Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Based on Feedback - Got 2 Mics to Remove Background Noise - feedback Required

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Age
    34
    Posts
    19,458
    Thanks
    1,205
    Thanked 1,026 Times in 906 Posts
    Rep Power
    1000000
    Sign in to disable this ad
    Quote Originally Posted by CatMalone View Post
    Sir, I can't tell you in words how much I've respect for you (as I always try my best to follow your advise - you may not believe this...) and all the other members who replies to my post
    No problem. Glad to help, if I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by CatMalone View Post
    Still the day (3 days ago) when I got your reply I immediately acted on (then and there) what you Emphasized on your last reply and overnight did the recording and based on the rule which you taught me: I listened to the recordings and whichever sounds so good to me I submitted with my published.

    He rejected that by saying Try again and you don't need fancy gear or equipment just try again with your existing gear and you'll be successful.
    I'm sorry to hear that.
    Did they give more specific feedback or specs? Just simply saying "try again with your existing gear and you'll be successful" seems strange : No suggestion of what needs to be different, or why it was rejected?
    Were any specifications give to you in advance, with regard to levels/dynamic range etc?
    Are you able to share the final audio file that you submitted, for our reference?

    If your second submission is rejected could you post that audio file too and the full feedback you received here, please?
    If the feedback is vague, like "give it another go", could you ask them what the reason for rejection was?

    I just want to be clear because I know you were, quite rightly, keen to reduce background noise, but I guess a submission could be rejected for errors, diction, audible edits, background noise, overall level, dynamic range, clipping...any number of things.
    ---------- Steenaudio Website ----------

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Steenamaroo For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by TalismanRich View Post
    I'm not sure how you got so much noise when you normalized the file. Something's wrong somewhere. Did you select the whole file and then normalize?

    Normalizing simply adjust ALL levels to a target point. If you Normalize to 0dB, the program should find the highest point in the recording and determine the difference between that level and 0 dB. So if your loudest peak reading is -18 dB and your noise floor is -58 dB, normalization will raise everything by 18 db which sets the noise floor at -40 db. (still S/N of 40dB)

    What I then did was to apply noise reduction after normalization. That left the highest signal at 0 dB and dropped the noise floor by about 30 or so dB.

    I used Reaper instead of Audacity since i work with that program a lot more. You can test it. Its free to try out for 60 days, and if you like it, the cost really is pretty reasonable at $60. That's less than buying an SM57. It comes with a boatload of plug-ins. I think the ReaFIR noise reduction is better than Audacity's.

    The only question is if you have enough computer to run it. I can do basic mixing on my laptop with an I3 processor, and 4GB ram. For a single channel, it should be no problem at all.

    BTW, I chose the SM57 file because I thought that one sounded better than the MXL for both tone and ambient noise.

    Yes, I selected the whole file and then Normalized. BTW I figured out the issue, actually two channels were opened & second was empty and as soon as I normalize, it was filled with noise so I Mute the second channel and then used file as a Solo and Normalize it and it works:

    79% gain_SM57__New.mp3
    I Normalize this at -1db and then use Noise Reduction effect but waveform wasn't similar like yours...

    (BTW if you're curious to know how did I fix the issue and what steps did I take to Normalize and what settings I used in noise reduction effect, here I recorded a tiny video for you:

    Dropbox - This_is_how_I_did.mp4 - Simplify your life )




    Then I taken the fresh file of SM57 and again Normalize it at -0db and then use Noise reduction effect but still it's waveform don't look similar to your file:
    79% gain_SM57__-0db_Normalize.mp3

    The reason I compare waveform of your and my file because I yet to know how did you know it "dropped the noise floor by about 30 or so dB" I don't see in Audacity any function which gives this stats



    "Normalizing simply adjust ALL levels to a target point. If you Normalize to 0dB, the program should find the highest point in the recording and determine the difference between that level and 0 dB. So if your loudest peak reading is -18 dB and your noise floor is -58 dB, normalization will raise everything by 18 db which sets the noise floor at -40 db. (still S/N of 40dB)

    What I then did was to apply noise reduction after normalization. That left the highest signal at 0 dB and dropped the noise floor by about 30 or so dB.

    I used Reaper instead of Audacity since i work with that program a lot more. You can test it. Its free to try out for 60 days, and if you like it, the cost really is pretty reasonable at $60. That's less than buying an SM57. It comes with a boatload of plug-ins. I think the ReaFIR noise reduction is better than Audacity's. "


    BTW this was very good information and I noted down in my notes, thank you so much
    Once I get your reply related to above comments (where I attached 2 files) and if you find audacity couldn't perform well as compare to Reaper (after listening to my recording) then I'd definitely consider to get it Reaper as early as possible.

