Thread: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2012-12-05 10:10:17
|
Management Summary ----------------------------------- -1 for "One-click Fade Out" 0 for Musical Fade Out" +1 for "Pro Fade Out". ===================== Steve's Pro Fade Out has recently been committed and is now available in the Alpha nightlies. It has been committed under the name: "One-click Fade Out" which I think is not an appropriate nomenclature. Gale wrote on the dev email thread >Apart from lower case "o" of "out", that name confuses >with Fade Out which is also "one click". So users will have no idea what >the main difference is unless RTFM and may even be discouraged >from using it (IMO). I agree with Gale here and would go further -*if* we retained this nomenclature the o of out should definitely be capitalized and I would query the use of the hyphen in "One-click. Richard Ash changed the nomenclature when he made the commit stating: "commit a no-options Fade Out effect by Steve Daulton, re-naming from Pro Fade Out as that doesn't describe what it does". My issue with that is that both of our existing fades (the linear and the "cross fade") are also both one-click and thus it lacks proper differentiation. Nor does it really do what Richard is getting at as it doesn't really tell you what the fade does (just how it operates). The earlier name we discussed "Musical Fade Out" would be more descriptive. Steve Daulton the author of this fade wrote: >The reason for returning to the "Pro" nomenclature is not only that >they sound "more professional" than linear fades, but because they >will be 'programmable' with a simple configuration tool. (the name is >not essential). As the author Steve has thought longer and harder about the nomenclature than any of the rest of us - and I agree with both his reasoning and his conclusion. The "Pro Fade Out" - whilst only partly appropriate as a name right now (you could argue, and some have, that it is not a proper professional fade) - but when Steve later releases the configurator tool for this fade (currently in alpha testing and development) then the name will become much more appropriate, as he explains, hinting at the "Pro"grammable nature of the extended effect. Richard wrote >If we agree to call it something else, it doesn't take much to commit >the change. So he is obviously open to discussion and reasoned argument here. If we do see a need to change it, and I think we should, I could live with "Musical Fade Out", I could not easily live with "One-click Fade Out" - my preference is to retain the original "Pro Fade Out". Thanks, Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 |
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2012-12-05 10:26:57
|
From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> >Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 >Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > > >Management Summary >----------------------------------- >-1 for "One-click Fade Out" >0 for Musical Fade Out" >+1 for "Pro Fade Out". Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensation—if so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-05 16:10:00
|
On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >>Management Summary >>----------------------------------- >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" >>0 for Musical Fade Out" >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". > > > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensation—if so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly bright) as it fades away. A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of non-linear fade out, I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is non-invasive to the Audacity code. I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name to sound "inviting". Steve > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-05 20:45:45
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: > > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> > >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> > >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 > >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> > >> > >>Management Summary > >>----------------------------------- > >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" > >>0 for Musical Fade Out" > >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". > > > > > > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensationif so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? > > It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade > that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. > It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end > during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly > bright) as it fades away. > > A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some > material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too > gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of > material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. > > For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be > better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but > what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding > controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, > which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it > programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of > non-linear fade out, > > I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may > eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but > Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is > non-invasive to the Audacity code. > > I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too > technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this > is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or > "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I > think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade > Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name > to sound "inviting". > > Steve "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really "mean" anything). "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in is not intuitive enough to be shipped. I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. Something like: "Bass-hold Fade Out "Deep Fade Out" "High Filter Fade Out" "Studio Fade Out" ? Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps visibility. If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". Gale |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-05 21:08:17
|
On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> >> >> >>Management Summary >> >>----------------------------------- >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". >> > >> > >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensation—if so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? >> >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly >> bright) as it fades away. >> >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. >> >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of >> non-linear fade out, >> >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. >> >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name >> to sound "inviting". >> >> Steve > > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > "mean" anything). > > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > > Something like: > > "Bass-hold Fade Out > "Deep Fade Out" > "High Filter Fade Out" > "Studio Fade Out" ? Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that sounds nice". It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them when we have some sort of effect management. Steve > > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps > visibility. > > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". > > > > > Gale > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-05 21:55:34
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:08:11 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: > >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> > >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> > >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 > >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Management Summary > >> >>----------------------------------- > >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" > >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" > >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". > >> > > >> > > >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensationif so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? > >> > >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade > >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. > >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end > >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly > >> bright) as it fades away. > >> > >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some > >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too > >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of > >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. > >> > >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be > >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but > >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding > >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, > >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it > >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of > >> non-linear fade out, > >> > >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may > >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but > >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is > >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. > >> > >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too > >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this > >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or > >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I > >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade > >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name > >> to sound "inviting". > >> > >> Steve > > > > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > > > > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > > "mean" anything). > > > > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > > > > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > > > > Something like: > > > > "Bass-hold Fade Out > > "Deep Fade Out" > > "High Filter Fade Out" > > "Studio Fade Out" ? > > Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. Naming it generically rather than the name describing it technically does leave the option open to program it in the future. If we don't want to program the one-click fades in shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name might still be better. I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having the same name. I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks kind of presumptuous. Gale > I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As > long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of > effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the > raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To > everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that > sounds nice". > > It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar > "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these > additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them > when we have some sort of effect management. > > Steve > > > > > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps > > visibility. > > > > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does > > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". > > > > > > > > > > Gale |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-05 22:30:46
