Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1335010
20 W I N T E R 2 0 2 1 I C A S Q U A R T E R L Y when I'm re-recording dialogue. I can also see noise reduction being useful in a live-to-air situation or on a crazy noisy FX heavy set just to hear the actors. I credit Whit Norris CAS for changing my opinion about on-set noise reduction. We had a conversation several years ago at a mixers' mixer. Whit told me he used the CEDAR DNS 2 on a movie when he couldn't really hear the dialogue due to all of the special FX noisemakers. After using the CEDAR box, he was able to deliver a track that the editor and director could edit to. Whit also made it clear he gave post- production a clean copy of all audio as well. In general, my opinion is it's too easy to over-process audio in the field and we aren't in the ideal acoustic environment to make those decisions. DANIEL MCCOY CAS: Many years ago, I was a fan of the CEDAR noise-reduction system. Having worked a fair amount in post-production, iZotope RX De-noise has been very powerful for cleaning up dialogue. When Sound Devices launched the Scorpio last year, I purchased that unit and then I decided to purchase the entire eight series, including the 833 and 888 when NoiseAssist became available. To my ear, it works very much in the same way as CEDAR, Sonic Solution, and iZotope in being able to scan incoming signal-to-noise ratios in nearly real time and do the phase reversing required to diminish background noise under the dialogue signal. CHRIS MUNRO CAS: I have the most experience with CEDAR because I have been using it for many years. I actually prefer the DNS1500, which is a totally manual device, because it gives me much more control. However, it is not necessarily that instinctive to use until you have mastered it. I own a DNS1500, two DNS 2 units, and one DNS 8D. I can appreciate that the DNS 2 is great for someone that is not experienced with using noise reduction, but it is important to use it carefully. I never attenuate by more than about 4 dB and bias around zero to 0.4. I really like the DNS 8D. Firstly, because it allows me to have a kind of hybrid of the DNS1500 and DNS 2 and gives a lot of manual control if you want to use that mode. It also allows me to connect by Dante, which is very important for me. Most important is that it has eight separate channels of noise Chris Munro CAS Daniel McCoy CAS reduction that I can assign to each input rather than processing a mix. That way, if a picture editor wants to use an ISO, it is already processed and will fit into the processed mix track. I also have NoiseAssist on my Scorpio, which is also quite impressive, though I do not attenuate any more than 6 dB because the artifacts become quite noticeable. It also only has two channels. That said, I prefer it to the DNS 2. WHIT NORRIS CAS: My opinion of on-set noise reduction is that it's a tool for the production mixer and picture editorial. I generally work with the CEDAR DNS 2. The last track on my count is labeled "processed." This is the mix track that has been processed through the DNS 2. This is what I consider "Bonus Points" for the picture department. Many times, the picture department does not have the tools to clean up tracks and will be working with a rough cut for a long time before it goes to sound editing. The CEDAR also allows me to see what can be "cleaned up" with very little work. The unprocessed mix track is still on track one. The DNS 2 is helpful for drone shots, special effects, and challenging locations for recording clear dialogue. I never would want the processed track to be used in the final mix. There are many more powerful tools in sound post. Background traffic has been one of the many times I have successfully used the CEDAR, but it is not a fix for everything we encounter on location and the set. KAROL URBAN CAS MPSE: I wouldn't call myself a fan in general. I understand the necessity at times, but there is a danger in overuse. I have had the experience of being presented with creative teams who have listened to an aliased, thin-sounding, heavily noise reduced track in picture editorial for months or even years and have begun to accept the sound of the noise reduction and gating as organic. When given a cleaned, fuller, more natural track or a cleaner fuller track using ADR, they will only accept the heavily processed original. They don't hear the digital error anymore as error. They have unconsciously accepted the sound of audible gating or aliasing as an aspect of the "original" recording. Slowly, it is possible for one without a trained ear to confuse audible lossy characteristics for part of the authentic performance. For instance, a heavily applied noise- reduced track that is attempting to quell a low-end power hum or generator noise can make a cleaner, more natural track with some of the natural mid and low-end frequencies reintroduced feel too "reverberant" or "bassy" to the client in comparison. We can become comfortable with the condition of the audio we hear. Thus, I would personally rather have a natural sounding track be what my clients become accustomed to hearing, even if it is a bit more noisy ... within reason. Familiarity and even a preference for