• 0

Software to edit music tracks


Question

I am curious if such a thing exists, but this is what I am looking for: A program that would allow me to edit a music track and show me all the different channels, real world application would be to load a live track and edit out the crowd noises, clapping, etc. Does such a program exist, and if so would it be something that is exclusive to music producers and be really expensive?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1383400-software-to-edit-music-tracks/
Share on other sites

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

What exact source files are you going to be editing?  Your typical mp3 would not have these on different tracks/channels..

 

https://www.audacityteam.org/

 

Is some great free software that can be used to do some amazing things.. But if you think your audio file is just going to have a track/channel that is just say the audience sound??

  • 0

If you're familiar with layers in photoshop, imagine all audio tracks as layers that have been flattened. If you want to get part of the image seperately and you only have the flattened layer, because it's now for example been saved as a png and you don't have the PSD, then you just have to cut it out yourself. This can be much more difficult with audio because many sounds exist in overlapping frequencies of other sounds.

 

Best bet is probably Adobe audition -

maxresdefault.jpg

 

The bottom half of the screenshot, that tool is normally for cleaning up sound, but you can actually select certain regions of sound and past it into a new file.

 

Problem is, this would be extremely difficult to do well, and extremely difficult to do for all of the tracks in a file.

  • 0
12 minutes ago, BudMan said:

What exact source files are you going to be editing?  Your typical mp3 would not have these on different tracks/channels..

 

https://www.audacityteam.org/

 

Is some great free software that can be used to do some amazing things.. But if you think your audio file is just going to have a track/channel that is just say the audience sound??

The files would be lossless like WAV, I can always convert them to MP3 later. I'll look into Audacity, thanks!

  • 0

As I read this, your question is "Can I edit out certain parts of a sound?"

 

Audio is stored in many ways, and to edit out "parts" you need to understand what "parts" are:

Channels (left / right) - different instruments tend to be placed in different areas of the stereo separation.  Guitars and pianos are often to the left or right, vocals towards the middle.

Frequencies - different instruments produce different frequencies of sound.  Bass drums are lower frequency than a screeching guitar solo

 

So, for example when software tries to remove vocals, it looks for relevant frequencies towards the middle of the audio spectrum and filters them via a gate.  It's rarely perfect as it overlaps other sounds.  Drums tend to be central, for example, and the frequency range of vocals tends to include those produced by guitars (to an extent).  So you end up with the part of the sound that was the vocals more "muddied" than "removed".

 

The analogy made above of layers is a good one to represent individual instrument elements.  Say you have a full band performing a song, you'd have dozens of layers (a drum kit alone can be 20). The correct phrase for these when wanting to get them is "stems".

 

I believe you are asking about removing crowd noise from a live recording.  So sure, you can fade in/out the start/end of the track to remove some of that.  But if you want to remove people clapping along with a song - I mean, you could isolate the frequency of the claps, find where they are in the stereo spectrum and filter it out but... It's gonna sound terrible.

  • Like 2
  • 0
On 6/3/2019 at 6:58 AM, jnelsoninjax said:

The files would be lossless like WAV, I can always convert them to MP3 later. I'll look into Audacity, thanks!

 

On 6/3/2019 at 7:52 AM, Human.Online said:

I believe you are asking about removing crowd noise from a live recording.  So sure, you can fade in/out the start/end of the track to remove some of that.  But if you want to remove people clapping along with a song - I mean, you could isolate the frequency of the claps, find where they are in the stereo spectrum and filter it out but... It's gonna sound terrible.

The word he is looking for is FILTER. All sorts of filters are available as Plug-ins and most audio editing programs can use these plug-in filters.

 

If you have control of the original recording, then you can improve your chances by using more than a stereo pair recording. If it is a musical performance, then each performer could have a directional mic pointed at them and for filtering you could point a mic at the loudest interference sources so you can invert that signal later.

 

Would still need to feed that to a "smart" filter which is why you mentioned expensive professional stuff which I'm sure exists. This scenario is perfect for some AI type ML processing and if that exists you might find some free research projects on GitHub...

 

  • 0

Don't waste your time. If you don't have the source files all you can do is filter which will ruin your audio. The only hope would be if the stuff to filter was spaced out enough to not overlap the music.

Edited by exotoxic
  • Like 2
  • 0
19 hours ago, DevTech said:

 

The word he is looking for is FILTER. All sorts of filters are available as Plug-ins and most audio editing programs can use these plug-in filters.

 

If you have control of the original recording, then you can improve your chances by using more than a stereo pair recording. If it is a musical performance, then each performer could have a directional mic pointed at them and for filtering you could point a mic at the loudest interference sources so you can invert that signal later.

 

Would still need to feed that to a "smart" filter which is why you mentioned expensive professional stuff which I'm sure exists. This scenario is perfect for some AI type ML processing and if that exists you might find some free research projects on GitHub...

 

I feel you missed my point. There is no such filter that works perfectly on studio recorded audio, let alone a live concert recording that has a crowd.

 

All filters can do is remove, and when doing so they ALWAYS remove more than needed because it’s always a best guess.

  • 0
2 hours ago, Human.Online said:

I feel you missed my point. There is no such filter that works perfectly on studio recorded audio, let alone a live concert recording that has a crowd.

 

All filters can do is remove, and when doing so they ALWAYS remove more than needed because it’s always a best guess.

There was no chance he would realize the HUGE variety of filters available.

 

The implication is that he is the person doing the recording and so he can add many more mic inputs if he chooses to greatly improve filtering options

 

For example a directional mic on the clapping recorded at the same time of course could be inverted and filtered in to achieve much better accuracy. Enough? who knows. And even that is primitive:

 

I did a survey a while back of research papers on GitHub for processing images with AI and the progress has been fantastic. I would assume that similar progress might be possible in the audio domain, but he can do the searching if he wants, It's probably there...

 

 

 

  • 0

Sorry I think you’re misreading and assuming way too much. But ok, I’ve given my answer and I’m not here to argue. My many years of music production tell me all I need to know here, having worked with digital audio since the early 90s.

  • 0
3 hours ago, Human.Online said:

Sorry I think you’re misreading and assuming way too much. But ok, I’ve given my answer and I’m not here to argue. My many years of music production tell me all I need to know here, having worked with digital audio since the early 90s.

The OP made a guess that some sort of high end filter might exist and be very expensive.

 

I was just saying there might be a case for that guessed scenario and that it might involve more than a single L/R mic pair so like a noise cancelling array, there is more info for the algorithm.

 

But of course an analog frequency bandpass filter is not going to do it or even a finely controlled digital equivalent. It would probably involve a machine learning algorithm similar to how they do face and body tracking in video and substitute other entires. If you train an algorithm on human clapping and then add a parameter tuning algorithm via Reinforcement Learning you might be able to do it.

 

Whether there is any real value to that type of alteration beats me. Maybe add a "slow clap" sound to that doctored Nancy Pelosi video that went viral in alt-right circles...

 

Or what is the sound of one hand clapping? If we edit that out, nobody will know...

 

 

EDIT:  When I suggested that the OP search out some research papers, I thought that would make it clear that there is no off the shelf tech that I know of that would filter out clapping. I apologize to anyone in this thread who might have got a different impression from my thoughtful musing on the subject.

  • 0

Maybe it is useful to get up to speed with how audio processing can be done outside the limitations of twiddling knobs. Here is a survey of some of the ways AI is applied to audio processing:

 

https://github.com/ybayle/awesome-deep-learning-music

 

And here is an example of separating out the vocals in music which I'm guessing is harder than clapping:

 

https://github.com/andabi/music-source-separation

 

separate-music-vocal-overall.thumb.png.98bcbc97a1a3db8c3206bd25faa5f333.png

 

A demo of an earlier version of that algorithm:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • 0
1 minute ago, Human.Online said:

Look, you're trying and condescending, but still wrong.  But that's ok.  The removal of crowd noise is MUCH harder than isolating studio vocals.  Twiddling knobs, OK sure.

You are going out of your way to be offended by my serious attempt to wonder if the objective of the OP is even possible.

 

Very sophisticated processing is starting to be applied to audio, just like it has been applied to video and we are seeing nascent results that look promising.

 

"Twiddling knobs" is a common phrase to refer to varying of parameters on things like parametric equalizers and are limited by an overall approach based on analog thinking.

 

By using algorithms that produce processing that humans can no longer understand, huge advances in the computing industry have been happening in the last few years. There is NO reason to expect that the audio domain will be exempt from this approach!

 

 

 

 

  • 0
4 minutes ago, DevTech said:

You are going out of your way to be offended by my serious attempt to wonder if the objective of the OP is even possible.

I'll take this at face value and say that I have read offence where none was meant then.  I have been a knob twiddler since the 80s and your "maybe it would be useful to get up to speed" implies that I'm not.  I am.

 

Yes: It absolutely IS possible ON PAPER.  But even the highest level of AI-integrated gating (filtering) and potential reconstruction of the over-filtered sound created by the gates is nowhere near there yet.

 

Let me make another analogy:  Compression can be lossy, and yet still recreate an acceptable replication of the original content.  ANY filtering is inherently lossy, and the acceptability of the output is obviously for the user to determine, but it's never reached a level (and I've been in the studio with number 1 selling artists and producers) that I would consider "good enough".

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!