    Side note: Somebody told me about Reaper and pro tools around 6 days ago but I thought it's for professionals who work with sound and create music and Audacity and Audition is fine for me, in fact I still need to learn Audition. One more thing 2-3 weeks ago I used Noise Reduction effect with both Audacity and Audition and submitted to publisher they rejected audition file and accepted the Audacity file now I do understand it doesn't mean Audition isn't capable of doing such a great work. The fact is I might need to learn it to use it better and properly because most of the time I use default settings.

    I also came to know Audacity & Audition both don't have roll-in and punch feature which Reaper has and it's so important feature for audiobooks / long form narration so I'd say, again thanks to you for sharing about Reaper.
    Last edited by CatMalone; 08-16-2019 at 12:40.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West of Cowtown, Texas
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 26 Times in 21 Posts
    Rep Power
    1739924
    Cat,
    You can do punch-n-roll, in Audacity. One of my fellow audiobook narrators recently created a how-to video: YouTube
    Since you are familiar with Audacity, you can continue to use it and not add to your learning curve, until you get your sound sorted.
    Dale

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to DaleVO For This Useful Post:


  6. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Steenamaroo View Post
    No problem. Glad to help, if I can.



    I'm sorry to hear that.
    Did they give more specific feedback or specs? Just simply saying "try again with your existing gear and you'll be successful" seems strange : No suggestion of what needs to be different, or why it was rejected?
    Were any specifications give to you in advance, with regard to levels/dynamic range etc?
    Are you able to share the final audio file that you submitted, for our reference?

    If your second submission is rejected could you post that audio file too and the full feedback you received here, please?
    If the feedback is vague, like "give it another go", could you ask them what the reason for rejection was?

    I just want to be clear because I know you were, quite rightly, keen to reduce background noise, but I guess a submission could be rejected for errors, diction, audible edits, background noise, overall level, dynamic range, clipping...any number of things.
    No worries

    I'm going to address all of your points:

    I already passed the video and lighting test. The last piece is audio test. I used to submit (only once I did that...) a sample to this publisher by recording a real (actual content) version but as it always used to take more time so I changed my approach (with their permission) started submitting sample audio (in that I speak something random), all they need to check is audio quality whether their is any hiss, hum, background noise, have I used good microphone or not or anything which sets apart good audio with bad quality audio. All they expect me to deliver is good clean audio.

    First time it was all done in a rush, after reading your forum's reply I recorded overnight and submitted that and also they didn't give me any specific techy reason for it, I guess (speculating...) they were busy as I noticed that while talking to them.

    Initially they did tell me audio quality requirements and as far as I remember it was all very basic and easy to follow things for ex: audio quality must be good, it should be clean audio without any background noise, hiss, hum, without any errors and it shouldn't clip, use good studio grade mic, mic shouldn't be too far from my mouth nor too close, use pop filter... something like that. They didn't talk about dynamic range.

    Second time, before submitting sample recording, I've taken time, did all the due diligence, taken all the precautions. Did the sample recording at new place for 1 min at 6+ different locations. Logically, I am supposed to submit only 1 sample recording to publisher but I did 6+ sample recordings, each was 1 minute long and submitted all of them (the reason is I wanted to post all those samples, first here in the forum so that members review it but I was bit scared that (I'm afraid), you might said I'm too concerned about removing background noise) so submitted directly to publisher.

    Here's the Biggie: I received their response, they approved 1 sample recording out of 6+ samples but again they didn't give me any long explanation or techy reason (which I expected, at least this time) why other sample recording are rejected, so this time it wasn't even acceptable to me (even before reading your forum's reply I already approached them). I politely asked them to please give me reason:

    1. What you found exceptional in approved sample recording?
    2. What are the reasons that all other samples recordings didn't pass the test.

    I spend almost daily, the whole night doing all this stuff: arranging things, preparing and waiting for quite time and record.
    I love it but I need to know from them why one was approved and others were rejected rejected (it'll be helpful to me to know the insights)


    Q1) The amazing / strange thing is the one sample recording which they approved is MXL770 raw Part 5 and rejected others which include SM57 (raw) & SM58 (raw) recordings which is strange to me, these are legendary mics so I think there might be a mistake at their end so I approached them with above questions. I was expecting more than one sample recording will pass the test especially SM58 & SM57 & MXL770 raw recordings. If this happened I had much broader options to record at different times rather waiting for the right moment.

    Only Part 5 is approved (and I'm waiting for their next response)

    I may be completely wrong so I request You ( @Steenamaroo ) and other members ( @TalismanRich @miroslav @bluesfordan @Chili @ecc83 @mjbphotos @keith.rogers )

    Please have a look at the below sample recordings (Part 1 to Part 7) this is exactly what I submitted to them:

    Dropbox - for_review.mp4 - Simplify your life

    Please share your opinion:
    1. Is Part 5 sounds better than all the other Parts?
    2. Which of other 'Parts' sound good (acceptable in your opinion for educational video course so that I raise an appeal at Publisher's office)?

