down to the bottom with the rectangular selection tool across the whole file. Then I used the Gain module to reduce it by 4 db. I did 3 db in the first example. I followed that with Mouth DeClick. Then I learned the noise in Spectral de Noise from the front of the file and did a fairly big reduction in one pass with that. Reducing the noise revealed a slight smearing of one word which I think was a subtle mic rub on fabric. I used Dialogue Isolate on just that area to take care of that. Less is often more and trust your ears. I practice all the time with my own files and with others that people ask for help on. Your original file sounds far better than some of the terrible recordings I've taken a crack at. Yet, from your file I learned some new approaches that I will be able to use in the future. Finding the right order of processes and not over doing them I think is key to making things sound as natural as possible. Multiple light passes is a good approach for some noise reduction but sometimes it doesn't work as well as you would hope. Spectral deNoise when used properly can often work better in one pass with higher amounts of reduction. I tried getting that hum plus the noise with noise reduction alone and no matter what I did that tone wouldn't completely go away. Spectral repair was the best tool to use on that by far, then a separate pass of noise reduction could really be effective.
    It's interesting to me that you did not cut. I looked at the spectrum and I guess the denoise process itself took off most of that below 100Hz and over 15KHz energy. RX5 standar does not have the gain module, but RX7 elements does, so that's something I'll give a go this weekend (I am a teacher and work is brutal during the week). I have just found out about Dialogue isolation... Ah, would it not be nice to be rich and happily pay for RX advance.
    I think the only "but" I would put to this is mostly my fault. The s at the end of contactless is pretty brutal!


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    160
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by aram View Post
    It's interesting to me that you did not cut. I looked at the spectrum and I guess the denoise process itself took off most of that below 100Hz and over 15KHz energy. RX5 standar does not have the gain module, but RX7 elements does, so that's something I'll give a go this weekend (I am a teacher and work is brutal during the week). I have just found out about Dialogue isolation... Ah, would it not be nice to be rich and happily pay for RX advance.
    I think the only "but" I would put to this is mostly my fault. The s at the end of contactless is pretty brutal!
    Ok, I accept that challenge LOL. Here's a new version that addresses the s that is bugging you. Although to my ear it wasn't that bad, but you recall the conversation earlier on about taste. De Ess wasn't touching it without problem. I used De Rustle on it and one other area to improve the sound of it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykjnnxp5m1...s_CU3.wav?dl=0


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #59
    Default
    Sorry about the long absence. "In real life" I am a teacher and life goes to hell once the term starts. This is the first time in three weeks that I have a few hours for myself without being extremely tired.

    I listened to it a few times and I could tell the main offender "contactlessssss" was different, but not how exactly. l did not like it better (or worse). So... I opened RX7 Advances (Izotope can thank you for getting my money, I had been pretty happy with RX5 standard for years, but hearing what you have done, I got greedy for more) and had a bit of a play myself. I can get the sibilance in the later syllables to sound fine, but that contactlessssssss is too much.

    Thank you once more, I have learned a lot from this thread and next time around I am sure I'll do a better job. Now, time to write another script!


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #60
    Default
    Actually, one more question. Looking at the spectral view of the latest version I noticed energy cuts before and after the sibilant areas, but the reduction of the main "body" in the s sound was limited. Was this done by design, because you like it like that (it does shorten the sibilant sounds a bit, making them less obvious) or was that the result of some specific tool you used this time around?

    I quite liked the result of using the spectral de-esser with a big tilt to brown noise and very high spectral shaping (used it on the CU2 version).


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •