should I extract the soundfile first for noise reduction or clean it while editing?

K

kimberley

Member
I'm not happy with the sound of the short film (interviewing people) because of:

1) I have used only the built in mike on the compact digital camera
2) my compact camera was not so close to the sound source (the person)
3) variety of unwanted background noises are present at the scene

make it difficult to catch the words of the person I have interviewed

Should I extract the sound file from the movie ( with something like Pazera Free Audio Extractor or any other you could name please? )
and use a noise reduction filter with Audacity (or what else)

Or run the noise reduction filters in the movie editors (like Sony Vegas? or any other you could name please?)

ps I have 1-3 minute each x around 8-10 interviews
 
Using a broadband noise reduction plugin is not going to change the sound of you using the camera mic far from your subject.
 
1) As Mr. Jones said, you cannot effectively reduce that kind of noise with software. You are likely stuck with what you have. Re-shoot it with proper microphones, or use subtitles, etc. Or find someone with a thick foreign accent to do a "voice over translation" into English (or whatever language). :laugh:

2) Many noise reduction techniques require taking a "clean" sample of the noise. This is MUCH MUCH easier with the original clips where you can take a sample from before or after the clip vs. the edited version where you have probably removed most or all of the "good noise samples".

Of course, ALL software noise reduction results in partial destruction of the desired signal. It is always a trade-off decision between how much noise you want to reduce vs. how much destruction of the remaining signal you can tolerate.
 
You are going to need an editor to help with this. And that may not help a lot.
NR with something like RX and spectral repair "might" help with some of your background sounds, but I wouldn't count on it. Broadband NR isn't going to help.

Find a local sound editor and work with them. Some editing and some manipulation may save the dialog.

Next time get better production sound.
 
in my experience, using that bad of audio and trying to screw around with it using prosumer tools is just going to result in worse audio... and if you're at the level where you're asking, then you'll make it infinitely worse and not really know it. those kinds of tools are just going to garble and muddy what audio you have, but since you'll have spent so much time with it and know what they're saying it's unlikely you'll hear that it's now nearly unrecognizable, but rather you'll just focus on "hey the noise is gone!"

I highly suggest you forget that and just use the audio as-is, or find a different workaround (such as dubbing or re-recording)
 
David W. Jones said:
Using a broadband noise reduction plugin is not going to change the sound of you using the camera mic far from your subject.
Click to expand...

That's a bad news for me as I need a separate sound recording device from now on then. Thank you David. I appreciate your prompt answer. By the way, if I am using a compact camera (nikon coolpix s8000) where no sound jack possibility, should I get some portable recording device, if so what is your recommendation please?

Richard Crowley said:
1) Re-shoot it with proper microphones,
ALL software noise reduction results in partial destruction of the desired signal. It is always a trade-off decision between how much noise you want to reduce vs. how much destruction of the remaining signal you can tolerate.
Click to expand...

Thank you David. I appreciate your speedy response.
Yes, I have noticed that loss too unfortunately. Any better software than audocity please, any any portable recording device for interviews please

Noiz2 said:
You are going to need an editor to help with this. And that may not help a lot.
NR with something like RX and spectral repair "might" help with some of your background sounds, but I wouldn't count on it. Broadband NR isn't going to help.

Find a local sound editor and work with them. Some editing and some manipulation may save the dialog.

Next time get better production sound.
Click to expand...

Thank you Noiz2. I appreciate your informative ideas very much. Would you please tell me
1) if RX a software brand?
2) if spectral repair means "NR" or there's more to it?
3)any quick manipulation tips to improve the dialogue I already have please


sonofaresiii said:
using prosumer tools is just going to result in worse audio... and if you're at the level where you're asking, then you'll make it infinitely worse and not really know it. those kinds of tools are just going to garble and muddy what audio you have,
I highly suggest you forget that and just use the audio as-is, or find a different workaround (such as dubbing or re-recording)
Click to expand...

Thank you sonofaresiii, I appreciate your candid advice very much. That's what I am afraid of too and I thought I could get away with some wizardy software.
 
kimberley said:
By the way, if I am using a compact camera (nikon coolpix s8000) where no sound jack possibility, should I get some portable recording device, if so what is your recommendation please?
Click to expand...

