Geoff  writes, quoting Harvey Sanenbum   
   :   
      
   > >> I have been using some rather extraordinary online models and   
   > >> algorithms to denoise some wildlife audio recordings I made several   
   > >> years ago.? The most startling thing I have found is how WELL thes   
   > >> models do.? About half of my recordings I considered unusable.? L   
   > >> in the noise and if software NR was applied, there were too many   
   > >> artifacts.? No longer   
   > >>   
   > >> So, as I'm not used to having completely noiseless results, I wonder   
   > >> how much noise I should mix back in?? Two channels are created whe   
   > >> using the online denoisers: the denoised track (and I mean denoised!!)   
   > >> and just the noise it removed.   
   > >>   
   > >> I come from an age of cassette tape which, even with Dolby NR, there   
   > >> was always noise.? Even when I used my software NR, I always mixe   
   > >> some back in to help hide artifacts.   
   > >>   
   > >> Just some general suggestions welcome.? Thanks in advance   
   > >   
   > > Just wanted to note that, according to the meter, I mixed about -52 dB   
   > > of noise back into the "noiseless" result.   
   >   
   > Sounds more natural ?   
      
   Long ago (ca 1985) I was working on a film for Sting.  I had him in the   
   studio to fix a couple things, one of which was tape hiss on a Space Echoed   
   guitar track,  He told me, "Leave it in, it reassures people."  That has   
   since turned out to be quite a prescient observation.  Among other things   
   telephone companies have done a lot of work with adding noise in digital   
   paths, for the very same reason,   
      
   Billy Y..   
   --   
           rol     -(sp)                   ; save carry   
           .purge  #lun.sr                 ; dump open .cstat channel   
           ror     (sp)+                   ; pop carry   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)