Thread: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-05-24 14:27:31
|
This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal 3: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation I support 1 & 2 but not 3. Thanks, Peter Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-05-25 00:32:04
|
(1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them independently. (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it may not work for brass recordings). Make it an effect and default it to be called after a recording, I say. But that will have a hit on time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). I'm 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now (stability). HTH Martyn On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: > This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I > published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and > improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: > > 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize > > 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal > > 3: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation > > I support 1 & 2 but not 3. > > Thanks, > Peter > Peter Sampson > Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 > Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Bill W. <bi...@go...> - 2011-05-25 01:45:24
|
On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: > (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not > alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter > and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them > independently. There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off by default. > > (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R > independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or > by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better > initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it > may not work for brass recordings). I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a component well below 1 Hz). > Make it an effect and default it > to be called after a recording, I say. -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. > But that will have a hit on > time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). As above, so option to turn it off. > I'm > 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now > (stability). +1 -- Bill > > HTH > Martyn > > On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: >> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I >> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and >> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: >> >> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >> >> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal >> >> 3: >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation >> >> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. >> >> Thanks, >> Peter >> Peter Sampson >> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 >> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >> Download your free trial now. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-quality mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2011-05-25 18:10:05
|
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> wrote: > > On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: > >> (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not >> alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter >> and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them >> independently. Personally, I don't want a check box either, but Audacity has (incorrectly) normalized stereo channels independently for so long that some may see it as a loss of functionality to remove it altogether. > > There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to > "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off > by default. Normalizing stereo channels independently *may* in a few cases have the accidental side effect of restoring balance to an out of balance pair, but setting the peak level for each channel the same definitely does not guarantee that the two channels will be equal loudness. Peak amplitude is NOT the same as loudness. It is far more likely that correctly balanced stereo shows will be damaged than damaged shows will be fixed. To correct out of balance stereo, users should be encouraged to use the right tool for the job, which is the Pan slider. > >> >> (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R >> independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or >> by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better >> initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it >> may not work for brass recordings). Audacity already calculates the minimum and maximum peak for each block file, so I'd guess that there's probably very little additional overhead for calculating the absolute offset. Perhaps someone that is familiar with the code could check that. Steve > > I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current > algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a > component well below 1 Hz). > >> Make it an effect and default it >> to be called after a recording, I say. > > -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. > >> But that will have a hit on >> time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). > > As above, so option to turn it off. > >> I'm >> 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now >> (stability). > > +1 > > -- Bill >> >> HTH >> Martyn >> >> On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: >>> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I >>> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and >>> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: >>> >>> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >>> >>> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal >>> >>> 3: >>> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation >>> >>> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> Peter Sampson >>> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 >>> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >>> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >>> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >>> Download your free trial now. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Audacity-quality mailing list >>> Aud...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >> Download your free trial now. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-quality mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2011-05-26 17:01:04
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 25 May 2011 19:09:55 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> wrote: > > > > On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: > > > >> (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not > >> alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter > >> and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them > >> independently. > > Personally, I don't want a check box either, but Audacity has > (incorrectly) normalized stereo channels independently for so long > that some may see it as a loss of functionality to remove it > altogether. Yes. There "would" be significant complaints about removing that. > > There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to > > "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off > > by default. > > Normalizing stereo channels independently *may* in a few cases have > the accidental side effect of restoring balance to an out of balance > pair, but setting the peak level for each channel the same definitely > does not guarantee that the two channels will be equal loudness. Peak > amplitude is NOT the same as loudness. That's just as true of normalising tracks and imagining they are equally loud. Bill did not say "equal loudness". > It is far more likely that correctly balanced stereo shows will be > damaged than damaged shows will be fixed. I simply don't believe that's true, as a sweeping generalisation. Most recordings from USB recording devices and cheap hardware will be unbalanced. Of course people should be aware of the impact of a click or a lone cymbal clash in one channel, but most pop music is loud and relatively unvarying in volume, so is not likely to suffer significantly from either problem. > To correct out of balance stereo, users should be encouraged to use > the right tool for the job, which is the Pan slider. As I keep pointing out, you can't "see" the waveform without rendering, and as far as I can see all pan does is scale up the weaker channel, it can't increase the stronger channel. You still have to use extra tools if you want to increase the level, which is what normalising is usually about. We have talk pages for the proposals, and all this is repetition of what's already there. Gale > >> (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R > >> independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or > >> by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better > >> initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it > >> may not work for brass recordings). > > Audacity already calculates the minimum and maximum peak for each > block file, so I'd guess that there's probably very little additional > overhead for calculating the absolute offset. Perhaps someone that is > familiar with the code could check that. > > Steve > > > > > I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current > > algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a > > component well below 1 Hz). > > > >> Make it an effect and default it > >> to be called after a recording, I say. > > > > -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. > > > >> But that will have a hit on > >> time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). > > > > As above, so option to turn it off. > > > >> I'm > >> 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now > >> (stability). > > > > +1 > > > > -- Bill > >> > >> HTH > >> Martyn > >> > >> On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: > >>> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I > >>> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and > >>> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: > >>> > >>> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize > >>> > >>> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal > >>> > >>> 3: > >>> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation > >>> > >>> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Peter > >>> Peter Sampson > >>> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 > >>> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2011-05-26 23:10:26
|