|
On 5 December 2012 21:55, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:08:11 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >> > >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: >> >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >> >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> >> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 >> >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Management Summary >> >> >>----------------------------------- >> >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" >> >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" >> >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensation—if so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? >> >> >> >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade >> >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. >> >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end >> >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly >> >> bright) as it fades away. >> >> >> >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some >> >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too >> >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of >> >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. >> >> >> >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be >> >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but >> >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding >> >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, >> >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it >> >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of >> >> non-linear fade out, >> >> >> >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may >> >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but >> >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is >> >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. >> >> >> >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too >> >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this >> >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or >> >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I >> >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade >> >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name >> >> to sound "inviting". >> >> >> >> Steve >> > >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. >> > >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really >> > "mean" anything). >> > >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. >> > >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. >> > >> > Something like: >> > >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out >> > "Deep Fade Out" >> > "High Filter Fade Out" >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. > > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it > technically does leave the option open to program it in > the future. Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on alternative programs. > > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name > might still be better. > > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having > the same name. > > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks > kind of presumptuous. Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is programmable. More ideas or vote? Steve > > Gale > > >> I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As >> long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of >> effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the >> raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To >> everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that >> sounds nice". >> >> It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar >> "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these >> additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them >> when we have some sort of effect management. >> >> Steve >> >> > >> > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps >> > visibility. >> > >> > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does >> > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Gale > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-10 20:42:12
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:30:39 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 5 December 2012 21:55, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:08:11 +0000 > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > >> > > >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 > >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: > >> >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> > >> >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> > >> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 > >> >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Management Summary > >> >> >>----------------------------------- > >> >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" > >> >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" > >> >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensationif so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? > >> >> > >> >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade > >> >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. > >> >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end > >> >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly > >> >> bright) as it fades away. > >> >> > >> >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some > >> >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too > >> >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of > >> >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. > >> >> > >> >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be > >> >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but > >> >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding > >> >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, > >> >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it > >> >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of > >> >> non-linear fade out, > >> >> > >> >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may > >> >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but > >> >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is > >> >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. > >> >> > >> >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too > >> >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this > >> >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or > >> >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I > >> >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade > >> >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name > >> >> to sound "inviting". > >> >> > >> >> Steve > >> > > >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > >> > > >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > >> > "mean" anything). > >> > > >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > >> > > >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > >> > > >> > Something like: > >> > > >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out > >> > "Deep Fade Out" > >> > "High Filter Fade Out" > >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? > >> > >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. > > > > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it > > technically does leave the option open to program it in > > the future. > > Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on > alternative programs. > > > > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in > > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name > > might still be better. > > > > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having > > the same name. > > > > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it > > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks > > kind of presumptuous. > > Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is > programmable. > > More ideas or vote? > > Steve This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into the distance or whatever). While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see this because the config plug-in will be an optional download (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the shape is different without realising the essential difference is in the filter. Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an additional config plug-in for it. I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with FL Studio. What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? Gale > >> I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As > >> long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of > >> effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the > >> raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To > >> everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that > >> sounds nice". > >> > >> It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar > >> "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these > >> additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them > >> when we have some sort of effect management. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > > >> > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps > >> > visibility. > >> > > >> > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does > >> > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Gale |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-11 02:31:35
|
On 10 December 2012 20:41, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:30:39 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> On 5 December 2012 21:55, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >> > >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:08:11 +0000 >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 >> >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: >> >> >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >> >> >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> >> >> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 >> >> >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Management Summary >> >> >> >>----------------------------------- >> >> >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" >> >> >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" >> >> >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensation—if so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade >> >> >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. >> >> >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end >> >> >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly >> >> >> bright) as it fades away. >> >> >> >> >> >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some >> >> >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too >> >> >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of >> >> >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. >> >> >> >> >> >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be >> >> >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but >> >> >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding >> >> >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, >> >> >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it >> >> >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of >> >> >> non-linear fade out, >> >> >> >> >> >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may >> >> >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but >> >> >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is >> >> >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too >> >> >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this >> >> >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or >> >> >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I >> >> >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade >> >> >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name >> >> >> to sound "inviting". >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> > >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. >> >> > >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really >> >> > "mean" anything). >> >> > >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. >> >> > >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. >> >> > >> >> > Something like: >> >> > >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? >> >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. >> > >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in >> > the future. >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on >> alternative programs. >> >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name >> > might still be better. >> > >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having >> > the same name. >> > >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks >> > kind of presumptuous. >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is >> programmable. >> >> More ideas or vote? >> >> Steve > > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into > the distance or whatever). > > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the > shape is different without realising the essential difference is > in the filter. > > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an > additional config plug-in for it. > > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with > FL Studio. I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no claim over the words "Music" or "Man". I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) > > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? > How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". Steve > > > Gale > > >> >> I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As >> >> long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of >> >> effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the >> >> raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To >> >> everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that >> >> sounds nice". >> >> >> >> It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar >> >> "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these >> >> additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them >> >> when we have some sort of effect management. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps >> >> > visibility. >> >> > >> >> > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does >> >> > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Gale > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-11 22:34:03
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:31:28 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 10 December 2012 20:41, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:30:39 +0000 > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> On 5 December 2012 21:55, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > >> > > >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:08:11 +0000 > >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> >> On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > >> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 > >> >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> >> >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: > >> >> >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> > >> >> >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> > >> >> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 > >> >> >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>Management Summary > >> >> >> >>----------------------------------- > >> >> >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" > >> >> >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" > >> >> >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensationif so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade > >> >> >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. > >> >> >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end > >> >> >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly > >> >> >> bright) as it fades away. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some > >> >> >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too > >> >> >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of > >> >> >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be > >> >> >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but > >> >> >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding > >> >> >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, > >> >> >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it > >> >> >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of > >> >> >> non-linear fade out, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may > >> >> >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but > >> >> >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is > >> >> >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too > >> >> >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this > >> >> >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or > >> >> >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I > >> >> >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade > >> >> >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name > >> >> >> to sound "inviting". > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Steve > >> >> > > >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > >> >> > > >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > >> >> > "mean" anything). > >> >> > > >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > >> >> > > >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > >> >> > > >> >> > Something like: > >> >> > > >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out > >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" > >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" > >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? > >> >> > >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. > >> > > >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it > >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in > >> > the future. > >> > >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on > >> alternative programs. > >> > >> > >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in > >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name > >> > might still be better. > >> > > >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having > >> > the same name. > >> > > >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it > >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks > >> > kind of presumptuous. > >> > >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is > >> programmable. > >> > >> More ideas or vote? > >> > >> Steve > > > > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to > > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into > > the distance or whatever). > > > > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see > > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download > > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" > > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the > > shape is different without realising the essential difference is > > in the filter. > > > > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done > > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an > > additional config plug-in for it. > > > > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with > > FL Studio. > > I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word > "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as > M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no > claim over the words "Music" or "Man". > > I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) > > > > > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" > > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? > > > How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: > * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. > * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful" rather than subtle. I'm sure it's better than "One-click". I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical". I most favour "Bass <something> Fade". Something like "Bass-Retain Fade". Gale > >> >> I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As > >> >> long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of > >> >> effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the > >> >> raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To > >> >> everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that > >> >> sounds nice". > >> >> > >> >> It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar > >> >> "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these > >> >> additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them > >> >> when we have some sort of effect management. > >> >> > >> >> Steve > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps > >> >> > visibility. > >> >> > > >> >> > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does > >> >> > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Gale |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-12 01:45:34
|
On 11 December 2012 22:33, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:31:28 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> On 10 December 2012 20:41, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >> > >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:30:39 +0000 >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> On 5 December 2012 21:55, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:08:11 +0000 >> >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> On 5 December 2012 20:45, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >> >> >> > | Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0000 >> >> >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> >> On 5 December 2012 10:26, Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...> wrote: >> >> >> >> > From: Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> >> >> >> >> >>To: Audacity Quality <aud...@li...> >> >> >> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 10:10 >> >> >> >> >>Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Management Summary >> >> >> >> >>----------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>-1 for "One-click Fade Out" >> >> >> >> >>0 for Musical Fade Out" >> >> >> >> >>+1 for "Pro Fade Out". >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Is this a fade with loudness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness) compensation—if so, how about 'Loudness Fade Out'? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not really a "fade with loudness". It is a raised cosine fade >> >> >> >> that rolls off a bit of top end (treble) as it fades out. >> >> >> >> It is a common "trick" in the studio to roll off a bit of top end >> >> >> >> during a fade out so as to prevent music sounding "tinny" (thin/overly >> >> >> >> bright) as it fades away. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A raised cosine fade is not ideal for all types of music. For some >> >> >> >> material the "tail" may be too long, for others it may begin too >> >> >> >> gradually, but generally it works pretty well across a broad range of >> >> >> >> material and invariably sounds more "musical" than a linear fade. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> For users that regularly work with specific types of music it may be >> >> >> >> better to have some other type of fade curve (as Norm C suggested) but >> >> >> >> what is ideal for one user may be completely wrong for another. Adding >> >> >> >> controls to the effect loses the convenience of "one click" operation, >> >> >> >> which is why I'd like to keep it as a one click effect but make it >> >> >> >> programmable for those users that have a need for a specific type of >> >> >> >> non-linear fade out, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have a number of ideas about how one click non-linear fades may >> >> >> >> eventually be incorporated in Audacity (rather than as a plug-in) but >> >> >> >> Nyquist plug-ins provide a means of rapid development that is >> >> >> >> non-invasive to the Audacity code. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not overly fussed about the name, but I'd not want it to sound too >> >> >> >> technical as that will be off-putting to new users, when really this >> >> >> >> is one of the simplest effects imaginable to use. "Non-Linear Fade" or >> >> >> >> "Programmable Fade" sound too technical imo. "One Click Fade" is I >> >> >> >> think confusing because of the linear Fade In/Out effects, "Pro Fade >> >> >> >> Out" is my favourite followed by "Musical Fade Out". I'd like the name >> >> >> >> to sound "inviting". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really >> >> >> > "mean" anything). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration >> >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in >> >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining >> >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Something like: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out >> >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" >> >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" >> >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. >> >> > >> >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it >> >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in >> >> > the future. >> >> >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on >> >> alternative programs. >> >> >> >> >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in >> >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name >> >> > might still be better. >> >> > >> >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having >> >> > the same name. >> >> > >> >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it >> >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks >> >> > kind of presumptuous. >> >> >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is >> >> programmable. >> >> >> >> More ideas or vote? >> >> >> >> Steve >> > >> > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to >> > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into >> > the distance or whatever). >> > >> > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see >> > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download >> > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" >> > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the >> > shape is different without realising the essential difference is >> > in the filter. >> > >> > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done >> > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an >> > additional config plug-in for it. >> > >> > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with >> > FL Studio. >> >> I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word >> "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as >> M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no >> claim over the words "Music" or "Man". >> >> I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) >> >> > >> > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" >> > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? >> > >> How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: >> * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. >> * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". > > That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful" > rather than subtle. > > I'm sure it's better than "One-click". > > I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical". > > I most favour "Bass <something> Fade". Something like > "Bass-Retain Fade". > > > > Gale > I'm not keen on "Bass <something> Fade". The high frequency roll-off is intentionally subtle, whereas I'd expect "Bass Retain" (or similar) to have an obvious frequency sweep. Also,, if the effect becomes programmable, which I would like, then users may choose to use a fade type that does not roll off the treble at all. We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". Remaining are: * Musical Fade Out * Studio Fade Out * Dynamic Fade Out Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? Steve > > >> >> >> I don't think that we need to be too specific with the description. As >> >> >> long as it has "Fade Out" in the name it is obvious what "sort" of >> >> >> effect it is. Only a really serious geek will say "Ah yes it's the >> >> >> raised cosine fade out that rolls off some high frequencies". To >> >> >> everyone else it's probably just "that fancy fade out thing that >> >> >> sounds nice". >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be good to have a name that can also be used with a similar >> >> >> "one click" fade in and crossfade. Even if there is not room for these >> >> >> additional effects now there will be a strong case for adding them >> >> >> when we have some sort of effect management. >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Obviously, starting with a letter further up the alphabet helps >> >> >> > visibility. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If "High Filter" is a reasonably approximation of what it does >> >> >> > I would favour that, but I agree the name should look "inviting". >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Gale > > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-12 21:30:37
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:45:23 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 11 December 2012 22:33, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: [...] > >> >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > >> >> >> > "mean" anything). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > >> >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > >> >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > >> >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Something like: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out > >> >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" > >> >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" > >> >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. > >> >> > > >> >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it > >> >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in > >> >> > the future. > >> >> > >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on > >> >> alternative programs. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in > >> >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name > >> >> > might still be better. > >> >> > > >> >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having > >> >> > the same name. > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it > >> >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks > >> >> > kind of presumptuous. > >> >> > >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is > >> >> programmable. > >> >> > >> >> More ideas or vote? > >> >> > >> >> Steve > >> > > >> > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to > >> > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into > >> > the distance or whatever). > >> > > >> > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see > >> > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download > >> > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" > >> > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the > >> > shape is different without realising the essential difference is > >> > in the filter. > >> > > >> > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done > >> > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an > >> > additional config plug-in for it. > >> > > >> > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with > >> > FL Studio. > >> > >> I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word > >> "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as > >> M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no > >> claim over the words "Music" or "Man". > >> > >> I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) > >> > >> > > >> > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" > >> > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? > >> > > >> How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: > >> * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. > >> * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". > > > > That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful" > > rather than subtle. > > > > I'm sure it's better than "One-click". > > > > I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical". > > > > I most favour "Bass <something> Fade". Something like > > "Bass-Retain Fade". > > > > > > > > Gale > > > > I'm not keen on "Bass <something> Fade". > The high frequency roll-off is intentionally subtle, whereas I'd > expect "Bass Retain" (or similar) to have an obvious frequency sweep. > Also,, if the effect becomes programmable, which I would like, then > users may choose to use a fade type that does not roll off the treble > at all. > > We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". > Remaining are: > > * Musical Fade Out > * Studio Fade Out > * Dynamic Fade Out > > Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? > > Steve "Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think of a good word to use. "Progressive"? I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't describe what the current effect does in a friendly but unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it does. Gale |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2012-12-13 11:09:28
|
Steve wrote: > We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". > Remaining are: > > * Musical Fade Out > * Studio Fade Out > * Dynamic Fade Out > > Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? Gale wrote: >"Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like >the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think >of a good word to use. "Progressive"? > >I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't >describe what the current effect does in a friendly but >unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it >does. I would not like "Progessive" that doesn't really describe what it does - well not to me anyway. I really quite like "Studio Fade" (if we really have ruled out "Pro Fade"). What I like about both of those is they have names that will probably encourage users to want to try it so that they can get that "professional studio effect" (I view this as good marketing, speaking as an ex-marketeer). We should be looking for a catchy handle for it to encourage discoverability and usage. From my understanding Steve developed the way this effect works from his work on professional mixing desks - and working with engineers who use this technique in their studios. This it could be said to deserve "Studio" or "Pro" as its tag. I still prefer the use of "Pro Fade" though as it paves the way for Steve's futute intentions of potentially turning this into a "Pro"-grammable fade. Thus the name would serve both purposes. It's quite hard to express what the effect does - it's fairly technical, and indeed subtle (as Steve said). We are being careful in the Manual's documentation of this effect (for those who are interested) to explain exactly what it does - see: http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Fades You need to be logged in to see the proposed text. So I don't think it's actually necessary to explain in the effect name how it does its subtle magic. After all there is no indication in the current "Fade In" effect name that it is a linear fade and we have lived happily with that for years. ========================================== On a related nomenclature note, you will see on that page that the H2 heading for "Pro Fades" is currently "Musical Fades". Are we happy or unhappy with that nomenclature? This title, of course, is much easier to change at any time. Thanks, Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 ________________________________ From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> To: audacity-quality <aud...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:45:23 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 11 December 2012 22:33, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: [...] > >> >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > >> >> >> > "mean" anything). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > >> >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > >> >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > >> >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Something like: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out > >> >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" > >> >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" > >> >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. > >> >> > > >> >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it > >> >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in > >> >> > the future. > >> >> > >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on > >> >> alternative programs. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in > >> >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name > >> >> > might still be better. > >> >> > > >> >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having > >> >> > the same name. > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it > >> >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks > >> >> > kind of presumptuous. > >> >> > >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is > >> >> programmable. > >> >> > >> >> More ideas or vote? > >> >> > >> >> Steve > >> > > >> > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to > >> > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into > >> > the distance or whatever). > >> > > >> > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see > >> > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download > >> > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" > >> > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the > >> > shape is different without realising the essential difference is > >> > in the filter. > >> > > >> > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done > >> > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an > >> > additional config plug-in for it. > >> > > >> > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with > >> > FL Studio. > >> > >> I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word > >> "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as > >> M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no > >> claim over the words "Music" or "Man". > >> > >> I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) > >> > >> > > >> > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" > >> > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? > >> > > >> How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: > >> * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. > >> * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". > > > > That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful" > > rather than subtle. > > > > I'm sure it's better than "One-click". > > > > I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical". > > > > I most favour "Bass <something> Fade". Something like > > "Bass-Retain Fade". > > > > > > > > Gale > > > > I'm not keen on "Bass <something> Fade". > The high frequency roll-off is intentionally subtle, whereas I'd > expect "Bass Retain" (or similar) to have an obvious frequency sweep. > Also,, if the effect becomes programmable, which I would like, then > users may choose to use a fade type that does not roll off the treble > at all. > > We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". > Remaining are: > > * Musical Fade Out > * Studio Fade Out > * Dynamic Fade Out > > Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? > > Steve "Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think of a good word to use. "Progressive"? I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't describe what the current effect does in a friendly but unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it does. Gale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-13 14:49:39
|
I'd be happy with any of: Pro Fade Out Studio Fade Out Dynamic Fade Out "Pro" would be in keeping with future "Pro"grammability, I recognise the concern about "overstating" what it does, but if/when it is programmable I think the name is easily justified. The manual could say, after describing the default fade type "This effect may be programmed to apply alternative fade types using the simple configuration tool available here <link>". "Studio" indicates the roots of the effect. Rolling off the treble during a fade out is a "technique" derived from studio practice. As a musician, "Dynamic" does not suggest "aggressive" to me - "dynamics" are about "loud and soft", "dark and shade". "Dynamic markings" in music include p, pp, ppp and even occasionally pppp. The best description I can think of to describe what it does is "One Click Non-Linear Fade Out", but that is neither snappy or inviting, i don't think that a "name" needs to describe the precise function, we abandoned "Jack the Blacksmith" as a common practice long ago. The name serves as an identifier but (as with "Linear Fade", "Normalize amplitude to dB level" and "Repeat selection a specified number of times") the name does not need to be overly descriptive. It does need to be distinguished as different from "Linear Fade Out". Steve On 13 December 2012 11:09, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> wrote: > Steve wrote: >> We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". >> Remaining are: >> >> * Musical Fade Out >> * Studio Fade Out >> * Dynamic Fade Out >> >> Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? > > Gale wrote: >>"Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like >>the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think >>of a good word to