soundsoap vs noise reduction 2.0 or anything else

rextilleon wrote on 5/18/2003, 1:52 PM

Noise Reduction 2.0 is among the best sound reduction software out there---You just have to learn what it (or any software) can do and what it can't do. I don't even know what the process was but if you tell us what you did step by step we might be able to help you. DVD Architect is decent for a first release---It lacks several things but for basic DVD creation it works pretty well.

BillyBoy wrote on 5/18/2003, 2:25 PM

I agree in that you need to play with the settings regardless who's noise reduction software you use. I can't comment on version 2 verses version one, since I never tried the first version and I only sampled version 2, haven't bought it. While its good, its very pricy in my opinion considering its limited functions. I use another product.

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/18/2003, 7:00 PM

Noise reduction 2 is about 148.00 coupled with CD architect.

I think thats a good bundle.

Bear wrote on 5/18/2003, 7:07 PM

I use Noise Reduction 2 all the time and there is a learnign curve, it is best ot load a piece and experiment. I do a ton of lp album conversion to CD for people and the vinyl restoration segment is great.

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/18/2003, 8:05 PM

I've been working with some V-footage I uploaded from my dv-953 and it does take quite a bit of noise out. If I take too much out then it affects the voices to sound sort of like a phase effect. However I think the quality when I give it a good balance is actually quite good. There is a small decrease in the quality but It's barely noticable unless you compare the original to the processed signals. If you don't compare then you wouldn't know it's processed and you don't carry all the noise.

I actually think I'll purchase it.

If anyone out there wants to talk me out of it please give me a good reason why I should not buy it.

Gene

Blackout wrote on 5/18/2003, 8:26 PM

the secret to using SOFO Noise red 2 is to do everything in Mode 3 :)

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/18/2003, 8:40 PM

thanks for the advice blackout

riredale wrote on 5/19/2003, 11:27 AM

Anybody know of any "white papers" that talk about how this noise reduction is done? To me it seems like the notion of a perpetual motion machine--you can't get something for nothing. How does it know if a low-level hiss, for example, is mic hiss or the hiss of a sibilant or a snare drum? Does noise reduction basically say: "Well, we're taking away your high frequencies, but we do it in a way that you won't usually notice?"

FuTz wrote on 5/20/2003, 1:50 AM

Good question riredale... I too can't get the idea that it's so different from just plain cutting the right frequencies to get rid of the noise (especially HISS)...

Anyone?

JakeHannam wrote on 8/27/2003, 8:54 PM

Has anyone actually used Bias Soundsoap? I would appreciate your opinions on it versus Noise Reduction.

I tried the Noise Reduction demo and it works well but it is $249. I don't need CD Architect so the bundle deal isn't attractive to me. I would like to use it with Sound Forge and Vegas but hesitate to spend $249.

Now, Soundsoap on the other hand, is only $99. Much more reasonable if it works as well as (or better than) Noise Reduction.

Jake

AudioIvan wrote on 8/28/2003, 10:45 AM

@ BillyBoy,
What do you use for noise reduction?I consider STEINBERG(not Pinnacle) CLEAN to do much better job on noise reduction combined with some VST Plug-ins than S.F.N.R.2a.One thing that I hate is Pinnacle buying program rights & repackaging the programs in Pinnacle wrapping>THAT SUCKS.
However did you try the new wavelab?Does incredible job on spectrum analyzing.
AudioIvan

BillyBoy wrote on 8/28/2003, 10:56 AM

I like something called DC Millennium from http://www.enhancedaudio.com/ they have several products. I have and use other stuff too, but I seem to be using this more and more for every day general use.

I like Sound Forge, Cool Edit too, but the above is decent and lots cheaper and has a build-in noise reduction routine that's easy to adjust almost as good as the SoFo that's very expensive, plus a whole bunch of other filters and effects. The down side is the interface isn't that great, but for the money I save I can live with that.

Memo to Sony:

While the Noise Reduction filter is first rate, its WAY over priced for what it does, meaning, nothing but noise reduction.

Erk wrote on 8/28/2003, 10:57 AM

For years I have used Cool Edit for noise reduction, which works pretty well after you get to know it. But Cool Edit was recently purchased by Adobe and is being repackaged as Adobe Encore. Don't know if they raised the price; Cool Edit (not their multitracking product) was only about $50.

It didn't operate as a DX plugin though.

Cool Edit's was made by Syntrillium.

Greg

BillyBoy wrote on 8/28/2003, 11:16 AM

The one thing I never liked about Cool Edit is their noise reduction filter which usually ends up leaving artifacts and it would take many tries to get an acceptable result. The product I mentioned is much easier to change settings and its easier to surpress artifacts, those tinny, chirping sounds if the noise reduction filtering isn't right.

Now if you want the absolute best noise reduction filter there is a product called Arboretium's Ionizer. Its expensive, but more advanced and more adjustable than anything else I've seen. Like 512 EQ bands. To give you an idea, it only does noise reduction (I think) and it has almost a 100 page manual. It is suppose to be a plug in for Cool Edit AND SoFo's stuff.

http://www.audiomidi.com/common/cfm/product.cfm?Product_ID=782

Randy Brown wrote on 8/28/2003, 11:48 AM

One thing I don't think anyone mentioned about SoFo NR 2.0 is the fact that you get less artifacts if you make 2-3 passes with a lower threshold. The default is -12db but I find if I make 2-3 passes (in Sound Forge) set at say - 6db I get better results.
Randy

JakeHannam wrote on 8/28/2003, 12:15 PM

Cool Edit is now Adobe Audition - not Encore.

I tried a demo of Arboretum's Noise Reduction but it kept crashing Sound Forge. So much for that one. Bias Soundsoap does not have a demo.

I agree wholeheartedly with Billyboy that SF Noise Reduction is WAY overpriced - good though it may be.

Jake

BillyBoy wrote on 8/28/2003, 12:42 PM

Shame too. If they priced it around $40-$50 I bet it would fly out the door.

hektor73 wrote on 8/28/2003, 1:03 PM

I'm new to video, but have quite a bit of experience with digital stills.
If you can convert your video (dont ask me how) to a series of jpg or tif files (and be able to reconstruct it later) there is an amazing product out there for $60 Neatimage; at neatimage.com. They have a fully functional demo which doesnt allow batch processing (essential since youll be doing thousands of frames) but you can test it on stills. I beleve there is a posting on their support forum about someone else using digital video....

Erk wrote on 8/28/2003, 1:21 PM

Jake - you're right, Cool now = Audition (Encore, Premore, Aftercore, can't keep that team straight :)

Billy - sorry to hear I guess I've been using the wrong noise reduction tool all along, but glad to hear there is something better!

Cheers,

Greg

RexA wrote on 8/28/2003, 1:22 PM

Current state of Cool Edit:

If you try to go to a syntrillium page you now get redirected to Adobe. They say that they have trashed the low-end Cool Edit (bummer!). The Cool Edit Pro replacement is Adobe Audition priced at about $300. There is a cheaper update for registered Cool Edit users.

DataMeister wrote on 8/28/2003, 1:43 PM

riredale,

I'm not sure of any white papers that discuss the intricate details of the way these type of programs do their stuff, but the basic concept is that first you have to sample a piece of the noise without actual audio.

For instance if you are removing tape hiss you would record your content along with a few seconds of the blank area of tape. Then you take a sample of that base level noise to let NR 2 create a profile. Then NR 2 will use that noise profile to remove that kind of sound from the entire file. The smoother the noise, (meaning the less pattern you can hear in it) the better your NR 2 results are going to be.

That method is similar to adjusting an EQ to remove sound, except it is to a much higher resolution. It's a little like using the subtract method to mix one audio file with another except NR 2 has features to help you smudge the profile around to get less or more applied effect.

I hope that was understandable.

JBJones

MJhig wrote on 8/28/2003, 2:26 PM

Also on the price of SF's NR 2.0, if you look around you can find it bundled with Sound Forge. I got Sound Forge 5.0 bundled with NR 2.0 for $199 US, that's less than the full price of either. I found it using one of the price bots like NexTag or PriceGrabber. I've also seen SF 6 bundled with NR 2.0 for $229 a short time ago.

As others have mentioned, once you become familiar with it, if you do much audio you wouldn't be without it. It's an extremely powerful tool.

MJ

24Peter wrote on 8/28/2003, 6:25 PM

Jay Rose did an overview of noise reduction software in this month's (Sept. 03) issue of DV Magazine. He lists all the major and minor players. The article should be here (http://www.dv.com/columns/) but for some reason it's not. Also, check out Magix Audio Cleaning Lab 2004 (or v. 3.0). Pretty cheap ($39) and seems to do the job (though I haven't figured out how to seamlessly integrate it with Vegas).

BillyBoy wrote on 8/28/2003, 9:11 PM

How noise reduction filters work is actually fairly simple. Similar to a fingerprint each "noise" has a uniquie wave pattern. If you are luckly enough to have as little as as half a second or so of just the "noise" and everything else is silence, then its possible to get rid of much of the noise. Note I didn't say all of it. Settle for getting most.

Cheaper applications usually allow you to sample "silence" the noise only part and apply the filter to a range, usually the whole audio portion that's noisy. While a brute force method... it works pretty good.

The trouble is the sample probably generates a patten that applies the filtering equally over all the noise. Because certain frequencies of the noise usually wll be more objectionable than others, you can end up with either too weak a filtering or too strong. While you may be able to adjust the filtering some, usually you can't get down to a narrow enough frequency range to really get a superior result.

Better applications allow you do adjust the filter so you can similar to adding points in a volume envelope increase or decrease the strength of the filtering along its entire frequency range increasing or decreasing how strong the filter is applied on a much more narrow range of frequencies in much more tiny steps. If you're willing to invest the time you can "trap" most of the narrow frequencies causing the noise by dramatically increasing the filtering for those frequecies only while at the same time applying very little or no filtering where it really isn't needed or where the noise will blend into the background noise.

A common mistake is to attempt to get rid of all the noise. For example camera noise or a noisy air conditiorer or something. If the noise has a low or high enough frequency then a low or high pass filter can be applied totally cutting off such frequencies. In fact that's a better approach for some noise.

However if you have people talking for example and the noise patten also in part falls in the same range of frequencies as human voice if you apply too strong a noise filter then you'll also be taking away frequencies in the voice patterns. I try to settle for getting rid of about 80% or so of the noise. If you do that you'll hear a big improvement and what noise is left won't be objectionable and probably only you will be aware its there, because you removed a good deal of it when it was louder and so you're more sensentive to hearing it at a fainter volume.