Summary: I'm opposed to removing the ability to Normalize stereo channels independently. Seems to me best solution is to merge Amplify and Normalize, checkbox for stereo channels independent. And probably make Remove DC Offset a separate effect. I don't know, but it may be the case that doing Remove Offset separately from Normalize is a lot more time consuming than doing them in the same process. If nobody's looked at the code, it's easy enough to do some tests. Crucial to me is to remove all occurrences of -0.0. The minus sign should not be a static text. On 5/26/2011 10:00 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 25 May 2011 19:09:55 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> wrote: >>> >>> On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: >>> >>>> (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not >>>> alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter >>>> and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them >>>> independently. It's good to have the option. -1 on removing a useful existing feature. >> >> Personally, I don't want a check box either, but Audacity has >> (incorrectly) normalized stereo channels independently for so long >> that some may see it as a loss of functionality to remove it >> altogether. > > Yes. There "would" be significant complaints about removing that. > >>> There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to >>> "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off >>> by default. >> >> Normalizing stereo channels independently *may* in a few cases have >> the accidental side effect of restoring balance to an out of balance >> pair, but setting the peak level for each channel the same definitely >> does not guarantee that the two channels will be equal loudness. Peak >> amplitude is NOT the same as loudness. > > That's just as true of normalising tracks and imagining they are > equally loud. Bill did not say "equal loudness". > > >> It is far more likely that correctly balanced stereo shows will be >> damaged than damaged shows will be fixed. > > I simply don't believe that's true, as a sweeping generalisation. > Most recordings from USB recording devices and cheap hardware > will be unbalanced. Plus, as I understand it, for tape recordings, the inner channels degrade at a different rate than the outer channels (e.g., in a cassette with a total of 4 channels, 2 in each direction). - Vaughan > > Of course people should be aware of the impact of a click or a > lone cymbal clash in one channel, but most pop music is loud > and relatively unvarying in volume, so is not likely to suffer > significantly from either problem. > > >> To correct out of balance stereo, users should be encouraged to use >> the right tool for the job, which is the Pan slider. > > As I keep pointing out, you can't "see" the waveform without > rendering, and as far as I can see all pan does is scale up the weaker > channel, it can't increase the stronger channel. You still have to > use extra tools if you want to increase the level, which is what > normalising is usually about. > > We have talk pages for the proposals, and all this is repetition of > what's already there. > > > > > > Gale > > >>>> (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R >>>> independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or >>>> by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better >>>> initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it >>>> may not work for brass recordings). >> >> Audacity already calculates the minimum and maximum peak for each >> block file, so I'd guess that there's probably very little additional >> overhead for calculating the absolute offset. Perhaps someone that is >> familiar with the code could check that. >> >> Steve >> >>> >>> I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current >>> algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a >>> component well below 1 Hz). >>> >>>> Make it an effect and default it >>>> to be called after a recording, I say. >>> >>> -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. >>> >>>> But that will have a hit on >>>> time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). >>> >>> As above, so option to turn it off. >>> >>>> I'm >>>> 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now >>>> (stability). >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> -- Bill >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> Martyn >>>> >>>> On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>>> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I >>>>> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and >>>>> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: >>>>> >>>>> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >>>>> >>>>> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal >>>>> >>>>> 3: >>>>> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation >>>>> >>>>> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Peter >>>>> Peter Sampson >>>>> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 >>>>> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2011-05-27 12:24:19
|
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> wrote: > Summary: I'm opposed to removing the ability to Normalize stereo > channels independently. > > Seems to me best solution is to merge Amplify and Normalize, checkbox > for stereo channels independent. And probably make Remove DC Offset a > separate effect. I don't know, but it may be the case that doing Remove > Offset separately from Normalize is a lot more time consuming than doing > them in the same process. If nobody's looked at the code, it's easy > enough to do some tests. > > Crucial to me is to remove all occurrences of -0.0. The minus sign > should not be a static text. > > > > On 5/26/2011 10:00 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: >> >> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> | Wed, 25 May 2011 19:09:55 +0100 >> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC >>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: >>>> >>>>> (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not >>>>> alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter >>>>> and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them >>>>> independently. > > It's good to have the option. -1 on removing a useful existing feature. > > >>> >>> Personally, I don't want a check box either, but Audacity has >>> (incorrectly) normalized stereo channels independently for so long >>> that some may see it as a loss of functionality to remove it >>> altogether. >> >> Yes. There "would" be significant complaints about removing that. >> >>>> There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to >>>> "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off >>>> by default. >>> >>> Normalizing stereo channels independently *may* in a few cases have >>> the accidental side effect of restoring balance to an out of balance >>> pair, but setting the peak level for each channel the same definitely >>> does not guarantee that the two channels will be equal loudness. Peak >>> amplitude is NOT the same as loudness. >> >> That's just as true of normalising tracks and imagining they are >> equally loud. Bill did not say "equal loudness". >> >> >>> It is far more likely that correctly balanced stereo shows will be >>> damaged than damaged shows will be fixed. >> >> I simply don't believe that's true, as a sweeping generalisation. >> Most recordings from USB recording devices and cheap hardware >> will be unbalanced. > > Plus, as I understand it, for tape recordings, the inner channels > degrade at a different rate than the outer channels (e.g., in a cassette > with a total of 4 channels, 2 in each direction). > > - Vaughan That's true, but it's also the highest peaks that degrade most, so after (peak) Normalizing channels independently the inner channels end up louder than the outer channels. Steve > > >> >> Of course people should be aware of the impact of a click or a >> lone cymbal clash in one channel, but most pop music is loud >> and relatively unvarying in volume, so is not likely to suffer >> significantly from either problem. >> >> >>> To correct out of balance stereo, users should be encouraged to use >>> the right tool for the job, which is the Pan slider. >> >> As I keep pointing out, you can't "see" the waveform without >> rendering, and as far as I can see all pan does is scale up the weaker >> channel, it can't increase the stronger channel. You still have to >> use extra tools if you want to increase the level, which is what >> normalising is usually about. >> >> We have talk pages for the proposals, and all this is repetition of >> what's already there. >> >> >> >> >> >> Gale >> >> >>>>> (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R >>>>> independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or >>>>> by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better >>>>> initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it >>>>> may not work for brass recordings). >>> >>> Audacity already calculates the minimum and maximum peak for each >>> block file, so I'd guess that there's probably very little additional >>> overhead for calculating the absolute offset. Perhaps someone that is >>> familiar with the code could check that. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>>> >>>> I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current >>>> algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a >>>> component well below 1 Hz). >>>> >>>>> Make it an effect and default it >>>>> to be called after a recording, I say. >>>> >>>> -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. >>>> >>>>> But that will have a hit on >>>>> time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). >>>> >>>> As above, so option to turn it off. >>>> >>>>> I'm >>>>> 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now >>>>> (stability). >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> -- Bill >>>>> >>>>> HTH >>>>> Martyn >>>>> >>>>> On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>>>> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I >>>>>> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and >>>>>> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >>>>>> >>>>>> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal >>>>>> >>>>>> 3: >>>>>> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation >>>>>> >>>>>> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> Peter Sampson >>>>>> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 >>>>>> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 >> >> |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-05-28 11:39:58
|
Hi Vaughan, thanks for the feedback. I have transferred your comments to the three proposals talk pages. You may wish to check those to ensure that I have not misrepresented you. I don't think that anybody wants to remove the ability to normalize stereo channels independently as we do now - rather we just want to add the option to normalize them as a pair. I for one would certainly be against removing the ability to normalize stereo channels independently as then, for folks with unbalanced stereo channels, we would have to write a tutorial in the manual telling the how to split the stereo into two tracks, normalize each track in turn and them combine the two tracks back into a stereo pair - and I don't want to go there ... I note that you currently favour merging Amplify and Normalize - you may wish to have a look at Steve Daulton'sarguments as to why he thinks this should not be done. I transferred them to the talk page today - see: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation#Feedback_from_Steve_Daulton Regards, Peter. ________________________________ From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> To: aud...@li... Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 12:12:41 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC Summary: I'm opposed to removing the ability to Normalize stereo channels independently. Seems to me best solution is to merge Amplify and Normalize, checkbox for stereo channels independent. And probably make Remove DC Offset a separate effect. I don't know, but it may be the case that doing Remove Offset separately from Normalize is a lot more time consuming than doing them in the same process. If nobody's looked at the code, it's easy enough to do some tests. Crucial to me is to remove all occurrences of -0.0. The minus sign should not be a static text. On 5/26/2011 10:00 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 25 May 2011 19:09:55 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, >Amplify & DC >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> wrote: >>> >>> On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: >>> >>>> (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not >>>> alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter >>>> and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them >>>> independently. It's good to have the option. -1 on removing a useful existing feature. >> >> Personally, I don't want a check box either, but Audacity has >> (incorrectly) normalized stereo channels independently for so long >> that some may see it as a loss of functionality to remove it >> altogether. > > Yes. There "would" be significant complaints about removing that. > >>> There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to >>> "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off >>> by default. >> >> Normalizing stereo channels independently *may* in a few cases have >> the accidental side effect of restoring balance to an out of balance >> pair, but setting the peak level for each channel the same definitely >> does not guarantee that the two channels will be equal loudness. Peak >> amplitude is NOT the same as loudness. > > That's just as true of normalising tracks and imagining they are > equally loud. Bill did not say "equal loudness". > > >> It is far more likely that correctly balanced stereo shows will be >> damaged than damaged shows will be fixed. > > I simply don't believe that's true, as a sweeping generalisation. > Most recordings from USB recording devices and cheap hardware > will be unbalanced. Plus, as I understand it, for tape recordings, the inner channels degrade at a different rate than the outer channels (e.g., in a cassette with a total of 4 channels, 2 in each direction). - Vaughan > > Of course people should be aware of the impact of a click or a > lone cymbal clash in one channel, but most pop music is loud > and relatively unvarying in volume, so is not likely to suffer > significantly from either problem. > > >> To correct out of balance stereo, users should be encouraged to use >> the right tool for the job, which is the Pan slider. > > As I keep pointing out, you can't "see" the waveform without > rendering, and as far as I can see all pan does is scale up the weaker > channel, it can't increase the stronger channel. You still have to > use extra tools if you want to increase the level, which is what > normalising is usually about. > > We have talk pages for the proposals, and all this is repetition of > what's already there. > > > > > > Gale > > >>>> (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R >>>> independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or >>>> by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better >>>> initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it >>>> may not work for brass recordings). >> >> Audacity already calculates the minimum and maximum peak for each >> block file, so I'd guess that there's probably very little additional >> overhead for calculating the absolute offset. Perhaps someone that is >> familiar with the code could check that. >> >> Steve >> >>> >>> I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current >>> algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a >>> component well below 1 Hz). >>> >>>> Make it an effect and default it >>>> to be called after a recording, I say. >>> >>> -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. >>> >>>> But that will have a hit on >>>> time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). >>> >>> As above, so option to turn it off. >>> >>>> I'm >>>> 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now >>>> (stability). >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> -- Bill >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> Martyn >>>> >>>> On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>>> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I >>>>> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and >>>>> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: >>>>> >>>>> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >>>>> >>>>> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal >>>>> >>>>> 3: >>>>> >>>http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation >>>>> >>>>> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Peter > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-05-29 16:56:27
|
A little research in the Audacity archives shows that we have been through this particular discussion on Normalize over three years ago. Back in January 2008 Markus Meyer (an Emeritus Audacity Developer) raised the issue of what he believed to be errant behaviour by Audacity in its handling of stereo tracks in Normalizing each channel independently. The thread can be viewed here: http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/Normalize-does-not-work-correctly-on-stereo-tracks-td257045.html I updated the Talk page for the Normalize proposal with a link to the archive thread and a precis of the main points - see: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize Peter. |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2011-05-31 02:02:50
|
Thanks, Peter. Yes, I had already read those talk page threads as well as this one. And yes, I read http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/Normalize-does-not-work-correctly-on-stereo-tracks-td257045.html, too, at the time it was an active discussion, *3* years ago. I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too much of a feature elimination. Don't have time to proof your transfer of my comments to the 3 proposal talk pages. I think talking about the same thing in 4 different places is unlikely to be productive. I'm usually trying to focus the discussion rather than expand it to... further discussion and indecision. I thank you for this message from you, in the same effort. - Vaughan On 5/28/2011 4:39 AM, Peter Sampson wrote: > Hi Vaughan, > > thanks for the feedback. I have transferred your comments to the three > proposals talk pages. You may wish to check those to ensure that I have > not misrepresented you. > > I don't think that anybody wants to remove the ability to normalize > stereo channels independently as we do now - rather we just want to add > the option to normalize them as a pair. > > I for one would certainly be against removing the ability to normalize > stereo channels independently as then, for folks with unbalanced stereo > channels, we would have to write a tutorial in the manual telling the > how to split the stereo into two tracks, normalize each track in turn > and them combine the two tracks back into a stereo pair - and I don't > want to go there ... > > I note that you currently favour merging Amplify and Normalize - you may > wish to have a look at Steve Daulton'sarguments as to why he thinks this > should not be done. I transferred them to the talk page today - see: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation#Feedback_from_Steve_Daulton > > Regards, > Peter. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > *To:* aud...@li... > *Sent:* Fri, May 27, 2011 12:12:41 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > Normalize, Amplify & DC > > Summary: I'm opposed to removing the ability to Normalize stereo > channels independently. > > Seems to me best solution is to merge Amplify and Normalize, checkbox > for stereo channels independent. And probably make Remove DC Offset a > separate effect. I don't know, but it may be the case that doing Remove > Offset separately from Normalize is a lot more time consuming than doing > them in the same process. If nobody's looked at the code, it's easy > enough to do some tests. > > Crucial to me is to remove all occurrences of -0.0. The minus sign > should not be a static text. > > > > On 5/26/2011 10:00 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: >> >> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm... > <mailto:ste...@gm...>> >> | Wed, 25 May 2011 19:09:55 +0100 >> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > Normalize, Amplify & DC >>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Bill Wharrie <bi...@go... > <mailto:bi...@go...>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 24-May-11, at 8:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: >>>> >>>>> (1) Normalize should clearly work on a stereo track so it does not >>>>> alter the balance (different to what it does now). So I'm with Peter >>>>> and Bill on this one. I don't even want a checkbox to do them >>>>> independently. > > It's good to have the option. -1 on removing a useful existing feature. > > >>> >>> Personally, I don't want a check box either, but Audacity has >>> (incorrectly) normalized stereo channels independently for so long >>> that some may see it as a loss of functionality to remove it >>> altogether. >> >> Yes. There "would" be significant complaints about removing that. >> >>>> There are cases where a stereo pair is unbalanced, and the ability to >>>> "restore" balance would be good, so I'm in favour of the checkbox, off >>>> by default. >>> >>> Normalizing stereo channels independently *may* in a few cases have >>> the accidental side effect of restoring balance to an out of balance >>> pair, but setting the peak level for each channel the same definitely >>> does not guarantee that the two channels will be equal loudness. Peak >>> amplitude is NOT the same as loudness. >> >> That's just as true of normalising tracks and imagining they are >> equally loud. Bill did not say "equal loudness". >> >> >>> It is far more likely that correctly balanced stereo shows will be >>> damaged than damaged shows will be fixed. >> >> I simply don't believe that's true, as a sweeping generalisation. >> Most recordings from USB recording devices and cheap hardware >> will be unbalanced. > > Plus, as I understand it, for tape recordings, the inner channels > degrade at a different rate than the outer channels (e.g., in a cassette > with a total of 4 channels, 2 in each direction). > > - Vaughan > > >> >> Of course people should be aware of the impact of a click or a >> lone cymbal clash in one channel, but most pop music is loud >> and relatively unvarying in volume, so is not likely to suffer >> significantly from either problem. >> >> >>> To correct out of balance stereo, users should be encouraged to use >>> the right tool for the job, which is the Pan slider. >> >> As I keep pointing out, you can't "see" the waveform without >> rendering, and as far as I can see all pan does is scale up the weaker >> channel, it can't increase the stronger channel. You still have to >> use extra tools if you want to increase the level, which is what >> normalising is usually about. >> >> We have talk pages for the proposals, and all this is repetition of >> what's already there. >> >> >> >> >> >> Gale >> >> >>>>> (2) DC removal should be part of peoples workflow, and always L/R >>>>> independently. It can be removed by a HPF (single pass) algorithm or >>>>> by an absolute (two pass) algorithm, with a speed hit, but a better >>>>> initial response. We currently do the second, I believe (but I see it >>>>> may not work for brass recordings). >>> >>> Audacity already calculates the minimum and maximum peak for each >>> block file, so I'd guess that there's probably very little additional >>> overhead for calculating the absolute offset. Perhaps someone that is >>> familiar with the code could check that. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>>> >>>> I've not been able to find a real-world waveform that the current >>>> algorithm fails on, with the exception of "wandering" DC offset (a >>>> component well below 1 Hz). >>>> >>>>> Make it an effect and default it >>>>> to be called after a recording, I say. >>>> >>>> -1 on doing it automatically after a recording. >>>> >>>>> But that will have a hit on >>>>> time after a long recording (option to turn it off, discouraged). >>>> >>>> As above, so option to turn it off. >>>> >>>>> I'm >>>>> 50/50 on the method, so think we should leave it as it is for now >>>>> (stability). >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> -- Bill >>>>> >>>>> HTH >>>>> Martyn >>>>> >>>>> On 24/05/2011 15:27, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>>>> This is just to bring to your attention the three proposals that I >>>>>> published on the Wiki yesterday regarding rationalization and >>>>>> improvement of Normalize, Amplify and DC offset removal: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >>>>>> >>>>>> 2: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_DC_Offset_removal >>>>>> >>>>>> 3: >>>>>> > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize_%26_Amplify_Consolidation >>>>>> >>>>>> I support 1 & 2 but not 3. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Peter >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >> Download your free trial now. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-quality mailing list >> Aud...@li... > <mailto:Aud...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > <mailto:Aud...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-06-03 00:24:08
|
Responding, since my name was mentioned... On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: <snip> > I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the > ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now > convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too > much of a feature elimination. </snip> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect 'rebalancing' may help some. Opinionated, but not changing the code atm Martyn |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2011-06-03 06:54:47
|
| From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC > Responding, since my name was mentioned... > > On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > <snip> > > I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the > > ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now > > convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too > > much of a feature elimination. > </snip> > > We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo > normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing > 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I > can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the > options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature > elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. > > And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > 'rebalancing' may help some. > > Opinionated, but not changing the code atm As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize GUI. Gale |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-06-03 13:34:36
|
Martyn wrote: > And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > 'rebalancing' may help some. But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any current functionality. BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through that. Gale wrote: >So I don't "think" anyone changing the >code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >GUI. But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? Thanks, Peter. ________________________________ From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> To: aud...@li... Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC > Responding, since my name was mentioned... > > On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > <snip> > > I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the > > ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now > > convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too > > much of a feature elimination. > </snip> > > We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo > normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing > 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I > can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the > options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature > elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. > > And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > 'rebalancing' may help some. > > Opinionated, but not changing the code atm As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize GUI. Gale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2011-06-03 15:25:13
|
On the following points I think that all of the points have been made at least once, so could we have a vote on: 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) should be preserved as an option. 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo channels independently" 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a further three years of prevarication. My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, please see: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize and http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize Steve On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> wrote: > Martyn wrote: >> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >> 'rebalancing' may help some. > > But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most > folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when > they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in > favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option > check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo > channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and > furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any > current functionality. > > BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were > chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been > cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I > found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through > that. > > > Gale wrote: >>So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >GUI. > > But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign > bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo > normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? > > Thanks, > Peter. > > > ________________________________ > From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM > Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > Normalize, Amplify & DC > > > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> > | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > Normalize, Amplify & DC >> Responding, since my name was mentioned... >> >> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >> <snip> >> > I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the >> > ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now >> > convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too >> > much of a feature elimination. >> </snip> >> >> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo >> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing >> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I >> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the >> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature >> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. >> >> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >> 'rebalancing' may help some. >> >> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm > > As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo > normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can > still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the > code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only > thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize > GUI. > > > > > Gale > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > |
From: Bill W. <bi...@go...> - 2011-06-03 15:30:12
|
+1 to all five points. -- Bill On 3-Jun-11, at 11:25 AM, Steve the Fiddle wrote: > On the following points I think that all of the points have been made > at least once, so could we have a vote on: > > 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. > 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) > should be preserved as an option. > 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo > channels independently" > 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default > should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) > 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. > > If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of > these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a > further three years of prevarication. > > My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. > For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. > > For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, > please see: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize > and > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize > > Steve > > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya... > > wrote: >> Martyn wrote: >>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may >>> be >>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >> >> But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent >> way. Most >> folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - >> and when >> they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. >> So I'm in >> favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the >> option >> check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their >> stereo >> channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going >> on and >> furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without >> removing any >> current functionality. >> >> BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I >> converted were >> chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that >> had been >> cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad >> that I >> found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them >> through >> that. >> >> >> Gale wrote: >>> So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the >>> Normalize >GUI. >> >> But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the >> "minus sign >> bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo >> normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? >> >> Thanks, >> Peter. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >> Normalize, Amplify & DC >> >> >> | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> >> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 >> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >> Normalize, Amplify & DC >>> Responding, since my name was mentioned... >>> >>> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove >>>> the >>>> ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope >>>> he's now >>>> convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that >>>> was too >>>> much of a feature elimination. >>> </snip> >>> >>> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow >>> stereo >>> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing >>> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. >>> But I >>> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the >>> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature >>> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. >>> >>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may >>> be >>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>> >>> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm >> >> As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo >> normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can >> still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing >> the >> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >> GUI. >> >> >> >> >> Gale >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with >> vRanger. >> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data >> is safe, >> secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's >> about. >> Get your free trial download today. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-quality mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with >> vRanger. >> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data >> is safe, >> secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's >> about. >> Get your free trial download today. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-quality mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with > vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data > is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's > about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2011-06-03 17:32:00
|
Summary - more repetition? Any developer not actually seen those Proposal pages? ---- As I already suggested gently to Martyn, we have broad consensus now on adding an option to do "stereo normalizing" (by unchecking a box that says "Normalize stereo channels independently"). We do not have consensus on removing any option to "normalize stereo channels independently". I see "regression" lights flashing if we remove it. I don't feel lack of stereo normalize is a "bug" because the last time this was raised three years ago, there was no developer interest in it except for Markus and Martyn. I assume the other developers intended it as it was, but possibly didn't consider the awkwardness of stereo normalizing multiple tracks at a time. I think the Forum complaints mostly come from knowledgeable users who are aware most other software has one amplify/normalize effect (called "Normalize") that does stereo normalizing. Most feedback@ complaints and those coming to my inbox are actually that there is no tool to "rebalance" a stereo track (because they can't find Normalize). I've digitized classical music for years using Normalize as an effective and simple way to rebalance the inherently unbalanced USB turntable recording (after removing clicks). The theoretical, marginal extra accuracy of panning and rendering first then using Amplify are of less value to me than the convenience of the current Normalize feature. To repeat, my votes are +1 to 1), 2) and 3). -1 to 4) though I'll go with the consensus on that. The more constructive solution to my mind is still to merge Amplify and Normalize (the latter also to have a new option to do "stereo normalize"). 5) is a bug and not under discussion here. It should be fixed. Gale | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:25:06 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC > On the following points I think that all of the points have been made > at least once, so could we have a vote on: > > 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. > 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) > should be preserved as an option. > 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo > channels independently" > 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default > should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) > 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. > > If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of > these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a > further three years of prevarication. > > My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. > For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. > > For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, > please see: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize > and > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize > > Steve > > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> wrote: > > Martyn wrote: > >> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > >> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > >> 'rebalancing' may help some. > > > > But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most > > folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when > > they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in > > favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option > > check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo > > channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and > > furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any > > current functionality. > > > > BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were > > chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been > > cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I > > found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through > > that. > > > > > > Gale wrote: > >>So I don't "think" anyone changing the > >>code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only > >>thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >GUI. > > > > But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign > > bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo > > normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? > > > > Thanks, > > Peter. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> > > To: aud...@li... > > Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM > > Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > > Normalize, Amplify & DC > > > > > > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> > > | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > > Normalize, Amplify & DC > >> Responding, since my name was mentioned... > >> > >> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > >> <snip> > >> > I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the > >> > ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now > >> > convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too > >> > much of a feature elimination. > >> </snip> > >> > >> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo > >> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing > >> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I > >> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the > >> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature > >> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. > >> > >> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > >> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > >> 'rebalancing' may help some. > >> > >> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm > > > > As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo > > normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can > > still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the > > code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only > > thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize > > GUI. > > > > > > > > > > Gale |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-06-05 00:21:03
|
I'm +1 to Steve's points 1-5, and thanks Steve for that summary. I like http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize#GUI_Example In terms of coding for stereo tracks, this is not as simple as it might seem. It requires some thought to make it as fast as possible, which makes it prone to error and so possible bugs. It is a feature request, but one worth doing for 2.0? 5 is not (technically) a bug, in that it 'does what it says'. (-)3(dB) gives you that. (-)-3(dB) gives you +3dB on all tracks, as you asked. http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Normalize would need updating, but it does already since it does not 'equalize the volumes of the left and right channels of a stereo track' and the stuff in the blue box is misleading re 'channel imbalance in the equipment', as acknowledged by Gale below (you need to remove clicks first, at least). TTFN Martyn On 03/06/2011 18:31, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Summary - more repetition? Any developer not actually seen those > Proposal pages? > > ---- > > As I already suggested gently to Martyn, we have broad consensus > now on adding an option to do "stereo normalizing" (by unchecking > a box that says "Normalize stereo channels independently"). > > We do not have consensus on removing any option to "normalize > stereo channels independently". I see "regression" lights > flashing if we remove it. > > I don't feel lack of stereo normalize is a "bug" because the last > time this was raised three years ago, there was no developer > interest in it except for Markus and Martyn. I assume the other > developers intended it as it was, but possibly didn't consider the > awkwardness of stereo normalizing multiple tracks at a time. > > I think the Forum complaints mostly come from knowledgeable > users who are aware most other software has one > amplify/normalize effect (called "Normalize") that does stereo > normalizing. Most feedback@ complaints and those coming to my > inbox are actually that there is no tool to "rebalance" a stereo > track (because they can't find Normalize). > > I've digitized classical music for years using Normalize as an > effective and simple way to rebalance the inherently unbalanced > USB turntable recording (after removing clicks). The theoretical, > marginal extra accuracy of panning and rendering first then using > Amplify are of less value to me than the convenience of the current > Normalize feature. > > To repeat, my votes are +1 to 1), 2) and 3). -1 to 4) though > I'll go with the consensus on that. > > The more constructive solution to my mind is still to merge > Amplify and Normalize (the latter also to have a new option to > do "stereo normalize"). > > 5) is a bug and not under discussion here. It should be fixed. > > > > > > Gale > > > | From Steve the Fiddle<ste...@gm...> > | Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:25:06 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify& DC >> On the following points I think that all of the points have been made >> at least once, so could we have a vote on: >> >> 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. >> 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) >> should be preserved as an option. >> 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo >> channels independently" >> 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default >> should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) >> 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. >> >> If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of >> these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a >> further three years of prevarication. >> >> My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. >> For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. >> >> For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, >> please see: >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >> and >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson<pet...@ya...> wrote: >>> Martyn wrote: >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>> >>> But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most >>> folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when >>> they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in >>> favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option >>> check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo >>> channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and >>> furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any >>> current functionality. >>> >>> BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were >>> chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been >>> cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I >>> found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through >>> that. >>> >>> >>> Gale wrote: >>>> So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize>GUI. >>> >>> But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign >>> bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo >>> normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Gale Andrews<ga...@au...> >>> To: aud...@li... >>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >>> Normalize, Amplify& DC >>> >>> >>> | From Martyn Shaw<mar...@gm...> >>> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 >>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >>> Normalize, Amplify& DC >>>> Responding, since my name was mentioned... >>>> >>>> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the >>>>> ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now >>>>> convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too >>>>> much of a feature elimination. >>>> </snip> >>>> >>>> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo >>>> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing >>>> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I >>>> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the >>>> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature >>>> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. >>>> >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>>> >>>> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm >>> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo >>> normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can >>> still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >>> GUI. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gale > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2011-06-05 19:14:48
|
| From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> | Sun, 05 Jun 2011 01:22:07 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC > In terms of coding for stereo tracks, this is not as simple as it > might seem. It requires some thought to make it as fast as possible, > which makes it prone to error and so possible bugs. It is a feature > request, but one worth doing for 2.0? Not mandatory before 2.0 for me, and I'd be concerned about possible introduction of bugs and possible delay to 2.0. If it can be done fairly quickly (and safely) it would remove a certain amount of complaints and confusion. Defaulting it to "stereo normalize" could create confusion amongst the technically challenged USB turntable brigade. Should we ever merge Amplify and Normalize, is it time well spent (that is, it wouldn't need to be essentially redone if we merged)? > 5 is not (technically) a bug, in that it 'does what it says'. > (-)3(dB) gives you that. (-)-3(dB) gives you +3dB on all tracks, as > you asked. I know what you mean, but some users can't even see that minus (or don't see it because it is unexpected). > http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Normalize would need updating, but > it does already since it does not 'equalize the volumes of the left > and right channels of a stereo track' and the stuff in the blue box is > misleading re 'channel imbalance in the equipment', as acknowledged by > Gale below (you need to remove clicks first, at least). I've had a go at correcting it: http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Normalize Gale > On 03/06/2011 18:31, Gale Andrews wrote: > > > > Summary - more repetition? Any developer not actually seen those > > Proposal pages? > > > > ---- > > > > As I already suggested gently to Martyn, we have broad consensus > > now on adding an option to do "stereo normalizing" (by unchecking > > a box that says "Normalize stereo channels independently"). > > > > We do not have consensus on removing any option to "normalize > > stereo channels independently". I see "regression" lights > > flashing if we remove it. > > > > I don't feel lack of stereo normalize is a "bug" because the last > > time this was raised three years ago, there was no developer > > interest in it except for Markus and Martyn. I assume the other > > developers intended it as it was, but possibly didn't consider the > > awkwardness of stereo normalizing multiple tracks at a time. > > > > I think the Forum complaints mostly come from knowledgeable > > users who are aware most other software has one > > amplify/normalize effect (called "Normalize") that does stereo > > normalizing. Most feedback@ complaints and those coming to my > > inbox are actually that there is no tool to "rebalance" a stereo > > track (because they can't find Normalize). > > > > I've digitized classical music for years using Normalize as an > > effective and simple way to rebalance the inherently unbalanced > > USB turntable recording (after removing clicks). The theoretical, > > marginal extra accuracy of panning and rendering first then using > > Amplify are of less value to me than the convenience of the current > > Normalize feature. > > > > To repeat, my votes are +1 to 1), 2) and 3). -1 to 4) though > > I'll go with the consensus on that. > > > > The more constructive solution to my mind is still to merge > > Amplify and Normalize (the latter also to have a new option to > > do "stereo normalize"). > > > > 5) is a bug and not under discussion here. It should be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gale > > > > > > | From Steve the Fiddle<ste...@gm...> > > | Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:25:06 +0100 > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify& DC > >> On the following points I think that all of the points have been made > >> at least once, so could we have a vote on: > >> > >> 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. > >> 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) > >> should be preserved as an option. > >> 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo > >> channels independently" > >> 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default > >> should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) > >> 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. > >> > >> If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of > >> these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a > >> further three years of prevarication. > >> > >> My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. > >> For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. > >> > >> For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, > >> please see: > >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize > >> and > >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson<pet...@ya...> wrote: > >>> Martyn wrote: > >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. > >>> > >>> But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most > >>> folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when > >>> they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in > >>> favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option > >>> check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo > >>> channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and > >>> furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any > >>> current functionality. > >>> > >>> BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were > >>> chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been > >>> cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I > >>> found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through > >>> that. > >>> > >>> > >>> Gale wrote: > >>>> So I don't "think" anyone changing the > >>>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only > >>>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize>GUI. > >>> > >>> But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign > >>> bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo > >>> normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Peter. > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: Gale Andrews<ga...@au...> > >>> To: aud...@li... > >>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > >>> Normalize, Amplify& DC > >>> > >>> > >>> | From Martyn Shaw<mar...@gm...> > >>> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 > >>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > >>> Normalize, Amplify& DC > >>>> Responding, since my name was mentioned... > >>>> > >>>> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > >>>> <snip> > >>>>> I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the > >>>>> ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now > >>>>> convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too > >>>>> much of a feature elimination. > >>>> </snip> > >>>> > >>>> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo > >>>> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing > >>>> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I > >>>> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the > >>>> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature > >>>> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. > >>>> > >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be > >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect > >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. > >>>> > >>>> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm > >>> > >>> As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo > >>> normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can > >>> still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the > >>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only > >>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize > >>> GUI. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Gale > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > > Get your free trial download today. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > > _______________________________________________ > > Audacity-quality mailing list > > Aud...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2011-06-07 04:58:55
|
Yes, we discussed this 3 years ago. And although you do not remember, Gale, I was very much in those conversations, especially about removing minus signs on zero (5). As James described it, I think this is "decision paralysis". Typical result of design by committee, which trend I oppose in Audacity. And I think it's a lot of why we're so stuck. We couldn't come to a decision three years ago. And it's pretty darn trivial, just 2 effects, so this whole discussion is mostly just further delay to 2.0, imo. And it doesn't seem to be resolving to anything that convinces a developer to change it. Nor should it, imo, as it's so low priority. And it has so many stinky, divergent, not really resolving opinions. Let's move on. I realize this was brought up again by people who weren't in that prior discussion, but let's focus on bugs preventing 2.0 release, rather than usability enhancements, however trivial. Thanks, Vaughan On 6/3/2011 10:31 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Summary - more repetition? Any developer not actually seen those > Proposal pages? > > ---- > > As I already suggested gently to Martyn, we have broad consensus > now on adding an option to do "stereo normalizing" (by unchecking > a box that says "Normalize stereo channels independently"). > > We do not have consensus on removing any option to "normalize > stereo channels independently". I see "regression" lights > flashing if we remove it. > > I don't feel lack of stereo normalize is a "bug" because the last > time this was raised three years ago, there was no developer > interest in it except for Markus and Martyn. I assume the other > developers intended it as it was, but possibly didn't consider the > awkwardness of stereo normalizing multiple tracks at a time. > > I think the Forum complaints mostly come from knowledgeable > users who are aware most other software has one > amplify/normalize effect (called "Normalize") that does stereo > normalizing. Most feedback@ complaints and those coming to my > inbox are actually that there is no tool to "rebalance" a stereo > track (because they can't find Normalize). > > I've digitized classical music for years using Normalize as an > effective and simple way to rebalance the inherently unbalanced > USB turntable recording (after removing clicks). The theoretical, > marginal extra accuracy of panning and rendering first then using > Amplify are of less value to me than the convenience of the current > Normalize feature. > > To repeat, my votes are +1 to 1), 2) and 3). -1 to 4) though > I'll go with the consensus on that. > > The more constructive solution to my mind is still to merge > Amplify and Normalize (the latter also to have a new option to > do "stereo normalize"). > > 5) is a bug and not under discussion here. It should be fixed. > > > > > > Gale > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:25:06 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC >> On the following points I think that all of the points have been made >> at least once, so could we have a vote on: >> >> 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. >> 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) >> should be preserved as an option. >> 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo >> channels independently" >> 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default >> should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) >> 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. >> >> If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of >> these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a >> further three years of prevarication. >> >> My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. >> For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. >> >> For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, >> please see: >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >> and >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> wrote: >>> Martyn wrote: >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>> >>> But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most >>> folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when >>> they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in >>> favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option >>> check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo >>> channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and >>> furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any >>> current functionality. >>> >>> BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were >>> chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been >>> cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I >>> found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through >>> that. >>> >>> >>> Gale wrote: >>>> So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >GUI. >>> >>> But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign >>> bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo >>> normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> >>> To: aud...@li... >>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >>> Normalize, Amplify & DC >>> >>> >>> | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> >>> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 >>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >>> Normalize, Amplify & DC >>>> Responding, since my name was mentioned... >>>> >>>> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the >>>>> ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now >>>>> convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too >>>>> much of a feature elimination. >>>> </snip> >>>> >>>> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo >>>> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing >>>> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I >>>> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the >>>> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature >>>> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. >>>> >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>>> >>>> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm >>> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo >>> normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can >>> still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >>> GUI. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gale > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-06-08 14:55:12
|
Hi Vaughan. I'm sorry but I can't see how we have "Stinky divergent opinions" on this. From the vote that Steve Daulton initiated recently we seem to have come to a good consensus agreement with 6 voting in favor (including two developers amongst the 6). The only final note of dissent is Gale's request to have the default for the new proposed check-box set to "on" - though he has conceded that he is prepared to go with the majority in this. All other issues were resolved in the development of the proposal. I know that both you and Gale would prefer to merge the Amplify and Normalize effects. But I believe that that should be a longer term issue that should absolutely not be undertaken or even discussed prior to 2.0 I totally understand why you don't want the development team to tackle the simpler Normalize proposal prior to 2.0 and I respect that view. However I would like to ask you to please reconsider that, my reasoning being: 1) I and many others believe that what we have now in Normalize is fundamentally wrong to the point of being erroneous behavior. I know that Gale and you do not regard this as a "bug" because it was originally "designed" that way, but to my mind it should be a bug and recorded as such in Bugzilla. 2) Because Audacity's Normalize is out of step with the rest of the audio industry and other audio packages that folks use, it seriously detracts from Audacity's reputation and brand image. 3) If we wait until after 2.0 to fix it then the main user base will be stuck with it for a very long time. Not many will want to be early Beta users, unlike now where the latest Betas are relatively safe for most folk. This will be my last petition to you regarding this, Vaughan. I promise to shut-up after this and respect your final decision. Thanks, Peter. ________________________________ From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> To: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...>; aud...@li... Cc: audacity-quality <aud...@li...> Sent: Tue, June 7, 2011 6:01:16 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] [Audacity-devel] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC Yes, we discussed this 3 years ago. And although you do not remember, Gale, I was very much in those conversations, especially about removing minus signs on zero (5). As James described it, I think this is "decision paralysis". Typical result of design by committee, which trend I oppose in Audacity. And I think it's a lot of why we're so stuck. We couldn't come to a decision three years ago. And it's pretty darn trivial, just 2 effects, so this whole discussion is mostly just further delay to 2.0, imo. And it doesn't seem to be resolving to anything that convinces a developer to change it. Nor should it, imo, as it's so low priority. And it has so many stinky, divergent, not really resolving opinions. Let's move on. I realize this was brought up again by people who weren't in that prior discussion, but let's focus on bugs preventing 2.0 release, rather than usability enhancements, however trivial. Thanks, Vaughan On 6/3/2011 10:31 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Summary - more repetition? Any developer not actually seen those > Proposal pages? > > ---- > > As I already suggested gently to Martyn, we have broad consensus > now on adding an option to do "stereo normalizing" (by unchecking > a box that says "Normalize stereo channels independently"). > > We do not have consensus on removing any option to "normalize > stereo channels independently". I see "regression" lights > flashing if we remove it. > > I don't feel lack of stereo normalize is a "bug" because the last > time this was raised three years ago, there was no developer > interest in it except for Markus and Martyn. I assume the other > developers intended it as it was, but possibly didn't consider the > awkwardness of stereo normalizing multiple tracks at a time. > > I think the Forum complaints mostly come from knowledgeable > users who are aware most other software has one > amplify/normalize effect (called "Normalize") that does stereo > normalizing. Most feedback@ complaints and those coming to my > inbox are actually that there is no tool to "rebalance" a stereo > track (because they can't find Normalize). > > I've digitized classical music for years using Normalize as an > effective and simple way to rebalance the inherently unbalanced > USB turntable recording (after removing clicks). The theoretical, > marginal extra accuracy of panning and rendering first then using > Amplify are of less value to me than the convenience of the current > Normalize feature. > > To repeat, my votes are +1 to 1), 2) and 3). -1 to 4) though > I'll go with the consensus on that. > > The more constructive solution to my mind is still to merge > Amplify and Normalize (the latter also to have a new option to > do "stereo normalize"). > > 5) is a bug and not under discussion here. It should be fixed. > > > > > > Gale > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:25:06 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, >Amplify & DC >> On the following points I think that all of the points have been made >> at least once, so could we have a vote on: >> >> 1) Normalize should be able to do stereo (linked channel) normalizing. >> 2) The current behaviour (normalize stereo channels independently) >> should be preserved as an option. >> 3) Appropriate wording for such an option is: "Normalize stereo >> channels independently" >> 4) If consensus is reached that it should be an option, the default >> should be OFF (stereo track normalized as one track) >> 5) The minus sign should be moved from the GUI into the text box. >> >> If we have consensus, or at least a substantial majority in favour of >> these changes, could someone make those changes so as to avoid a >> further three years of prevarication. >> >> My votes are +1 for items 1, 3, 4 and 5. >> For item 2 I am happy to go with the majority decision. >> >> For anyone that wishes to vote but has not read all of the arguments, >> please see: >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Normalize >> and >> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Normalize >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >wrote: >>> Martyn wrote: >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>> >>> But the problem is that we "help" them in a very un-transparent way. Most >>> folk have no idea what Normalize is doing to their stereo pair - and when >>> they do find out most of them are shocked and some of them cross. So I'm in >>> favour of making it a more transparent process. Putting in the option >>> check-box to enable users to choose whether or not to have their stereo >>> channels separately should at least make them aware of what's going on and >>> furthermore would give them a choice (and all of this without removing any >>> current functionality. >>> >>> BTW we're not all doing only pop music - a lot of the vinyl I converted were >>> chamber music and small jazz combos with stereo sound stages that had been >>> cleverly and expertly constructed by the sound engineers. I'm glad that I >>> found out about current Normalize behaviour before I mangled them through >>> that. >>> >>> >>> Gale wrote: >>>> So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >GUI. >>> >>> But surely while someone is in that are of the code fixing the "minus sign >>> bug" that would be an ideally opportune time to also add the stereo >>> normalizing functionality and check-box, or am I wrong here? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> >>> To: aud...@li... >>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 7:54:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >>> Normalize, Amplify & DC >>> >>> >>> | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> >>> | Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:25:09 +0100 >>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve >>> Normalize, Amplify & DC >>>> Responding, since my name was mentioned... >>>> >>>> On 31/05/2011 03:05, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> I believe Martyn did recently explicitly say he wanted to remove the >>>>> ability to normalize stereo channels independently. And I hope he's now >>>>> convinced otherwise. Great respect to Martyn, but I think that was too >>>>> much of a feature elimination. >>>> </snip> >>>> >>>> We don't always get what we want in this world. I'd only allow stereo >>>> normalisation, and make the 'random on peaks' stereo-unbalancing >>>> 'feature' a several-step procedure, if people really want that. But I >>>> can put up with telling my students how to do it 'properly' with the >>>> options available, if the bogus 'loss of functionality' / 'feature >>>> elimination' is unacceptable to the majority. >>>> >>>> And as Gale points out, the majority of pop music (that people may be >>>> dealing with) is so compressed these days that the imperfect >>>> 'rebalancing' may help some. >>>> >>>> Opinionated, but not changing the code atm >>> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone either supports an option to do stereo >>> normalizing (or doesn't oppose such an option as long as you can >>> still do stereo "rebalancing"). So I don't "think" anyone changing the >>> code to just add stereo normalizing would incur disfavour. The only >>> thing I'm calling a "bug" though is the minus sign in the Normalize >>> GUI. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gale > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. > Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, > secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. > Get your free trial download today. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-06-09 23:22:55
|
OK, so I committed a fix for what was asked for / agreed. Commit log says: Move minus sign to text box. Allow stereo normalising. Default to stereo normalising. Speedup (maybe 20%) by use of track->GetMinMax instead of an expensive conditional in a tight loop. I have only tested on Win 7 so would appreciate more platforms. I'm much happier with it now, what about you? Martyn PS I don't like the presets in audacity.cfg to be in CsPresets, since the 'CS' prefix is meaningless in most cases, but that is for another thread. |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-06-10 09:42:04
|
Martyn, many thanks for doing that dev work on Normalize; I'm itching to try it but will have to wait till the next nightly build. I will be testing this on XP-HE and XP=PRO Once I have the upgrade I will also start work revising the documentation (unless we are in freeze mode by then). Peter. ________________________________ From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> To: aud...@li...; "for identification, characterization, and prioritization of bugs." <aud...@li...> Sent: Fri, June 10, 2011 12:24:06 AM Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC OK, so I committed a fix for what was asked for / agreed. Commit log says: Move minus sign to text box. Allow stereo normalising. Default to stereo normalising. Speedup (maybe 20%) by use of track->GetMinMax instead of an expensive conditional in a tight loop. I have only tested on Win 7 so would appreciate more platforms. I'm much happier with it now, what about you? Martyn PS I don't like the presets in audacity.cfg to be in CsPresets, since the 'CS' prefix is meaningless in most cases, but that is for another thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-06-10 16:27:53
|
The manual has been updated with the new functionality. Thanks to Ed for providing the image. I have marked the page as ready for proofing (though there is a ToDo-1 for which I will need the nightly build with the new functionality to resolve). See: http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Normalize The Wiki will be a bit trickier to update as we will have bifurcated behavior to note - I'll tackle that in a day or so. When I get the new functionalty I will try to re-run some of my recent timing tests. Peter. ________________________________ From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> To: aud...@li...; "for identification, characterization, and prioritization of bugs." <aud...@li...> Sent: Fri, June 10, 2011 12:24:06 AM Subject: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC OK, so I committed a fix for what was asked for / agreed. Commit log says: Move minus sign to text box. Allow stereo normalising. Default to stereo normalising. Speedup (maybe 20%) by use of track->GetMinMax instead of an expensive conditional in a tight loop. I have only tested on Win 7 so would appreciate more platforms. I'm much happier with it now, what about you? Martyn PS I don't like the presets in audacity.cfg to be in CsPresets, since the 'CS' prefix is meaningless in most cases, but that is for another thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2011-06-13 11:12:02
|
Hi Martyn, Looking good. I tested the functional changes that you made and they seem to work fine. I note that you also greyed out the action (OK & Preview) buttons when no processing is checked - thanks for fixing that too. I was about to update the manual with the latest changes when I noticed that Gale had beaten me to it by a couple of hours. I will have a look at the Wiki later today or tomorrow. I note Gale's later email about the version with the latest performance enhancements - I will try to download from the link that he provided in that email - otherwise it's down to the next nightly for testing further. <<If I am testing timings of functions A, B and C, I would test A then B then C then A then B etc, and take at least 3 goes at each, to average out changes in my PC (antivirus etc.). Are you doing that?>> Actually I have only been doing a single timed test for each function (assuming that an hour long sample would do the averaging out) - will do 3 in future and average. I have been using one hour recordings to test on, is that still the best to do or would cutting the sample down to 30 minutes be ok? ===================== A question for you: with DC offset removal, is that always applied to each stereo channel indepently (as I'm assuming was the case with the "old Normalize") - or with the "new Normalize" is DC offset removal behaviour changed by the use of the "Normalize stereo channels independently" checkbox on/off? Thanks, Peter. ________________________________ From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> To: "for identification, characterization, and prioritization of bugs." <aud...@li...> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 12:40:25 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve Normalize, Amplify & DC Hi Peter Most of what you are measuring there are probably disk accesses, but that is important. My claimed increase in performance did not involve listening to my disk drive (and was only a minor claim). I have just committed something that should improve results iff you are not doing dc removal (I removed a pass over the data in that case). If I am testing timings of functions A, B and C, I would test A then B then C then A then B etc, and take at least 3 goes at each, to average out changes in my PC (antivirus etc.). Are you doing that? On the Progress box, we normally do 2 passes over the audio for each track, one for analysis and one for processing. The one for analysis of amplitude is no longer required (in my changes) but the one for dc offset still is. So removal of dc should take longer and just normalising shouldn't be much different from Amplify. Is that what you see once you get my recent changes? Thanks for your input here! TTFN Martyn |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-06-13 23:10:13
|
Hi there On 13/06/2011 12:11, Peter Sampson wrote: > Hi Martyn, > > Looking good. I tested the functional changes that you made and they > seem to work fine. I note that you also greyed out the action (OK & > Preview) buttons when no processing is checked - thanks for fixing > that too. No problem. <snip> > <<If I am testing timings of functions A, B and C, I would test A then > B then C then A then B etc, and take at least 3 goes at each, to > average out changes in my PC (antivirus etc.). Are you doing that?>> > Actually I have only been doing a single timed test for each function > (assuming that an hour long sample would do the averaging out) - will > do 3 in future and average. I have been using one hour recordings to > test on, is that still the best to do or would cutting the sample down > to 30 minutes be ok? Using a 'typical' user case is probably best. Disk rattling and all. Short tests (like I made) are probably not a normal case, 5-30 mins is probably better. > ===================== > > A question for you: with DC offset removal, is that always applied to > each stereo channel indepently (as I'm assuming was the case with the > "old Normalize") - or with the "new Normalize" is DC offset removal > behaviour changed by the use of the "Normalize stereo channels > independently" checkbox on/off? DC offset is always removed on a track-by-track basis, it makes no sense to do anything else, since it is a 'feature' of the hardware. No change to previous action. HTH Martyn > Thanks, > Peter. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > *From:* Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> > *To:* "for identification, characterization, and prioritization of > bugs." <aud...@li...> > *Sent:* Mon, June 13, 2011 12:40:25 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Audacity-quality] Proposal to rationalize and improve > Normalize, Amplify & DC > > Hi Peter > > Most of what you are measuring there are probably disk accesses, but > that is important. My claimed increase in performance did not involve > listening to my disk drive (and was only a minor claim). > > I have just committed something that should improve results iff you > are not doing dc removal (I removed a pass over the data in that case). > > If I am testing timings of functions A, B and C, I would test A then B > then C then A then B etc, and take at least 3 goes at each, to average > out changes in my PC (antivirus etc.). Are you doing that? > > On the Progress box, we normally do 2 passes over the audio for each > track, one for analysis and one for processing. The one for analysis > of amplitude is no longer required (in my changes) but the one for dc > offset still is. So removal of dc should take longer and just > normalising shouldn't be much different from Amplify. Is that what > you see once you get my recent changes? > > Thanks for your input here! > > TTFN > Martyn > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content > authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image > Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |