Lets talk about noise removal

thesoundguy

Carbonite Member
I was on set today, and, like my usual sound guy self, was complaining that we needed to close up a few things to get better sound. The place we were filming at is on a major street with the front door facing the road. Electric had routed many cables through this front door and were unable to close it. I mentioned this issue when I first got wind that this was electrics plan.

The response I got was "We can flip the room tone sound 180 degrees in post and that will get rid of the traffic"

Being a post guy as well, i know this is not as easy as they think. This post is to inform you of how noise removal actually works, so listen closely my videographer friends.

It is true that an inverse phase (flipping the sound 180 degrees) will in fact destroy background noise. Sound waves work just like regular waves in water in that when they collide they add and subtract in size. two identical waves of the same size traveling in opposite directions will cancel each other out. two IDENTICAL waves. in an uncontrolled, uncomputerized environment, you will never record two identical audio wave forms. flipping them 180 degrees does nothing, in fact it will make it worse, regardless of changing the phase.

Again, think of how waves in the water act during... lets say... a storm. when two turbulent waves collide you get what... a new turbulent wave. When you translate this to audio, your background is one turbulent wave and your room tone is another. these two waves are their own sounds that are easy recognizable, traffic. when these two waves crash together you get a jumble of frequencies, some added from the collision, some removed because of the collision. The result is a sound that is often unrecognizable and worse than what you started with.

Now lets put all that mumbo jumbo aside for a minute (or if you don't understand just move on to the next point). What if for some crazy mysterious reason, you did acquire a recording of your room tone that you could make exactly 180 degrees out of phase, what happens when you try and place it over your location audio with dialogue??? it comes out sounding like your actors were inside a dryer.

This is because you have frequencies of noise (in my case traffic) that are in the same frequencies as your actors voice. The dialog and the unwanted noise blend together in the same wave. When you apply this 180 degree out of phase "noise destroyer", it cannot differentiate between what frequencies are required for the dialogue and what frequencies are not. It simply destroys all parts of the wave that it blends with, effectively leaving only parts of your dialogue wave in tact often leaving your actors voice sounding muddy and dirty. (if you have tried noise reduction you know what I am talking about)

The way noise reduction processors work is by using a lot of heavy math to generate that magic signal I mentioned that will destroy your noise. the problem is that you still have the issue with destroying your dialog data if the noise overlaps in frequency. low pitched hums and high pitched sounds are simple to remove, but you cannot easy remove frequencies that interferes directly with the dialog.

I know that a lot of this is complicated and a lot of what I just said will go over a lot of peoples heads. I'm not the best writer, but if there are questions, ask them and I will try to explain a little better. Also it is way past my bed time and I am falling asleep as I write this. it is entirely possible i left out some details, but hopefully this gives you an idea as to what actually goes into getting rid of all that noisy stuff in your dialogue tracks, and why your sound guy gets frustrated with you.
 
Actually most Noise Reduction uses a lot of narrow band expanders to expand the noise down. That was my understanding when I looked into it some time back anyway.

BUT regardless the 180 degree BS is some non sound persons misunderstanding of how sound works. It's one of those things that on paper will theoretically work, and it really shouldn't have a bad effect on the signal you want because you are only canceling what your "noise" mic is picking up so IF it's not picking up any dialog then it will only be canceling dialog feq by the amount that the noise added to those freq.

In practice it doesn't work at all for dynamic content and poorly for static content. You will never get a noise only track that is in phase with what you want so flipping it will not help much if at all and may be much worse.


To add to your point dynamic noise is very hard to impossible to remove with out some very $$$$$ equipment and even then you are often SOL.

So a steady noise like AC (in good working order) can often be effectively reduced but dynamic "noise" like traffic generally can't be.

AND as you eluded to all noise reduction is subtractive. You are loosing some of your track. If your noise is slight then your probably good. If your noise is 10% as loud as what you want to keep (or more) then you will take a quality hit that may be severe.

"Fixes in post" are always suggested by people who won't be doing them and generally have no clue about what is and is not possible.


BTW this thread should probably be in a video section. The picture people usually come here after they trashed the sound and are looking for fixes. You kind of need to get this to them before they shoot.
 
Last edited:
The worst words ever spoken on set and will get you immediately dressed down on my set "We'll fix it in post".
No, we won't. We will fix it NOW, unless there is no possible way within our budget and time constraints to fix it.
 
I've seen a multitude of noise removal plugins. The most simplistic is a gate, which just cuts the audio off below a certain level. This is commonly used with guitars before they hit effects to remove noise. On dialog, it sounds horrible, because it clips off the tails. You can play with verb to try and get some back, but overall it is horrible.

I've not used any of the expander techniques, so I cannot comment on those.

The one I use by WaveArts in their Restoration Suite uses a frequency based analysis where you feed it blank area with just noise and it makes basically a frequency map of that and uses that to drive an EQ to remove out those frequencies by the level of the frequency components. This works for noise with a random distribution, but does not work for random sounds, which is what you are talking about here.

iZotope also has RX for removing noise which I've heard is amazing.

However, you are right in that you cannot cancel sounds out with inverse phases very easily AT ALL.
 
BTW this thread should probably be in a video section. The picture people usually come here after they trashed the sound and are looking for fixes. You kind of need to get this to them before they shoot.

This cannot be said enough times. People need to get sound right in the first place and they will be amazed at how much better their production would be. Sadly, the person doing an independent film is typically only concerned with the visuals.
 
I've not used any of the expander techniques, so I cannot comment on those.

The one I use by WaveArts in their Restoration Suite uses a frequency based analysis where you feed it blank area with just noise and it makes basically a frequency map of that and uses that to drive an EQ to remove out those frequencies by the level of the frequency components.

This is what I was talking about. But the way it was explained to me was that each of those "EQ" bands are narrow band expanders. So what you have is an EQ that only works if the signal is below a certain point and the lower it gets below that trigger the more cut there is.

So we are talking about the same thing really.
 
This is what I was talking about. But the way it was explained to me was that each of those "EQ" bands are narrow band expanders. So what you have is an EQ that only works if the signal is below a certain point and the lower it gets below that trigger the more cut there is.

So we are talking about the same thing really.

That makes sense, so basically it's working between a gate and just an EQ so that as the important details lowers down, it doesn't just gate out the quieter material but ramp it down relative to the signal level so you keep the tails.

It has an attack/release and threshold setting as well. I guess it just applies these across all the narrow bands that it operates (which are probably scaled relative to the learning stage of the plugin where it gets the relative levels of the noise across the spectrum for those bands.

Neat. Hadn't really thought about it before when I used it.
 
For noise reduction, I love using expanders, EQ, and multi-band expanders. Typically, I'm automating a lot of the params in between words or syllables. iZotope is my go to plug-in suite if the typical tools don't really do the job - I want to avoid any artifacts. For a recent film, I was able to remove car screeches from an ext. shot with ease using iZotope :)
 
waves xnoise, znoise, etc... do an excellent job, I like them only slightly better than the izotope plug-ins. I will say that in certain situations I have had better luck with digidesign's DNR than anything else.


Usually I will do a couple of passes with znoise, then finish it off with dnr.
 
Here is another thing I would like to mention

When you have shot a scene in a noise environment that you had no way of controlling, Getting wild lines is crucial. But, if for some reason you didn't get wild lines here are a few hints.

A lot of editors like to pick and choose audio from what they think are the best sounding takes. This is a great idea, but few do it properly. Often times I am given sound from a lav from a take with less noise, but the lav is really muffled. As a sound guy, I cannot create intelligibility from nothing. I can get rid of the noise, But if the dialog wasn't there in the first place, it's only going to be worse in the end. instead of listening for background noise when trying to find the best audio take, listen for what take and mic has the best frequency range in the dialog. Even if you can't get as much of the noise out, at least the dialog will be comprehensible. The left over noise can often be disguised in the sound design.
 
I use a real time noise program, no when I'm recording to the laptop in the session, I can actually in under three minutes tell you whether it really can be fixed in post. I think the expression actually has its uses, if people are needlessly worried. This is a trust issue.High end NR used to be fairly expensive (and some of it still is) but now you can for example use the spectral NR in Samplitude or similar programs. This is really handy if someone sneezes or a dog barks or whatever. Zip zip, you take out the noise, and then do a quick listen to see if you need to redo the scene. The 180 degree noise cancellation thing is going to sound a bit goofy, but maybe in a pinch. I've seen people do it but I've never heard it sound delightful to the ear--if the room is irregular, the mics don't match, the talent is moving that is going to sound strange. Processing a whole session either way would be a real drag. But I have removed some pretty loud noises, seemingly endless racking coughs, and so on.
 
A lot of editors like to pick and choose audio from what they think are the best sounding takes. This is a great idea, but few do it properly. Often times I am given sound from a lav from a take with less noise, but the lav is really muffled. As a sound guy, I cannot create intelligibility from nothing. I can get rid of the noise, But if the dialog wasn't there in the first place, it's only going to be worse in the end. instead of listening for background noise when trying to find the best audio take, listen for what take and mic has the best frequency range in the dialog. Even if you can't get as much of the noise out, at least the dialog will be comprehensible. The left over noise can often be disguised in the sound design.

Very right. But when I read of others fixing the space between speech I know were not talking pro. It really boils down to recording it right in the first place.
 
To Dr.Dave
The 180 phase reverse never works. It just makes things worse. every time.
Are you recording using Protools? How are you doing you live mix, metadata, timecode?
My cart doubles as a mobile protools rig and very often I do that same thing.

timbook
Usually the work flow is to cut out and checkerboard all the dialog. Then you make room tone track and fill in the gaps with the missing audio you cut out. Then you can fix and fade in / out your dialog tracks into and out of the noise so it sounds smooth and your fades don't effect all your background noise.

If you don't do this, any processing you do to the dialog will always be changing the sound of your room tone and it sounds sloppy.
 
I've been using NR plugins since the first modern one came out (Digidesign's DINR) long ago. I still use it, along with Izotope RX and BIAS Soundsoap Pro. Each has its merits.

As I understand it (and I'm not that far 'under the hood' of these things) the straight-ahead noise reduction processes use a combination of sample-based phase-reverse cancellation and dynamic filtering. Earlier explanations in this thread about the latter consisting of multiple narrow bands sounds right to me. In practice I find these tools to be very effective, with each of the three having certain benefits that the others don't. But all of them, at least in normal NR mode, are useless at removing 'event-based' (as opposed to steady-state) noise, the former being things like truck drive-bys and such, and the latter being things like air conditioner/fan noise etc.

But Izotope RX is the only one (among what I own) that includes another mode they call "Spectral Repair" that allows removal of event-based noises. It can only be used on segments under 10 seconds, so it can be enormously time-consuming to treat large amount of track/minutes, but it can be remarkably effective. After 'showing it' the selected audio, it produces a time (horizontal)/frequency (vertical) display where the 'event' can be spotted visually as a sort of 'exception' to the surrounding material (like a blemish on a snapshot). That can then be lasso'd and 'repaired' (removed). It works remarkably well, I'd say in about 80-90% of cases. I've removed noise events (that were concurrent with other 'keeper' audio) in this way that I could never come even close to doing before I had it. It's been nothing short of a godsend for me in many, many cases. RX's distortion remover has also been effective (to a much more limited degree), and its basic NR mode is the best of the three. I still use DINR frequently though, because it's the only one I have that will run in realtime on my TDM Pro Tools system (the other two will run realtime in RTAS, but are processor-killers of the highest order)

Soundsoap Pro is usually the most effective at click, pop and 'scratchiness' removal (although still only moderately successful) and in basic SS-NR mode its multiband NR/Threshold sliders offer greater precision for frequency range-specific noise targeting/tweaking than either of the others.

I've sunk some fairly serious coin into these three, but still find good uses for all.
 
Last edited:
...
and in basic SS-NR mode its multiband NR/Threshold sliders offer greater precision for frequency range-specific noise targeting/tweaking than either of the others.

I have the same collection and a couple of hardware boxes. I would agree, they all get used on different things. Have you gone into the advanced mode in Rx? Because you can do a very detailed mapping of what freq ranges you want it to work on and how much.
 
Yes I've gone there, and it's very powerful, but I've found for the most part that I'm able to do what I needed on the basic page, which is quite a credit to the programmers IMO.

SSP's graphic EQ-style threshold/NR amount sliders are unique and quite surgical, so I find myself going there for certain kinds of tricky business sometimes.

Having said that though, for general non-realtime use I find RX's NR to be the best of the bunch.
 
The worst words ever spoken on set and will get you immediately dressed down on my set "We'll fix it in post".
No, we won't. We will fix it NOW, unless there is no possible way within our budget and time constraints to fix it.

My wife, who is an editor, owns a t-shirt that says "Fix it in Pre".
 
Back
Top