Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Hello everyone!
Does any one know of any good books, or be willing to teach me, how to clean up audio? I have some audio experience, but I have not had to do any editing/mixing/mastering in some time. What I have is audio from a digital audio recorder, but I need to enhance some of the audio on the recorder. I have Goldwave and Audacity as my primary audio editors. If you need any additional information, just let me know. Thanks! |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Chad wrote:
Hello everyone! Does any one know of any good books, or be willing to teach me, how to clean up audio? I have some audio experience, but I have not had to do any editing/mixing/mastering in some time. What I have is audio from a digital audio recorder, but I need to enhance some of the audio on the recorder. I have Goldwave and Audacity as my primary audio editors. If you need any additional information, just let me know. Thanks! What for? And what's the problem? Cleaning up a recording of a voice so you can understand what's being said uses totally different techniques to cleaning up an instrumental track so you can blend it into a mix, and may sound awful, but it will be understandable. Removing or reducing single tones is easier then removing broadband noise. Removing excessive reverberation (As when your recorder was too far awqay from the source) is impossible, though there are sometimes ways to make it sound a bit better. Can you post a sample somewhere? -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Thanks for your reply!
I don't want to sound too weird, but I do paranormal research. I have some audio recordings that have supposed EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) that I would like to enhance to try an hear the audio better. I can send a file if you'd like. Thanks! Chad |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
I've always been fascinated by this topic. From what I've read, it seems
that the theory behind it is that it should be done using a low-resolution recording device that includes some sort of hiss, presumably so that the entity can utilize that hiss to build an audio footprint. I believe that what is done, is that the hissy audio is then processed in various ways to remove the hiss and listen to what is left behind. I think the tools for this would be a noise reduction tool that lets you sample the noise and then remove it, as well as a de-hissing tool. Most audio editors offer this. Although I tend to be a believer in ghosts and wish that I had the time to try some of this for myself (I know of a couple of places that would be fun for experimenting), I am highly suspicious of the technique. Many of the "voices" from EVP played on late night radio sound an awful lot like digital artifacts left behind after any aggressively de-hissed audio source. Either that, or the concerts I've recorded have also been attended by ghosts! I also suspect that the reason hissy recording devices are used, is that researchers weren't finding any voices when starting with high quality recordings. That's not consistent with the cases when people present claim to have heard the voices while they were being recorded. It reminds me of the time one late-night host was discussing his processed pictures of the face on mars, showing the Martian buildings he had discovered. Anyone familiar with digital imaging could immediately identify his "buildings" as common digital processing artifacts. That said, it's a fascinating field and I'd love to do some experimenting myself someday. Being skeptical or unconvinced doesn't mean it's rubbish or that it isn't worthy of continued exploration. I hope you can consider trying new methods as well as existing ones. Chad wrote: : Thanks for your reply! : I don't want to sound too weird, but I do paranormal research. I have : some audio recordings that have supposed EVP (Electronic Voice : Phenomena) that I would like to enhance to try an hear the audio : better. I can send a file if you'd like. : Thanks! : Chad |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Chad wrote:
Does any one know of any good books, or be willing to teach me, how to clean up audio? I have some audio experience, but I have not had to do any editing/mixing/mastering in some time. What I have is audio from a digital audio recorder, but I need to enhance some of the audio on the recorder. I have Goldwave and Audacity as my primary audio editors. Well, what's wrong with it, and what do you need to make it usable for? There are a lot of different techniques and some of the things that forensic folks do are very different than standard audio techniques. Invariably, though, the answer is to retrack if possible... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
For doing the recordings, I have an Olympus VN-3100PC audio recorder.
