Noise reduction effect

I am trying to reduce the background noises in a voice recording from  video shot at a Gas Station with  loud vehicle noise in Audition. I do not want to eliminate the sounds altogether but lower them quite a bit. I watched the Tutorial on the website by Mr. Levine but with the variance and number of controls I am finding it difficult to get the same results as he did in his example. I have multiple clips of this kind and would like to streamline the process.
Is there a sweet spot for the Spectral Decay Rate, Precision Factor, Smoothing and Transition Width in the advanced settings in the Noise Reduction Effect to reduce loud background noise from  a voice recording without producing the tunnel like echo in the voice after the effect is applied?

Werlien wrote:
Is there a sweet spot for the Spectral Decay Rate, Precision Factor, Smoothing and Transition Width in the advanced settings in the Noise Reduction Effect to reduce loud background noise from  a voice recording without producing the tunnel like echo in the voice after the effect is applied?
Firstly, no there's no sweet spot. All noise is different, and comes in different quantities. Secondly, variable noise, of the kind you get on a garage forecourt, is very difficult to treat anyway. The basic NR in Audition is designed to deal most effectively with fixed noise sources and not variable ones. That said, if you have a fixed level of background noise as well as some variable noise, you can generally reduce the fixed noise to a degree, even if it doesn't touch the variable stuff.
In general, for variable noise reduction, you need to use the Adaptive settings, but you have to be careful with these, and the results are never going to be that wonderful, quite frankly. You may need to play with the settings quite a bit to get any sort of an acceptable result at all.
If you use the basic NR system, the best way to use it is to do more than one pass, at different FFT settings - at least one low setting, and at least one at the highest setting there is. And at each pass, don't try to take off too much. The results you'll get like this will be much better than any attempt to optimise a single pass will ever be. Please note that for each different FFT setting, you will need a new noise sample. By and large, leave the rest of the controls at their defaults, although you may wish to reduce the spectral decay rate back to zero for multiple passes - it can make the transitions sound even weirder when you go from wanted signals to the background sound. By using multiple passes with less reduction on each one, you will pretty much eliminate the need tor spectral decay.
I suppose that the ultimate bad news about NR is that unless you're incredibly lucky, it never works particularly well until you've made quite a bit of effort with it. It's not that unusual to go back to the start of a NR session and start over, using completely different settings before you get anywhere at all.
And yes, Jason chose his noisy material carefully....!

Similar Messages

  • Can't find NOISE REDUCTION EFFECT in PPRO CS5

    Hey guys!
    I am just digging through my CS5 PPRO for last hour or so - an simply can't seem to find any kind of NOISE REDUCTION EFFECT...
    NOISE and GRAIN effect folder is made only of NOISE PRODUCING effects...
    Is it possible that there isn't one in there??? I tried numerous other effects, thinking maybe there be some de-noiser in them, but nothing (only DE-NOISER effect is AUDIO one)...
    I simply shot footage with high ISO and wanna try to remove some noise from it.... Sounds like preaty basic effect, that I remember was present even in programs like VIRTUAL DUB!!!!
    Can you give me any hint on this one???
    THnx
    V.

    Thnx for updating me with info for 3rd party noise removers....
    But I remember that earlier PREMIERES had some noise remover....
    But trust me, I've been trying them for last few hours - these NOISE related EFFECTS in PPRO CS5 v.503 - are all just noise adding effects!!! None of them (at least with word NOISE in their name don't reduce it!!!!)
    Oh, please prove me wrong!:)

  • Spectral Noise Reduction effect doesn't do anything.

    This is on the track based effect.
    Title says it all.  No matter what settings I apply, I hear absolutely no difference in the audio track.
    Does this work for anybody?

    I'm going to make a judgement that Spectral Noise Reduction just doesn't work, then.  It has a pretty interface, that does change colors when you move the parameters around, but I sure can't hear any effect that all that parameter changing is doing anything to the audio.
    True, Audition does have pretty decent BBNR, but I'd rather not have to leave Pr when I can avoid it.  The back and forth between the two apps aren't as seamless as many people think.  I'd rather not create new media until after it's processed. 

  • Adjustment brush with exposure setting cancels noise reduction

    Hello,
    I just noticed the following problem:
    1) Camera Raw 6.5; Bridge CS5 (4.0.5.11); Mac OS X 10.6.8; Mac Pro 3,1; Dual Quad-Core Xeon; 8GB RAM.
    2) Start with a noisy raw file (mine is from a Canon 5D II).
    3) Apply Noise Reduction (Luminance:30; Lum Detail:75; Lum Contrast:0; Color:25; Color Detail:50).
    4) Go to Adjustment Brush and set a non-zero Exposure value.
    5) Apply brush to image and notice the Noise Reduction effects disappear (noise returns).
    6) Click Clear All button to clear Adjustment Brush and Noise Reduction works again.
    This seems to only happen with Adjustment Brushes with a non-zero Exposure value (applying brightness or other settings don't seem to produce the problem).
    Anyone else seeing this?
    Thanks!

    Richard (and others),
    Yes, very good idea to check that. The problem does indeed get applied to the full sized, opened image as well as to the display previews. After working with this more, I now notice that I was wrong to say that the entire noise reduction is cancelled - rather it "changes", sometimes subtly, sometimes more dramatically depending on what the noise reduction settings are set to. Further, how dramatic the "changes" appear depend greatly on the preview zoom (the changes are more subtle at 100%, but it can look like the noise reduction is completely turned off at 50% and 66%).
    Now I realize that the noise reduction does not ordinarily display at all preview sizes (especially smaller ones), but this is different. At preview sizes where it does normally get applied, applying an adjustment brush with any non-zero exposure value (even just +0.05) can have the appearance that the NR is completely turned off for the whole image. Simply nudging the exposure value back to zero brings all the noise reduction back.
    Also, to be clearer and avoid confusion for others, the change in noise I'm seeing is not localized to just the brushed spot. Obviously if one increases exposure, you'd expect to potentially see more noise. Instead, what I'm seeing happens to the entire image, even if I simply paint a single small brush dot, say in a far corner. Having the image change globally in response to painting a small spot with the adjustment brush cannot be a correct result. Further, this does not happen with any of the other adjustment brush settings like brightness, contrast or saturation. There must be something unique about the exposure setting that perhaps introduces a new step into the processing pipeline, and this step is affecting the entire image.
    In any case, the problem only seems to be an issue in somewhat extreme cases and is less noticeable at 100% (and the finally opened image). It's more just annoying when previews are generated for viewing in Bridge, for example.
    I suppose one alternative might be to rob a bank and go buy one of those new 1D X's. Then maybe I wouldn't have to worry about noise anymore.
    Thanks for the responses!

  • Noise Reduction Export

    I used noise reduction on a clip with a fade in, but when I export the noise reduction doesn't kick in for the first second of audio. Does this have something to do with doing a fade in?

    I'm having the same problem...in Premiere, when I play through the timeline, the noise reduction is applied very effectively to every clip.  You never hear the background noise.  However, when I export and playback in QuickTime, every time a new audio segment begins in the video, the first few seconds play the original, unaltered audio (with no noise reduction), then suddenly the noise reduction kicks in and audio sounds good.
    Here is a export that demonstrates the problem pretty well:  https://vimeo.com/47687525
    I'm just now making the switch from Final Cut to Premiere so I don't even know where to start troubleshooting!  Surely this is not the way the noise reduction effect is supposed to function in Premiere...there's got to be a fix without using Audition.
    Any ideas?

  • Wind Noise Reduction

    I'm using PPCS3 for a project and have a video interview piece that was shot outside. The subject was wearing a lav mic with a windscreen on it, but there is still a considerable amount of wind noise coming through. Can anyone suggest a way to at least reduce the wind noise without reducing the vocal quality too badly? I have the entire CS3 suite, so Soundbooth is also available to me.
    Thank you in advance for your help.
    -Ken

    Hi there Bill, or anyone else that could help,
    I too have a wind problem!
    I'm using CS6 Master Collection, pretty new to everything so please go easy.
    I have a fair bit of open air footage with a huge amount of wind noise. I have played with the Noise Reduction effect in Audition (as there doesn't seem to be Soundbooth any longer?) but i have literally 'played', i mean i don't really know what i am doing. It doesn't seem to reduce the wind noise more just all noises, which obviously isn't that helpful.
    Are you able to give me any help, point me in the direction of a tutorial, or better yet if you know a program / plug in that really gets to grips with wind noise?
    It seems that most of the time people are wanting to use noise reduction to get rid of a constant, set noise like a hiss but wind noise is totally different as it’s a very dynamic noise, constantly changing so you can’t 'sample' a section as the next section might sound different but is still just as unwanted.
    Thanks for any help anyone can offer.

  • Noise Reduction tool not effective

    Hard as I try, I can't see any effect in using the Noise Reduction tool. I've tried it on photos from both compact cameras, as JPGs, and also Raw images from my DSLR. I've tried some images with visible digital noise (low light, long exposure shots), but whatever I do with the sliders, it makes no visible difference to the noise level.
    Am I missing a trick, or does this tool just not work very well?
    Cheers.

    I just tried that, but switching the tool off and on made no difference here. I did find I could type a larger number into the 'Radius' box, which takes it up to 4.00 (it goes to 2.00 on the slider). That did make a visible difference, although it just made the entire image blurry. Adjusting the edge detail only beings out the noise again.
    It appears to me that this adjuster is not much more than a simple Gaussian blur with some sharpening. The effects are similar at least. Indeed, I just tried adjusting the same image in Graphic Converter (from a fresh Raw file copy), and it is very similar to using a straight Gaussian blur (radius 4 did the job in GC too), and then apply some sharpening.
    The only time I've found Gaussian blur to work well is if you can switch into Lab colour mode, and apply the blur to the different channels.

  • Vocal Irregularity after applying Noise Reduction

    In this new project I followed Bob Howes instruction:
    ‘Set the FFT size (on the advanced menu) to 2048 and grab a noise print from a gap of "silence".  Select the entire filed and do reduction by 7 or 8 dB and 15%ish reduction.  Set the FFT size to the next one up, get a new noise print and do another pass with the same low settings.  Keep going, upping the FFT size each time.’
    This new project I started out first with a Hard Limit. Then I followed Bob's advise with managing by steps the FFT size.
    Sample One is a piece of the original.
    Sample Two is the results of the effects.
    It sounds as though the speed of the vocals did changed - though one can listen to the vocal their conversation sounds - unnatural.
    After removing noise is there another approach to redeem the vocals of those speaking?
    Thanks!
    Original Sample One
    HardLimit - Noise Reduction Sample Two
    Your video has been published at http://youtu.be/K63D5QNGb_I
    Your video will be live at: http://youtu.be/uOtLUYiZyQc

    Yes, you have very much overdone the Noise Reduction!
    First, I'm not sure why you would need to first apply a "Hard Limit".
    Second, are you sure you followed Bob's advice exactly, i.e taking a new noise sample and changing the FFT size on each pass?  Are you sure you set everything exactly correct on that first pass?

  • Noise reduction works in preview but doesn't apply to file

    I have a file that I would like to apply noise reduction to. So in the tasks menu I click Clean Up Audio, then under Noise I click Noise... From there I can play with the Noise settings and get it to clean up nicely. But when I hit OK, it doesn't apply the noise reduction. It seems to be doing something to the audio because the waveform changes.. just not reducing the noise as previewed. Anybody know why it wouldn't be applying the effect? Other audio editing options seem to work just fine.

    It is a 16 bit 44.1 kHz mono sound effect.. it is noisy and sounds like it could have been 8 bit at some point in its life cycle.

  • How do PS CS3 Noise Reduction Filters compare with dedicated third-party plug-ins?

