Steve wrote:
> We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade".
> Remaining are:
>
> * Musical Fade Out
> * Studio Fade Out
> * Dynamic Fade Out
>
> Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote?
 
Gale wrote:
>"Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like
>the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think
>of a good word to use. "Progressive"?
>
>I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't
>describe what the current effect does in a friendly but
>unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it
>does.
 
I would not like "Progessive" that doesn't really describe what
it does - well not to me anyway.
 
I really quite like "Studio Fade" (if we really have ruled out "Pro Fade").
 
What I like about both of those is they have names that will
probably encourage users to want to try it so that they can get
that "professional studio effect" (I view this as good marketing,
speaking as an ex-marketeer).   We should be looking for a
catchy handle for it to encourage discoverability and usage.
 
From my understanding Steve developed the way this effect works
from his work on professional mixing desks - and working with
engineers who use this technique in their studios.  This it could be
said to deserve "Studio" or "Pro" as its tag.
 
I still prefer the use of "Pro Fade" though as it paves the way for
Steve's futute intentions of potentially turning this into a
"Pro"-grammable fade.  Thus the name would serve both purposes.
 
 
It's quite hard to express what the effect does - it's fairly technical,
and indeed subtle (as Steve said).
We are being careful in the Manual's documentation of this effect
(for those who are interested) to explain exactly what it does - see:
http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Fades
You need to be logged in to see the proposed text.
 
So I don't think it's actually necessary to explain in the effect name
how it does its subtle magic. After all there is no indication in the current
"Fade In"  effect name that it is a linear fade and we have lived happily
with that for years.
 
==========================================
 
On a related nomenclature note, you will see on that page that the
H2 heading for "Pro Fades" is currently "Musical Fades". 
 
Are we happy or unhappy with that nomenclature?
 
This title, of course, is much easier to change at any time.
 
 
Thanks,
Peter.
 
 
 
Peter Sampson
Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780
Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299
From: Gale Andrews <gale@audacityteam.org>
To: audacity-quality <audacity-quality@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature


| From Steve the Fiddle <stevethefiddle@gmail.com>
| Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:45:23 +0000
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature
> On 11 December 2012 22:33, Gale Andrews <gale@audacityteam.org> wrote:
[...]
> >> >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really
> >> >> >> > "mean" anything).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration
> >> >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in
> >> >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining
> >> >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Something like:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out
> >> >> >> > "Deep Fade Out"
> >> >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out"
> >> >> >> > "Studio Fade Out"    ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it
> >> >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in
> >> >> > the future.
> >> >>
> >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on
> >> >> alternative programs.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in
> >> >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name
> >> >> > might still be better.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having
> >> >> > the same name.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it
> >> >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks
> >> >> > kind of presumptuous.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is
> >> >> programmable.
> >> >>
> >> >> More ideas or vote?
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve
> >> >
> >> > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to
> >> > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into
> >> > the distance or whatever).
> >> >
> >> > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see
> >> > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download
> >> > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade"
> >> > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the
> >> > shape is different without realising the essential difference is
> >> > in the filter.
> >> >
> >> > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done
> >> > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an
> >> > additional config plug-in for it.
> >> >
> >> > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with
> >> > FL Studio.
> >>
> >> I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word
> >> "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as
> >> M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no
> >> claim over the words "Music" or "Man".
> >>
> >> I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=)
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible"
> >> > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does?
> >> >
> >> How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of:
> >> * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude.
> >> * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear".
> >
> > That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful"
> > rather than subtle.
> >
> > I'm sure it's better than "One-click".
> >
> > I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical".
> >
> > I most favour "Bass <something> Fade".  Something like
> > "Bass-Retain Fade".
> >
> >
> >
> > Gale
> >
>
> I'm not keen on "Bass <something> Fade".
> The high frequency roll-off is intentionally subtle, whereas I'd
> expect "Bass Retain" (or similar) to have an obvious frequency sweep.
> Also,, if the effect becomes programmable, which I would like, then
> users may choose to use a fade type that does not roll off the treble
> at all.
>
> We seem to  have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade".
> Remaining are:
>
> * Musical Fade Out
> * Studio Fade Out
> * Dynamic Fade Out
>
> Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote?
>
> Steve

"Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like
the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think
of a good word to use. "Progressive"?

I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't
describe what the current effect does in a friendly but
unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it
does.



Gale 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial
Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support
Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services
Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
Audacity-quality@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality