Could somebody explain to me whats wrong with Noise Reduction?

I see No Noise despised a lot... why? I found this site recently when trying find information on The Beatles Mono Box, so I'm not here because I'm an audiophile, engineer, technician, producer, or any audio production industry professional... so the drawbacks are lost on me.

I'll probably regret asking this, because to my ears something like, Let It Be... Naked, sounds fine? So, ignorance is bliss, but I'm curious to know what some of the audio artifacts it causes and just what's so bad about it?

 

I wouldn't be the best person on he forum to answer that but I can't understand (puts flameproof suit on) what wrong with (a little more loudness) in a remaster.Red Hot Chili Pepper albums not withstanding however

 

When "no-noise technology" is used to remove tape hiss, very often musical information is lost as well. You lose the air around the instruments, the sense of three-dimensional space. The sound become sterile, flat, and boxed in.

 

ZACKLY...what Kief said,

 

I think the best way to discover it yourself is listening to the same album with and without no-noising

The difference is abysmal
While the untouched versions sound rich, warm, true, full of life and breath, the no-noised versions sound sterile, literally like in a vacuum packing, without atmosphere, life & oxygen

 

And, if I may ...... to my ears anyway, it deadens the sound, removing high frequency information (very noticable on cymbals, for example).

 

A lot of people are going to come on here and give you very simple, absolute answers. Well, nothing in audio is that simple.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with noise reduction - provided that it is used appropriately by the right person.

Not that long ago, noise reduction left artifacts, and one could usually tell when it was used. It also made the music sound either dull or edgy and thin, based on what was used and how it was used.

Today, NR has gotten so good that, if used properly and carefully, one would be very hard-pressed to hear it.

If you can hear the noise reduction in action, too much was used, and it's the fault of the engineer.

 

username

Try this: if you have one of those cassette decks with Dolby B (or C) button option, put a cassette on, play it for a minute or so, then press the Dolby button and you'll find how horrible can be denoised sound

 

When 'no noise' or one of it's equivalent processes is used too much you can almost hear a gating sound. In other words where there is low signal level the signal can drop out all together until it rises above the noise threshold and the gate reopens. This is pretty extreme, but there are quite a few masterings that have these types of artifacts.

I think there is a time and a place for using this type of noise reduction, but generally not with professionally made recordings. If you have old lower quality recordings that are very noisy single ended noise reduction can be useful.

Please realize that this is a single ended process in that tries to remove noise that is already present on the recordins.

There are also noise reduction schemes that are dual ended, often known as companders. DBX and Dolby NR fall into this category. They process the signal before and after recording in an attempt to lessen the noise contributed by that recording process.

Many object to these processes as well, but the truth is that many well known recordings were made with these processes and most people have no clue. Once you get to know the sound of these processes you can generally spot them, but most people never do. In fact, many recordings known for their good sonics have been made with these processes.

 

Listen to the 2001 remaster of ALL THINGS MUST PASS with headphones on. Note that it sounds like it's mp3 sourced. That's the after-effect of noise reduction. It affects the music quite a bit.

 

honestly, unless you have a properly "tuned" (speaker & listening position, acoustics, etc) system, you probably can't even imagine the details that exist on any given well recorded, well mastered CD....actually hearing silence or space between instruments and vocals and even depth as well is quite intoxicating....these things are critical and really allow the walls of your room to disappear. when a recording altered in a bad way, it is very obvious to the listener.....and terribly disappointing....

if your room isn't set up properly, then rely on a decent headphone system as suggested above...

 

No-noise and loudness are different issues. Keith, Grant and others have addressed no-noise. Here is loudness, explained in an amazingly lucid 2 minute video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

 

"Noise Reduction" can mean different things. Although there are some purists who disdain the idea of compression in any form, many of the albums discussed here were recorded with Dolby A, one of the first "compansion" NR methods. Dolby SR is the current professional analog noise reduction standard. When dealing with magnetic tape, the benefits of increased dynamic range outweigh any artifacts that are introduced by the compression upon recording, and the expansion on playback.

Personally, I don't like "playback only" techniques of noise reduction. Downward expansion and noise gates sacrifice music with the hiss.

 

I seem to recall "judicious" being mentioned quite a lot along with noise reduction for some reason.

This particular post was straight to the point ... http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=1543311&postcount=17

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=70947

 

I am confused by your post. You talk about noise reduction and compression like they are the same thing. Can you clarify this?

 

Username,
Unfortunately, what is noise and what is music are often the same thing when left to a computer program or an over zealous engineer.

 

Part of the problem is taking the music out with the noise. Another problem is that any filter, digital or analog, is going to delay some frequencies more than others.

The CEDAR noise reduction system is the only audiophile grade noise reduction system in existence. It is so expensive that even most record companies don't use it.

 

I still like the louder (within reason) version better.Maybe because the newer version usually has better resolution and I can't separate the two as easily as some others.

 

are you saying you like 2nd version of 'figure of eight' on that video better than the first one?

 

I was referring to cd remasters (I ) buy.They most often are somewhat louder than the originals but they also have better detail,tonality and overall resolution.

 

That exactly describes the experience of listening to some of the new Kraftwerk remasters.

 

When I transferred some old home reel-to-reel tapes (baby's first words...etc) from the 60's, NR really took the life out of the content. What I decided was to use an eq plu and identify the frequency of the most prominent hiss and lower a tad. The hiss was there still....but most of the dynamics was left.

 

I've often said that, while the video is extremely well done, the choice of "Figure of Eight" was a bad one as it has a weak, unpunchy sounding intro that many people may perceive as improved with a bit of compression.

 

You and I don't agree on much as of late, but on this one, I fully agree. It has to be used carefully, but in 2009, NR can be very difficult to perceive. "Blanket dismissal" statements based on stuff done 5-10 years ago just aren't valid for work done today.

 

(flamesuit on) I prefer the tape hiss...