Thread: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard user solos more than 1 track?
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Leland <le...@au...> - 2007-11-18 08:39:03
|
From: David R. S. <dav...@sh...> - 2007-11-18 09:58:02
|
Hi Leland, It seems there was extensive discussion about similar topic a couple months back, in which I did not participate. To play only 2 tracks out of 5, I would mute the other 3 tracks. As I understand it, solo literally means "one". I haven't done enough digital multitracking yet to be able to comment further. David On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Leland wrote: > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > -- David R. Sky http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/ |
From: Leland <le...@au...> - 2007-11-18 10:58:13
|
On 11/18/07 3:58 AM, "David R. Sky" <dav...@sh...> wrote: > Hi Leland, > > It seems there was extensive discussion about similar topic a couple > months back, in which I did not participate. > Yepper, I'm still going through those now. After reading a few though, it seems that the whole problem to me was the word "solo". Looks like ppl were hung up on the fact that solo should mean 1 and only 1. So, at the expense of changing the way users work (isn't this a major regression from 1.2?), functionality was changed to MAKE solo mean 1 when all that was needed was to change the word "solo" to something like "preview" or "audition" while leaving the original feel intact. > To play only 2 tracks out of 5, I would mute the other 3 tracks. As I > understand it, solo literally means "one". I haven't done enough > digital multitracking yet to be able to comment further. > Hmmm, so to "preview" 2 tracks out of 18, I must go mute the other 16 first? Seems like a pain in the backside to me. Leland |
From: David R. S. <dav...@sh...> - 2007-11-18 11:09:55
|
I agree that something shouldn't necessarily be so in a computer program simply because that's the way it was done in analogue equipment. Perhaps a word different from 'solo' would be better... such as 'listen' ... when three of eighteen tracks have 'listen' applied, then only those threee tracks are heard. Or use 'on', which would leave other tracks 'off'. All this means of course also changing what screen readers hear for 'solo on' or 'mute on' or whatever. David On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Leland wrote: > > On 11/18/07 3:58 AM, "David R. Sky" <dav...@sh...> wrote: > >> Hi Leland, >> >> It seems there was extensive discussion about similar topic a couple >> months back, in which I did not participate. >> > Yepper, I'm still going through those now. After reading a few though, it > seems that the whole problem to me was the word "solo". Looks like ppl were > hung up on the fact that solo should mean 1 and only 1. > > So, at the expense of changing the way users work (isn't this a major > regression from 1.2?), functionality was changed to MAKE solo mean 1 when > all that was needed was to change the word "solo" to something like > "preview" or "audition" while leaving the original feel intact. > >> To play only 2 tracks out of 5, I would mute the other 3 tracks. As I >> understand it, solo literally means "one". I haven't done enough >> digital multitracking yet to be able to comment further. >> > Hmmm, so to "preview" 2 tracks out of 18, I must go mute the other 16 first? > Seems like a pain in the backside to me. > > Leland > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > -- David R. Sky http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/ |
From: James C. <cr...@in...> - 2007-11-18 12:06:56
|
Leland wrote: > Hmmm, so to "preview" 2 tracks out of 18, I must go mute the other 16 first? > Seems like a pain in the backside to me. To 'preview' 2 tracks out of 18 takes two clicks. Solo one of the two tracks. All apart from it will be muted. Now unmute the other track that you want in the mix. If you still feel it needs reverting back to what it was, you're probably not alone in this, but can it be done as a preference? I'd prefer to use mute/solo the new way. --James. PS: It's possible that a scheme like: If anything is soloed, play as per solo/unsoloed If nothing is soloed, play as per mute/unmute. would work better for more people than either the old scheme or what we have now. |
From: David R. S. <dav...@sh...> - 2007-11-18 17:30:36
|
Thanks James, That is so _simple_! David On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, James Crook wrote: > To 'preview' 2 tracks out of 18 takes two clicks. Solo one of the two > tracks. All apart from it will be muted. Now unmute the other track > that you want in the mix. > > If you still feel it needs reverting back to what it was, you're > probably not alone in this, but can it be done as a preference? I'd > prefer to use mute/solo the new way. > > > --James. > > > PS: It's possible that a scheme like: > > If anything is soloed, play as per solo/unsoloed > If nothing is soloed, play as per mute/unmute. > > would work better for more people than either the old scheme or what we > have now. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > -- David R. Sky http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/ |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2007-11-18 18:27:13
|