    BTW Part 1, Part 2 and Part 5 are raw recordings, just shared with you, as I haven't told them.
    Last edited by CatMalone; 08-16-2019 at 10:42.

  7. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Derby City
    Posts
    144
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    24147
    I just checked your normalize/noise reduce file and while it might not look exactly like mine, I think it should be more than sufficient. It really knocked down the noise, and the voice level is still good. When I crank up the volume in the silent part, I could just make out a bit of the artifacting left behind by the processing, but it is WAY down in volume. Since you probably won't have 30 seconds of "dead air" it should not be an issue.

    I threw both files into Reaper so you can compare. Yours had the tiniest blip down at the bottom but that's below -60 on the meter.
    Your file is on top, mine on the bottom. Levels are well matched.

    catm-sm57-aud-vs-reaper-jpg

    I would submit a sample using that method to clean things up and if you get time and want to play with Reaper, it's there for the downloading. There are lots of resources are on the web as well. There are some excellent Youtube videos on Reaper.

    I also listened to the various samples from the posting, and if I had to choose, I would select the SM57 from Part 3. It sounds pretty natural to me, but then, I've never heard your actual voice. It is surprising that the SM58 is that dark and muffled sounding especially given that the 57 and 58 are so similar in build. The MXL wouldn't be my first choice, but if the publisher wants that sound, then give him what he wants.
    Last edited by TalismanRich; 08-15-2019 at 19:57.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to TalismanRich For This Useful Post:


  9. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Trending
    Posts
    18,740
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 874 Times in 763 Posts
    Rep Power
    21470743
    Quote Originally Posted by CatMalone View Post
    Please share your opinion:
    Your choice of text color makes it very hard to read...please just leave it as the default (black text).
    Not understanding the need to use blue text...?

  10. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by miroslav View Post
    Your choice of text color makes it very hard to read...please just leave it as the default (black text).
    Not understanding the need to use blue text...?
    Sorry for that.
    I turned the text back to default color.

  11. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Trending
    Posts
    18,740
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 874 Times in 763 Posts
    Rep Power
    21470743
    Thanks!

    I thought in the first post you were just trying to highlight the issues...but then you kept posting with the blue... ...which is tough to read with the lighter backgrounds.

  12. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by miroslav View Post
    Thanks!

    I thought in the first post you were just trying to highlight the issues...but then you kept posting with the blue... ...which is tough to read with the lighter backgrounds.
    After getting your 1st message, I removed the color from my that post where I mentioned your username and requested you to have a look at it, here is that post link: genera...3/#post4518962

    I didn't expect you to read out the the whole thread.

    As you started reading from the beginning of the thread so I also removed the color from the whole thread so that it's easy for you to read You're most welcome to read the whole thread from start to end but primarily I requested you to have a look at the specific post where I posted recording samples (as a dropbox file) which I lately submitted to my publisher (link I already mentioned above). Please have a look at it.
    Last edited by CatMalone; 08-16-2019 at 13:42.

  13. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Age
    34
    Posts
    19,458
    Thanks
    1,205
    Thanked 1,026 Times in 906 Posts
    Rep Power
    1000000
    Hi again, Cat.

    From listening to your clips, if all else was equal, I suspect your 57 is counterfeit. (Take the mesh ball off your 58 and compare weight. If one is noticeably lighter, it's not real.)
    It sounds nothing like the 58 and has very little bass.
    These two microphones should be more or less indistinguishable.

    Strangely enough it sounds OK though and, admittedly, I'd probably have picked it as the favourite in a blind test as it's bright and clear.
    Second to it would have been the 58 on the condition that I can eq it a little.
    It sounded a little dull (as I'd expect from a raw dynamic mic recording) so some sort of bass roll off and subtle treble boost would be my approach.

    My last choice would have been the MXL. It wasn't 'wrong' or 'bad' but it would have been my last choice.

    That said : I'm not your publisher.
    If they picked the MXL then you know what they want and you know how to do it so all is good.

    I'm sorry the forum advice didn't end up being the winner but I wouldn't consider a 58 a waste of money under any circumstances.
    It's a great mic to have and I suspect you'll get plenty of use out of it in the future.
    ---------- Steenaudio Website ----------

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Steenamaroo For This Useful Post:


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pop-Latin Style Feedback required
    By 500 kHz in forum MP3 Mixing Clinic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-10-2016, 07:53
  2. Brutally Honest Feedback Required
    By Bobby82 in forum Music Video Production
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-06-2016, 08:03
  3. Please advise: Remove background noise on old...
    By lifelyrics in forum Mixing Techniques
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 03:01
  4. remove feedback from recording
    By frank stamm in forum Cool Edit Pro / Adobe Audition Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 09:53
  5. can u remove background noise?
    By James111 in forum Recording Techniques
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-23-2000, 18:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •