Removing slight echo with audtion - recorded in room with hard walls

[Guest]

Hi

I just downloaded a trial of Audition CS4 for windows.

I have already used it to remove a few clicks which are evident in this short (attached) PRE-audition sample.

Now I would like to go in and remove (if possible) or at least reduce the slight "echo" of the room itself.  You can hear the "echo" in this attached wav file.

I realize I might not be able to remove all of the "echo" but if I could remove some of it it would be nice.

Thanks

Rowby

[SteveG_AudioMasters_ · Accepted solution]

rowby wrote:

I just downloaded a trial of Audition CS4 for windows.

No such animal - Audition is emphatically not part of the CS suite. It used to be, and that was a right pain. Fortunately for all of us it was removed from it a while back, after AA2.0 was prematurely released. Since this was a direct result of a release date determined only by marketing, it was hardly surprising, really...

Now I would like to go in and remove (if possible) or at least reduce the slight "echo" of the room itself.  You can hear the "echo" in this attached wav file.

I realize I might not be able to remove all of the "echo" but if I could remove some of it it would be nice.

Sorry, no chance. It's like trying to unbake a cake; you simply can't do it. Especially in this case where it's a short reverb, and it inevitably contains only the same frequencies that you want to keep. (This is a reminder to anybody about to suggest EQ, like they usually do, that it can only possibly make things worse, like it always does...).

You are stuck completely with this - no software on earth can get rid of that sort of problem. You have to take rather more care with the recording in the first place to prevent this, I'm afraid. That's why people use treated studios for anything serious - just to get over problems of this nature.

The only exception to this in any way is that if you have a stereo recording where the echo is in the stereo field rather than the summed mono one, you can use the Audition Center Channel Extractor, and effectively extract just the wanted mono part. But with a mono recording (which contains no vector information at all) you simply can't do this.

[phamtruojng]

thank for share

[AskMrScience]

For what it's worth, there are deconvolution techniques that are effective at echo removal, but they mostly apply to simple cases, such as telephony, where the echo is a simple time-delayed copy of the original signal.  Such methods applied to natural reverberance most often make things worse.  For now, and probably well into the future, there's no good substitute for controlling the recording environment.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

AskMrScience wrote:

For what it's worth, there are deconvolution techniques that are effective at echo removal, but they mostly apply to simple cases, such as telephony, where the echo is a simple time-delayed copy of the original signal.

I've altered the reply above to say 'reverb' - as what's in the sample doesn't begin to qualify as an echo. It's what I meant to say in the first place, but it got overlooked in the reply process.

[Guest]

I deal with this all the time

use the Graphic EQ

you can't kill everything but a great deal can be removed just by adjusting the bands

here's the settings I used with just a quick pass

and I've posted the modified file I reversed the name to avoid overwriting the original

load them both and compare

EQ is fine for speech audio but not the best idea for trying to fix music

Message was edited by: Richard FDisk

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Richard FDisk wrote:

I deal with this all the time

use the Graphic EQ

you can't kill everything but a great deal can be removed just by adjusting the bands

You clearly didn't read or understand my first post. You have killed nothing, and removed signal at the same rate as reverb - which makes it harder to hear the content and almost certainly makes things worse, not better. This is a complete waste of time.

*update* I've now listened to what you did, and it conforms absolutely to what I just said - you've made the intelligability significantly worse, not better, and all the room sound is still there.

THERE IS NO FIX FOR THIS.

[Guest]

why do you attack me?

► it actually turned out not too bad oy my system,

► the "echo" is just re-amplification & recording of certain wave lengths that happen to make it back to the mic, by reducing those signals it's less "tinny" or "echoey"

► if EQ is a useless tool why include it in AA?

► the OP asked to reduce the problem not remove it completely,

► yes the "room sounds" are still there, but not as distracting or "IRRITATING" as when "untouched"

► the average joe listening to any recording doesn't listen with an Audio Engineer's Ear, why do you think that mp3's and other forms of lossy compressed garbage are so popular?

► yes you can't "Unbake" a cake, but you can make a bad cake more paletable with a little bit of "bakers touch"

► sorry I tried to help

Message was edited by: Richard FDisk

[Eric S 1]

Richard FDisk wrote:

why do you attack me?

Steve is not attacking you.  He's attacking the assertion that EQ can get rid of early reflections in a recording of this type.  We've had many discussions in the past over this very thing.

► it actually turned out not too bad oy my system,

► the "echo" is just re-amplification & recording of certain wave lengths that happen to make it back to the mic, by reducing those signals it's less "tinny" or "echoey"

Well the waveform you posted sounds really bad on my system.  It sounds like someone is running lines in a living room and you just happened to record them from the other side of the room.  These early reflections are not just a collection of "certain" wavelengths that "happen" to make it back to the mic.  They are reflections of virtually the entire frequency spectrum of the voice of the person speaking.  EQ cannot fix this and make the early reflections less prominent.  Your waveform confirms this.  The early reflections are still there in your recording and still very prominent.

When using EQ in an attempt to lessen this problem, one cannot escape the fact that any EQ changes affect everything on the recording, not just the early reflections.  Since the early reflections are generated by the person's speaking voice, they are in the same frequency range as that voice, so when you are using EQ to lessen the early reflections the EQ is also affecting the person's speaking voice, which isn't desirable at all.

► the average joe listening to any recording doesn't listen with an Audio Engineer's Ear, why do you think that mp3's and other forms of lossy compressed garbage are so popular?

Delivery systems of audio have nothing to do with poor recordings.  Poor recordings will sound poor regardless of the final format for listening.  The average joe will be able to tell the difference when presented with a 128kbps .mp3 of two different recordings of a voice over, one done in a proper studio with a voice over booth and one done in an untreated living room.  That's why a lot of money is spent to create recording rooms in studios.  If it were simply a matter of fixing room reflections will EQ then studios wouldn't spend the money for recording rooms.

The only real way to correct the problem of early reflections in a room is to treat the room in some manner.  One of the inexpensive ways to cut down on early reflections is to get some extra mic stands with booms, hang some cheap packing blankets from the mic stands and set these around the voice talent (raising the mic stand height well above the head of the voice talent).

[Guest]

Thanks for your thorough feedback, Eric. I like the blanket suggestion -- and will use them in the future.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

► it actually turned out not too bad oy my system,

► the "echo" is just re-amplification & recording of certain wave lengths that happen to make it back to the mic, by reducing those signals it's less "tinny" or "echoey"

► if EQ is a useless tool why include it in AA?

1) Your system is clearly incapable of reproducing accurately what you are doing - or you can't hear it.

2) That is a complete non sequitur - you haven't reduced the relative amplitude of those signals at all.

3) I never said it was useless for all purposes - I only suggested that it's useless for this purpose.

► yes you can't "Unbake" a cake, but you can make a bad cake more paletable with a little bit of "bakers touch"

► sorry I tried to help

1) Once you've made a bad cake, nothing improves it - if the cooked ingredients taste bad, they stay that way.

2) You have to learn a few things about 'helping'. The very first one is to read what's already in the thread, and unless you have a very good reason for flatly contradicting what's there, then don't. And if you wish to contradict anything, then say precisely why. Otherwise, you are doing anything but helping.

Other than that, read what Eric said.

[Camera_Jockey]

He attacked you because he's an arrogant blowhard who thinks he knows everything, and he can't tell the difference between a person's answer and the person, and he feels better about himself if he makes other people feel worse about themselves.  Don't pay him or anyone like him any attention.  They're not here to help, only to belittle other people.  Look, there's ALWAYS a way to do something, as long as you're willing to look long enough for the answer.  I don't know what the answer is to your question, because I have the same question, but I saw this douchebag's comments and just had to call him out for who (what) he is.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Camera_Jockey wrote:

Look, there's ALWAYS a way to do something, as long as you're willing to look long enough for the answer. 

Er, no there isn't. And that doesn't need qualifying.

  I don't know what the answer is to your question, because I have the same question, but I saw this *********'s comments and just had to call him out for who (what) he is.

And thank you for your post. Can I suggest a cold shower?

[emmrecs]

I realise the origin of this thread is more than 4 years ago and that it has already generated a lot of views and replies, some of them very unpleasant in their tone (see #48).  I also know SteveG does not need anyone to defend his views, he's quite capable of doing so himself!  (I, even as a very "surface-level" user of Audition, find Steve's knowledge of this product and of acoustics and recording generally absolutely invaluable.  I don't always agree with some of his views/opinions but I certainly would not flame him simply for holding them!)

However, the OP did post a sample of the file he was trying to "improve" and, very belatedly, I decided to download it, open it in AA CS6 and add the SPL "DeVerb" VST plug-in.  The results are here: http://www.sendspace.com/file/hdyevk

I think this may be somewhat closer to what the OP (and subsequent posters to this thread) may have wanted.

[Bob Howes]

Well, to my ears, any slight improvement in the room reverb (and that improvement is pretty subtle) is outweighed by the artifical, metallic sound of the processed file. 

If I was looking for a robot voice sound effect maybe...but I slightly prefer the original and can only repeat four years worth of advice to fix it at source rather than looking for a software miracle.

[emmrecs]

Bob Howes wrote:

Well, to my ears, any slight improvement in the room reverb (and that improvement is pretty subtle) is outweighed by the artifical, metallic sound of the processed file. 

If I was looking for a robot voice sound effect maybe...but I slightly prefer the original and can only repeat four years worth of advice to fix it at source rather than looking for a software miracle.

Bob,  I fully agree!  That's why I wrote that the result may be what the OP wanted!

In defence of the SPL plug-in I should add that that attempt was done very quickly and without much adjustment of levels within the plug; I suspect a rather better outcome might be achieved with more effort. and time taken.

Fundamentally, as you say, the only real solution is to avoid the problem in the first place!

Jeff

[ryclark]

It will be interesting to see what the new Dereverb effect in the new Izotope RX3 can do.

[Guest]

Interestingly enough after wading through all this the last reply was very useful for me.  I was looking for a way to clean up the reverb inadvertanly applied via Garage Band to the orators speech ( a Pastor by the way! ) and the izotope RX3 really helped!  By all means the old phrase garbage in garbage out is usually the case, but for a single "voice" the reverb removal worked.  The end result wasn't perfect, but very useable.

Challenges such as this are what push the envelope to create better.  Get it right to begin with saves a lot of headaches later, but for those accidentals, we have hope.

I may have missed a feature like this within AA CS6, as RX3 seems to be a repeat of some features AA has built in, however I will be exiting using AA CS6 as I don't believe in paying a monthly fee, I will be looking else where for audio recording and editing, too bad I really liked Cool Edit and its mutation to Adobe.  I liked the fact Audition was a unsung hero for me when others seem to brag so much about PT.

I hope you Have a Blessed Day.

Martin

[emmrecs]

tilted lab wrote:

I may have missed a feature like this within AA CS6, as RX3 seems to be a repeat of some features AA has built in, however I will be exiting using AA CS6 as I don't believe in paying a monthly fee, I will be looking else where for audio recording and editing, too bad I really liked Cool Edit and its mutation to Adobe.  I liked the fact Audition was a unsung hero for me when others seem to brag so much about PT.

I hope you Have a Blessed Day.

Martin

Hi.  Yes. the RX3 Dereverb does seem pretty "special".

However, just to correct one piece of misinformation in your post: there is no need to "exit... AA CS6" since it is NOT the subscription version.  I, too, strongly dislike that model of business but still have AA CS6 functioning fully on my computer, without any subscription payment!

Jeff

[SammyT303]

Just read this and man your an asshole.  He was just trying to help. 

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

And thank you for your helpful, useful comment. Just what we all needed.

[mikemclin]

I agree! If the poster disagreed with the person's solution there is a more tactful way of handling the response.  Obviously, a decent time was spent on the response (a screenshot and audio file were included).  I mean, even if you hate it, you handle the situation better than that.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

mikemclin wrote:

I agree! If the poster disagreed with the person's solution there is a more tactful way of handling the response.  Obviously, a decent time was spent on the response (a screenshot and audio file were included).  I mean, even if you hate it, you handle the situation better than that.

Well, if that's your idea of 'handling a situation better'...

So let me tell you. I spent years doing research into reverberation in spaces for a Master's Degree, not just a couple of minutes posting a screenshot of something that doesn't work. So don't talk to me about 'a decent time' - you have no idea.

There's one plugin called UNVEIL that's supposed to be able to mask out some reverb effects. I tried the 'fully functioning' demo on a nice clean 5 second reverb, nicely delineated. What did I end up with? 5 seconds of reverb. And for the priviledge of achieving this result with their software, you pay $399.

[Bob Howes]

I have to ask...was it really worth resurrecting a four year old thread just to make a personal attack and swear at somebody who, after all, was correct?

Sometimes an idea is simply a bad one that won't/can't work.  Does it really benefit anyone to sugar coat the answer and pretend it's worth further consideration?  You're entitled to your own opinion on that question.

However, on the original question of whether it was worth re-opening a four year old thread simply to attack somebody, there's no debate.  It was simply an exercise in excrement stirring.

[rmartin215]

I have Audition CS6, but haven't used it very much.  Recording from a telephone, I have an echo of my voice,  significantly lower in volume, about 5 to7 seconds later   I see there's a lot of heat about the ability to eliminate this kind of thing, but being new to this forum, would like to raise it again, without the metaphors or posturing. 

I suppose I could go through the wave form, locate the echo and eliminate it, but that would be quite time consuming. 

Any positive ideas would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.