Hissy/Fuzzy audio fix?

[EP2005]

Dont hire people off of craigslist. the second camera operator I hired for a recent wedding shoot completely ruined the audio of the ceremony. it amazes me that a guy who works for a video company who uses large broadcast cameras cannot figure out how to work the little ol' dvx. i could go on and on about how bad this guy is, but I wont.

Among many things, one thing he did was not tell me there was an audio problem when I told him "if anything goes wrong with the audio, let me know". I cannot imagine going a whole wedding ceremony letting the audio stay bad and not grabbing your boss and saying "hey, you know how you said to get you if this goes bad? well it did"


Here's the audio - Right click and Save as (1.9mb)


It was recorded using a wireless mic. I knew it wasn't going to be perfect because the church is old and echoey, the priest wouldn't let me mic him so i had to mic the groom, and the priest walked around half the time.

Can this audio be saved? Can I pay someone to fix this?

 

[Noiz2]

Well, I would say be careful who you hire period. There are lots of good folks on Craigs list.

Anyway, go to my site
www.scottkouesound.com
click on client files
user = misc
PW = files

You can down load a version I did a little cleanup on. Your not going to fix those big drop outs but I "fixed" some of the smaller ones, and the pops and some of the big ass noise.
The question if you can pay someone to fix it is more of a question for you. Can you pay someone to fix it?

Can it be saved???? Well listen to the file. Working with the real files and taking more time would improve things a bit but if this isn't close enough to being "saved" then the answer is probably no. or at least not with out spending a LOT of money. What it costs depends on how much needs to be done and how long the files are.
Cheers
SK

 

[EP2005]

I sent you a pm. I tried to send you an email, but it keeps failing.

 

[saneproductions]

wow Noiz2!!! You are so nice!

 

[puredrifting]

Well, I would say be careful who you hire period. There are lots of good folks on Craigs list.

Anyway, go to my site
www.scottkouesound.com
click on client files
user = misc
PW = files

You can down load a version I did a little cleanup on. Your not going to fix those big drop outs but I "fixed" some of the smaller ones, and the pops and some of the big ass noise.
The question if you can pay someone to fix it is more of a question for you. Can you pay someone to fix it?

Can it be saved???? Well listen to the file. Working with the real files and taking more time would improve things a bit but if this isn't close enough to being "saved" then the answer is probably no. or at least not with out spending a LOT of money. What it costs depends on how much needs to be done and how long the files are.
Cheers
SK

Hi Scott:

I listened to before and after, you did an amazing job with that bad sound. Which NR package did you use? I have SoundSoap Pro and I am tinking of buying the WAVES Restoration bundle.

I was just given a corporate presentation batch of tapes that were shot in the Bahamas to edit. Same issue as this one, junk wireless paired with brain dead camera operator. To be honest, people who rely on camera operators to have anything to do with sound are wasting their time, very few camera ops have a clue about sound. If you want good production sound, hire a sound mixer.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Noiz2]

RX by izotope. I haven't used Waves but I have SS and BNR (Digidesign) but RX is my goto.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Wow! That's pretty amazing, Noiz2. Good job!

 

[puredrifting]

RX by izotope. I haven't used Waves but I have SS and BNR (Digidesign) but RX is my goto.

Thanks NoiZ2. I will have to get that program, everyone raves about it.

Dan

 

[digitalinnovations]

Not to hijack this thread or anything, but what do you think the cause is of that noise? Obviously the mic is far away from the subject but what I am trying to figure out is the noise you are hearing throughout and the cause of the big silent section(s). I have had a similar problem arise with one of my wireless mics. Thanks for the input!

 

[Harlockr]

The multiband compressor of Izotope is amazing. Is really worth for things like that bad audio

 

[BRH]

So..... you hired a video guy, hoping he would also do the audio, and now you have someone to blame other than yourself for not using fresh batteries.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Not to hijack this thread or anything, but what do you think the cause is of that noise? Obviously the mic is far away from the subject but what I am trying to figure out is the noise you are hearing throughout and the cause of the big silent section(s). I have had a similar problem arise with one of my wireless mics. Thanks for the input!

I am really only being introduce to things Audio. This not because I've never heard of an FFT, noise floor, or other similar signal processing concepts... just not applied to audio. One of the problems that I've found with looking at audio tutorials, or posts, is the use of jargon to describe things...

That aside...

The 'cheap' wireless mics that I have use the 2.4 GHz band, and so are subject to 2.4 GHz interference, ranging from Microwave ovens, computer WIFI, wireless phones, Bluetooth devices, etc...

But even in relative absence of all that their noise floor of the audio seems to be rather high, which I presume has to do with cheap mic mechanical/eletrical design, and cheap electronics to process the audio signal and get it over the air.

In the case of fancier and more expensive devices like Sennheiser or Sure, I've only looked at the problem of detecting them down to -114 dBm. of their transmitted RF channel power.. never had to listen to the audio signal produced at that level... and probably their useful RF power would be around -80 dBm anyway...

