3 ms·

Am I the only one who thinks the original sounds considerably better and clearer than the processed one?

fuster 3y ago
Yeah. I love this kind of stuff and appreciate everything the author has done but I think much better is possible.
carterschonwald 3y ago
Yeah agreed. The originals sound warm, the cleanups sound cold and echoey. That said, I love a good applied math write up. That we can also evaluate the result using human perception just helps keep us honest
Solvency 3y ago
It's kind of tragic when the guy doing this so passionately with so much technical knowledge can't hear past his own level of taste.
sidewndr46 3y ago
This is good feedback. I've become accustomed to listening to heavily processed audio for voice communication. So maybe I find it easier to listen to the processed audio? It was fun and a small learning experience for me to do this either way.
- drcongo 3y ago
  I should have said that I thoroughly enjoyed the writeup by the way. The end result has a tinge of the kind of artefacts that you get with stem separation to separate vocals from music, I might try putting the original through Brusfri later to see how it does - https://klevgrand.com/products/brusfri https://klevgrand.com/products/brusfri
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    Thanks. Part of the goal was to apply some signal processing stuff I learned. The other hope was someone who knows more about audio preservation than I do would get access to an extant B-58 and see if they could produce better quality recordings of this. It is a unique part of history we take for granted today I think.
alwa 3y ago
No, I agree. There’s an impressive level of theory on display here, and I admire the passion, analysis, creativity, and follow-through. The end product matters less than the journey, but I agree with you that it’s missing the discernment of a human ear practiced in this kind of work. Maximizing for signal-to-noise ratio sacrifices the integrity of the voice, with that telltale “underwater gurgle” quality to what’s left of it.
geor9e 3y ago
The same thing happens in photography: noise removal software removes the static but also causes the photo to lose detail. The human brain is exceptionally skilled at seeing and hearing through noise.

Yeah. I love this kind of stuff and appreciate everything the author has done but I think much better is possible.

Yeah agreed. The originals sound warm, the cleanups sound cold and echoey. That said, I love a good applied math write up. That we can also evaluate the result using human perception just helps keep us honest

Solvency 3y ago

It's kind of tragic when the guy doing this so passionately with so much technical knowledge can't hear past his own level of taste.

sidewndr46 3y ago

This is good feedback. I've become accustomed to listening to heavily processed audio for voice communication. So maybe I find it easier to listen to the processed audio? It was fun and a small learning experience for me to do this either way.

drcongo 3y ago
I should have said that I thoroughly enjoyed the writeup by the way. The end result has a tinge of the kind of artefacts that you get with stem separation to separate vocals from music, I might try putting the original through Brusfri later to see how it does - https://klevgrand.com/products/brusfri https://klevgrand.com/products/brusfri
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Thanks. Part of the goal was to apply some signal processing stuff I learned. The other hope was someone who knows more about audio preservation than I do would get access to an extant B-58 and see if they could produce better quality recordings of this. It is a unique part of history we take for granted today I think.

alwa 3y ago

No, I agree. There’s an impressive level of theory on display here, and I admire the passion, analysis, creativity, and follow-through. The end product matters less than the journey, but I agree with you that it’s missing the discernment of a human ear practiced in this kind of work. Maximizing for signal-to-noise ratio sacrifices the integrity of the voice, with that telltale “underwater gurgle” quality to what’s left of it.

geor9e 3y ago

The same thing happens in photography: noise removal software removes the static but also causes the photo to lose detail. The human brain is exceptionally skilled at seeing and hearing through noise.