Hi Donald,
You're perfectly right.
The problem is.
We kno the songs in their original shape, and from the beginning it was
meant to sound that way.
When we remove noise we make the sound too steril for the time being.
It's like when a photographer wants to share a special moment an evening in
a pop by the river. Such a picture needs to be a little bit dull. If you
turn on the cleaning lights then you won't get the right expression of the
whole feeling in the situation.
When the viewer was there they could see no dust or bad looking furniture,
but they could feel a good intence carma in the room, which would disappear
if all the lights are turned on.
The same with old recordings. Then things will come up front that you didn't
notice before, and don't want to notice at all in that particular musical
experience.
Like a bad reverb for instance, which you couldn't hear before because of
the high noise floor.
But it's a totolly other storry with a really noisy old audio book. Here it
would be wonderful to clear up the vocal, so the words are easier to
understand.
Best regards
Brian
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
From: Donald L. Roberts
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:43 AM
To: PC Audio Discussion List
Subject: Re: Accessibility of Adobe Audition
I do not claim to be knowledgeable regarding noise reduction. However,
most of the time I have dealt with old recordings which have been
subjected to noise reduction software, there are almost no highs
whatsoever. I am thinking of a lot of big band and vocal recordings
made on 78s during the 30s and 40s, and yes I know that the modulating
frequencies were seldom more than 5000 cycles. But I have heard a
number of those recordings on the original vinyl and later heard those
same recordings after going through noise reduction procedures, and the
resulting sound is so bland that I would much prefer the originals,
complete with hiss and a few pops.
As stated earlier, I haven't played with this stuff much, so I am not
bashing. I am just suggesting that good sound is an extremely
subjective thing.
Don Roberts
On 2/9/2013 12:25 PM, Brian Olesen wrote:
Hi,
the noise remover in Audacity is far better.
Brian
-Oprindelig meddelelse- From: Curtis Delzer
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 5:15 PM
To: PC Audio Discussion List
Subject: Re: Accessibility of Adobe Audition
"auto noise capture" in sound forge is great, and
then the trick is to get it to lower the defaults
to more than one of the saved configurations to more than 12.5 DB.
You can totally get rid of "cassette" noise, for
example, at about -40 DB or so, any more than
that and it starts to make the typical NR swishy
sounds which are not desirable.
At 08:19 AM 12/04/12, you wrote:
In case this matters, I also really liked Audition's Noise Reduction.
However, I feel as though the Sound Forge Noise reduction
is just as good but one needs to play with it some. For example, the
Sound Forge noise reduction plug-in as four different modes,
and certain modes work better with certain kinds of content. I didn't
feel I had to work as hard at Audition's noise reduction to
get good results, but if you are forced away from Audition, I think
you can do all right with the Sound Forge noise reduction
plug-in if you experiment with settings..
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:27:01 -0500, Merv Keck wrote:
>Adobe Audition still has the best noise reduction I have ever seen on
the
>PC. Before losing most of my vision I never used anything else but Adobe
>Audition 3 for multitrack editing. However,
since March of 22011 it has been
>too difficult for nme to use it since it is
not very speech friendly. I kept
>waiting for a new version to come out but it never did. I'm going to
>download Reaper today and give it a try.
>-Original Message-
>From: Hamit Campos
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:21 PM
>To: 'PC Audio Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: Accessibility of Adobe Audition
>I used Audition professionally for a long time and still miss it very
>much.
>Actually I should care because I believe this does surround sound too
no?
>-Original Message-
>From: Pc-audio [mailto:pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org] On Behalf Of
Samuel
>Wilkins
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:44 PM
>To: 'PC Audio Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: Accessibility of Adobe Audition
>The reason I am interested in using Adobe Audition is because of its
>multitrack editing capabilities, as I have some tracks I would like
to >edit,
>and I would like to be able to do this at home with Window-Eyes.
>-Original Message-
>From: Pc-audio [mailto:pc-audio-boun...@pc-audio.org] On Behalf Of Vítek
>Sent: 02 December 2012 18:32
>To: PC Audio Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Accessibility of Adobe Audition
>Hi Sam,
>My view might be a little subjective but from what I've tried out in the
>past when I got myself Adobe Audition just to take a look at it got
>totally
>worse than e.g. 2.1 version of Ado
