Removing Reverb? Please Help if you can
-
- KVRAF
- 8705 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
It's as productive as any other method of trying to remove reverb.So to remove reverb, you boil coffee?
And...
That means that if you condense the coffee you'll be in a bigger room - surely that means more reverb?in the boiling process almost no coffee or sugar will go with the vapor....that is how things get concentrated. if you boil away half the water, it will taste like you are in a room twice the size.
So does he have to dilute his coffee to remove the reverb then?
-
- KVRist
- 380 posts since 30 Aug, 2001 from Pyrlandia
you can get almost decent results with something like SoFo Noise Reduction and a bit of experimenting.
generally the idea is to use reverb tail as noiseprint, sometimes it works better sometimes not at all...
generally the idea is to use reverb tail as noiseprint, sometimes it works better sometimes not at all...
-
- KVRAF
- 1718 posts since 3 Sep, 2003
If its a stereo file, you can probably assume that the voice is in mono and the reverb in stereo. You can the filter the reverb out algorithmicly. Try some stereo image processors. Like MDAs Image.
-
- KVRist
- 90 posts since 24 Apr, 2001 from Clinton, ME
You can't really get rid of the reverb completely, but you might be able to minimize it using an expander of some sort, and/or a noise gate. An expander is the opposite of a compressor, and in fact some compressor plugins (such as my own Waves Renaissance Compressor) have an expander function which sort of allows you to undo compression. The advantage of an expander over a gate is that gates often cause audible artifacts--expanders are more gradual.
Actually, if I were doing this, I would run the vocal track through an expander, and render it into an audio track when I get it as dry as possible. Then I would try running the track through a gate at a low threshold and medium-to-fast attack speed, to trim off the remaining reverb tail, and again render it to audio. Then I would recompress the track as needed, to reverse the dynamic changes I created in the vocal track itself when I expanded it.
When you try the resultant track in your mix, it's not unlikely the other tracks will mask the residual reverb and any limited artifacts you created--UNLESS the reverb was loud enough relative to the vocal track that it can't be separated by expansion. In that case the track will still sound muddied by a kind of gated reverb effect, and the sugar-in-coffee analogy stands firm.
Good luck!
By the way, if you're going to go to all this trouble with the track, I recommend that you go ahead and drink the coffee WITH sugar.
Actually, if I were doing this, I would run the vocal track through an expander, and render it into an audio track when I get it as dry as possible. Then I would try running the track through a gate at a low threshold and medium-to-fast attack speed, to trim off the remaining reverb tail, and again render it to audio. Then I would recompress the track as needed, to reverse the dynamic changes I created in the vocal track itself when I expanded it.
When you try the resultant track in your mix, it's not unlikely the other tracks will mask the residual reverb and any limited artifacts you created--UNLESS the reverb was loud enough relative to the vocal track that it can't be separated by expansion. In that case the track will still sound muddied by a kind of gated reverb effect, and the sugar-in-coffee analogy stands firm.
Good luck!
By the way, if you're going to go to all this trouble with the track, I recommend that you go ahead and drink the coffee WITH sugar.
-
- KVRian
- 1335 posts since 23 Sep, 2003 from ocation: cation: ation: tion: ion: on: n: :
Doesn't the quantization taste depend on the bit depth? How deep you've dug in the sugar to get the bit to put in the coffee, that is...Meffy wrote:Boiling, condensing, and re-combining coffee can help to remove sugar, yes, but it also introduces severe quantization taste.
the the impotence of proofreading
-
- KVRAF
- 8705 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
You don't get quantisation artifacts if you use castor sugar. It's down to the bit-refinery depth: If you're still using the old system of plain crunchy sugar, then of course you'll get artifact noise.
Although I have heard good things about these new-fangled artificial sweeteners. But it'll take years to do a decent emulation with chemicals I reckon. You can't beat good old-fashioned analogue granules
Although I have heard good things about these new-fangled artificial sweeteners. But it'll take years to do a decent emulation with chemicals I reckon. You can't beat good old-fashioned analogue granules
-
- KVRAF
- 5851 posts since 9 Jul, 2002 from Helsinki
This is not the cheapest way, but it _is_ true that many professional methods can damage your wallet.
1. Ask someone gifted with a fairly similar voice to sing it again, this time record it the proper way. Autotune it past the point of recognition. It's really OK to overdo it now.
2. Ask the original singer to come over for a cup coffee and listen to his/her masterpiece, but replace the sugar with finest columbianna. The singer will walk shining out the door, confident of his/her supreme abilities.
3. Call the singer the next day and tell your DAW died and you lost the master.
If the singer avoids suddenly appearing manilla ropes and open windows, you'll just have to brace yourself for a retake.
1. Ask someone gifted with a fairly similar voice to sing it again, this time record it the proper way. Autotune it past the point of recognition. It's really OK to overdo it now.
2. Ask the original singer to come over for a cup coffee and listen to his/her masterpiece, but replace the sugar with finest columbianna. The singer will walk shining out the door, confident of his/her supreme abilities.
3. Call the singer the next day and tell your DAW died and you lost the master.
If the singer avoids suddenly appearing manilla ropes and open windows, you'll just have to brace yourself for a retake.