Re: [Audacity-devel] So now what? :-)
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: <ma...@ga...> - 2007-05-20 19:09:40
|
| From Leland <le...@au...> | Sat, 19 May 2007 22:38:26 -0500 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] So now what? :-) | | On 5/19/07 9:45 PM, "ma...@ga..." <ma...@ga...> | wrote: | > | > It is off by default so that does not need to be changed. I would like to see | > it in 1.4.0 as it works very smoothly but it will need highlighting in the | > Manual/publicity so it can actually be found, given it cannot easily be put in | > the File Save dialogue at the moment. | > | Hey wait a minute. Going back to your previous email made me realize | something. You'd asked about having another Option button for the mixing. | Why not just add it to the existing Option Dialog? | It would take 2 clicks to get to it...first click the Options button in the | Export dialog, then click the Advanced Mixing button in the Options Dialog. I don't know what others think but perhaps that's a short term solution that may not be worth making, because it would not be easily discoverable, and you may be happy with your format options but just want to change the allocation of channels. OTOH I think there are advantages to having a button for Advanced Mixing Options in the Export File dialogue, because you may relatively rarely want to change these, but if you do, you can choose on the fly whether to see the advanced mixing dialogue or not. At present, if you want this advanced mixing capability to be there, you have to go through the advanced mixing dialogue whether you want on that particular occasion. to use it or not. Is there any chance of a mouseover for the options button that says something like "Encoding and Advanced Mixing options", or that text and an arrow to left of the options button to make clear what is in there? This might make it worth doing, as long as you can eventually give it a special button when in the longer term you embed the encoding options in the dialogue as you'd like to. | > | > I hope we won't lose sight of the remaining essential changes that | > were | > | > thought mandatory for 1.4.0 | > | > http://audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Release_Checklist | > | > | > | I just added 3 more today. | > | > Is the "random bits of silence during recording" cross platform or only | > thought to be Linux? Did you feel now these silences are inserted rather | > than missing audio? | > | Actually, I know for sure my wife has had the problem on Windows. And | another gent reported it on OSX. I'm not sure about Linux. | I believe the OSX fella said the audio was there, just a bit of silence | inserted. My wife's case was must less pronounced, so I'm not sure if it | was missing audio or not. On the subject of things for the checklist, can I ask about this one http://limpet.net/audacity/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82 which I think *should* be on the checklist. Where does this problem lie - in libresample? And what problems are there in fixing this? This is a nasty bug that adds trailing silence to most WAV/AIFF exports if your track and Project rate do not match (also meaning that multiple export does not match with labels), and adds silence to any similar internal conversions in Audacity done with Mix and Render. But if you resample internally with Tracks > Resample, it is done properly with no added silence. I don't know of course but this suggests to me that there should be some way of making WAV/AIFF exports have the proper length even if track and Project Rate don't match. What does Markus think? | > | > I've been discussing the "Alert for MP3 invalid "bitrate/sample rate | > | > combinations" | > I think the dialogue needs "don't show this again". | Then what would happen if the user selected an invalid combination? A | warning dialog or allow Lame to downsample? I would suggest the dialogue as you have it is always on unless turned off with a "don't show me this again". I think if you don't allow some way to turn this off it will prove to be an annoyance, but it is important it is there as an explanation. My idea would be something like "Don't show this again - always use the sample rate I've chosen above for (xx) kbps MP3 exports". If they make a mistake, perhaps there should be a Preference "always alert for invalid MP3 sample rate/bitrate combinations". So, the above might read "Don't show this again - always use the sample rate I've chosen above for (xx) kbps MP3 exports". If you change your mind, you can re-enable this warning in Preferences at....." But this begs the question of what sample rate is selected as the suggestion in the dialogue. I think now having heard "that MP3" that we should default in the case of low bitrates where LAME would downsample, to selecting that downsampled sample rate, not to selecting the highest supported rate. So if they choose 44 100 Hz and 8 kbps, don't suggest 24 000 Hz as this will probably sound dreadful, but the 8 000 Hz that LAME would choose. Perhaps in your "Invalid sample rate" dialogue, have "We have autoselected the sample rate that should give you the best sounding file. This won't increase the size of the exported MP3." All that should be true (sample rate has no effect on file size for MP3) as long as we always choose either the highest supported rate, or the rate LAME would downsample to where applicable. | BTW: What's up with the pitch change ones? My wife has played around with | the pitch change and says it's pretty bad because of what we call "the | warbles". You file has the same issue. | Do you happen to know of a way to get rid of those? Actually the pitch changed file was only a 1 semitone change.. and frustratingly I could hardly hear the difference with my middle aged ears...... was the difference that marked? Is Soundtouch the best library to use? Should we write our own, like BestPractice and Amazing SlowDowner (I think) have, which some would argue sound better than Soundtouch? Of course there are other issues with Soundtouch such as severe truncation if you change short selections of a second or so. So it is useless for pitch correction of notes. | > The 44 100 Hz file is unlistenable in my opinion. So, what do we do - allow | > LAME to downsample as it recommends (and sounds as if it's essential)? Or | > as I think is best - throw a separate warning for these (fairly few) high | > sample rate/low bitrate combinations that are valid, but may sound dreadful? | > | The latter would be simple to do, but I'd need a list of "dreadful" | combinations. Can anyone with reliable young ears volunteer to do that? Or should we just not throw the warning for any valid combos where LAME would resample? I "think" it is done on 32 kbps and below but I have not checked that. Thanks Gale Outbound message virus free. Tested on: 5/20/2007 8:09:35 PM |