> And I don't suppose you or anyone else out there are skilled at restoring
> vintage audio recordings too? That's my next ambition - to learn to improve
> muddy, hissy and crackly old radio classics like JAM, ISIHAC, the Glums etc.
>
> I've dabbled with Adobe Audition, but the results have been mediocre at best.
> And I don't suppose you or anyone else out there are skilled at restoring
> vintage audio recordings too? That's my next ambition - to learn to improve
> muddy, hissy and crackly old radio classics like JAM, ISIHAC, the Glums etc.
>
> I've dabbled with Adobe Audition, but the results have been mediocre at best.
--- In just-a-minute@..., Espen Krømke <espen.kromke@...> wrote:
>
> I've done quite a lot of attempts of audio restoration but I'm not
> particularly good at it. It's not easy.
>
> When you work on audio files I believe it helps to keep a basic fact of
> the trade in the back of your head: Tweaking audio is *always* a
> question of *subtracting* from the source. You can never add anything
> that's not already there. That is technically impossible.
>
> To illustrate with a very basic example; If you got a recording that has
> no bass, there will never be any bass on that recording. The bass is
> gone. However you may create the illusion of a more balanced sound by
> removing also some high frequencies. But it's a downward spiral. Always
> subtracting.
>
> Same goes with snap&crackle: You may zoom in on that particular moment
> when the snap is and *remove* the frequency range of the crackle. That
> will make the snap go away - but you will never get back the sound that
> *would* have been there had there not been a snap there in the first
> place. If you catch my drift?
>
> My tool of choise used to be Sony SoundForge, nowadays it's Audacity. I
> have never tried Adobe audition so I can not give any advice on that
> particular program, however as long as it is a suitable tool for the job
> (and I assume it is) it doesn't matter that much what tool you use - the
> important thing is to know how to use it.
> And learning the tools require an understanding of what sound is made
> of, from a technical point of view.
>
> But it's fun while you learn! And if you got the patience and time for
> it, just go ahead and try&fail your way to get to know both the tool and
> the theory.
>
> Just remember to never, never ever overwrite a source. Always work on a
> copy. :)
>
>
> > And I don't suppose you or anyone else out there are skilled at restoring
> > vintage audio recordings too? That's my next ambition - to learn to improve
> > muddy, hissy and crackly old radio classics like JAM, ISIHAC, the Glums etc.
> >
> > I've dabbled with Adobe Audition, but the results have been mediocre at best.
>
> Do you mind me asking what tools / filters and settings you have used successfully with Audacity?
>
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 4 | 14 |
| 2018 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 25 | 5 | 14 |
| 2017 | 4 | 34 | 22 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 44 | 23 | 16 |
| 2016 | 13 | 49 | 39 | 57 | 60 | 87 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 2015 | 51 | 97 | 32 | 49 | 41 | 54 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 16 |
| 2014 | 9 | 75 | 68 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 52 | 82 | 51 | 32 | 38 | 79 |
| 2013 | 463 | 251 | 98 | 87 | 81 | 192 | 88 | 98 | 86 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| 2012 | 92 | 121 | 180 | 199 | 125 | 88 | 71 | 155 | 118 | 166 | 125 | 144 |
| 2011 | 112 | 78 | 71 | 73 | 134 | 225 | 252 | 152 | 62 | 183 | 165 | 63 |
| 2010 | 142 | 117 | 153 | 94 | 69 | 49 | 69 | 183 | 82 | 71 | 68 | 75 |
| 2009 | 67 | 45 | 42 | 97 | 90 | 149 | 110 | 70 | 63 | 42 | 35 | 39 |
| 2008 | 200 | 120 | 175 | 120 | 70 | 109 | 87 | 115 | 71 | 45 | 58 | 38 |
| 2007 | 165 | 447 | 132 | 99 | 95 | 57 | 140 | 118 | 74 | 88 | 125 | 99 |
| FAQ | Contact | Services | Terms | Privacy | Credits |
[Page generated in 0.0935 seconds under 1.66% server load]
© 2012-2026 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.