Audacity Forum

I just had another thought. The need to increase sensitivity would be lessened if the noise profile were examined more thoroughly. I said noise removal "sees" the spectrogram with rectangular windows of 2048, but it steps by half a window so it really sees only every 1024th column of colors. That ma...

At line 478 of NoiseRemoval.cpp change this: How about changing: float min = mSpectrums[start][j]; for (i = start+1; i < finish; i++) { if (mSpectrums[i][j] < min) min = mSpectrums[i][j]; } to: float min = mSpectrums[center][j]; The main problem being that with either, in my initial test, the remai...

By contrast, unmodified 2.0.5 only required 4 dB sensitivity to make all the tinkles in the final pause go away (and really there was just one left at 3). But then, look at the distorting effect in the words.

Tried it again with the bug fix, increasing sensitivity 1 dB at a time until I saw no tinkles in the pause. That happened at 6 dB. Then repeat the procedure and look at the differences.

Can I say "Eureka" now?

steve wrote:

Paul L wrote:There seems to be a bug that mislabels the vertical scale of Spectrogram Log F, unless you zoom out to the maximum.

Would that be: http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525

yes

I think the variations of algorithm could still share much of the existing code that handles the business of going to frequency domain and back again. I have begun another thread about changes that I consider experiments, rather than the bug fixes I talked about here above. http://forum.audacityteam...

At line 478 of NoiseRemoval.cpp change this: if (mSpectrums[i][j] < min) min = mSpectrums[i][j]; to this: if (mSpectrums[i][j] > min) min = mSpectrums[i][j]; A one-character change! (Though min should then be called max.) I am doing the opposite of what Dominic put there in version 5979. Repeat the ...

Starting a new topic about possible noise removal improvements (not bug fixes). Maybe this should instead go in the "new features" thread? Here are tinkle-bells made visible! Please pardon the big images. Depicted here: Views are all Spectrogram log f to emphasize lower frequencies. Spectrogram sett...

Dare I hope that I might be discovering improvements? I have identified some places where errors were introduced by others that did not respect Dominic Mazzoni's intentions. It is a matter of logic to prove that. But now I think I know some variations on Dominic's algorithms that are worth trying. W...

Gale Andrews wrote:IMO, the fundamental reason for arguing that Noise Removal should be called Noise Reduction is that Noise Removal is still inferior to Noise Removal/Reduction in other apps.

In what ways is it inferior?