Cute Orgasm - old recording

[peterparker]

I found this very old recording with an very cute orgasm at around 2:40.
Enjoy

Oh and i tried a lot to bring out some more details. It seems to be nearly impossible due to the bad recording quality. So this is the raw. If anyone could try his magic - please do.

[testing-for-reason]

I am a sound and mastering engineer. I cleaned it up the best I could. If anyone else needs things cleaned up and Mastered, let me know.

[testing-for-reason]

And here is the MP3. This one was very tough to clean, but it is a lot clearer than the original

[peterparker]

And here is the MP3. This one was very tough to clean, but it is a lot clearer than the original

Hey, thanks for the effort. I am not sure if it really changed something Basically with my methods i can bring it up to total clarity but i loose some details in sound due to the given algorythm. To clean it and preserve details seems to be nearly impossible with that sample. Thank you for the effort

[yeppie]

I am a sound and mastering engineer.

That´s great. I´m an amateur and would like to understand why the edited mp3 version is 8 times the size of the original file? I know this can happen with images after software processing but how does it happen with audio?

[testing-for-reason]

I am a sound and mastering engineer.

That´s great. I´m an amateur and would like to understand why the edited mp3 version is 8 times the size of the original file? I know this can happen with images after software processing but how does it happen with audio?

It's because when something is actually Mastered, it becomes larger due to EQ and baseline sound quality. In this case, it barely made any difference, but in other "Quiet" files, I can bring out the sound to almost perfect clarity. I have remastered a lot of 70's and 80's LP's for labels and with the technology today, it makes all the difference in the world. Let me know if you have anything you want remastered. Have a good day.

[testing-for-reason]

Also, the MP3 I put out is at 320kbps, whereas an average recording from an Olympus or phone is between 40-128kbps

[Quadrophenia1]

I have remastered a lot of 70's and 80's LP's for labels and with the technology today, it makes all the difference in the world.

Agree. A great example is Giles Martin's new remixes/remaster of The Beatles. When I heard the first few seconds of Giles working his audio magic on Dear Prudence, it just blew me away.

[yeppie]

Also, the MP3 I put out is at 320kbps, whereas an average recording from an Olympus or phone is between 40-128kbps

Well, my Olympus records at 256kbps always ... anyway, as far as I learned, a conversion from 128kbps to 320kbps (for example) changes nothing in quality but only file size. Am I wrong?

[testing-for-reason]

If it is recorded in 320, then it changes. Otherwise it is just taking up more space. However, if you take a 128, 256 and place it in a Mastering Cube or in a standard Pro Tools software, it can be brought up to WAV and then back down to 320, which enhances the sound