Noise reduction makes robotic voice

I have been using Noise Reduction feature on "Audition" with no problems. When I have upgraded to "Adobe Soundbooth" I have an issue with this feature. When I turn it on I hear robotic echo of the voice no matter what the parameters are, even if the slider of parameters is on the 0 point (no noise reduction at all). Furthermore, it makes no difference if I am doing it with noise reduction profile or not.

I tried using noise reduction for old recordings namely background hiss...then I discovered the audio effects work better for this...called "remove hiss" and also in the simple effects "Parametric" called "Under a blanket"

Similar Messages

Hi. how can i make the robotic voice in pro 9

hi. how can i make the robotic voice in pro 9?

With this:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/logicstudio/effects/index.html#chapter=10%26se ction=3%26hash=apple_ref:doc:uid:TempBookID-ReplacedWhenAssociatingWithMessierRe vision-PIT-1007921
or with this:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/logicstudio/instruments/index.html#chapter=10% 26section=0

NOISE reduction for Vocal Track?

Hi,
I'm wondering whether will you use the Noise Reduction for Vocal Tracks?
Why i question it?because, most of the Home Recording Studio doesn't have a Proper Room Treatment, So might make the Room Noise recorded into the Vocal track...For that,will you use the Noise Reduction to solve the Noises?
appreciate to the helpful thread you've provide

but if the noise is... a sound that has been recorded in the same track with the
voice... you cannot do anything
Sure you can.
if the room is not separate are there is a ambient noise recorderd such as Phones
rings or Child crying
RX can deal with this too.
you can also try to silence every free space between the vocal parts...
because the sockets of breath voice will be certainly compromised
Not a problem with noise print removal. We're only removing/reducing the noise print, not any wanted signal.

Noise reduction on track1 using noise print from track2

I have an audio track from a video project that was recorded on track1 that has a lot of interference from the wirelss mic that was so strong that it crossed over to the idle track2. Track1 has the voice and interference intermixed. Track2 just has the interference. How can I take a noise print from track2 and use it to reduce the corresponding noise on track1? Any ideas?

Bristol87 wrote:
In addition, to make the process more challenging, I am unable to get the audio in the edit frame to play at the same gain as in the multi-track frame. In edit mode I seem to be at a 0db gain whereas the multi-track is playing at over 12 to 20db.
I am also unclear how to get the changes back to Final Cut. When I go to File to save it I do not see a Save option that would transfer the edited audio back to the Final Cut Project.
For the additional items you mention:
1. In your multi-track project, check your volume envelopes on the track, and check the level on your submix and master. To do this, click the the disclosure triangle just left of the track name. You'll see in purple the envelopes section, which is like keyframes in FCP.
2. You have to export a mix to send it back to FCP. Go to File -> Export, save the master mix with a file name, and most likely as an aiff file, then in the dropdown "After Export" choose "Send to Final Cut Pro Sequence."
For your noise reduction questions - applying noise reduction is for broadband, sustained noise, like an air conditioner or a hum. Are you trying to apply the same noise reduction to several files because they have the same type of background noise? I generally just save my settings, but set a new noise print for each file. I'll give you a quick step by step:
Select a bit in the file where there's JUST noise. Then go to Process -> Noise Reduction -> Set Noise Print. Then select the entire file, and go to Process -> Noise Reduction -> Reduce Noise. When the noise reduction window comes up, you just need to listen and play with the settings until you're satisfied with how it sounds. As a starting point, take a look at the level of the noise alone, and use that as the threshold. Usually 100% noise reduction doesn't sound good, but you just have to use some trial and error. Too much sounds worse than too little, in my opinion. When satisfied, apply it and save the preset.
Hope this helps!
Matthew

Lessening background noise when Amplifying a sound file (post noise reduction)

I have a video I have been tryng to clean up, that was filmed in an environment with some amount of background noise.
I managed to get the audio cleaned up to a leveI was happy with (but still retained a minimal amount of almost unoticable noise to keep the voise still sounding ok).
It sounds fine and perfectly loud in headphones but on some computer speakers even turned up to full volume you can barely hear it. (in the future I will try to film with a higher volume)
I attempted a few different methods to Amplify the sound slightly but this also increases the reminant of background noise.
Along with the basic Amplify, and Normalise I have also tried using a Hard Limiter (I don't know if I was doing it right though as it also increased the Background noise)
Can someone provide any pointers to only amplify the Voice and not the background noise? or possibly even suggest a way I can clean up the reminant background noise without causing the voice to become hollow and Tinny? Obviously redoing the Noise removal process just makes the voice more Hollow.
In the future should I Amplify first and then run the noise removal?
I am using Audition CS6

In Audition, Noise Reduction always seems to work best if applied in small steps, with different settings for each. The setting that makes absolutely the most difference is the FFT size you use. The thing to do at the outset is to use the default setting (4096 I think) but don't take too much off with that. Then change the FFT size to the maximum setting, take a new noise print from the results of your previous pass, and take the rest off with this setting. By doing this, you'll find that you can take away more noise before artefacts start to creep in.
It doesn't actually matter about the level of your signal when you apply NR, but to be sensible about it, in order to be able to monitor the results effectively, you should normalize it first, to around -1 or -2dB. The concept of amplifying a signal without amplifying the noise in it implies making the dynamics non-linear, and whilst that's possible to a degree with the Dynamics Processor, it's generally not a good idea - it makes everything seem completely unnatural-sounding.

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....!

Background Traffic Noise Reduction

Hello all,
I'm currently editing my short film and I have huge issues with background traffic. I've faught with Adobe Audition for about 2 hours now and I can't get a good reduction on my background traffic. I've used adaptive noise reduction and Noise reduction (Process) and I just can't seem to get a decent reduction without having weird noises that would just make everything worse.
If you want you can listen to it for yourself, I'm linking it with dropbox.The beginning is the worst I have plenty of other audio that has more backgrounf traffic.
Thank you in advance for you help! Cheers!

I couldn't find a link to your Drop Box but I can make a few general comments.
First, traffic noise is going to be very difficult to work on because it's constantly changing. Noise reduction is most effective on things like electronic hiss or an air conditioner running continuously in the background.
However, to give yourself the best chance, use the Noise Reduction (Process) version. Grab a sample of the background noise but don't try to get rid of all the noise at once. Do a very light reduction, grab another noise sample, then do another light process. Keep this up until you hit the best compromise between background noise and the sort of artefacts you've noticed. Depending on exactly what the noise is, you may find that increasing the FFT size helps.
Because the background will be constantly changing, you MAY find you get better results by breaking it up into smaller chunks with more similar noise problems....general traffic is different from a passing bus.
Which leads me to a final suggestion...if certain noises are a fairly specific frequency, instead of using NR, you might try to go to spectral view and use the marquee tool to draw around the offending frequency and either just hit delete or maybe the spot healing tool. This'll only work with a narrow frequency band--I was once able to remove a passing ambulance siren almost totally using this method--but a passing truck rumbling through a wide range of frequencies wouldn't really work.
Finally, you might find that some subtle boost in the fundamental voice frequencies might help your intelligibility a bit. You'll have to play with frequencies to find the right ones but they'll be in the mids somewhere.

Noise reduction query

Hello! I'm not a new user to Adobe Audition, but feel a bit out of my depth in this regard. I was just wondering if anyone could suggest the best way to edit out all the noise in the track illustrated below? It's a dialogue track but there is a lot of movement / rustling in between. Can this be taken out easily without affecting the dialogue?
Thanks in advance for any help!!

My guess is that as long as you can get a good sample of only rustling noises, you may be able to reduce somewhat the rustling noise. Knocking them out to the point where you hardly ever heard them would require painstaking editing that would not be worth the time in most situations. Knocking them out entirely would either change the timbre of the speakers voice or add annoying artifacts to the recording, or both. I would settle for a try at a slight reduction, reasonably quick, somewhat improved, nothing made worse.
If I understand the display I'm looking at in the original post, someone is speaking and we see the spoken words as the most active part of the display. In between the spoken words, we see minor activity near the bottom of the display, and you're hearing that activity as rustling noises, which you want eliminated. Correct? If that's the case, I would not be working in spectral view. I primarily use spectral view for locating distinctive sounds (particularly LP album clicks or pops) which do not show up distinctly in waveform view because they blend in with the display of the music, whereas in spectral view, they have a very distinctive signature (a sharp red line which appears very distinct from musical peaks). There's nothing wrong with spectral view, other than slowing screen refreshes; it just doesn't add useful information for this editing job. I'd switch to waveform view and highlight a portion of the rustling noise. It should be average in amplitude, not the most annoying rustling, and it should have no trace of noise (including vocal reverb) other than rustling noises. A couple of seconds is sufficient. Sometimes when I can't find a couple of seconds of the target noise together, I'll splice shorter segments together to get it. But it is important that the rustling noise be pure rustling and not unusually loud examples of it.
Once you've highlighted a couple of seconds of random, average-amplitude rustling-only noise, in Effects>Noise Reduction>Noise Reduction, hit the Capture Profile button. This samples the rustling noises and creates a profile of them. Hit the Select Entire File button. The entire file should be highlighted. Slide the Noise Reduction slider down to about 70, and hit Preview. What you're doing is listening to what your file, and you'll key in on voices now, will sound like with the rustling noises dampened down. Listen very carefully to determine if the vocal timbre of the speaker is changing, or if you hear any odd digital artifacts, which will often sound like faint wind chimes. (You shouldn't, with the Noise Reduction slider set to only 70; at 100, you might, or if you run Noise Reduction repeatedly, you eventually will hear artifacts.) If you don't like the effect, move the slider. It can be better to make two passes (particularly on a loud portion of rustling, highlighting only that part instead of Select Entire File) of Noise Reduction with the slider set in the 50-70 range, than one pass at 90-100. Listen again to the file, and Undo if necessary. Only Save to a copy, or to the original if you're absolutely sure the entire file is better. Otherwise, if you save back to your original file, you can lock in digital artifacts you introduced with Noise Reduction that cannot be later removed after you realize how annoying they are.

Are there any other enhancements in noise reduction tools in CS6

Are there any other enhancements in the noise reduction tools besides the improvement mentioned of the spot healing brush. Are there improvements on the click and pop removal tool and the noise reduction in the spectral editing view. Quite anxious to know...

Paul:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. There is a hidden feature for changing the Redeye and Retouch tool size:
How to Change the Size of the Retouch and Red-Eye Removal Tool
Type Caps lockControl9
Undo caps lock
Click on the Retouch or Red-Eye Removal tool
The tab key will toggle between cursor types, a cross or a circle
The "[" and "]" keys decrease or increase the size accordingly.
NOTE: Using the "{" "}" keys will will change the value next to the circle and that represents the degree of change or intensity that the tool imparts on each pass.
Also check out the tip at the end of my signature for backing up the library database file on a frequent basis.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application, iPhoto dB file backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Rauschen - Noise reduction - Denoise

I need to reduce noise on my photos, but it does not work with PS Touch even if the option is there! I have moved the slider from 0 to 100. It tried with another app that is adobe ps express, and it worked well.

I have the same exact issue!
I've tried re-installing and rebooting the phone. I literally bought the app to make my skin look sexy and smooth with the noise-reduction! But it's not working! Please help my skin look good!

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!

When editing in Photoshop CS6 I lose the noise reduction applied in Lightroom 4

When I apply the noise reduction in LR4 & 4.1 it's awesome until I send it to photoshop CS6 for editing...there the noise returns somewhat with larger spots highlighted (have to remove with spot healing)... looks even worse when I bring it back to Lightroom as a tiff. I have used Lightroom (including beta) from the start and this is the first major problem I've incured. I shoot a lot of concerts & festivals....this really makes for a lot more work and time spent....I love LR4...please fix.

It should't happen. Can you post an example?

In-camera noise reduction

This question is directed to the technically knowledgeable out there and has to do with in-camera noise reduction settings. Although I'm shooting with a 1D4, I would guess the same would apply to all models. In a nutshell, is in-camera noise reduction (assuming it's enabled) applied to RAW files or just to JPEGs? If it's applied to RAW files (which is all I shoot), have any of you shot RAW with noise reduction disabled, and if so, how were the results? I tried to do a search here on this topic but was unable to find any information. Thanks.

hsbn wrote:
No, with all due respects, it is Long Exposure NR. Why would it make it worst with High ISO if it is "High ISO Noise Reduction".
6D Manual page: 128 - 129
5D Mark III manual page 144-145
"Images taken at ISO 1600 or higher may look grainier with the [Enable] setting than with the [Disable] and [Auto] setting"
With Auto setting, camera will not do LENR if the ISO is higher than 1600.
I've tested this and it's give many kind of artifact with high ISO from time to time. Others it just gives more noise.
Hi,
- Great to know, thanks! It's very surprising indeed.
LENR is supposed to remove hot pixels and noise due to long exposure. It's (sadly) surprising the in-cameras LENR may be worse than in post...
We'll take a review about it , since shooting long exposure at higher than ISO 1600 is not uncommon for astro photography.
I think 5D Mark 2 didn't have this "problem". Will check that too.
- The manual tells that in-camera High ISO NR applied is lower at high ISO than the NR that can be applied in post, not "worse", sorry, my mistake.
Thanks once again.
EDIT: The User manual of 5D Mark 2 doesn't tell anything about this matter. The manual of 7D does, as well as 6D and 5D3 as you mentioned.
Since I used to work with 5D2 I didn't realize the 5D3 could be different. Or at least the manual of 5D2 doesn't say the final result of LENR at 1600 or higher could be worse. Good thing to keep in mind.
Sitll doesn't understand why the result "may" be worse, the 5D3 has enormous computing potential with the Digic 5+
This seems to only affect if LENR is set to "ON" / "Enabled", not to "Auto". Very likely a more agressive NR is applied in such case.
We'll carry some test indeed.
EDIT 2:
In just brief tests with the 5D Mark 3 we found some inconsistency on the results between setting Long Exposure NR to "OFF", "Auto" & "On".
We set High ISO NR, Peripheral Illumination Correction and Chromatic Aberrations to OFF, to see only the effect of LENR in JPG (not RAW yet).
This camera (5D3) applies High ISO NR even when you set it to OFF (very noticeable in video mode).
At ISO 6400 we didn't see a hot /stuck pixel (even when LENR set to "OFF") that appears at ISO 3200 when setting LENR to OFF or Auto. Of course "ON" deletes all hot /stuck pixels, but also increaed grain.
We all already know that the more the sensor heats up (shooting and shooting long exposure stills - or using Live View for stills or video), the more noise we'll get in the pictures (and video).
So far we couldn't get a "rule". Sometimes the "Auto" works better than "ON", it seems it depends on the selected ISO value and how hot is the sensor too.
I pesonally don't understand WHY the LENR delivers more grainy images when set to "ON", if the NR is more agressive the grain should be finer than in "OFF" or "Auto", so it doesn't make sense...
We'll test the 5D Mark 2 to compare with 5D3 in this regard
HD Cam Team
Group of photographers and filmmakers using Canon cameras for serious purposes.
www.hdcamteam.com | www.twitter.com/HDCamTeam | www.facebook.com/HDCamTeam

Local noise reduction too weak

I often need to add a touch of additional noise reduction to some image areas such as the sky and use to apply the adjustment brush (can't say how much Lightroom lacks a layers feature). In some cases, even increasing the noise lever to 100% will still not give me enough noise reduction. I currently don't know any other way to get what I want than to escape to Photoshop with its masks, layers and filters. I'd prefer to stay in Lightroom for noise reduction, is there something I could try or would the developers need to make the effect of the slider stronger?
Andreas

Andreas: the solution is simple, even if it isn't intuitive. Just click on the "new" button next to the adjustment brush to start a new adjustment in a new location. Now start painting in another location in the sky. (Don't get to close to the original pin you started with your you'll reselect it and continue that adjustment.) Now you can paint 100% noise reduction over the sky a second time for a total of 200%. If that's still not enough, lather, rinse and repeat.
I first learned about this technique from Matt Kloskowski's Lightroom Killer Tips blog. Here's a video he created that shows this technique in action: http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/video-stacking-multiple-adjustment-brush-settings/
Brad

Any chance Photoshop itself will get Camera Raw's noise reduction and sharpening?

I would love to have the noise reduction and sharpening from ACR 6 in Photoshop itself for JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files. Yes, I know I can open those files in ACR, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and then have it then open the files to Photoshop. But it would be so nice if we could do that without having to go through Camera Raw.

Matt Howell wrote:
Yes, I am absolutely saying that the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR 6 is vastly superior to any filters in Photoshop CS5.
For those who only work only with RAW files this is a non-issue, but I sometimes prefer to use TIFF files generated by CANON DPP software or occasionally even JPEG's straight out of Canon DSLR's. Going through ACR just for noise reduction causes unnecessary color space conversions, as well as just a needlessly complex workflow.
Perhaps you should ask Canon to make DPP noise reduction better. I also do not think is a good idea to get too aggressive with noise reduction and sharpening when you first bring a image into Photoshop unless you only use the image single use for a particular output device. Your better off working with a somewhat soft image till you ready for output and then sharpen for the output devive being used. If you use strong sharpening and NR up front sharpeing again for your output device may produce unwanted sharpening and NR artifacts... There are several third party noise reduction and sharpening plug-ins that are better then Adobe Photoshop built in ones. Noise reduction has to be balanced too much will loose detail masking detail is important. ACR noise reduction provides masking adjustments and works well. Third party plug-ins offer offer advanced masking features also. Photoshop noise reduction filter has a basic preserve detail slider which I presumes does some kind of masking but this is not as good at ACR masking and third paty masking. You can of course add you own masking before using photoshop noise reduction filter. Sharpening also needs masking for sarpening will sharpen noise as well as detail.
IMO your better off with third party plug-ins that are designed to be the best. They keep getting better there is no clear winner for all images. I'm been satisfied with NeatImage and I have only had to pay for two upgrades. I had to pay for the addition the 32 bit plugin then and for the addition a 64 bit plugin. All other updates to NeatImage has been free of charge even the lates version 7 of the 64 bit plugin was no charge for me.

Noise reduction makes robotic voice

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for