Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Remova
Forum rules
This board is ONLY for general feedback and discussion about Audacity 2.X.
If you require help, or think you have found a "bug", please post on the forum board relevant to your operating system.
Windows
Mac OS X
GNU/Linux and Unix-like
This board is ONLY for general feedback and discussion about Audacity 2.X.
If you require help, or think you have found a "bug", please post on the forum board relevant to your operating system.
Windows
Mac OS X
GNU/Linux and Unix-like
-
kozikowski
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 68902
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
- Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Start recording. Hold your breath and don't move for two seconds. Breathe. Talk/Present normally for about 8 seconds. Cut off anything over 10 seconds total. Split to mono if you naturally produce stereo, Export WAV and post.
Scroll down from these forum text windows, Upload attachment.
As a fuzzy rule you should post clean, unprocessed work. If you post processed, we can't tell what the original was, what you did to it, or how to fix it. So that's limiting.
Koz
Scroll down from these forum text windows, Upload attachment.
As a fuzzy rule you should post clean, unprocessed work. If you post processed, we can't tell what the original was, what you did to it, or how to fix it. So that's limiting.
Koz
-
kozikowski
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 68902
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
- Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Since 6 is about 150 in the old system, isn't it the case you can type in numbers up to 12 even though the slider doesn't go that far?6 for Frequency smoothing is the maximum
And no. I can clearly hear 0 and I complained about that.
Koz
-
Gale Andrews
- Quality Assurance
- Posts: 41761
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:02 am
- Operating System: Windows 10
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Has Paul said that? Out-of-slider values are rarely documented.kozikowski wrote:Since 6 is about 150 in the old system, isn't it the case you can type in numbers up to 12 even though the slider doesn't go that far?6 for Frequency smoothing is the maximum
The old Noise Removal went to 1000 Hz frequency smoothing which would seem to imply more than 40 bands equivalent.
As far as I know, "0" Frequency smoothing is 21.533 Hz at 44100 Hz sample rate, so that "6" is 150 Hz, and so "0" is not "off". Is that so?kozikowski wrote:And no. I can clearly hear 0 and I complained about that
But most people seem to be complaining that the default of 0 is too low, and that seems to be what Paul is saying. Get Sensitivity and Smoothing at the "best" setting, then you can take the Noise Reduction slider as high as you need without creating too much more damage.
Gale
________________________________________FOR INSTANT HELP: (Click on Link below)
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual
-
billw58
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 5565
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:10 am
- Operating System: macOS 10.15 Catalina or later
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Zero frequency smoothing should be "off". If that is not the case then that is a bug.Gale Andrews wrote:As far as I know, "0" Frequency smoothing is 21.533 Hz at 44100 Hz sample rate
I'm not one of them. What is your basis for "most people"? Given that frequency smoothing is meant to deal with extreme cases, I contend that the correct default value is zero.Gale Andrews wrote:most people seem to be complaining that the default of 0 is too low
- Bill
-
kozikowski
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 68902
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
- Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
0 has not been my go-to value for a while now. After several false starts using 0 and creating trash, someone (I forget who) suggested greatly increasing the value based on their old tool equivalents.
I suggest Noise Reduction Of The Beast 6,6,6 should be default with a valuable variation being 12,6,6. I've used that multiple times now with various posters' difficult productions and high, sometimes startling success.
Given I'm working primarily with stand-alone voices and not music. Those settings could reduce music to garbage. I wouldn't know.
Koz
I suggest Noise Reduction Of The Beast 6,6,6 should be default with a valuable variation being 12,6,6. I've used that multiple times now with various posters' difficult productions and high, sometimes startling success.
Given I'm working primarily with stand-alone voices and not music. Those settings could reduce music to garbage. I wouldn't know.
Koz
-
kozikowski
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 68902
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
- Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Last example in a long line. We're struggling with the poster creating very low volume recordings, and this is a step in the middle of testing. The patch does pass ACX Compliance and it sounds like the performer.
-74, -22, -3.2
The eventual goal of this posting is to not need a ton of processing to get the work out.
Attach 1: Submission
Attach 2: My patch
Posted: How I got there.
Koz
Peter Piper Processing
Audacity 2.1.0 on the supplied clip.
2015-04-29
-- Effect > Normalize: [X]Normalize to -3.2 [X]Remove DC > OK.
-- Steve's Rumble Filter.
Install and apply LF_rolloff_for_speech.xml
Effect > Equalization: LF_rolloff_for_speech, Length = 8191 > OK
-- Noise Removal.
Drag Select 1 sec to 4 sec. Effect > Noise Reduction > Profile
Effect > Noise Reduction > 12, 6, 6. > OK
-- Effect > Compressor: -20, -50, 3:1, 0.2, 1.0. > OK
-- Effect > Normalize: [X]Normalize to -3.2 [X]Remove DC. > OK
RMS (loudness) is a little odd in this clip. Drag-select just the spoken parts (9 through 20) and measure RMS. That passes. If you select the whole clip, the vast quantities of silence throw off the measurements. That's why we recommend two seconds of room tone on these tests and not the much longer one that ACX wants.