use. "Progressive"? >> >>I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't >>describe what the current effect does in a friendly but >>unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it >>does. > > I would not like "Progessive" that doesn't really describe what > it does - well not to me anyway. > > I really quite like "Studio Fade" (if we really have ruled out "Pro Fade"). > > What I like about both of those is they have names that will > probably encourage users to want to try it so that they can get > that "professional studio effect" (I view this as good marketing, > speaking as an ex-marketeer). We should be looking for a > catchy handle for it to encourage discoverability and usage. > > From my understanding Steve developed the way this effect works > from his work on professional mixing desks - and working with > engineers who use this technique in their studios. This it could be > said to deserve "Studio" or "Pro" as its tag. > > I still prefer the use of "Pro Fade" though as it paves the way for > Steve's futute intentions of potentially turning this into a > "Pro"-grammable fade. Thus the name would serve both purposes. > > > It's quite hard to express what the effect does - it's fairly technical, > and indeed subtle (as Steve said). > We are being careful in the Manual's documentation of this effect > (for those who are interested) to explain exactly what it does - see: > http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Fades > You need to be logged in to see the proposed text. > > So I don't think it's actually necessary to explain in the effect name > how it does its subtle magic. After all there is no indication in the > current > "Fade In" effect name that it is a linear fade and we have lived happily > with that for years. > > ========================================== > > On a related nomenclature note, you will see on that page that the > H2 heading for "Pro Fades" is currently "Musical Fades". > > Are we happy or unhappy with that nomenclature? > > This title, of course, is much easier to change at any time. > > > Thanks, > Peter. > > > > Peter Sampson > Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 > Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 > From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> > To: audacity-quality <aud...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:45:23 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature >> On 11 December 2012 22:33, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > [...] >> >> >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really >> >> >> >> > "mean" anything). >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration >> >> >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config >> >> >> >> > plug-in >> >> >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining >> >> >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Something like: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out >> >> >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" >> >> >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" >> >> >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it >> >> >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in >> >> >> > the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on >> >> >> alternative programs. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in >> >> >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name >> >> >> > might still be better. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having >> >> >> > the same name. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it >> >> >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks >> >> >> > kind of presumptuous. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it >> >> >> is >> >> >> programmable. >> >> >> >> >> >> More ideas or vote? >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> > >> >> > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to >> >> > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into >> >> > the distance or whatever). >> >> > >> >> > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see >> >> > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download >> >> > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" >> >> > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the >> >> > shape is different without realising the essential difference is >> >> > in the filter. >> >> > >> >> > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done >> >> > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an >> >> > additional config plug-in for it. >> >> > >> >> > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with >> >> > FL Studio. >> >> >> >> I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word >> >> "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as >> >> M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no >> >> claim over the words "Music" or "Man". >> >> >> >> I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) >> >> >> >> > >> >> > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" >> >> > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? >> >> > >> >> How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: >> >> * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. >> >> * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". >> > >> > That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful" >> > rather than subtle. >> > >> > I'm sure it's better than "One-click". >> > >> > I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical". >> > >> > I most favour "Bass <something> Fade". Something like >> > "Bass-Retain Fade". >> > >> > >> > >> > Gale >> > >> >> I'm not keen on "Bass <something> Fade". >> The high frequency roll-off is intentionally subtle, whereas I'd >> expect "Bass Retain" (or similar) to have an obvious frequency sweep. >> Also,, if the effect becomes programmable, which I would like, then >> users may choose to use a fade type that does not roll off the treble >> at all. >> >> We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". >> Remaining are: >> >> * Musical Fade Out >> * Studio Fade Out >> * Dynamic Fade Out >> >> Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? >> >> Steve > > "Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like > the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think > of a good word to use. "Progressive"? > > I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't > describe what the current effect does in a friendly but > unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it > does. > > > > Gale > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-13 21:00:27
|
I think you're more likely to get developer consensus if you say what the effect does (which "Studio Fade" does to a limited extent, but only if you know what some "studios" do in the first place). I think "Studio Fade" is much preferable to "Musical". That suggests the other fades are "unmusical". I think saying the effect is programmable is a little specious in so far as there would be value in "programmming" other Nyquist effects too. And most users won't realise they could program this fade out because the config plug-in won't be shipped. Gale | From Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:09:20 -0800 (PST) | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > Steve wrote: > > We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". > > Remaining are: > > > > * Musical Fade Out > > * Studio Fade Out > > * Dynamic Fade Out > > > > Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? > > Gale wrote: > >"Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like > >the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think > >of a good word to use. "Progressive"? > > > >I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't > >describe what the current effect does in a friendly but > >unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it > >does. > > I would not like "Progessive" that doesn't really describe what > it does - well not to me anyway. > > I really quite like "Studio Fade" (if we really have ruled out "Pro Fade"). > > What I like about both of those is they have names that will > probably encourage users to want to try it so that they can get > that "professional studio effect" (I view this as good marketing, > speaking as an ex-marketeer). We should be looking for a > catchy handle for it to encourage discoverability and usage. > > From my understanding Steve developed the way this effect works > from his work on professional mixing desks - and working with > engineers who use this technique in their studios. This it could be > said to deserve "Studio" or "Pro" as its tag. > > I still prefer the use of "Pro Fade" though as it paves the way for > Steve's futute intentions of potentially turning this into a > "Pro"-grammable fade. Thus the name would serve both purposes. > > > It's quite hard to express what the effect does - it's fairly technical, > and indeed subtle (as Steve said). > We are being careful in the Manual's documentation of this effect > (for those who are interested) to explain exactly what it does - see: > http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Fades > You need to be logged in to see the proposed text. > > So I don't think it's actually necessary to explain in the effect name > how it does its subtle magic. After all there is no indication in the current > "Fade In" effect name that it is a linear fade and we have lived happily > with that for years. > > ========================================== > > On a related nomenclature note, you will see on that page that the > H2 heading for "Pro Fades" is currently "Musical Fades". > > Are we happy or unhappy with that nomenclature? > > This title, of course, is much easier to change at any time. > > > Thanks, > Peter. > ________________________________ > From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> > To: audacity-quality <aud...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:45:23 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > > On 11 December 2012 22:33, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > [...] > > >> >> >> > "One-click Fade Out" isn't acceptable IMO. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > I do have issues with "Pro Fade Out" myself (it doesn't really > > >> >> >> > "mean" anything). > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > "Pro" meaning also "programmable" depends on the configuration > > >> >> >> > plug-in being shipped with Audacity, but I think the config plug-in > > >> >> >> > is not intuitive enough to be shipped. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > I would prefer the fade to be named as per its defining > > >> >> >> > frequency-based feature, but I am not sure of a good name. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Something like: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > "Bass-hold Fade Out > > >> >> >> > "Deep Fade Out" > > >> >> >> > "High Filter Fade Out" > > >> >> >> > "Studio Fade Out" ? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Of those I like "Studio Fade Out" best. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Naming it generically rather than the name describing it > > >> >> > technically does leave the option open to program it in > > >> >> > the future. > > >> >> > > >> >> Conversely, naming it too specifically could be too restrictive on > > >> >> alternative programs. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > If we don't want to program the one-click fades in > > >> >> > shipped Audacity then I think a more technical name > > >> >> > might still be better. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I agree there is benefit in a matching Fade In having > > >> >> > the same name. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I don't think "Studio Fade" says a lot more about what it > > >> >> > does than "Pro Fade" but I can see that "Pro Fade" looks > > >> >> > kind of presumptuous. > > >> >> > > >> >> Yes I can see that "Pro" may be a bit overstated, but less so if it is > > >> >> programmable. > > >> >> > > >> >> More ideas or vote? > > >> >> > > >> >> Steve > > >> > > > >> > This is really difficult, but on reflection I would rather try to > > >> > describe what Pro Fade Out does (retain the bass, move into > > >> > the distance or whatever). > > >> > > > >> > While it could be programmed, most users are not going to see > > >> > this because the config plug-in will be an optional download > > >> > (unless we build the configuration into "Adjustable Fade" > > >> > which will complicate it further). So many be left thinking the > > >> > shape is different without realising the essential difference is > > >> > in the filter. > > >> > > > >> > Also initialising parameters of Nyquist effects could be done > > >> > more widely by retro-fitting the plug-in and offering an > > >> > additional config plug-in for it. > > >> > > > >> > I also worry that "Studio Filter" may have connotations with > > >> > FL Studio. > > >> > > >> I don't think that FL have any claims over the use of the word > > >> "Studio" (otherwise there are *a lot* of companies in trouble) just as > > >> M-Audio have no claims over the word "Audio" and "Music Man" have no > > >> claim over the words "Music" or "Man". > > >> > > >> I can see that "FL Fade Out" could be a problem :=) > > >> > > >> > > > >> > What in your opinion would be the best "comprehensible" > > >> > name that describes what Pro Fade Out does? > > >> > > > >> How about "Dynamic Fade Out" to give a sense of: > > >> * Reducing "loudness" and not just amplitude. > > >> * A fade that is "changing" rather than "direct" / "linear". > > > > > > That's OK, except it makes me think of the fade being "powerful" > > > rather than subtle. > > > > > > I'm sure it's better than "One-click". > > > > > > I'm not sure it's a lot better than "Musical". > > > > > > I most favour "Bass <something> Fade". Something like > > > "Bass-Retain Fade". > > > > > > > > > > > > Gale > > > > > > > I'm not keen on "Bass <something> Fade". > > The high frequency roll-off is intentionally subtle, whereas I'd > > expect "Bass Retain" (or similar) to have an obvious frequency sweep. > > Also,, if the effect becomes programmable, which I would like, then > > users may choose to use a fade type that does not roll off the treble > > at all. > > > > We seem to have ruled out "Pro Fade" and "One Click Fade". > > Remaining are: > > > > * Musical Fade Out > > * Studio Fade Out > > * Dynamic Fade Out > > > > Any other suggestions or do we put it to a vote? > > > > Steve > > "Dynamic" seems to have the wrong connotations to me. I like > the idea of describing the fade as "changing" but I can't think > of a good word to use. "Progressive"? > > I'd vote a bit half-heartedly for "Studio" if we really can't > describe what the current effect does in a friendly but > unambiguous way. I think it would be better to say what it > does. > > > > Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2012-12-14 05:22:42
|
On 12/13/2012 1:00 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > I think you're more likely to get developer consensus if you say [...] As one developer, my eyes glazed over at this discussion several messages ago. Seems to be going round and round restating the same opinions. How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of iterations? Thanks, Vaughan |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2012-12-14 09:57:04
|
Vaughan wrote> >How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? >At least that way we'll have a decision. +1 to that Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 ________________________________ From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> To: aud...@li... Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:23 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature On 12/13/2012 1:00 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > I think you're more likely to get developer consensus if you say [...] As one developer, my eyes glazed over at this discussion several messages ago. Seems to be going round and round restating the same opinions. How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of iterations? Thanks, Vaughan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-14 20:30:36
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 12/13/2012 1:00 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > > > I think you're more likely to get developer consensus if you say [...] > > As one developer, my eyes glazed over at this discussion several > messages ago. Seems to be going round and round restating the same > opinions. > > How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least > that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of > iterations? I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the author's choice is absurd. I don't see anyone could call Pro-Fade Out an absurd choice. Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2012-12-14 23:55:26
|
On 12/14/2012 12:30 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 > | [...] >> How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least >> that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of >> iterations? > > I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the > author's choice is absurd. Probably wouldn't commit an absurdity. :-) > > I don't see anyone could call Pro-Fade Out an absurd choice. > Struck me that as it's hard to have a short name that clearly distinguishes its features/capabilities from other fades, maybe make it personalized, e.g., "Steve Fade", or better, "Fiddle Fade"! - V |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-15 00:15:39
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:55:38 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > On 12/14/2012 12:30 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > > | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 > > | [...] > >> How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least > >> that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of > >> iterations? > > > > I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the > > author's choice is absurd. > > Probably wouldn't commit an absurdity. :-) > > > > > > I don't see anyone could call Pro-Fade Out an absurd choice. > > > > Struck me that as it's hard to have a short name that clearly > distinguishes its features/capabilities from other fades, maybe make it > personalized, e.g., "Steve Fade", or better, "Fiddle Fade"! Yes, why not? We have "Paulstretch". I guess Steve's got enough options to choose from now. Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2012-12-15 00:28:52
|
On 12/14/2012 3:55 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > On 12/14/2012 12:30 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: >> >> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 >> | [...] >>> How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least >>> that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of >>> iterations? >> >> I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the >> author's choice is absurd. > > Probably wouldn't commit an absurdity. :-) And I wasn't saying there should be no discussion about it, just that the author should have final say. - V |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-15 14:13:06
|
Having spent some time considering the options, unless there are strong objections, I'd like to keep the name "Pro Fade Out". We used this name for several months on the forum with no complaints, and there has been just one mild objection to that name by Norm since posting it to the e-mail lists. Hopefully the proposed addition of programmability and the proposed "Adjustable Fade" effect will allay Norm's concerns, but I don't expect to be able to please all the people all of the time. I also agree that the current (default) fade shape is perhaps a little too gradual at the start and the "tail" a little too long, so I am currently trialling a slightly different curve that fades out a little more quickly at the start and has a shorter tail. There can obviously be only one "default", so I am currently comparing alternatives over a wide range of material. The updated version is a "tweak" and will not be much different from the current version. If the current version is preferred overall, then I won't change it. Steve On 15 December 2012 00:29, Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> wrote: > On 12/14/2012 3:55 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >> On 12/14/2012 12:30 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: >>> >>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>> | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 >>> | [...] >>>> How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least >>>> that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of >>>> iterations? >>> >>> I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the >>> author's choice is absurd. >> >> Probably wouldn't commit an absurdity. :-) > > And I wasn't saying there should be no discussion about it, just that > the author should have final say. > > - V > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2012-12-18 18:35:44
|
