From: Dennis Johnstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Audio Noise Reduction
Cool Edit Pro does a good job with noise reduction and is more than adequate
if your audio is for web output only.
I'd agree with Aaron in saying that, if possible, you should look at
re-recording your material.
For good quality web output on a reasonable budget, use mid-range mics mixed
through something like the Spirit Folio F1 and recorded on to hard disk
using a mid-range card like the Yamaha DS2416 (remembering that you're going
from balanced XLR output on the F1 to an unbalanced RCA input on the card).
Edit with Cool Edit Pro. Archive your finished audio via the digital out of
the DS2416 to a good quality mini-disc (Denon's M1050R is good but for web
use on a budget consider a high-spec domestic Sony) *before* converting the
audio on your PC to RealMedia.
This will give you good quality audio for web use and reasonable quality if
you want to use it for other purposes.
I've put together a set-up like this for my girlfriend. She teaches media
studies and wanted a mini-studio on a reasonable budget for teaching
students the basics of making a radio package with the final result
showcased on the school website.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dennis Johnstone
Website editor
BBC Radio 5 Live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio5live/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RealForum [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 1:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Audio Noise Reduction
>
> From: "Aaron Bishop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Audio Noise Reduction
>
> You can get a better tape playback device and re-record the tapes while
> using Dolby Noise Reduction, either Dolby B or DBX. Dolby C isn't very
> good - it takes too much out in attempting to kill the hiss.
>
> The Sonic Foundry noise-reduction is pretty good. ProTools' is better -
> but ProTools is more expensive and only runs on Windows NT and Macs.
>
> I haven't messed much with Syntrillum Software's Cool Edit (regular and
> Pro) noise reduction (messed lots with the program itself, just never with
> the NR) but I gather it's certainly not bad.
>
> Do understand that NO noise reduction is going to take that tape and make
> it sound "good". It will sound "good for a tape" or "good for a
> poorly-recorded tape" but it will never sound "good". Getting rid of the
> hiss inevitably means killing off at least some of the high end and your
> audio will sound "muffled". As my somewhat-crude roommate likes to say,
> "you can't polish dog squeeze."
>
> For that matter - recording audio so it sounds "good" really requires the
> toys the big boys play with...high-end Shure, Neumann or EV mics...good
> mix
> boards...properly balanced I/O...good sound cards - there is no such thing
> as a good Sound Blaster card - they all stink for high-end work...great
> for
> non-high-end work, don't get me wrong. But it you want it to sound like a
> recording studio - you need good cards like Antex, Lynx, Audiomedia III's
> -
> things like that. This is expensive stuff but quality doesn't come
> cheap.
>
> Fortunately for us webcasters it's not as harsh b/c webaudio just doesn't
> sound as good as radio or CD's do on the whole...so we can get away with
> using SoundBlaster cards and the cheaper Shure mic models and the
> unbalanced audio. And we can use Minidiscs, too - which generally are a
> vast improvement over cassettes EXCEPT that MD uses ATRAC lossy
> compression
> so running MD audio through RealAudio conversion can really nuke the audio
> sometimes (i.e. you're compressing it twice which is virtual guarantee
> that
> you'll get audible artifacts). If you can swing the cost and don't mind
> having yourself or an audio engineer who really knows their stuff on
> retainer to do the **required** maintenance, a DAT machine is a great
> investment. Portable DATs tend to be satanic, though - stick with the
> studio models.
>
> Aaron Bishop
> CW Audio Engineer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
