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

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. :)

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.
 
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:

View attachment 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:
View attachment 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:
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
 
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 ( [MENTION=43272]Steenamaroo[/MENTION] ) and other members ( [MENTION=89013]TalismanRich[/MENTION] [MENTION=94267]miroslav[/MENTION] [MENTION=193247]bluesfordan[/MENTION] [MENTION=57292]Chili[/MENTION] [MENTION=89697]ecc83[/MENTION] [MENTION=39487]mjbphotos[/MENTION] [MENTION=196982]keith.rogers[/MENTION] )

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:
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:
Thanks!

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

I thought in the first post you were just trying to highlight the issues...but then you kept posting with the blue... :D ...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: https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...noise-feedback-required-402534/3/#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:
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.
 
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.


I managed to weight both of them:
I removed the mesh ball from 58 then weigh them:

SM58 is: 280
SM57 is: 286


Also checked boxes of both the mics, they do have all the accessories etc... + Shure hologram sticker of shipping, from their one of the main zonal shipping house from where they ship to importer. At least they look like original but I do agree that they sound bit different than all they youtube videos which I watched of Sm57 & 58. SM58 surely no anywhere near that bassy sound. I'm not sure why but these sellers change way more (than $99) from me for each mic.


>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.

2. It's okay, I'm glad you taken responsibility of forum advise, it says something. I myself taken this risk and I did because I'm willing to change and want to become better so thank you so much for everything. I'm glad and grateful to you and all the members who posted here.
 
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 just want to ask this one thing:

As you mentioned when you analyzed my file you found: "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"

Earlier when you attempted to normalize the file and used noise reduction using Reaper, did it also leave artifacts?


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.

BTW I got Reaper :)

Thank you
 
Hi. I was reading this thread and listened to all your submissions. All the new examples sounded good enough to work with. Each clip with a different mic were inconsistent, meaning they all needed a bit of cut in certain frequency ranges. Some were mid range problems, others needed a bit of a low-mid cut. If it were me, I’d probably EQ first then ,compress it 2:1 depending on the mic used. You should be able to dress up any of these files to be presentable to the publisher using just EQ. What you have done to eliminate any noise in the original files, has worked. You have a good clean group of files, so EQ them all to sound the same. That way you’ll always have the sound you’re after in your head and in addition, learn how to get the same results each time.

I personally sing into a SM57 at home & its always my first go to mic because of its good cardioid performance. I can always adjust EQ to flatten out the sound of my voice. I have some nice mics, but for what I believe your doing, an SM57-58 would be a great mic to use. I’m not sure audacity allows real time plug ins, but it’s a necessity to really use your ear to fine tune a recording. Of course you need some decent speakers or headphones also. Reducing plosives is also a mic technique as well something that needs physical addressing as you speak through the mic. Subtle movements in the angle your voice hits the mic result in different plosives response.
 
I didn't notice any artifacts in the sample I posted. I'm travelling, so I don't have all the stuff available to me to check. I remember trying a few different settings in ReaFIR and some had serious issues. As with anything its a balancing act. Get things as clean as you can without affecting the desired audio.

Still, I don't think the minor noise from Audacity will be an issue as I doubt your lessons will have long stretches of silence like that file.
 
I didn’t hear any plosives in any of those newer clips, but in one of the previous clips Cat posted he was testing the mics for plosives. Originally I listened on my iPad speakers, then put on a set of headphones when he was comparing all the mics. Each clip needed a bit of EQ depending on the mic he was using.
 
If you spend 30 minutes on youtube you hear such a wide range of mic problems on tutorials. Cat's really don't hit the problem area. We're all talking about tiny stuff - laded above mentions 2:1 compression. Lots of people cannot hear compression till it gets above 4 or even 5:1. Really small stuff. I'm convinced he is hearing differences between mics, and then assuming these difference go on a better to worse scale, and they don't. They differ tonally - nothing to do with quality. Everything has a classic 'tone' - American US AM radio has a sound of it's own. BBC Radio 4 is instantly identified by the sound. BBC Radio 3 here plays classical music, but so does the commercial station Classic FM, but you can identify them in an instant.

I'm lucky enough to have a decent mic collection, but I will reach for a 58 or 57 when I need a mic that will do an OK job on a voice I haven't yet heard. I can EQ them to any purpose. Once I've heard the voice I might swap it for mic that flatters the voice better, but often, a walk down the corridor for the better one is simply too much effort - the 58 is fine.

Too much thought going into this - and now poor Cat is having a panic in case his mics are counterfeit - they sound fine. some people think they sound one way, other they go the other. A big range of opinion. That's good.
 
Back
Top