-74, -22, -3.2
The eventual goal of this posting is to not need a ton of processing to get the work out.
Attach 1: Submission
Attach 2: My patch
Posted: How I got there.
Koz
Peter Piper Processing
Audacity 2.1.0 on the supplied clip.
2015-04-29
-- Effect > Normalize: [X]Normalize to -3.2 [X]Remove DC > OK.
-- Steve's Rumble Filter.
Install and apply LF_rolloff_for_speech.xml
Effect > Equalization: LF_rolloff_for_speech, Length = 8191 > OK
-- Noise Removal.
Drag Select 1 sec to 4 sec. Effect > Noise Reduction > Profile
Effect > Noise Reduction > 12, 6, 6. > OK
-- Effect > Compressor: -20, -50, 3:1, 0.2, 1.0. > OK
-- Effect > Normalize: [X]Normalize to -3.2 [X]Remove DC. > OK
RMS (loudness) is a little odd in this clip. Drag-select just the spoken parts (9 through 20) and measure RMS. That passes. If you select the whole clip, the vast quantities of silence throw off the measurements. That's why we recommend two seconds of room tone on these tests and not the much longer one that ACX wants.
- Attachments
-
- Test take 1 44 percent mic gain Audacity ver 206 (1).wav
- (1.86 MiB) Downloaded 31 times
-
- Test_take_1_Patched.wav
- (1.86 MiB) Downloaded 27 times
-
kozikowski
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 68902
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
- Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
There's a mistake in that list. You need to select the whole clip before actually applying reduction. I don't think this will actually get used in its present form anyway. This is more a muscle-flexing, 'yes I can do it under duress' exercise.
I think there is something wrong with the poster's microphone. Even though bellowing into the microphone, the clip is very low. The presenter is soft-spoken, they said so, but still. They would have to resort to thermo-chemical explosions to get a -6 (good practices) sound meter reading.
Koz
I think there is something wrong with the poster's microphone. Even though bellowing into the microphone, the clip is very low. The presenter is soft-spoken, they said so, but still. They would have to resort to thermo-chemical explosions to get a -6 (good practices) sound meter reading.
Koz
-
kozikowski
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 68902
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
- Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Smoothing Text Entry.
I typed specific values into the text entry box before I found you couldn't do that and they stuck. The system did not reject them. I didn't know about the slider stopping at 6 until later. Since 6 works for me, I stopped worrying about it and went on to something else.
Koz
I typed specific values into the text entry box before I found you couldn't do that and they stuck. The system did not reject them. I didn't know about the slider stopping at 6 until later. Since 6 works for me, I stopped worrying about it and went on to something else.
Koz
-
Gale Andrews
- Quality Assurance
- Posts: 41761
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:02 am
- Operating System: Windows 10
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
Hi Bill,billw58 wrote:Zero frequency smoothing should be "off". If that is not the case then that is a bug.Gale Andrews wrote:As far as I know, "0" Frequency smoothing is 21.533 Hz at 44100 Hz sample rate
You wrote much of the Noise Reduction docs, but they do not accord with what Paul is saying about frequency smoothing. You say that frequency smoothing should be left at 0 except in "extraordinary circumstances". Paul is saying you need to turn smoothing up in most cases.
If each band is 21.533 Hz as Paul said, but 0 is off, how does six bands = 150 Hz? That seems like a docs confusion that we should resolve.
Robert J.H. is saying it, I'm saying it after playing more with Noise Reduction (though I don't use it for production work as you know).billw58 wrote:I'm not one of them. What is your basis for "most people"?Gale Andrews wrote:most people seem to be complaining that the default of 0 is too low
Koz seems to be saying that he has not been using zero smoothing for a while on his speech examples.
It seems to be the case for Darren, according to what Paul says.
So how can we resolve this when the effect's author is saying something else?billw58 wrote:Given that frequency smoothing is meant to deal with extreme cases, I contend that the correct default value is zero.
Time smoothing (not exposed) is hardcoded "on". Is that what we want?
Gale
________________________________________FOR INSTANT HELP: (Click on Link below)
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual
-
Gale Andrews
- Quality Assurance
- Posts: 41761
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:02 am
- Operating System: Windows 10
Re: Problems with the new Noise Reduction replacing Noise Re
That would put frequency smoothing default at the right extreme of the scale, which looks weird but I agree that or somewhere between 2 and 6 usually gives better results than 0 (even with music).kozikowski wrote:I suggest Noise Reduction Of The Beast 6,6,6 should be default with a valuable variation being 12,6,6. I've used that multiple times now with various posters' difficult productions and high, sometimes startling success.
Gale
________________________________________FOR INSTANT HELP: (Click on Link below)
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual