Re: arsclist Re: Thoughts...

[Jerome Hartke <jhartke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Are we discussing both apples and oranges?

Background noise is very difficult to remove without altering the sound,
and it is a valid part of the recording. It is usually broadband, with a
duration of many seconds or minutes.

Noise pulses, or spikes, are usually artifacts of very brief duration.
They normally are not part of the original, and often can be removed
without noticeably affecting the sound. Good editing tools should be
able to interpolate through the spike for a millisecond or so without
introducing more than a few percent distortion for that brief period
only. Golden ears may be able to detect it, but everyone can detect the
noise spike.

Jerry
Media Sciences, Inc.

Alyssa Ryvers wrote:
> 
> I am not a big fan of noise reduction either - you can't remove the "noise"
> without changing the sound of the room it was recorded in. As a recording
> engineer, my interest is to find the appropriate room; it greatly effects
> the recording. Certainly, this context is equally, if not more important,
> when it comes to field recordings of traditional musicians - some of the
> places these recordings were made may no longer exist in future generations.
> 
> Today, when I took my "noise sample" from a recording I am mastering, I am
> also sampling, in this "quiet spot", the room ambience. Noise and room come
> down together, when I apply the noise reduction.
> 
> Certainly pre-set algorithms cannot be accurate to the specific noise you
> have on a recording, but are a general guideline, and therefore no truer.
> 
> The problem is, you are not _just_ removing the noise.
> 
> But when it comes to "education", I don't know about that. People these days
> don't hear through the hiss as much as they used to. So long as we all keep
> the best copies we can of the original unfutzed versions...
> 
> My 2c.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Cox" <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:55 PM
> Subject: Re: arsclist Re: Thoughts...
> 
> > On 04/12/02, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> >
> > > However, why not educate the listeners that original shellac noise
> > > is their guarantee of authenticity, as is a cough with all its
> > > reverberation in the sonic environment of a real-life situation. I am
> > > terrified of the present processors made available for *live* sound
> > > transmissions, some of which made by CEDAR, which are able to
> > > fake a clean sound on the fly, because they remove the traces of
> > > "unwanted" signals that might be the clue to a real event. I detest
> > > an edited "reality". I have a forensic attitude.
> >
> > There is a fundamental difference between noises that were in the air at
> > the event and hiss and crackles that are present only on the recording
> > (or broadcast).
> >
> > I can see absolutely no reason to conserve noise in the recording, so
> > long as the original sounds are not affected.
> >
> > You are suggesting that it would be better to make a transfer from a
> > noisy pressing than a quiet one.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Don Cox
> > doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-
For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
from the author of the post.