It's much more than just an external audio recorder. Mic selection and placement also matter quite a bit. For seated interviews, lavaliere mics should work just fine, but the basic idea is that you need to get the microphone away from the camera and into the action; the closer, the better.

For audio recorders, here's a starting place:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-Which-cheap-audio-recorder-should-I-get-quot

You'll also find other recommendations for gear, and links to resources for improving your audio skills, here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247260-Audio-101-Helpful-links-and-information

The other important thing to remember, that you'll see mentioned around here way too often, is that you need to listen as you record. Getting a recorder and the right mic(s) is only part of the equation: you must have good headphones, and use them to monitor your recording. That way, there are no surprises when you go to edit.

As for what you have already recorded, there's simply not a whole lot that can be done. EQ to bring out the vocal range will also bring out anything in the background in that same range. And as everyone else has mentioned, noise reduction of any kind will also affect the dialog. But without hearing it, it's hard to say exactly what can be done to make even a marginal improvement.
 
Last edited:
RX is a product by a company called iZotope.

I wouldn't go so far into the doom and gloom as sonofaresiii did he is kind of correct. You are not going to come up with great sound starting from where you did.

But I also wonder if we are going beyond what you need/ want. You are shooting video on a point and shoot still camera and using the built in mic. That combo is never going to sound remotely "good". On the other hand that also puts you at a price/ experience level where jumping too far ahead is probably not wise.

I think it's time to really evaluate where YOU want to go with this. If it's videos at a point where shooting on a point and shoot still camera is fine then that makes a big difference in what other things make sense to spend money on.

RX is a great app/ plugin that sells for a couple of times what you spent on the camera.

BTW "Spectral Repair" is a special function in RX that can remove specific noises. It is a kind of noise reduction but very specific.

Bottom line is that you are getting good advice but the $$$ involved are way beyond what you have spent so far and quite possibly far beyond what you want to spend. But it really depends on where you want to with all this. If your working your way up to producing high end videos and films well that is a very different path than say doing family interviews for archival/ historical purposes. And that is different from what is appropriate if you want to make quirky short films for YouTube.
 
Well I think that you (the OP, Kimberly) has learned that it's "dangerous" to say "naaah,I'll fix it after with some software".

It's like making a cake that is burned...and then saying..."well... we'll cover it with some whipping cream and fruits and chocolate...."
 
Any better software than audocity please, any any portable recording device for interviews please
Click to expand...


It is nowhere near that simple.

The most expensive software (that probably cost more than your car) could NEVER effectively remove that kind of noise. There really is no substitute for recording the sound "clean" during production. No matter how much money you spend or how much time you have.

Nor is it a matter of using a portable recording device. Using the right microphone in the right place is MUCH more important than using a separate recorder of ANY kind. On the camera (no matter WHAT kind of microphone ) is almost NEVER the right place for any microphone.
 
I feel much better today :laugh: partly due to your very valuable insights into sound field and partly my positive trial with the Adobe Audition (which did not require much knowledge to do a basic experiment) turn out to be somehow promising results at few attempts, whereas I was very panicky and :angry: down earlier



Alex H. :
Thank you for the mic insights and the links I'll visit and print them to pdf for my learningpedia collection

"listen as you record, That way, there are no surprises when you go to edit" is somehow crucial as you well said



Noiz2 :
Yes, I agree with you that I am not going to come up with great sound starting from where I did. That should always be at the back of mind. On the other hand, I'd like to try to force the limits as much as I could, if I could do it, with some improvement ideas. I have limited budget & equipment and limited to the compact camera at present. If I could add a not so expensive sound tool and some know how tools/ideas, that'll be the way I want to go in the near future . What I always remember as motto is anyone could get very good quality sound and vision with the more expensive equipment, important thing is to get the same or similar end result with less which is more challenging and affordable for me right now, that should not stop me to improve with what I possess at present, considering some of the excellent movies done with very basic tools in the past. I just have to consider myself, say to a very limited resources which may get better in the future

I really appreciate your informative approach which will help me to realize more than without


dre83 :
Excellent example: Try to cover the burned cake with some whipping cream and fruits and chocolate. that's a caution I will always remember .


