Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sJoeAgain  You have significantly reduced with filters the crackles and pops and all the weird friction artifacts in the recording, sure there is some phase issues as a result of it but a good trade of for the reduction of unwanted noise. But then what?? More filtering and you are cuttin' out the voice fundamentals.... so you can make it thinner and reduce the noise from the low middle range or mufflled by filtering out above 1.5kHz..again IMO the sample is balanced and as good as it's gonna get without compromising the actual fundamentals of the original recorded voice.... |
Phase issues? Not sure what that is, but it sounds like you're thinking in equalisation terms. It's very different, and to understand it, you really have to think in terms of image. Imagine that someones come up with the perfect ideal image representation of what the sound should be. Well you'd apply it with Photosounder onto the original sound and it would just work.
Of course no one's going to come up with such an image because there are some things that have been lost definitely to the noise, but you have to understand that it's all an image processing problem. If you can fix the image, you've fixed the sound. And you can fix the image without losing any of the voice components. You can potentially keep all that belongs to the voice, lose all that's from the noise, and eventually get to fix some of what was damaged by the noise. It can be done, I'm not sure how, but the goal of the whole challenge is that someone finds out. And that applies not just to denoising but pretty much anything. Fix the image and the sound will follow
.
Also, I have to stress that it was just messing with an idea in Photoshop for like 5 minutes. Surely unless I'm incredibly lucky one can easily top that by putting more research into it!