recording problem and solution?

[Billy Gold]

I have a recording that I am trying to restore that has broadband noise from
about 20-200 Hz. All of the frequency components of the mix are well above
his level (starting at 600 Hz), but no matter what I try to do to eliminate
the noise, the mix ends up fairly thin and tinny. I've tried everything
from noise reduction samples of just the noise applied and filtered to just
cutting out the noise with the EQ, but it seems the remainder of the
recording is tainted as I said. Upon listening to the inverse of the mix
(just the noise), I don't hear nor even see any of the desired notes so I
don't know why I'm ending up with something so flat. Is there any way I can
get around it and get the original sound of the recording back (minus the
low freq background noise of course)? thanks.

[Sean Conolly]

"Billy Gold" > wrote in message
...
>I have a recording that I am trying to restore that has broadband noise
>from about 20-200 Hz. All of the frequency components of the mix are well
>above his level (starting at 600 Hz), but no matter what I try to do to
>eliminate the noise, the mix ends up fairly thin and tinny. I've tried
>everything from noise reduction samples of just the noise applied and
>filtered to just cutting out the noise with the EQ, but it seems the
>remainder of the recording is tainted as I said. Upon listening to the
>inverse of the mix (just the noise), I don't hear nor even see any of the
>desired notes so I don't know why I'm ending up with something so flat. Is
>there any way I can get around it and get the original sound of the
>recording back (minus the low freq background noise of course)? thanks.

If the music is really above 600Hz, then I'd expect it to sound thin and
tinny regardless of the noise. The noise reduction in Audition works well on
this kind of stuff - if there's enough difference between the noise floor
and the music.

Put up a sample piece of it, maybe someone will be able to find a good
process.

Sean

[PStamler]

What software are you using for noise reduction?

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Billy Gold wrote:

> I have a recording that I am trying to restore that has broadband
> noise from about 20-200 Hz.

Only one decade.

> All of the frequency components of the
> mix are well above his level (starting at 600 Hz),

Improbable, unless it is a recording of fire ants or cikades.

> but no matter what
> I try to do to eliminate the noise, the mix ends up fairly thin and
> tinny.

If I try to play a violin I expect the result to be somewhat less than a
good approximiation to the I Musici sound.

> I've tried everything from noise reduction samples of just
> the noise applied and filtered to just cutting out the noise with the
> EQ, but it seems the remainder of the recording is tainted as I said.
> Upon listening to the inverse of the mix (just the noise), I don't
> hear nor even see any of the desired notes so I don't know why I'm
> ending up with something so flat. Is there any way I can get around
> it and get the original sound of the recording back (minus the low
> freq background noise of course)

Skill and trainin in using whatever noise reduction you use helps. Yes, the
advertizements say that you just need to swing your creditcard, then you can
remove noise, or mix or whatever.

There ain't no way nobody can give you a response with no noise example, if
you want someone with the time and inclination to so do to offer a
suggestion a link to an actual example of the problem audio is required.

> thanks.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Billy Gold > wrote:
>I have a recording that I am trying to restore that has broadband noise from
>about 20-200 Hz. All of the frequency components of the mix are well above
>his level (starting at 600 Hz), but no matter what I try to do to eliminate
>the noise, the mix ends up fairly thin and tinny. I've tried everything
>from noise reduction samples of just the noise applied and filtered to just
>cutting out the noise with the EQ, but it seems the remainder of the
>recording is tainted as I said. Upon listening to the inverse of the mix
>(just the noise), I don't hear nor even see any of the desired notes so I
>don't know why I'm ending up with something so flat. Is there any way I can
>get around it and get the original sound of the recording back (minus the
>low freq background noise of course)? thanks.

What is the recording of and how did the noise get there?

If the noise is aperiodic about the only thing you can do is use broadband
NR systems, which are basically a set of gates on narrow frequency bands
and some rule about opening the gate (which may be more complex than a
simple threshold). CEDAR makes a good one, Waves makes one that works well
but takes more tweaking.

If you lose everything below 600 Hz, everything will sound thin and tinny.
Even a tenor voice has a lot of stuff even going below 300 Hz.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Billy Gold" > wrote in message

> I have a recording that I am trying to restore that has
> broadband noise from about 20-200 Hz. All of the
> frequency components of the mix are well above his level
> (starting at 600 Hz), but no matter what I try to do to
> eliminate the noise, the mix ends up fairly thin and
> tinny. I've tried everything from noise reduction
> samples of just the noise applied and filtered to just
> cutting out the noise with the EQ, but it seems the
> remainder of the recording is tainted as I said. Upon
> listening to the inverse of the mix (just the noise), I
> don't hear nor even see any of the desired notes so I
> don't know why I'm ending up with something so flat. Is
> there any way I can get around it and get the original
> sound of the recording back (minus the low freq
> background noise of course)? thanks.

You might want to post an excerpt on one of the many free file sharing
sites.

[Billy Gold]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

"........Waves makes one that works well
> but takes more tweaking......"

Are you referring to this:

http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=259

Thanks.

[Scott Dorsey]

Billy Gold > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
>"........Waves makes one that works well
>> but takes more tweaking......"
>
>Are you referring to this:
>
>http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=259

I am thinking of the broadband tool in the Restoration Bundle. It is
handy for salvaging screwed-up tracks like this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Billy Gold]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Billy Gold > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>"........Waves makes one that works well
>>> but takes more tweaking......"
>>
>>Are you referring to this:
>>
>>http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=259
>
> I am thinking of the broadband tool in the Restoration Bundle. It is
> handy for salvaging screwed-up tracks like this.
> --scott

After a bit of emailing and registering (and buying a "key" just for a demo
no doubt!), I managed to get demos of the restoration bundle I think you
were talking about. It includes like five plug-ins, Noise X, Z, no hum and
Waves Noise Suppressor (WNS). Not sure which one you were referring to (WNS
was my thought), but Noise Z seemed to offer the most help, although still
not perfect. I have been trying to prefilter first with WNS and/or Noise X
and that seems to help somewhat.

> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."