Richard Crowley:
Yes the essence here is that use the right microphone in the right place,
A wireless lapel microphone, maybe, a way to go, I think, with my limited experience, what do you think?



Thank you to you, all, I really appreciate all your prompt and timely advice, I couldn't manage without
 
Last edited:
Acually you're much better with a 5$ fisherprice mic in the right position then a 20000000000000000$ mic but in a bad position.

Don't take this to seriously...it's the idea behind that counts.... Of course a 2000$ mic will be better then a 5$ fisher-price mic,
but it has to be used properly.
 
A wireless lapel microphone, maybe, a way to go, I think, with my limited experience, what do you think?
Click to expand...


It is not apparent from your statements here why you think you need wireless?
Will your budget allow $600 minimum for a decent wireless? If not, don't waste your $$$.
 
Last edited:
I thought $30 one below would be good simple and inexpensive item to be placed on the interviewee's lapel. I guess an inexpensive item is not a decent one
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000MWCIDS/...SIN=B000MWCIDS
>> PURE GARBAGE! Don't even waste money 'trying' it.
A decent $20 XLR cable will be more reliable and sound better than a $3,000+ wireless system.
My two cents, FWIW.
 
For a limited budget attempt at this, I'd suggest getting a basic digital recorder with a mic input and a wired lav mic. You'll need to hide more of the cable, but it's going to be more bang for the buck, less frustrating, and more reliable.

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technic...9PTO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1328639138&sr=8-3


If you have an iPhone or iPod Touch (for example), you can probably get a simple cable adaptor to plug in a mic and use that as a recorder. If not, look around at office supply stores and such, but make sure it has an input jack for the mic.

If it can record uncompressed sound, that is a BIG plus.
 
kimberley said:
Noiz2 :
Yes, I agree with you that I am not going to come up with great sound starting from where I did. That should always be at the back of mind. On the other hand, I'd like to try to force the limits as much as I could, if I could do it, with some improvement ideas. I have limited budget & equipment and limited to the compact camera at present. If I could add a not so expensive sound tool and some know how tools/ideas, that'll be the way I want to go in the near future . What I always remember as motto is anyone could get very good quality sound and vision with the more expensive equipment, important thing is to get the same or similar end result with less which is more challenging and affordable for me right now, that should not stop me to improve with what I possess at present, considering some of the excellent movies done with very basic tools in the past. I just have to consider myself, say to a very limited resources which may get better in the future

I really appreciate your informative approach which will help me to realize more than without
Click to expand...

I would disagree with the quote. It matters a lot less the grade of equipment that the person using it. Trust me not everyone using top equipment gets good results.

Again I would stress that you define what you want to achieve (now and in the future). Your going to get advice that is all over the map because everyone is giving you advice based on what THEY would want to achieve. Their goals and yours may be miles apart and until you can tell us what YOUR goals are the advice you get is not going to be very on point.

It is very easy to get side tracked on an equipment binge that has nothing to do with where you want to go.

Bad choices hurt you in two ways. One they don't move you closer to your goal (may actually move you in the wrong direction) and two they rob you of recourses (time and money) that you should be using to get to where you want to go.

So, for instance, looking at cheap wireless systems is a complete waste of time.
 
Even if a recorder can save uncompressed formats, there remains the (major) issue of the inability to monitor what is being recorded.
Or even whether you turned it on, or the battery is still OK.
 
I believe Noiz2 has a very valid comment. If we get get rid of a cheap wireless part and replace it with fde101's suggestion (digital recorder with a mic input and a wired lav mic) and could only combine with a headphone & headphone input (ability to monitor what is being recorded as Richard Crowley points out)
we maybe getting close to a reasonably priced solution

Any thoughts on this combination and & product names please ?
 
I will condense for you...

Solid/quality production sound takes planning.

Capturing solid production sound requires skills and technique.

Using substandard equipment means you will need superior skills and technique to make up for the deficiencies of the inferior gear.

Better quality equipment does not replace skills or technique, it mitigates the difficulties of the job.

Solid/quality production sound only gets you half way there; it provides the material for a proper audio post, which is another technical skill set augmented by carefully selected equipment.



Audio is an integral part of your project, not an afterthought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top