Here is the website: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...p?fl=2&id=1272 We do not use low resolution or static hiss generators. I have some EVP that needs to be enhanced (which I'm trying to isolate the sound and make it more "audible"). I'm trying to make out words or to make the sound better to hear. As for what forensic people do, this would probably be more what I would need to do. I you would like a copy of the EVP I'd like to enhance, let me know. Thanks, Chad |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Chad wrote:
For doing the recordings, I have an Olympus VN-3100PC audio recorder. Here is the website: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...p?fl=2&id=1272 Here is your number one problem: this device uses perceptual encoding methods, ie. lossy compression. There is no way you can tell whether a given sound is actually a real sound or whether it's an artifact of the compression process. From a standpoint of provable validity, you're better off even with a cassette deck than something like this. You may want to consider something like the cheap Zoom recorder which can record a .wav file. We do not use low resolution or static hiss generators. I have some EVP that needs to be enhanced (which I'm trying to isolate the sound and make it more "audible"). I'm trying to make out words or to make the sound better to hear. As for what forensic people do, this would probably be more what I would need to do. I you would like a copy of the EVP I'd like to enhance, let me know. 1. find out what you're looking for. 2. do something to remove signal that isn't part of that. The first part is probably easiest to do with a sonogram or some other spectral display. See what the thing looks like, then you know if you can EQ out stuff that is not part of the sound or use expansion or noise reduction (which is really just multiband gating). However, you should know that the more processing you do, the farther away from the original source you get, the less ability you have to argue the accuracy. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
On Oct 24, 2:40*pm, Chad wrote:
Hello everyone! Does any one know of any good books, or be willing to teach me, how to clean up audio? *I have some audio experience, but I have not had to do any editing/mixing/mastering in some time. *What I have is audio from a digital audio recorder, but I need to enhance some of the audio on the recorder. *I have Goldwave and Audacity as my primary audio editors. If you need any additional information, just let me know. Thanks! _________________ What is it you want to remove from the sound? Clicks, hiss, or other? I've used Audacity to "extend" the bottom of some classic Studio 54 standards(Chic's Yowzah Yowzah, The People's Choice Do it Anyway you wanna) because in those primitive vinyl days you couldn't have too much thump and pump below about 60Hz. By analyzing the spectrum of portions of those songs I was able to shift the bass drum hum down from around 100Hz to as low as 50(!!!) and still have it sound good on smaller setups. If I could press vinyl of those alterations they'd probably be unplayable and skip all over without a sh$#load of compression anyway and almost no counterweight on the tonearm. LOL! Let's here what you'd like to do. -ChrisCoaster |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:13:33 -0700, Chad wrote
(in article ): I don't want to sound too weird, but I do paranormal research. I have some audio recordings that have supposed EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) that I would like to enhance to try an hear the audio better. I can send a file if you'd like. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ iZotope Rx would be a good place to start: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/ What you basically want is _forensic audio_ tools, and you can find those with a Google search. They're used by police investigators, detectives, attorneys, and others to try to extract good sound under difficult conditions, like telephone conversations, wiretaps, hidden microphones, and so on. --MFW |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Chad wrote: For doing the recordings, I have an Olympus VN-3100PC audio recorder. Here is the website: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...p?fl=2&id=1272 We do not use low resolution or static hiss generators. I have some EVP that needs to be enhanced (which I'm trying to isolate the sound and make it more "audible"). I'm trying to make out words or to make the sound better to hear. As for what forensic people do, this would probably be more what I would need to do. I you would like a copy of the EVP I'd like to enhance, let me know. Thanks, Chad Do you see pictures in clouds? I bet you do. Stop wasting your and everybody else's time with this ********. Not to mention the ChemTrails. geoff |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Thanks for the help! I am excited to try some new software and
techniques and explore new avenues in terms of audio engineering. I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. I would like to use this forum again for questions, but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience. Again, thanks to those who have given me insight. Chad |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Chad
wrote: Thanks for the help! I am excited to try some new software and techniques and explore new avenues in terms of audio engineering. I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. I would like to use this forum again for questions, but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience. Again, thanks to those who have given me insight. Professionalism? Are you claiming professionalism for yourself? I mean, are you charging people money to do this? If so you are a charlatan and a fraud - not merely stupid. d |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
On 26 Oct 2011, Chad wrote in rec.audio.pro:
I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. This is not a "site." This is Usenet, a global network of servers where anybody and everybody can post anything and everything they want. Google just happens to be one of thousands of portals into it. You will find all kinds of people here from experts to complete know-nothings to good Samaritans to troublemakers. It's up to you to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. It's no place for people with thin skins. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Chad wrote:
: I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who : use this site. Usenet is not a business, and it isn't a place where one should come expecting "professionalism". However, consider that you ultimately got your question answered very quickly and very thoroughly, probably better than if you had pursued it through a typical professional resource! Goes to show you how wonderful the internet can be if you're willing to dive in and take a few lumps. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
In article 18ce4028-6cdb-4806-a0f1-
, says... Hello everyone! Does any one know of any good books, or be willing to teach me, how to clean up audio? I have some audio experience, but I have not had to do any editing/mixing/mastering in some time. What I have is audio from a digital audio recorder, but I need to enhance some of the audio on the recorder. I have Goldwave and Audacity as my primary audio editors. If you need any additional information, just let me know. Thanks! Diamond Cut Forensics8 is very good, but also very pricey. It has a lot of specialized tools designed for creating intelligible speech from recordings that were recorded under very poor conditions. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Chad wrote:
I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. I would like to use this forum again for questions, but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience. Well, it's Usenet, what did you expect? I think the whole ghost sound thing is bunkum also, but that's because I have never seen any reasonable evidence. So, it would be in my best interest to tell you what I consider reasonable evidence, which is what plenty of other people will as well. (And that involves no lossy compression, etc.). I don't think there is a good book out there on forensic audio work, really. Maybe Eddy Brixen will write one someday. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chad wrote: I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. I would like to use this forum again for questions, but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience. Well, it's Usenet, what did you expect? I think the whole ghost sound thing is bunkum also, but that's because I have never seen any reasonable evidence. So, it would be in my best interest to tell you what I consider reasonable evidence, which is what plenty of other people will as well. (And that involves no lossy compression, etc.). I don't think there is a good book out there on forensic audio work, really. Maybe Eddy Brixen will write one someday. There's a nice introduction with links to further reading he- http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan1.../forensics.htm One thing that you will find is that it's a *lot* easier to get useful results if you start with a stereo recording of the soundfield. Also, bear in mind that in areas where hauntings have been reported, there is often a strong VLF (1-10Hz) sound source, so you possibly need a recorder that will go down that low. Slightly OT, on the subject of pictures of supernatural events, I have met a couple of people, claiming to have seen ghosts, but with unusable pictures, who haven't even gone to the trouble of learning to combat sensor noise in a digital camera. The pictures were a lot clearer after they started using the right processing algorithms. No ghosts, though... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chad wrote: I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. I would like to use this forum again for questions, but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience. Well, it's Usenet, what did you expect? I think the whole ghost sound thing is bunkum also, but that's because I have never seen any reasonable evidence. So, it would be in my best interest to tell you what I consider reasonable evidence, which is what plenty of other people will as well. (And that involves no lossy compression, etc.). I don't think there is a good book out there on forensic audio work, really. Maybe Eddy Brixen will write one someday. --scott If one want, one can see patterns in almost anything. Don't need software to do it, though software may faciolitate seeing different or more patterns. Ghosts. Isn't it funny how they are seldom naked. Clothes also have souls, and ghosts thereof ? geoff |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
geoff wrote:
Ghosts. Isn't it funny how they are seldom naked. Clothes also have souls, and ghosts thereof ? I worked a music festival at a nudist colony for a couple of years, and one thing I noticed was that the people who were naked were usually the people that you least wanted to see naked. Trust me, you don't want to see the Limelighters naked. So, I want to thank whatever ghosts there may be for having the good taste. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
Chad wrote:
Thanks for the help! I am excited to try some new software and techniques and explore new avenues in terms of audio engineering. First of all: get a wave-format recorder, Zoom H2 comes to mind and is modestly priced. I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who use this site. People gave advice to the point on the question you raised and were honest about their opinions. I would like to use this forum again for questions, but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience. Where do you want to shop, where people are honest about their opinions or where the lie to you, smile and take your money? Again, thanks to those who have given me insight. You yourself need to have the openness of mind that accepts also a negative result of the research you want to undertake as well as the openness of mind to respect people that have sufficient insight in standard laws of nature to validly assert that what you look for, listen for, is outside the possibilities in the known laws of nature. You need to understand the psychological mechanisms of brains pattern search and the fallabillity thereof because it is a possible cause of false positive results. This is in many ways the same issue as the issue of the placebo effect that gets raised as relevant in quite many contexts here. If you have tried adjusting a bypassed audio implement and agreed with a co-worker about the positive effect of said devices audio processing - I have - then you get some valid and well-earned respect for the tricks your own mind can play. The sonogram feature of Audition 3, possibly also available in Audition 5 which is Audition 4 re-branded to fit into irrelevant softwares version numbering, is very useful to display ordered signal. If you think you hear a word you should be able to show a sonogram display of that part of the audio file that looks like said word spoken. I didn't say go rush spend money, I don't know all software that is available out there, but in my opinion a sonogram feature is well neigh required to make the point you want to be able to make as well as btw. starting out with well recorded audio. My recollection is that a fairly modestly priced RŘDE microphone has a good sensitivity as well as a very good equivalent self noise, ie. is well suited for recording faint sounds. Someone subjetively thinking they hear a word is not good enough, it has to be objectively verifiable. Coffee (caffeine) is btw. a known and proved cause of auditory hallucination, so you should require of a listening panel - if you choose to deploy one - that they do not drink coffee or "energy drinks" say for three days prior to taking part. Read up on double blind test procedures, if he reads this far I reckon that Arny Krüger may be able to provide link(s) to literature about it, you may want or feel you need to resort to "making the point via listening panel" and if so, you should comply with known and proven procedures for getting statistically probable results. In Bailey lingo: proof is generally a 5'th ray concept ... O;-) ... ie. about concrete knowledge. Such is what we deal in in this here "shop", a professional audio newsgroup on the usenet where skilled people offer their know-how pro bono. You have been well received, even by those who disagree with your probability estimate, appreciate their honesty and appreciate and understand their motivation for being honest and fair in their disagreement. Chad Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cleaning up/Enhancing Audio
On Sat 2011-Oct-29 14:16, Peter Larsen writes:
People gave advice to the point on the question you raised and were honest about their opinions. INdeed. AS one who's been around here for over a decade I can assure Chad that those who weighed in are quite knowledgeable re all things audio. HIs areas of interest appear to me to be somewhat akin to the field of forensic audio. Iirc the founder of this group had some knowledge on that topic, but I've seen little actual discussion of it in literature. A friend of mine has done a bit of it at the behest of law enforcement as well. snip You yourself need to have the openness of mind that accepts also a negative result of the research you want to undertake as well as the openness of mind to respect people that have sufficient insight in standard laws of nature to validly assert that what you look for, listen for, is outside the possibilities in the known laws of nature. This is why I scoff at most so-called paranormal, ghosts and the like. IT seems that the firm believers in this stuff by and large reject science and the basic procedures which enable a true scientist to prove a theory. The good scientist always goes into his work knowing that the results may shoot wholes in theory, but well conducted work can do a lot to remove doubt. Also for Chad, PEter's suggestions on testing panels, double blinds, etc. are well founded. Even though we argued misplaced attribution to the placebo effect in another thread where it was invoked by a fool, it is valid for your application imho. So much of what we do in the audio world is subjective, at least the terminology we use. What's "warmer" or "more pleasing" to me may be different than you. IT's when all this crosses over to the quantifiable and measurable is where we run into all the arguments. IT seems to me you want a bit of both, a good forensic audio expert possibly, and a listening panel to see if all agree on what was actually heard. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tricks for enhancing a vocal from room ambient YouTube audio towhatever extent it can be done | Pro Audio | |||
Professional audio enhancing studio | Car Audio | |||
enhancing early reflections? | Pro Audio | |||
Enhancing Quality of Poor Audio Tape | Pro Audio | |||
Enhancing Quality of Poor Audio Tape | Pro Audio |