I have posted this before a while ago. I edited this just now. It's horrible in terms of the white noise. Could someone give this another crack and see if it's possible to do something with it. I'm not looking to do something that will sound like there is no problem. Just some noise removal, bringing gain up and some EQ. I have failed to do a good job as I feel that once I do EQ I'm destroying the file and there is too much sibilance.

Here is the file if someone is willing to take a look at it. I would be very grateful.

Thank you
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6gsldv04fi8f1l/L_Audio_Bad.wav?dl=0

Clearly this has been edited. There is a telltale dropout at 1:15.783, and I believe I hear a few other indications, too.

And both channels are bit-for-bit identical. Was it actually recorded this way? Or is this not the original?

Also, it may be my imagination, but I think I hear a few high frequency artifacts here and there. Was this originally recorded in some compressed format (e.g. MP3)?

Also, the voice sounds thin to me. Of course it may be this particular speaker, but it seems to be unnaturally lacking in LF to me. And I almost feel as if there's some IM distortion with some lower frequency that's not in the file. As if there was bad hum originally, but that has been removed, leaving just the IM. (But that's a long shot. It's just that I hear this gravelly sort of quality to the voice, and I'm not convinced that it's the speaker's natural voice.) Do you have a good recording of this same voice?

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what all went wrong here. Can you describe the history of this recording? What recorder was used? What was the original file format, bitrate, etc.?

Is there any slim chance that there is an original generation of this file that sounds at all better?

Clearly this has been edited. There is a telltale dropout at 1:15.783, and I believe I hear a few other indications, too.

And both channels are bit-for-bit identical. Was it actually recorded this way? Or is this not the original?

Also, it may be my imagination, but I think I hear a few high frequency artifacts here and there. Was this originally recorded in some compressed format (e.g. MP3)?

Also, the voice sounds thin to me. Of course it may be this particular speaker, but it seems to be unnaturally lacking in LF to me. And I almost feel as if there's some IM distortion with some lower frequency that's not in the file. As if there was bad hum originally, but that has been removed, leaving just the IM. (But that's a long shot. It's just that I hear this gravelly sort of quality to the voice, and I'm not convinced that it's the speaker's natural voice.) Do you have a good recording of this same voice?

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what all went wrong here. Can you describe the history of this recording? What recorder was used? What was the original file format, bitrate, etc.?

Is there any slim chance that there is an original generation of this file that sounds at all better?

Greg,

The noise (the hum you are describing) has not been removed yet. Do you hear the horrible white noise?
I do not have a recording of the same voice.
What happened was that the recording device was set to phantom power which was not necessary hence the noise.
Is there a way to salvage this? I'm not looking for a pristine clean up, something that I can simply just "get away" with, once I add some music.

I do not hear any hum, and I do not see any if I look at a spectral analysis.

Where do you hear hum?

Of course I hear the white noise. I'm surprised you didn't hear this in your headphones when recording the track.

But after the white noise is gone, the voice still sounds terrible. I hear a rather "growly" (for lack of a better term) quality to the voice. It's very noticeable in the following places (especially if you loop them):

the syllable "I" from 12.84 to 13.24,
"lea" from 17.34 to 17.66,
"oo" from 32.40 to 32.75,

I said, identifying it as IM distortion is a bit of a long shot. It's hard to tell what I'm hearing under all that white noise. But when I try to remove the noise, then the bad quality of the voice becomes more apparent. Maybe some of the "badness" is created by the heavy NR. Or maybe the phantom voltage caused the mic to be non-linear and generate the distortion there.

To clarify: are you saying that this file has not been filtered, processed, or altered in any way, except for some cuts you made to edit it?

This is freak'n awful.. I don't hear any hum either, just loads of hiss and other artifacts. I was able to attenuate the hiss w/ multiple passes of NR, steep LP filters, expand it a few dB, add some body, de-ess, manually limit , among other surgical fixes here and there. It's still far from 'good'. Usable? That's subjective..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tpuizuuu1w0mucb/L_Audio_Bad-processed.mp3?dl=0

Hi Kathy,
I've been learning RX 4 so I took your file on as a challenge. I got rid of much of the white noise which uncovered some artifacts in your audio. It sounds like the back ground was getting hit with some sort of auto gain or something. I hear bits of stuff but with music I don't think you'd hear it. I did two passes of Spectral Denoiser, then eq, another pass of Spectral Denoiser, then Declip. I then eq'd one of the sections that had a duller sound than the rest.
Here you go. Tell me what you think.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmqeh3aiv4ibkkp/L_Audio_Bad%20fix.wav?dl=0

It's a challenge, and that's putting it politely.

I hear bits of stuff

The "musical" tones and echo-like background noise you hear are artifacts created by using too much spectral noise reduction, or NR with inappropriate settings. They weren't there in the original. You can also hear a slight "robotic" quality to the voice, from the same cause.

The "musical" tones and echo-like background noise you hear are artifacts created by using too much spectral noise reduction, or NR with inappropriate settings. They weren't there in the original. You can also hear a slight "robotic" quality to the voice, from the same cause.

You are right on. I was making light passes but the noise is so intense and broadband it was still working too hard. I did another go.

Here's another version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xl2cym5jp2gbaht/L_Audio_Bad3.wav?dl=0
The problem with this one is the voice still is getting a bit robotized.

Yes a problematic little file indeed. It has various wide band artifacts spread throughout its spectrum, I also think there is a bit of flanging going on in there some how? How come who knows. As previously mentioned when you try to clean it up it gets a bit robotic. I found the best I could get out of it was to attack it pretty hard on NR then give it a bit of normalizing compressing and limiting. Finally I added back -42dB of White Noise as it was sounding too dry. Best I could do with in the time to hand.

https://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/nikklv

It's a challenge, and that's putting it politely.

I thought I'd have a go myself, and having got pretty poor results using all the 'usual tricks', I realised just how much of a challenge this one is.

I have to say I think the sample you attached to post #7 is pretty impressive.....better than I thought could be got from this source!

I do not hear any hum, and I do not see any if I look at a spectral analysis.

Where do you hear hum?

Of course I hear the white noise. I'm surprised you didn't hear this in your headphones when recording the track.

But after the white noise is gone, the voice still sounds terrible. I hear a rather "growly" (for lack of a better term) quality to the voice. It's very noticeable in the following places (especially if you loop them):

the syllable "I" from 12.84 to 13.24,
"lea" from 17.34 to 17.66,
"oo" from 32.40 to 32.75,

I said, identifying it as IM distortion is a bit of a long shot. It's hard to tell what I'm hearing under all that white noise. But when I try to remove the noise, then the bad quality of the voice becomes more apparent. Maybe some of the "badness" is created by the heavy NR. Or maybe the phantom voltage caused the mic to be non-linear and generate the distortion there.

To clarify: are you saying that this file has not been filtered, processed, or altered in any way, except for some cuts you made to edit it?
Greg,

I did not do anything to the file other than making cuts and yes it was recorded into both channels. I was not the one who recorded this. I'm just editing it and trying to make the best out of it.
I do not hear any hum, I thought you said that the file sounds like some hum was removed. I thought that by hum you meant noise in general and said that nothing was removed.

I thought I'd have a go myself, and having got pretty poor results using all the 'usual tricks', I realised just how much of a challenge this one is.

I have to say I think the sample you attached to post #7 is pretty impressive.....better than I thought could be got from this source!

I agree Greg's file sounds best.

Sorry for the confusion about the hum (or non-hum). I was just looking for an explanation for the strange vocal distortion that I seem to hear in several spots.

How sad that there is no earlier generation or better version of this file. :-(

Out of curiosity, was it recorded with a wired mic, or with wireless? I hear a little noise burst, just after "... all the way around it" and I wondered whether that was an RF hit. Or maybe it's a clothing rub ... the white noise really obscures what's going on there.

Sorry for the confusion about the hum (or non-hum). I was just looking for an explanation for the strange vocal distortion that I seem to hear in several spots.

How sad that there is no earlier generation or better version of this file. :-(

Out of curiosity, was it recorded with a wired mic, or with wireless? I hear a little noise burst, just after "... all the way around it" and I wondered whether that was an RF hit. Or maybe it's a clothing rub ... the white noise really obscures what's going on there.

Wireless mic. I agree it's hard to hear anything under the white noise.

Aha, I thought so.

I wonder whether that white noise wasn't the result of a problem with the wireless system. I know you said earlier it related to phantom power, and I don't say you're wrong. But a weak RF signal, or a receiver with NO signal to lock onto, can also produce white noise. So, as usual, I'm curious.

At any rate, it's a shame we can't go back and undo the problem. Shoot the recordist, (s)he should have been monitoring on headphones!

I agree Greg's file sounds best.
Hi Kathy,
Greg's sample in post #7 does sound pretty good but its only the first :05 seconds. Listen to my post number 10. I did the whole file and listening to both on headphones to me they both sound similar. It's a little lower in volume than it was but that's easily fixed. I tried to get the voice to sound more natural without the voice modulating the remaining background noise.
I'd like to hear your impression of the result so I can see if my approach was useful.
Best
Bernie

I agree Greg's file sounds best.

+ 1 on that. Greg's is the best.

To everyone on this thread. Please take a listen to my example in post # 10. I'm learning RX and I've been an audio person for 38 years. At least 30 of that as a location sound recordist. To my ear, with headphones on, my effort is very similar to Greg's. I'd like some constructive criticism so I can determine how effective my approach was. My pervious try was done with my computer desk speakers and I didn't hear how many artifacts were left.
I know what my ears are telling me, I'd value your perception.
Bernie

Since you've asked everyone for advice and comments, here are mine.

Your file sounds a lot noisier than mine. The RMS level of your noise is about -24dB lower than the overall RMS level of the entire file. With my sample, the same S/N ratio is about -35dB.

I think my dialog is somewhat clearer, too, but I can't put a number on that. (I'm listening on Senny HD-280 Pros. Different cans will sound different.)

Admittedly, my example was done more or less manually, a syllable or two at a time, with a lot of trial and error to find the best compromises. It was not a matter of setting a few parameters and clicking the "process" button for the entire file. It involved listening closely to each small piece of audio, thinking about what I heard, figuring out the best way to fix that section, and then using the software to achieve that goal. I spent the better part of an hour on those few seconds of audio.

Is that a reasonable approach for a file like this? That depends on the value of the audio. If it's a world leader making an exceptional statement, yes. If it's your family's home videos, no. If it's a lady talking about flowers ... I can't answer that. I don't know whether this is sync sound, or a voiceover. Maybe a re-shoot or ADR would be a better solution. Maybe a "quickie" with worse results would be an adequate compromise.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that the file can be made to sound decent, if the right things are done.

Since you've asked everyone for advice and comments, here are mine.

Your file sounds a lot noisier than mine. The RMS level of your noise is about -24dB lower than the overall RMS level of the entire file. With my sample, the same S/N ratio is about -35dB.

I think my dialog is somewhat clearer, too, but I can't put a number on that. (I'm listening on Senny HD-280 Pros. Different cans will sound different.)

Admittedly, my example was done more or less manually, a syllable or two at a time, with a lot of trial and error to find the best compromises. It was not a matter of setting a few parameters and clicking the "process" button for the entire file. It involved listening closely to each small piece of audio, thinking about what I heard, figuring out the best way to fix that section, and then using the software to achieve that goal. I spent the better part of an hour on those few seconds of audio.

Is that a reasonable approach for a file like this? That depends on the value of the audio. If it's a world leader making an exceptional statement, yes. If it's your family's home videos, no. If it's a lady talking about flowers ... I can't answer that. I don't know whether this is sync sound, or a voiceover. Maybe a re-shoot or ADR would be a better solution. Maybe a "quickie" with worse results would be an adequate compromise.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that the file can be made to sound decent, if the right things are done.

Thanks for taking the time Greg! I didn't do an analysis so I appreciate what you're saying. My goal was to have the voice sound as natural as possible, and not have the background pump up and down. The tradeoff was leaving more noise in the background. I used eq, deconstruct, noise reduction, and declip on selected areas. I didn't choose some parameters and hit process as you implied. I'm listening on Sony 7506s. It took about an hour to do the whole file, but of course I was building on the previous try I did. I can hear that my example also has a little less presence and volume. I'm going to give it one more shot and see what else I can learn.
I appreciate the feedback.
Bernie

Bernie,

Unfortunately, I do hear noise pumping up and down in your file. (e.g. from 0:20.0 to 0:24.5) Admittedly, there are slight noise changes in my file, too, albeit at a lower level.

The 7506 has a well-known midrange boost. Some people like them for monitoring on a live shoot, because they tend to accentuate any noise that might be picked up by the mics ... so you can fix the problem instead of recording a noisy track. I definitely do not trust them for EQ purposes (or for NR evaluation in this case), because they give a false impression about intelligibility. I especially would not mix on them, because they tend to make the voice stand out over FX and music; play the same track on good speakers (or on Senny 280s) and you might discover that the voice gets lost in the mix.

Today's audio software is miraculous, but you still need to tell it what to do. With an average file you can often "set it and forget it." But with something this bad, you really need to carefully set the parameters, and then tweak them a lot. I personally could not find any settings that would let me get "really wonderful" results for the whole file; I needed to tweak it, almost syllable by syllable. Maybe you will have better luck.

And, again, what is "good enough"? Only Kathy can answer that question about this file.

Greg

Bernie,

Unfortunately, I do hear noise pumping up and down in your file. (e.g. from 0:20.0 to 0:24.5) Admittedly, there are slight noise changes in my file, too, albeit at a lower level.

The 7506 has a well-known midrange boost. Some people like them for monitoring on a live shoot, because they tend to accentuate any noise that might be picked up by the mics ... so you can fix the problem instead of recording a noisy track. I definitely do not trust them for EQ purposes (or for NR evaluation in this case), because they give a false impression about intelligibility. I especially would not mix on them, because they tend to make the voice stand out over FX and music; play the same track on good speakers (or on Senny 280s) and you might discover that the voice gets lost in the mix.

Today's audio software is miraculous, but you still need to tell it what to do. With an average file you can often "set it and forget it." But with something this bad, you really need to carefully set the parameters, and then tweak them a lot. I personally could not find any settings that would let me get "really wonderful" results for the whole file; I needed to tweak it, almost syllable by syllable. Maybe you will have better luck.

And, again, what is "good enough"? Only Kathy can answer that question about this file.

Greg

All good feedback Greg, thanks! You're right about the Sony's. I'll give the 280s a try. I should also get my good monitors working too. I'm just at the beginning of this software journey so I appreciate your input and advice. This was a very good learning file to play with, so thanks to Kathy for asking for help on it. By the way are you also on RX, or are you using something else or a combination of RX and something else? By the way that whoosh sound in that other file was also a very, very tough one. I was playing with that one too, and its really hard to even see the sound. You did a good job on it. Have you ever used Zynaptiq Unchirp on anything? I'm wondering it it would work on some of the artifacts left behind from noise reduction.
BB

Bernie,

I think you'll like the 280 Pro. Much flatter than the 7506, and better isolation, too. I even find them to be more comfortable.

Everything I've done on this file was done with an old version of Audition, or with Cool Edit Pro (they are largely the same program). I have switched back and forth, depending on which machine was nearby; I don't really remember which program I used for which example.

Greg

I'm using Sennheiser HD 280 and hear a huge difference between Greg's file and Bernie's. I also hear sibilance in Bernie's file, which I don't hear in Greg's.

Here is my attempt. What's your opinion of this file?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1q4h4kzz2mz6zx/L_Bad_Fix.wav?dl=0

It's an interesting compromise (anything with this source file will be a compromise). Certainly not bad.

I think you've applied a fair amount of EQ, because the bottom end sounds fuller than the original.

I still hear some artifacts within/under the voice, although they are not "burbly" as artifacts often are. They are less objectionable to me than artifacts on some other peoples' attempts.

I seem to hear the frequency response changing, depending (seemingly) on the loudness of the source material. Listen from 0:29.4 to 0:36.6. The first few words ("I wanted to ...") sound nice and open, but then the HFs seem to gradually disappear and the sound becomes muffled. Then the next phrase ("discover I guess ...") opens up suddenly, and then gradually becomes muffled again. So whatever process you're using for NR seems to be constantly changing the bandwidth, or at least the response curve, depending on the overall level of the audio.

(You can also clearly hear the artifacts within this same 7-second section.)

And yours sounds fuller than mine, because I used bandpass filtering to get rid of some of the noise at the top and bottom end of the frequency range ... frequencies that aren't necessary for intelligibility.

What do you think? Is it usable for your purposes? (I have no idea what your final product will be.)

Here is my attempt. What's your opinion of this file?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1q4h4kzz2mz6zx/L_Bad_Fix.wav?dl=0

Here's one more attempt from me. I ordered some HD 280s but in the interim I thought I'd see what else I could do. Let me know what you think.
Bernie
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0t4dgawhhlrdrx/L_Audio_Badtest1.wav?dl=0

It's an interesting compromise (anything with this source file will be a compromise). Certainly not bad.

I think you've applied a fair amount of EQ, because the bottom end sounds fuller than the original.

I still hear some artifacts within/under the voice, although they are not "burbly" as artifacts often are. They are less objectionable to me than artifacts on some other peoples' attempts.

I seem to hear the frequency response changing, depending (seemingly) on the loudness of the source material. Listen from 0:29.4 to 0:36.6. The first few words ("I wanted to ...") sound nice and open, but then the HFs seem to gradually disappear and the sound becomes muffled. Then the next phrase ("discover I guess ...") opens up suddenly, and then gradually becomes muffled again. So whatever process you're using for NR seems to be constantly changing the bandwidth, or at least the response curve, depending on the overall level of the audio.

(You can also clearly hear the artifacts within this same 7-second section.)

And yours sounds fuller than mine, because I used bandpass filtering to get rid of some of the noise at the top and bottom end of the frequency range ... frequencies that aren't necessary for intelligibility.

What do you think? Is it usable for your purposes? (I have no idea what your final product will be.)
Thanks Greg. It will have to do for my purpose. I do hear the sound opening and and then becoming muffled and then opening again etc. I need to go back and hear whether it's the NR doing that or the speaker herself.

Here's one more attempt from me. I ordered some HD 280s but in the interim I thought I'd see what else I could do. Let me know what you think.
Bernie
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0t4dgawhhlrdrx/L_Audio_Badtest1.wav?dl=0
Bernie, this sounds muffled to me and it's very low.

I over did it. Working on another one

Last one for me. Its been educational.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p807wxfeeuc7d42/L_Audio_Badtest2.wav?dl=0

Last one for me. Its been educational.

Oh yes indeed. I've tried within iZoRX4 Advanced.

UPDATE!
I managed to get the audio rerecorded and I am sooooooooooooo happy now. I have learned a lot through this thread. Thank you everyone who contributed to this learning experience.