I've just been nagged by one of the documentation team (not in a bad way :=) There are some P1's on the manual regarding effects and the Effect menu. In particular: Pro Fade Out: I believe that the decision was "doer decides (unless it's stupid)". QA all agree that "One Click Fade Out" is unsuitable as the "linear" fade out is also a "one click fade out". The author (me :=) would like to stick with the original name. Adjustable Fade: This has been around for over 2 years in various forms. Now that it has finally been "passed" by QA it would be nice to see it committed. Bass and Treble: I think that everyone has agreed that it is an improvement over Bass Boost, so it's just waiting for code review. Any chance that we can move these along before Christmas (only one week away) :=) Steve PS, I previously mentioned tweaking the shape of the Pro Fade Out fade - the results of the tests are in. After extensive testing over a wide range of material, the original shape (as committed) remains. Regarding doubts that were raised about whether this type of fade is commonly used professionally, I've worked through a large number of compilation CDs and found that fade-outs of this type are used in over 50 % of the sample and includes such diverse music as: * Justin Timberlake - FutureSex/LoveSounds - Pose, * The Clash - The Clash (album) - I Fought the Law - 1979 US version * World Looking In - Morcheeba - The Classic Chillout Album * Tom Jones - She's a Lady * The Bangles - Walk Like an Egyptian - Miles of the 80's Classical music was not present in this survey as even on compilation albums the tracks tend to stop at natural pauses rather than fading out, though in my own tests the effect generally works well all musical genres. I have also frequently used fade outs like this in my own professional career and I thought it would be a good thing to make the technique easily accessible for Audacity users. Steve On 15 December 2012 14:12, Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> wrote: > Having spent some time considering the options, unless there are > strong objections, I'd like to keep the name "Pro Fade Out". We used > this name for several months on the forum with no complaints, and > there has been just one mild objection to that name by Norm since > posting it to the e-mail lists. Hopefully the proposed addition of > programmability and the proposed "Adjustable Fade" effect will allay > Norm's concerns, but I don't expect to be able to please all the > people all of the time. > > I also agree that the current (default) fade shape is perhaps a little > too gradual at the start and the "tail" a little too long, so I am > currently trialling a slightly different curve that fades out a little > more quickly at the start and has a shorter tail. There can obviously > be only one "default", so I am currently comparing alternatives over a > wide range of material. The updated version is a "tweak" and will not > be much different from the current version. If the current version is > preferred overall, then I won't change it. > > Steve > > On 15 December 2012 00:29, Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> wrote: >> On 12/14/2012 3:55 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >>> On 12/14/2012 12:30 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: >>>> >>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>>> | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 >>>> | [...] >>>>> How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least >>>>> that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of >>>>> iterations? >>>> >>>> I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the >>>> author's choice is absurd. >>> >>> Probably wouldn't commit an absurdity. :-) >> >> And I wasn't saying there should be no discussion about it, just that >> the author should have final say. >> >> - V >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial >> Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support >> Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services >> Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-quality mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-12-18 20:16:50
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:35:33 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature > [...] > PS, I previously mentioned tweaking the shape of the Pro Fade Out fade > - the results of the tests are in. After extensive testing over a wide > range of material, the original shape (as committed) remains. > > Regarding doubts that were raised about whether this type of fade is > commonly used professionally, I've worked through a large number of > compilation CDs and found that fade-outs of this type are used in over > 50 % of the sample and includes such diverse music as: > * Justin Timberlake - FutureSex/LoveSounds - Pose, > * The Clash - The Clash (album) - I Fought the Law - 1979 US version > * World Looking In - Morcheeba - The Classic Chillout Album > * Tom Jones - She's a Lady > * The Bangles - Walk Like an Egyptian - Miles of the 80's > Classical music was not present in this survey as even on compilation > albums the tracks tend to stop at natural pauses rather than fading > out, though in my own tests the effect generally works well all > musical genres. If these tests were on the Forum, I have not had time to see them yet. However out of interest, were all your examples at high rms and peak levels before the fade out started? The fact that stuff I listen to usually isn't at high rms may account for why I queried the "long tail" in Pro Fade Out - though I do think it should be tailored to modern pop/rock as (mis)produced/(over)compressed these days. Gale > I have also frequently used fade outs like this in my > own professional career and I thought it would be a good thing to make > the technique easily accessible for Audacity users. > > Steve > > > > On 15 December 2012 14:12, Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> wrote: > > Having spent some time considering the options, unless there are > > strong objections, I'd like to keep the name "Pro Fade Out". We used > > this name for several months on the forum with no complaints, and > > there has been just one mild objection to that name by Norm since > > posting it to the e-mail lists. Hopefully the proposed addition of > > programmability and the proposed "Adjustable Fade" effect will allay > > Norm's concerns, but I don't expect to be able to please all the > > people all of the time. > > > > I also agree that the current (default) fade shape is perhaps a little > > too gradual at the start and the "tail" a little too long, so I am > > currently trialling a slightly different curve that fades out a little > > more quickly at the start and has a shorter tail. There can obviously > > be only one "default", so I am currently comparing alternatives over a > > wide range of material. The updated version is a "tweak" and will not > > be much different from the current version. If the current version is > > preferred overall, then I won't change it. > > > > Steve > > > > On 15 December 2012 00:29, Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> wrote: > >> On 12/14/2012 3:55 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > >>> On 12/14/2012 12:30 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > >>>> > >>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > >>>> | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:23:34 -0800 > >>>> | [...] > >>>>> How about this rule of thumb -- the author gets to decide!? At least > >>>>> that way we'll have a decision. Hasn't this already had dozens of > >>>>> iterations? > >>>> > >>>> I think that's fine as a working rule if there is no case the > >>>> author's choice is absurd. > >>> > >>> Probably wouldn't commit an absurdity. :-) > >> > >> And I wasn't saying there should be no discussion about it, just that > >> the author should have final say. > >> > >> - V |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2012-12-18 23:37:15
|
Enough, enough ... This new effect has already been approvedcommitted by one of the Technical Leadership Council. All that is (or should be) under any discussion now is the name of the new effect, not the underlying technology. And in an earlier post Vaughan stated that this should conform to our "doer decides" mantra and that thus Steve as the developer of this effect should get to decide to decide what name it goes by - unless, that is he should choose some entirely dumb name like "Pink-fluffy-bunny-rabbit Fade". Steve after much thought has decided that his original name of "Pro Fade Out" is the most appropriate. Steve lacks commit rights and is therefore depending on someone with such rights to commit that new nomenclature on his behalf. Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 ________________________________ From: Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> To: Audacity-Devel list <aud...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] [Audacity-quality] Pro Fade Out nomenclature On 18 December 2012 20:33, Norm C <n_b...@ho...> wrote: > Maybe we're talking about 2 different things, but I see no evidence of any > filtering in any of the examples you mentioned. (The "pro fade effect" you > are talking about still involves a LPF with a cutoff that sweeps down to a > low value, right?) > > The image shows the spectrum of Walk Like An Egyptian at two points 1.5 > seconds apart during the fadeout. The other examples show very similar > results, all the way through the fadeouts. As you can see there's no > evidence of a LPF, nor can I hear one. > > Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have this effect (it's pretty cool, and a > few songs have used it over the years), just that it's quite specialized and > we shouldn't be promoting it as "the pro" way to fadeout. The "pro" way > would be the way CEP/Audition/ProTools do, with selectable gain curves and > no filtering. > > If the effect allows disabling of the filter (better yet, control of the > cutoff at the end of the fade) and selectable gain curves, and up/down > fades, then I agree - that's totally pro. (Sorry I haven't applied the patch > and actually tried the effect yet, I'm just going by what I've read). Perhaps you should try it. We're not talking about a sharp frequency cut-off, it's a subtle roll-off. Attached are plots of the fade out from "The Bangles - Walk Like an Egyptian", from the compilation album: "Miles of the 80's". The equalization during the fade, although not identical to the "Pro Fade Out" effect shows a clear reduction of up to 6 dB in the range 500 Hz to 8 kHz. The amplitude envelope demonstrates a smooth transition from the original level to silence with a distinctive "S-Curve". I really don't have time and do not need to justify myself. This is supposed to be a mailing list for discussing the development of Audacity, not squabbling in the school-yard. Steve > > Norm > > <http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/file/n7556947/FadeOutExample.jpg> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ audacity-devel mailing list aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |