Reducing recorded fret noise

[J.C. Scott]

When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:52:03 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
wrote:

>When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
>eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?
>

I've had some success in the past with de-essing plugins. Juggle the
band frequency until it does its limited job. Maybe a touch of lowpass
filter as well - always provided there is something else in the mix to
provide brightness.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:52:03 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
wrote:

>When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
>eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

If you're listening closely enough for fret noise to be a problem, you
probably won't like the side-effects of the things that might reduce
it :-( If you're compressing the track, turning it off (or trying
different attack settings) might help. If the guitar track is going
to be part of a mix, worry about what the whole mix sounds like, don't
obsess on one soloed instrument.

[Scott Dorsey]

J.C. Scott > wrote:
>When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
>eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

Fret noise is _good_. It lets you know you are listening to a real
instrument and not something fake.

But, if you really want to get rid of it, sometimes you can use selective
notch filters, throwing them in just during the noise. And sometimes you
can just move notes around, cutting out a good note and pasting it over the
noisy one.

But you can't do any of this with complete transparency, so your question
becomes whether the editing artifacts are worse than the noise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 14:12:51 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Fret noise is _good_. It lets you know you are listening to a real
>instrument and not something fake.

That's why all the best emulated guitars include a fret noise sample
:-)

[combssl]

"J.C. Scott" wrote:
>
> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
> eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

do you mean strings buzzing on the frets? If so, the guitar may not be
setup properly or the string gauge is too light for the setup. The
guitar may take more effort to play with higher action or heavier
strings, but you will get better tone and sustain as a result.

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> >Fret noise is _good_. It lets you know you are listening to a real
> >instrument and not something fake.
>
> That's why all the best emulated guitars include a fret noise sample
> :-)

I once watched and heard as Jimmy Day played steel guitar on a
Telecaster. Somebody commented how cool that was. Then he sat down at
his steel and played Telecaster on it, including fret noise.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Willie K. Yee, MD[_3_]]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:27:08 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> >Fret noise is _good_. It lets you know you are listening to a real
>> >instrument and not something fake.
>>
>> That's why all the best emulated guitars include a fret noise sample
>> :-)
>
>I once watched and heard as Jimmy Day played steel guitar on a
>Telecaster. Somebody commented how cool that was. Then he sat down at
>his steel and played Telecaster on it, including fret noise.

And I heard Pepe Romero play a whole concert with alomost no fret
(actually string) noise.

Since Segovia was so noisy, I thought it was impossible to do.

[Scott Fraser]

> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?>>

If you mean string squeaks from position shifts on wound strings, a de-
esser can go a long way toward rendering them less offensive.

Scott Fraser

[Doc Weaver]

On Apr 10, 12:52 pm, "J.C. Scott" > wrote:
> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
> eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

When all else fails, I have gone into the mix with the pencil tool
(supposing you have that tool available) and carefully lightened the
squeeky parts, and make them not as offensive. It's tough to do,
because there is a fine line between not enough and too much.

Doc Weaver

[J.C. Scott]

Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
personally, consider this acceptable?

http://myweb.cebridge.net/jacyscott/demo/squeek.mp3



"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> J.C. Scott > wrote:
>>When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
>>eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?
>
> Fret noise is _good_. It lets you know you are listening to a real
> instrument and not something fake.
>
> But, if you really want to get rid of it, sometimes you can use selective
> notch filters, throwing them in just during the noise. And sometimes you
> can just move notes around, cutting out a good note and pasting it over
> the
> noisy one.
>
> But you can't do any of this with complete transparency, so your question
> becomes whether the editing artifacts are worse than the noise.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rick Ruskin]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:27:32 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
wrote:

>Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
>personally, consider this acceptable?
>

Probably would work ok if part of a track but not if it's intended as
a solo. It sounds to me that it was recorded with a pickup rather
than a mic and pickups tend to make unwanted noises like this more
noticeable. The amount of echo you are using isn't helping either.



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[[email protected]]

"J.C. Scott" wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
> personally, consider this acceptable?

I'm not usually in a position to answer any question on here with any
sort of validity, but with the sample you posted, those BIG squeaks
are in my opinion, a distraction from the mood the music is
portraying.

I love the sound you've built, but It's the reverb that killing you on
this one. It exaggerates the sound of the fingers switching chords.
It's only on certain chords though, so I've got a couple of ideas...

First, if your into digital surgery, you can edit out the offending
sounds. You can do what I'll call a "soft-stretch" of the end of
first chord and then soft-stretch the beginning of the second chord.
You basically squeeze the squeak into digital oblivion. Unfortunately,
this will take about a hundred years to do because my guess is that
the guitarist makes that same squeak every time he/her makes that
chord change.

Another editing choice is to punch in those offending chord changes
using 2 additional tracks. That is, you'll have your original track,
then you play the first chord of the chord change on a parallel track.
And then the second chord of the chord change on yet another track.

What you'll try to accomplish is blending all 3 tracks (lighting quick
fade-in / fade-out of the two new tracks) at the transition point of
the chord change, so you can then lower the volume on the original
track during squeaky time. It's cheating, but it works.

Obviously the guitarist is using brand new strings. That's good.
Without them you wouldn't get the tone you've arrived at. But again,
you can cheat by identifying exactly where on the strings his/her
fingers are when the sinister squeak occurs. Then, just on the
affected strings and only on the affected fret, rub a white candle on
the string(s).

The wax from the candle will soften or eliminate the squeak for that
particular chord change without killing the entire string. The catch
is, it only works for a little while before the wax gets spread around
the fretboard and kills the strings. But hey, sacrificing a couple of
packs of strings is a small price to pay for a better recording, no?

[Frank Stearns]

"J.C. Scott" > writes:

>Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
>personally, consider this acceptable?

>http://myweb.cebridge.net/jacyscott/demo/squeek.mp3

Not as is.

I came into the thread late; surely someone suggested notch (aka
"multi-band") compression? Find the center Hz of that noise, fast
attack/release, higher ratio, with a Q only wide enough to get at the
problem and not do much else. DSing for guitar. :)

Have done this from time to time with good success. You won't eliminate
it, but it will be a much more balanced and "natural" sound if you set it
up right.

And indeed, do this treatment *before* the reverb. That much 'verb, while
perhaps adding to the atmosphere you want, is really adding to the
audibility of the squeak.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[WillStG]

On Apr 10, 1:52 pm, "J.C. Scott" > wrote:
> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
> eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

Lots of ways to attentuate unwanted sounds, a de-esser, a
multiband compressor (you zero in on the offending frequency with one
very narrow band and compress it more severely than the rest of the
guitar), drawing volume level automation dips with the pencil tool in
your DAW. On an automated mixing console with actual tape playback, I
have even gone through entire clave tracks to change the accents when
I have had to. Be creative, see what you find most acceptable.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:01:48 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
(in article >):

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:52:03 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
> wrote:
>
>> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
>> eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?
>
> If you're listening closely enough for fret noise to be a problem, you
> probably won't like the side-effects of the things that might reduce
> it :-( If you're compressing the track, turning it off (or trying
> different attack settings) might help. If the guitar track is going
> to be part of a mix, worry about what the whole mix sounds like, don't
> obsess on one soloed instrument.

very good advice!

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

J.C. Scott > wrote:
>Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
>personally, consider this acceptable?
>
>http://myweb.cebridge.net/jacyscott/demo/squeek.mp3

No, but the problem is that it's drenched in fake reverb that is exaggerating
the noise.
--scott


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

[Mogens V.]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:27:32 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
>>personally, consider this acceptable?
>>
>>http://myweb.cebridge.net/jacyscott/demo/squeek.mp3
>>
>
>
> OK. Those noises are nothing to do with frets - they are your fingers
> dragging on the wirewound strings as you move their position. Getting
> rid of this is a matter of playing technique. You need to learn to
> lift your fingers cleanly and vertically off the strings before you
> move them elsewhere.

While the technique comment is true, it may be difficult to do if one
has to slide chords, whish isn't even the case here, though.
I too don't get the use of that much reverb. To me, it's long decay is
actually noticeable mostly during the finger noise parts. It even sounds
like some EQ is applied centered around the finger noise frequencies.

Unrelated here, FFIW, for nylon strings, D'Addario makes the 'lightly
polished' set which makes less noise. Just wanted to mention it..

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:27:32 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
wrote:

>Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
>personally, consider this acceptable?
>
>http://myweb.cebridge.net/jacyscott/demo/squeek.mp3
>

OK. Those noises are nothing to do with frets - they are your fingers
dragging on the wirewound strings as you move their position. Getting
rid of this is a matter of playing technique. You need to learn to
lift your fingers cleanly and vertically off the strings before you
move them elsewhere.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:07:47 +0200, "Mogens V."
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:27:32 GMT, "J.C. Scott" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for the suggestions. Here's a short sample of the fret noise. Do you,
>>>personally, consider this acceptable?
>>>
>>>http://myweb.cebridge.net/jacyscott/demo/squeek.mp3
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK. Those noises are nothing to do with frets - they are your fingers
>> dragging on the wirewound strings as you move their position. Getting
>> rid of this is a matter of playing technique. You need to learn to
>> lift your fingers cleanly and vertically off the strings before you
>> move them elsewhere.
>
>While the technique comment is true, it may be difficult to do if one
>has to slide chords, whish isn't even the case here, though.
>I too don't get the use of that much reverb. To me, it's long decay is
>actually noticeable mostly during the finger noise parts. It even sounds
>like some EQ is applied centered around the finger noise frequencies.
>
>Unrelated here, FFIW, for nylon strings, D'Addario makes the 'lightly
>polished' set which makes less noise. Just wanted to mention it..

Don't have any nylon. But I do use D'Addario on my bass. And Ernie
Ball on the six string.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Mogens V.]

Don Pearce wrote:
> Don't have any nylon. But I do use D'Addario on my bass. And Ernie
> Ball on the six string.

N'rries mate, I prefer spandex myself :-D

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Willie K. Yee, MD[_3_]]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:07:47 +0200, "Mogens V."
> wrote:

>Unrelated here, FFIW, for nylon strings, D'Addario makes the 'lightly
>polished' set which makes less noise. Just wanted to mention it..
>
>--

Fret Ease and similar spray-on products also decrease string noise
significantly though not completely. I find it usually lasts only one
or two songs (not an issue in a recording situation), and although it
is labeled as perfectly safe for the guitar, it makes me nervous to
spray anything on a vintage archtop (I use a piece of paper behind the
strings as a shield). Then there is breathing in the perfectly safe
fumes. . .

[Barry]

On Apr 10, 1:52 pm, "J.C. Scott" > wrote:
> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate (or
> eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?

I thought attenuate meant broadcast something

can you turn other instruments up?

you may have to toss some white noise in.. cymbals...
something shimmery

Later

[Geoff]

Barry wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:52 pm, "J.C. Scott" > wrote:
>> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate
>> (or eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?
>
> I thought attenuate meant broadcast something

No, it means 'reduce the level of...".

geoff

[Geoff]

Barry wrote:
> On Apr 12, 5:48 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:
>
>
> see... in networking... we put a intermediate "attenuator" to increase
> and re-broadcast the signal.

In any broadcasting or newtorking I've been involved in, an attenuator
attenuates a signal. May have been necessary between two bits of gear if
the output of one was too hot for the other. But nowhere does an attenuator
INCREASE anything.

I guess some manufacturuer could always have ineptly put the word
'attenuator' on a box that did something else.

geoff

[Barry]

On Apr 12, 5:48 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:
> Barry wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 1:52 pm, "J.C. Scott" > wrote:
> >> When re-recording isn't possible, is there a good way to attenuate
> >> (or eliminate) fret noise picked up in a recording?
>
> > I thought attenuate meant broadcast something
>
> No, it means 'reduce the level of...".
>
> geoff

man I feel stupid.
I also thought if you befriended someone, you was no longer their
friend..
sort of like beheading someone (they no longer have a head)

Attenuate...

wow.. you messed me up on this...

see... in networking... we put a intermediate "attenuator" to increase
and re-broadcast the signal.

[Barry]

On Apr 12, 11:13 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:

> I guess some manufacturuer could always have ineptly put the word
> 'attenuator' on a box that did something else.
>
> geoff

Appendix A: Introduction to RF. (radio freq)

The History of Radio Frequency. Electromagnetism. Induction.
Conduction. Radio Waves. Structure of a Wave. Modulation.
*Attenuation* Antennae. How Antennae Work. Different Kinds of
Antennae. Antenna Types. Summary.

yeah, it's used a lot in a broadcast type context... I've probably
never looked it up, just thought I knew what it meant. The above
sample... is where I am used to seeing the word.

I don't know why I'm prattling on about it... this is right up there
with finding out that Santa Claus is just a myth.(In China they call
Santa, the annual gift man)

When it comes to broadcasting, maybe a signal is attenuated so to give
an otherwise waning petering signal some possible use, or to boost the
signal further up the line, a type of pruning.

I'm still making all this up. guuuud cup of coffee goin

now I think some people use the word to mean condense.

For example, when I get to the bottom of a good sac of ack ack (this
is just an example)... I might have a bunch of shake... if I reach
in.. it's hard to get much...
but! if I shake it all to one corner, I can tear a titty off the
bag... (oh man! you always got more than it looked like) so here we
see I have attenuated my shake.

I don't know.

[Don Pearce]

On 13 Apr 2007 04:44:43 -0700, "Barry" > wrote:

>On Apr 12, 11:13 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:
>
>> I guess some manufacturuer could always have ineptly put the word
>> 'attenuator' on a box that did something else.
>>
>> geoff
>
>Appendix A: Introduction to RF. (radio freq)
>
>The History of Radio Frequency. Electromagnetism. Induction.
>Conduction. Radio Waves. Structure of a Wave. Modulation.
>*Attenuation* Antennae. How Antennae Work. Different Kinds of
>Antennae. Antenna Types. Summary.
>
>yeah, it's used a lot in a broadcast type context... I've probably
>never looked it up, just thought I knew what it meant. The above
>sample... is where I am used to seeing the word.
>
>I don't know why I'm prattling on about it... this is right up there
>with finding out that Santa Claus is just a myth.(In China they call
>Santa, the annual gift man)
>
>When it comes to broadcasting, maybe a signal is attenuated so to give
>an otherwise waning petering signal some possible use, or to boost the
>signal further up the line, a type of pruning.
>
>I'm still making all this up. guuuud cup of coffee goin
>
>now I think some people use the word to mean condense.
>
>For example, when I get to the bottom of a good sac of ack ack (this
>is just an example)... I might have a bunch of shake... if I reach
>in.. it's hard to get much...
>but! if I shake it all to one corner, I can tear a titty off the
>bag... (oh man! you always got more than it looked like) so here we
>see I have attenuated my shake.
>
>I don't know.
>

I was going to suggest you stop while you were ahead, but I fear I'm
way too late. That coffee is sounding like an ideal move right about
now.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com