But in general, for wireless mics there's various sources of noise that can fold into the resulting audio signal. Unfortunate choice of frequence... and resulting in mutual interference from other wireless mics. Nearby transmitters from broadcasters or the like. Cell phones using GSM have an occasional 'contact mother ship' transmit and receive cycle that can blast in to almost anything... (I've heard this on a couple of the 'how it was made' DVD special features for the on set documentary crew...)

Then there's audio noise from the room enviornment... again 'real' audio people know more about how a room can produce rotten sound...

 

[Noiz2]

I am really only being introduce to things Audio. This not because I've never heard of an FFT, noise floor, or other similar signal processing concepts... just not applied to audio. One of the problems that I've found with looking at audio tutorials, or posts, is the use of jargon to describe things...

Jargon? Two reasons you probably feel that way is first that most audio "jargon" is actual technical terms. Just because you don't know what it means does not mean that the word does not have a well defined meaning. It's a very technical area and technical subjects have there own lexicon.

Add to that a deep lack of words (in english anyway) that describe sound. You can say "that shirt is too red" and everyone knows what you talking about. There is no equivalent in audio. Directors who tend to be visually oriented will often speak in terms of color and say such and such sounds "too dark" etc. Others might say that the same sound was "too muddy".

And lastly peoples hearing is all over the map. Peoples eyesight is pretty consistent, we wear glasses or whatever to correct sight and on net people see pretty close to the same. Nobody hears the same. Women hear higher than men, young hear better than old (though iPods are starting to fix this ;~) ). People don't get their hearing checked, get colds, have wax build up, go to rock concerts, work with power tools. And nobody gets hearing aids till they are almost deaf. So what is screechy to you the guy next to you may not even hear and the women ran from the room with their hands over their ears.

All of the above makes talking about sound difficult but it's not "jargon". In fact if there were good sound jargon it would probably make things easier.

 

[Noiz2]

Not to hijack this thread or anything, but what do you think the cause is of that noise? Obviously the mic is far away from the subject but what I am trying to figure out is the noise you are hearing throughout and the cause of the big silent section(s). I have had a similar problem arise with one of my wireless mics. Thanks for the input!

Poor reception. Poss old or rechargeable batteries. Rechargeables are near useless in wireless mics. This may have changed with newer better wireless but the old ones, especially those with 9V batt. were not happy at all on rechargeables. Could also be on a channel that was getting hit by another device. But I would put batt. #1, bad receiver placement #2, freq. hit #3. And of course cheap wireless trumps all the above. If the packs came from Radio Shack I probably wouldn't waste time looking into the other poss causes.

 

[Rippie]

I gotta disagree with you on rechargables..
I use 2500mah's AA's in my lectro SM transmitters and denecke slates
and ipower 9V's are wonderful in anything that well...requires a 9v. (including lectro's)

Look into it, trew and a lot of other places sell the ipowers.
(i realize you said "old" ones but who's to say how old is old )

Poor reception. Poss old or rechargeable batteries. Rechargeables are near useless in wireless mics. This may have changed with newer better wireless but the old ones, especially those with 9V batt. were not happy at all on rechargeables. Could also be on a channel that was getting hit by another device. But I would put batt. #1, bad receiver placement #2, freq. hit #3. And of course cheap wireless trumps all the above. If the packs came from Radio Shack I probably wouldn't waste time looking into the other poss causes.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Jargon? Two reasons you probably feel that way is first that most audio "jargon" is actual technical terms. Just because you don't know what it means does not mean that the word does not have a well defined meaning. It's a very technical area and technical subjects have there own lexicon.

Didn't say these words didn't have technical meanings. Just that it is jargon, and as such is different than the jargon used for other signal processing applications.

For example the terms 'wet' and 'dry' do not have immediate 'audio meaning'. One has to look this up and find out that 'dry' means, given somebody's definition, 'unaltered original sound'. 'wet' being somehow 'altered', either in the original capture, perhaps with devices that mechanically or electronically filter the sound, or later processed in some way.

The use of the word 'shelf' also is not a generally used signal processing word, as applied to filters in audio activities. From the definition it looks to be a form of threshholding, combined with a high or low pass filter.

"equalization"... may make some sense when tuning filters to overcome losses, or gains from a sensor with a non-flat response... but 'equalization', that is 'manipulating filters to remove, or enhance frequencies' for some desired 'aural' experience... leaves 'equalization' a bit floundering.

I presume these words originate at some ancient time, when there was less in the way of formal mathmatical principles applied to 'sound', and are in many cases retained, because of the lingual short hand they represent.

In the 'visual' world it's equivalent to calling a digital processed image 'cross processed' when the result looks like bleach by passed chemical+film development... when in fact the image has been processed with a number of essentially mathematical steps.

It is also amazing to me that there are few 'low end' tools that actually provide a spectrum, from which one can visually see the frequencies in a particular interval of time, and further the use of spetrograms seems almost non-existant, that is seeing the spectrum of audio over time... Sure for $350 or $1200 or so, I found that I could get Izotope RX, that was one of the first package that I've seen that actually has such pictures on their product page... Most of the audio widgets I've seen at the low end only have tracks, filters, and perhaps a wave/evelope display.

 

[Noiz2]

Well anything say 10 years back. The problem with rechargables is that they are not the right voltage. A 9V rechargable is 7.2V, a rechargable AA is 1.2V. My experience is with theatre systems far more than film so YMMV.

 

[Noiz2]

For example the terms 'wet' and 'dry' do not have immediate 'audio meaning'. One has to look this up and find out that 'dry' means, given somebody's definition, 'unaltered original sound'. 'wet' being somehow 'altered', either in the original capture, perhaps with devices that mechanically or electronically filter the sound, or later processed in some way.

Not sure what you mean by no "audio meaning". It is a term that has been used in audio for??? as long as I can remember and certainly dates back at least 60 years probably farther. It has always meant the same thing. You might have to look it up if you have no training/ background in audio but it's not a vague term it is very specific.

The use of the word 'shelf' also is not a generally used signal processing word, as applied to filters in audio activities. From the definition it looks to be a form of threshholding, combined with a high or low pass filter.

Shelf filters are also a term that foes back as far as electronics and audio. It has also always meant the same thing. It is what the bass treble controls on consumer stereo systems are. I'm not sure where your looking this stuff up but you might try wikipedia.

"equalization"... may make some sense when tuning filters to overcome losses, or gains from a sensor with a non-flat response... but 'equalization', that is 'manipulating filters to remove, or enhance frequencies' for some desired 'aural' experience... leaves 'equalization' a bit floundering.

Are you now trying to be funny because your starting to sound like "the professor" from Guiligan's Island. How about "audio" that is a strange one also. It could be deived from the use of audion tubes in early equipment??? But nobody really knows...

I presume these words originate at some ancient time, when there was less in the way of formal mathmatical principles applied to 'sound', and are in many cases retained, because of the lingual short hand they represent.

Yes indeed it would be so much clearer to everyone if we called them second order Butterworh. A shel filter is quite simply a "visual" description of the frequency response (or since you like the longer terms it is actually a description of the graph of the transfer function).

In the 'visual' world it's equivalent to calling a digital processed image 'cross processed' when the result looks like bleach by passed chemical+film development... when in fact the image has been processed with a number of essentially mathematical steps.

Well that would certainly make things clear.

It is also amazing to me that there are few 'low end' tools that actually provide a spectrum, from which one can visually see the frequencies in a particular interval of time, and further the use of spetrograms seems almost non-existant, that is seeing the spectrum of audio over time... Sure for $350 or $1200 or so, I found that I could get Izotope RX, that was one of the first package that I've seen that actually has such pictures on their product page... Most of the audio widgets I've seen at the low end only have tracks, filters, and perhaps a wave/evelope display

I know this is going to confuse you but maybe that is because you are supposed to be listening, not watching. That and the fact that hardly anybody can look a spectrograph and get anything out of it. It's a little like showing a vector scope to most people. They have no idea what they are looking at. It is certainly a steeper learning curve than just listening. To jump for a second back to filter terminology. I'm not sure what you define as "ancient times" probably back when you were learning to read and GW had just taken office. But I probably qualify as ancient and those terms do go back and they didn't come out of audio but out of filter design. Only a small portion of filters are used in audio. Most are in other electronic applications. Dip, Peak, shelf, Band Pass, High Pass, Low pass, etc are al visual descriptions of the transfer function. It's really very simple. If it makes you feel better you can tape the transfer function formula over the names but I don't think it takes much effort to understand what they mean. And, god forbid, you could crack a basic audio text.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I know this is going to confuse you but maybe that is because you are supposed to be listening, not watching. That and the fact that hardly anybody can look a spectrograph and get anything out of it. It's a little like showing a vector scope to most people.

I don't doubt it a bit, since few people outside of perhaps pattern recognition applications, would have used such a represention. Of course the reason for the use in pattern recognition is because it becomes pretty obvious what frequencies are being used, for how long, and being able to accurately characterize what is in the audio signal.

They have no idea what they are looking at. It is certainly a steeper learning curve than just listening. To jump for a second back to filter terminology. I'm not sure what you define as "ancient times" probably back when you were learning to read and GW had just taken office. But I probably qualify as ancient and those terms do go back and they didn't come out of audio but out of filter design.

It is sort of ironic that you justify the use of these terms based on their 'visual' representation of the transfer function, then claim looking at spectrum representations of signals as 'requiring a steep learning curve'...

Perhaps if people did have the various idealized spectra in their brain, then appling the filter templates would allow them to intelligently apply the filters quicker, rather than shot gunning a set of filters and wildly adjusting parameters, until they sort of hit on a sound they can live with.

In the original poster's case... finding the 'noise floor', in terms of what I would call 'hiss'... 'room tone', 'background noise', or just 'noise', would allow the poster to adust something say, a 'noise gate' filter, again a threshold based filter to sort of 'chop' out unwanted audio signal... or perhaps get away with some form of band pass or the 'shelving' filters...

 

[Rippie]

wow..
all i can say is..
wow.