Click Detection

[knighte]

Hi Derek,
Allow me to say that you have made an old Vietnam Vet extremely happy! I have Lp's from that era which are very dear to me, and now I can make recordings which are better than the first time I played the disc.
1. Am I mistaken or is the program more likely to miss a large click (looking at the waveform) if the surrounding area is relatively quiet? Can allowances be made for this condition?
2. Is it possible to have the software search for the extreme changes in amplitude relative to time and then make the parameters flexible? If one still heard clicks and crackles in a certain area of the music he could then find these changes and decide if they are music by looking at the waveform. Nailing down the exact location of offending noise would then be less time consuming.

[citguy]

Hi Larry. Before Derek replies, have you tried using "go to maximum sample" under the 'Wave Form' menu? If the offending 'click' is above the acoustic level of the recording it should zero in on it and you can then correct it manually.

Stan

[knighte]

Hi Stan, I thought the same thing one day and gave it a try. Trouble is the clicks which are missed, are in areas where the pre and post levels are much less, even though the click is quite obvious. However, the level of the click can be quite a bit less than the maximum levels of the recording and still be heard. I have been playing around with the noise profile trying to use one of these "areas" to see if the software is more aware of these conditions. I'll let you know if it helps. By the way, if a click is buried amongst loud passages, I use "cut and splice" to zero in on it. Once you realize it is gone, (keep the selection as small as possible) undo the "cut" and it's amazing how obvious the click appears against the white background. The background is black in the selection area. Thanks for the try. Love this program!

[Glenn]

Hi Larry;
I've noticed the same problem as you have, that being the obvious clicks here and there that Wave Corrector misses. I haven't a clue as to why this is, but I console myself knowing that the programme catches a great many that are very well concealed.
Your idea for running the de-noiser is a good one, but it isn't likely to work as you'd expect. The conventional wisdom is that click removal should always be done first. There is something that might help the situation however, though I haven't tried it yet personally. The idea is to boost the treble before you declick and denoise, then reduce the treble again afterwards by an equal amount. It's the same idea as the analogue noise reduction methods that have been used in the past, with additional digital noise reduction added in between. This is supposed to work very well with the denoiser, but I'm not sure how much benefit would be gained with Wave Corrector's click detection. It may help to catch those easy ones, but it may also throw a lot of false positives into the mix.
Glenn

[knighte]

[Derek]

[knighte]

[Ray Bell]

[Glenn]