    Am I missing something by not installing a dedicated Noise Reduction application into my PS CS3? Can Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Noiseware Pro, etc. do something that the PS CS3 Noise Filters can't do? Do these third-party aplications do it better?
    Since I like flashless photography, and I generally carry with me small-sensor compacts when I travel, I'm frequently confronted with the problem of digital noise. I've always wondered how the third-party noise reduction applications perform in comparison with the Photoshop Noise Filters. I hope someone in this Forum has been able to acquire direct experience on this topic and will be kind enough to share this experience with us.
    Kindest Regards,
    Conrad

    Conrad,
    ACR 4.3 has better NR (noise reduction) than previous versions and can handle NR in most normal situations. However, available light photography with a small pixel sensor may require more NR and the specialized plugins such as Noise Ninja, NeatImage, and NoiseWare Pro can do a better job. I have all three and they do an excellent job, but I currently use NoiseWare most of the time.
    Here is a demonstration of NoiseWare vs ACR NR, using 100% crops of an image taken with the Nikon D200, 1/320 sec at f/2.8. The image is reasonably sharp at normal viewing conditions, but has quite a lot of luminance noise. It was rendered with ACR and the settings were exposure +0.85, brightness +60. One thing you learn early in this type of shooting is to expose to the right to reduce noise, but this may conflict with stopping action and reducing camera shake. More exposure would have helped this image, and one should try to avoid exposures requiring this amount of positive exposure adjustment.
    The results are shown below, followed by some discussion. Other comments are welcome. Color noise is not prominent in this image and I left color NR at its default.
    ACR, No sharpening, no NR
    ACR, Luminance NR 53, no sharpening
    ACR, No NR, No sharpening, NoiseWare default, no sharpening
    Noise reduction and sharpening are antagonistic processes. It is important that NR is applied before sharpening--you don't want to sharpen noise. Following NR there is an inevitable loss of detail, and some sharpening is necessary to restore the detail, but this also brings back the noise. One can use masks and blend if sliders in Photoshop in both NR and sharpening to mitigate some of these effects, and Bruce Fraser discusses the details in his excellent book on sharpening.
    If you use an add on such as NoiseWare, you should turn off luminance sharpening in ACR. In doing so, you lose all those nifty sharpening features that have recently been added to ACR. I leave color NR at the default. It has a minimal effect on detail.
    In adjusting the NR in ACR at 100% viewing, I estimated that a luminance setting of +53 was optimal. Beyond that, blotchy artifacts appear in the image.
    For NoiseWarePro, I used the default settings with no sharpening. The NR effect is dramatic, but detail is lost and some sharpening is needed. This could be applied in NoiseWare or in Photoshop, perhaps with a plugin such as PhotoKit Sharpener. Personally, I have found that PK does not work well with this type of image because it bring back noise and produces artifacts.
    In all of these examples, sharpening is needed following the NR. One could try to use surface masks to keep sharpening in Photoshop with the unsharp mask away from the edges. However, I find it is difficult to get a good surface mask, and I don't take the trouble.
    For now, I use the sharpening built into NoiseWare. I don't know how it works internally, but it does have a slider for detail protection, and you can play with this to get the best result. It would be best to have the robust NR of the add ons built into ACR much like NoiseNinja is built into Bibble Pro. However, this is an ACR forum and I would expect that ACR is the preferred raw converter of those who frequent this forum.
    After expending this much effort on the post, I hope to get some helpful feedback.

  • Noise reduction for 32bit images acting totally different

    The noise reduction behaves totally different when used for 32bit images in ACR.
    It appears like it is applying some kind of strange blur or glow effect instead of working like expected from 8/16bit material.
    Can anybody confirm this and is this intended behaviour?

    Joe_Mulleta wrote:
    The noise reduction behaves totally different when used for 32bit images in ACR.
    How did you get your raws into HDR?
    Did you use raw files in ACR? Did you set the sharpening and noise reduction to optimal parameters in ACR on the raw files BEFORE going into HDR Pro?
    You should...I've found that it's important to optimize the raw files in ACR/LR before actually processing the raw files into HDR Pro...you need to realize that once the raw files are demosaiced, the best place to apply sharpening and noise reduction has been bypassed?
    Yes, a 32-bit TIFF opened in ACR 7.1 will not have the same sharpening and noise reduction opportunities once the original raw files have been processed. I've found it's useful to apply all ACR image optimizations (including tone, color and sharpening/noise reduction) to the raw files BEFORE doing a conversion to HDR Pro...
    And yes, the noise reduction settings in 32-bit in ACR 7.1 are _VERY_ tweaky (meaning you need to be very careful on the settings).

  • LR4 Feature request: Add local noise reduction

    Hello,
      I wish to apply noise reduction localy. On the backgroud apply a lot of and in forgroud (where the object/personn ist) a little.
      See this example.
      The current local noise reduction ist NOT the same as the one in the detail panel. It is a lof f less efficient.
      Thanks

    martin-s wrote:
    ...I had no idea there was a cut-off point...
    The only people who know about it are the one's who hang out on this forum .
    martin-s wrote:
    I use negative sharpness combined with negative clarity and/or contrast for blur effects. It's not unusual that I stack multiple brushes when -100 isn't enough 
    Thanks for the tip. My problem with blurring in Lr is that the blurred region ends up "too clean" (the rest of the photo has at least a bit of noise in it). I have dealt with it in the past by applying grain to the blurred region using an external editor - but that takes a lot of the fun out of doing the blur in Lightroom.
    Rob

  • Noise reduction did nothing - no instructions for the process

    I entered noise reducer in the help menu and "what's new in imovie comes up" - I am looking for info on the process to apply noise reduction and nothing applied even two layers down in what came up in "what's new in imovie".
    I have bought the book iMovie HD 6 & iDVD 6 and it does not give direction on how to apply. It does say page on 157, "this effect minimizes white noise, crowd noise, and hum - but nothing else - no directions on how to apply!
    My audio clip is selected in the time line and if it is as simple as selecting the apply button in audiofx, then select noise reduction, then select apply - IT DID NOTHING.
    Is this how it works for application and out come?
    Can anyone help,
    jim

    No, but the Help menu in iMovie does:
    To add an audio effect:
    Click the Timeline Viewer button (shown above).
    Select the audio clip or clips you want to add an effect to.
    Tip: To learn how to select multiple clips, see "Selecting clips" below.
    Click the Editing button, and then click Audio FX at the top of the Editing pane.
    Select the audio effect you want from the effects list.
    Adjust the settings for the effect.
    Different controls appear depending on the effect you select. For example, if you select Reverb, you can adjust the intensity of the reverberation by choosing a reverb style and dragging the Less/More slider.
    Click Preview to hear the effect.
    To stop previewing the effect, click Preview again.
    If necessary, repeat any of the above steps until you have the effect the way you want it.
    To add the effect to your selected clips, click Apply.
    When you add an audio effect to a video clip, iMovie automatically extracts the audio from the clip. The extracted audio with the applied effect appears as a separate clip in one of the audio tracks in the timeline viewer. If you want to add multiple audio effects to the same portion of video, be sure to select the extracted audio clip to add the additional effects to.

  • Noise Reduction process in Audition

    I have a talking head video with a lot of background noise. 
    I first selected both audio and video tracks and right-clicked to Unlink them. 
    Then I selected the audio track and right-clicked to Edit in Auditon. 
    In Audition > Effects menu > Noise Reduction > Noise Reduction process, I hit the Capture Noise Print button, but an error message comes up stating my clip is too short. 
    When I follow the instructions and change the FFT to the smallest size option (512), it still doesn't work.  I have tried strining a few short background noise clips together, but it doesn't work.
    Questions:
    1) How long does a backgroung noise clip have to be?
    2) What does FFT stand for, and why are the number options in that dropdown menu as they are?
    3) How can I get this to work?

    Dinaspark wrote:
    Then I selected the audio track and right-clicked to Edit in Auditon. 
    In Audition > Effects menu > Noise Reduction > Noise Reduction process, I hit the Capture Noise Print button, but an error message comes up stating my clip is too short. 
    The step that appears to be missing here is that you haven't highlighted the section that you want to capture the noise print from - if you select nothing, then yes, your selection is too short!
    Questions:
    1) How long does a backgroung noise clip have to be?
    2) What does FFT stand for, and why are the number options in that dropdown menu as they are?
    3) How can I get this to work?
    1) You can get away with as little as a quarter of a second, depending on the FFT size. If you use a large FFT size, the analysis window won't be large enough.
    2) FFT stands for Fast Fourier Transform. In this context, the numbers relate (in simple terms) to an analysis window. Smaller numbers generally make a better job of low frequency noise reduction, and are quicker to apply, but larger numbers generally do a better job overall, if you have a large enough noise sample and don't mind waiting longer for the results. This isn't a precise science; you often have to experiment a lot to get a good result, and it's very easy to overdo it. In CS6 there are alternatives as well - you might try the automatic adaptive NR process successfully on some material, but generally the full-blown version works better.
    The other thing that a lot of people do, which also yields good results, is to do two NR passes, one with a high FFT and one with a low FFT, but not trying to reduce the noise too much on either one. The overall effect is a similar level of NR, but often with less artefacts.
    3) Read and understand this post, and its implications!

  • In-camera high ISO noise reduction & ACR

    I've been involved in a discussion over on DPReview where someone believes that, when shooting with a Nikon dSLR (in this case a D7000, but the model isn't really important) high ISO NR is automatically applied in-camera directly to the raw file, and this will be carried over to any raw conversion software, including third-party software such as ACR/LR.
    Now I do agree that even with NR switched off, Nikon do automatically apply some limited NR to high ISO images in-camera, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that this is not something that ACR would interpret, and so it would not actually have any effect on the appearance of the raw file when it's processed. In fact, if the high ISO NR is somehow embedded into the raw file, that would go against my whole concept of how a raw file works in a convertor such as ACR! Surely any "default" high ISO NR is just added to the proprietry part of the EXIF, and is therefore only factored in when using Nikon conversion software (ViewNX, etc)? Otherwise, the file could not truly be considered to be 'raw'.
    I think I'm right, but wanted confirmation from some of the experts on here! And of course, I'm also quite happy to be proven wrong!
    M

    Noel Carboni wrote:
    By the way, the reference I found for D7000 shows that the High ISO NR can be disabled.  See this page:  http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/D7000A7.HTM
    What camera do YOU have, Molly?
    -Noel
    Hi Noel,
    Wow, I'm impressed with your efforts here!   Your point about blurring being a potential sign of whether or not NR has been applied to the high ISO raw files is a good one, and I agree that, based on that thinking, the examples you've found don't really seem to show much evidence of that, particularly the shots of the focus/resolution target.
    I do have a D7000; I replied as such back in post three ("yes I do" in response to your question "do you have such a camera?"), but I can see how that may not have been as clear as it should have been! I'm going to try some test shots myself to see if I can pick out any evidence of softening/blurring that may indicate NR being applied during the processing of the raw data. However, unfortunately my PC is currently being fixed as I've been having some hardware issues, so that testing won't be happening until I get it back (hoping within a week, missing it already).
    Regarding your reference that indicates that high ISO NR can be switched off, yes it can, but apparently only up to a point - here's what it states in the Nikon manual (and what has in turn sparked off this discussion over on DPR):
    "High ISO NR - option: off - Noise reduction is only performed at ISO sensitivities of ISO 1600 and higher. The amount of noise reduction is less than the amount performed when low is selected for High ISO NR" (as the article indicates, there are three options apart from off: high, normal, and low).
    As I've said previously, my understanding was that all of that had zero bearing on the raw file once it was loaded into ACR: regardless of any NR settings applied in-camera, either by the user or by Nikon bypassing the user, they were all thrown away by the Adobe raw processing algorithms, as are things like picture controls, sharpening, contrast, etc. But following my recent discussion, I started to wonder if my understanding of the raw capture process was incorrect, hence this thread.
    Thanks again for your work here. Above and beyond the call of duty!
    M

Maybe you are looking for