Community of Sexsoundlovers

Bad quality

Better quality, extracted from less noisy channel and several passes of Audacity limiter and a bit of noise reduction etc.

Thanks for efforting this!

mlee80 wrote: 23 Jul 2022 16:08 10903nr.mp3
Better quality, extracted from less noisy channel and several passes of Audacity limiter and a bit of noise reduction etc.

What's the limiter? I've not used this plugin, and I'm always happy to learn new tricks.

https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/limiter.html

I use it with 'soft limiting' and 10db input gain. The net effect is that it boost lower levels relative to the loud parts.
Results are similar to manually reducing level of loud parts and then normalizing, that works but can take a long time if many items (eg headboard thumps) need to be addressed/

Like any effect if overdone the results can be atrocious.

mlee80 wrote: 26 Jul 2022 15:56 Like any effect if overdone the results can be atrocious.

Which to my ears this result was. I heard faint moans in the original but lots of noise in the edited version. But that could be my ears only ... Which one does everybody else prefer?

Probably should have warned people to turn volume down. If you had volume up for first one the nr version will blast you.
The best place to compare is around 30 seconds, not much before that. Compare with volume set so background noise is roughly the same.

mlee80 wrote: 27 Jul 2022 18:34 Probably should have warned people to turn volume down. If you had volume up for first one the nr version will blast you.
The best place to compare is around 30 seconds, not much before that. Compare with volume set so background noise is roughly the same.

Thanks mlee80.
I´d have two recommendations for your edits ... no1: not changing the bitrate - if you lower it (as you did), quality will be lowered, too. And of course, raising the bitrate in contrast doesn´t add quality.
no2: please don´t change file names, just add nr or edit or something like that to the original file name.

Not sure the bitrate changed, at least according to audacity they are both 48K/32 bit float. Since I converted stereo to mono the file should
be smaller but how much is a bit odd, unlless it is .m4a vs .mp3 as well. In any case did not deliberately change it.

Will keep the original file name and add suffix in future , the 10903 is from the topic index.
I use that instead of original file name so I can reference the original post and avoid file names that might attract interest if noticed.

mlee80 wrote: 27 Jul 2022 23:48 Not sure the bitrate changed, at least according to audacity they are both 48K/32 bit float. Since I converted stereo to mono the file should
be smaller but how much is a bit odd, unlless it is .m4a vs .mp3 as well. In any case did not deliberately change it.

Will keep the original file name and add suffix in future , the 10903 is from the topic index.
I use that instead of original file name so I can reference the original post and avoid file names that might attract interest if noticed.

Ah, the topic index! ... I was wondering.

The sample rate in both files is 48K but the bitrate of the original file is 148 kBit/s, your mp3 is 46 kBit/s. The difference in file sizes (1160kb and 358 kb) results partly from your conversion to mono but the reduction is more than that. Could it be a setting in your Audacity?

I was inspired by your approach and tried to follow your processing in Adobe Audition. The mono result had a reduced sample rate but the same bit rate and the same file size as the original. Is there a technician around?