| From James Crook <cr...@in...> | Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:09:42 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard user solos more than 1 track? > Leland wrote: > > Hmmm, so to "preview" 2 tracks out of 18, I must go mute the other 16 first? > > Seems like a pain in the backside to me. > > To 'preview' 2 tracks out of 18 takes two clicks. Solo one of the two > tracks. All apart from it will be muted. Now unmute the other track > that you want in the mix. > > If you still feel it needs reverting back to what it was, you're > probably not alone in this, but can it be done as a preference? I'd > prefer to use mute/solo the new way. As you now realise this was extensively discussed while you weren't around Leland, but the consensus was that being unable to hear one track on its own then in one click hear another on its own was by far the worse evil (see Help list, Feature Requests.....) How does a mouse user unsolo only 1 track? Mute it. The only outstanding real issue to me (which we have promised to address post 1.4) is to give users some way of remembering their mute/solo states (now that a track can't be both muted and soloed). I also recall that at the time James did not want a preference to control the mute/solo behaviour, but it is another solution. I had not even realised we were allowing SHIFT + CLICK to solo more than one track and agree in the present context this is confusing if our position is (correctly I believe) "solo means solo". When I suggested SHIFT + CLICK to solo more than one track, James pointed out as above, you can unmute the additional ones you want to solo. I actually think it would be less confusing in the current regime if SHIFT + CLICK on Solo was disallowed ..... Gale |
From: Doug H. <dou...@sy...> - 2007-11-29 02:10:21
|
Might be late to the party on this one, and just a occasional user here, but I'd like to chime in that as far as I'm concerned it seems pretty obvious that more than you should be able to solo more than one track at a time. Sure it's nice to be able to solo a track and it becomes the ONLY track soloed, this is special behaviour IMO. Shift clicking with the mouse would cover it for me, but that's just me. Doug |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2007-11-29 08:37:21
|
| From "Doug Houghton" <dou...@sy...> | Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:10:32 -0500 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard usersolos more than 1 track? | > Might be late to the party on this one, and just a occasional user here, but > I'd like to chime in that as far as I'm concerned it seems pretty obvious > that more than you should be able to solo more than one track at a time. > > Sure it's nice to be able to solo a track and it becomes the ONLY track > soloed, this is special behaviour IMO. Shift clicking with the mouse would > cover it for me, but that's just me. At the moment in 1.3.4 shift-clicking on Solo does allow multiple tracks to be soloed (I'm not sure if this was intended, and think it confuses, if anything). You can multiple solo by unmuting, or unsoloing then muting the ones you don't want to hear solo. From what we can tell, more people want solo to be exclusive than don't. Anyway, we haven't yet reached any conclusions if the current behaviour will ultimately be retained. Gale Andrews |
From: Kevin D. <kc...@mt...> - 2007-11-29 16:17:30
|
I would agree with Doug that regular-clicking on solo should allow you to solo multiple tracks. This is standard behavior in every piece of audio software i've ever used, and on physical mixers as well. -Kevin Dixon > > | From "Doug Houghton" <dou...@sy...> > | Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:10:32 -0500 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard > usersolos more than 1 track? > | > Might be late to the party on this one, and just a occasional user > here, but >> I'd like to chime in that as far as I'm concerned it seems pretty >> obvious >> that more than you should be able to solo more than one track at a time. >> >> Sure it's nice to be able to solo a track and it becomes the ONLY track >> soloed, this is special behaviour IMO. Shift clicking with the mouse >> would >> cover it for me, but that's just me. > > At the moment in 1.3.4 shift-clicking on Solo does allow multiple tracks > to be soloed (I'm not sure if this was intended, and think it confuses, if > anything). You can multiple solo by unmuting, or unsoloing then muting > the ones you don't want to hear solo. From what we can tell, more people > want solo to be exclusive than don't. Anyway, we haven't yet reached any > conclusions if the current behaviour will ultimately be retained. > > > Gale Andrews > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2007-11-29 17:19:22
|
| From "Kevin Dixon" <kc...@mt...> | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:17:28 -0500 (EST) | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard user | solos more than 1 track? > I would agree with Doug that regular-clicking on solo should allow you to > solo multiple tracks. This is standard behavior in every piece of audio > software i've ever used, and on physical mixers as well. The proponents of "solo means solo" also usually say that this is the "universally established function" of "solo" on audio hardware. Who is right? Soloing one track then another to hear them in isolation really is something that is often done, and can't be done in one click with the old mute/solo system. Gale |
From: Kevin D. <kc...@mt...> - 2007-11-29 19:03:24
|
Of course, there are times when I would like such a feature, but in terms of generally accepted, it would make sense to use "standard practice", and then maybe a modifier key to use radio-button-like functionality, with the option to change default behavior in the preferences. > > | From "Kevin Dixon" <kc...@mt...> > | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:17:28 -0500 (EST) > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard user > | solos more than 1 track? >> I would agree with Doug that regular-clicking on solo should allow you >> to >> solo multiple tracks. This is standard behavior in every piece of audio >> software i've ever used, and on physical mixers as well. > > The proponents of "solo means solo" also usually say that this is the > "universally established function" of "solo" on audio hardware. Who is > right? Soloing one track then another to hear them in isolation really > is something that is often done, and can't be done in one click with > the old mute/solo system. > > > Gale > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Richard A. <ri...@au...> - 2007-11-29 19:20:57
|
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 17:19 +0000, Gale Andrews wrote: > | From "Kevin Dixon" <kc...@mt...> > | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:17:28 -0500 (EST) > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard user > | solos more than 1 track? > > I would agree with Doug that regular-clicking on solo should allow you to > > solo multiple tracks. This is standard behavior in every piece of audio > > software i've ever used, and on physical mixers as well. > > The proponents of "solo means solo" also usually say that this is the > "universally established function" of "solo" on audio hardware. Who is > right? Soloing one track then another to hear them in isolation really > is something that is often done, and can't be done in one click with > the old mute/solo system. I don't know what hardware other people are using, but certainly on all the (mostly budget) analogue sound desks I've used, the function of solo is to cut the main mix from the control output, and connect the track you've pressed to main out. If you press the solo button on another track, then it gets mixed with the first one, so you hear the two tracks you have soloed. Admittedly, you can use two hands (or two fingers) to make a quick switch, but there isn't (on any analogue desk I've used) a way to do a one-press change of solo track. This is mainly practical - to do it means making one switch turn another off, which either requires a lot of mechanical complexity, or even more electrical complexity. So the old system was a fairly good approximation to what most hardware can do, in terms of being able to press solo on any tracks you want to hear, and get just the soloed tracks. Mute is operationally separate on most real hardware, because it affects the main stereo output (which solo doesn't, it's only on the control room out). Normally solo trumps mute, in the sense that you can solo a muted track and hear the audio on control room out. It doesn't cancel the mute though, because the mute is still controlling the fact that the sound doesn't go to main mix. Because we are designing software, there's no reason why we have to restrict ourselves to the same limitations as hardware, however. So I would suggest that being able to do a one-click switch between soloed tracks is a useful feature when comparing two versions of a take for example. This leaves us with a behaviour something like this for deciding what to do with the audio for a given button state: 1) Any number of tracks may be soloed. The output will be the mix of the soloed tracks (no other conditions). Break here if any tracks are soloed. 2) As a special case, if no tracks are soloed, all tracks will be considered for output (dependant on their mute state). Continue to 3) 3) Any number of tracks may be muted. They will not be sent to the output. This only executes if no tracks are soloed. For the buttons, we want behaviours like this: 1) Click on mute button in unmuted state: Mute track, don't alter other tracks (button goes down. May or may not affect audio output) 2) Click on mute button in muted state: Unmute track, don't alter other tracks (button comes up. may or may not affect audio output) 3a) Click on solo button in non-soloed state: Solo track. Don't alter any other track states (button goes down. Always has an effect on audio output, but may not be sole audio output) 3b) Click on solo button in non-soloed state: Solo track. Cancel all other solo states. (button goes down, this is the only track heard). 4) click on solo button in soloed state: unsolo track. Don't alter other tracks (Button comes up, all tracks except muted ones are heard). The question is how we achieve 3a and 3b which are both possible on pressing the same button. My view is that making 3a the default and 3b happen on shift-click would be a good solution. The details of how to make this accessible to the visually impaired and general keyboard users needs some thought, but I'd assume CTRL+key for soloing the track, CTRL +ALT+key for solo and remove all others should work, assuming we can find a suitable key to use (unfortunately S and O are already taken) This seems to match up with what Doug and Kevin are suggesting, so I would support their proposal. Richard |
From: James C. <cr...@in...> - 2007-11-29 21:28:19
|
Richard Ash wrote: > The question is how we achieve 3a and 3b which are both possible on > pressing the same button. My view is that making 3a the default and 3b > happen on shift-click would be a good solution. Richard, I agree with your analysis, disagree on the default. My view is that 3b should be the default and 3a happen on shift-click. Unless there is an overwhelming majority in favour of 3a as the default and 3b as the shift-click, I want to add a preference. It would be called something like: [checkbox] Solo multiple tracks uses shift-click I'm assuming we can quite rapidly agree that such a preference (perhaps with a better name) is a good idea. We'd then take a vote on whether checked or unchecked is the default state when we install Audacity, with Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. I know Dominic isn't keen on votes, preferring that we reach consensus, but I think in this case it is the fastest way to reach consensus. --James. |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@go...> - 2007-11-30 21:03:54
|
Hi I also agree with Richard's analysis I have just had another go with 1.2.6 and it seems almost exactly what is being suggested (with 3a as the default). The only differences I can see are: Shift-click on solo/mute makes it the only solo/mute active, whether it was active before or not. I suggest these are sensible. So have we come back to 1.2.6 behaviour but with an option to not swap the shift/not shifted behaviour on the solo buttons? Seems like it. Good! The current behaviour of forgetting the mute setting is, I think, ridiculous; I prepare to do a mix, mute some tracks as I don't want them at the moment, just solo one track to make sure it is what I think and poof! Mutes all gone and I have to do them again. James put it clearly back on the 18th: "If anything is soloed, play as per solo/unsoloed If nothing is soloed, play as per mute/unmute." I'd vote for 3a as default, so I'm with Richard etc. TTFN Martyn PS I note that there is a preference for these solo modes in the Yamaha O2R - they call them "Mix Solo" and "Last Solo". Might be an option to select the pref with radio buttons? Also they only have one button for 'on' (opposite of 'mute') or 'solo' and switch modes with one 'solo' button on the desk; saves space and switches. PPS OK, I know I said we couldn't call it 'solo' for 'mix solo', but I'm prepared to concede on that one! It is in pretty common use like that in audio circles. James Crook wrote: > > Richard Ash wrote: > > >> The question is how we achieve 3a and 3b which are both possible on >> pressing the same button. My view is that making 3a the default and 3b >> happen on shift-click would be a good solution. > > Richard, I agree with your analysis, disagree on the default. My view > is that 3b should be the default and 3a happen on shift-click. > > Unless there is an overwhelming majority in favour of 3a as the default > and 3b as the shift-click, I want to add a preference. It would be > called something like: > > [checkbox] Solo multiple tracks uses shift-click > > I'm assuming we can quite rapidly agree that such a preference (perhaps > with a better name) is a good idea. We'd then take a vote on whether > checked or unchecked is the default state when we install Audacity, with > > Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. > Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. > > > I know Dominic isn't keen on votes, preferring that we reach consensus, > but I think in this case it is the fastest way to reach consensus. > > > --James. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2007-12-01 00:55:57
|
| From Martyn Shaw <mar...@go...> | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:06:03 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a | keyboard user solos more than 1 track? > I also agree with Richard's analysis > > I have just had another go with 1.2.6 and it seems almost exactly what > is being suggested (with 3a as the default). I wonder how many people knew there was a one click way (if you are prepared to use SHIFT) to solo only one track in 1.2.6? I certainly didn't (mainly because I use a mouse emulator so would not be likely to discover it). Let's take one example. In 1.2.6, assume I have a split left and right track. The right has neither mute or solo active, the left has mute and solo active. If I press Play I can hear the left channel only, and if I now press Mute it does nothing. Under Richard's proposal Mute would be down and if we click it, it comes up, but what happens to the audio I am hearing? I'm sticking to my line that 3b) should be the default purely because I think the vast majority of users of Audacity are not using studio hardware (and I'm still not quite sure why I can find -help list comments stating that "solo means solo" is what audio mixers do). I do accept that "studio" equipment is becoming more accessible to a wider range of users, but inexperienced users or those like me who are only familiar with consumer equipment find 1.2.6 behaviour equally maddening. For these poeple, as default behaviour, I think we should have "Solo means Solo" and "mute and solo are interdependent". Experienced users who understand the purpose of mute and solo buttons being independent are quite capable of enabling suitable Preferences as a one-time chore. I am not sure why more concerns weren't raised when we changed mute/solo behaviour, but the issue seems so divisive that the more important choice of Preference IMO is not whether "solo means solo" is default or not, but a wider choice between "studio" and "consumer" solo/mute behaviour. I hope making such a Preference choice is not too much work for the 1.4.0 schedule - if it is then perhaps we should revert to some kind of slightly modified 1.2.6, with 3b) as default, on the understanding that such a choice is available soon after 1.4. I think a Preference for "studio" or "consumer" behaviour is the real way to cure this issue, rather than waiting for some global way to save track states. Possibly we don't need the shift-click preference then: when the "studio" preference is enabled (for want of a better term), shift-click solos the track so that others can't be heard; when "consumer" is enabled, shift-click allows multiple solo. Even if we can't do what I am suggesting for 1.4, making 3b) default while going back to some kind of 1.2.6 scheme benefits both camps: the consumer camp now don't have to shift-click to solo only one track so get a slight improvement over 1.2.6, while the studio camp retain the ability to remember their mute patterns and get the other slight improvements in Richard's idea. Gale |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@go...> - 2007-12-01 02:20:57
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@go...> > | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:06:03 +0000 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a > | keyboard user solos more than 1 track? >> I also agree with Richard's analysis >> >> I have just had another go with 1.2.6 and it seems almost exactly what >> is being suggested (with 3a as the default). > > I wonder how many people knew there was a one click way (if you > are prepared to use SHIFT) to solo only one track in 1.2.6? I certainly > didn't (mainly because I use a mouse emulator so would not be > likely to discover it). > > Let's take one example. In 1.2.6, assume I have a split left and right > track. The right has neither mute or solo active, the left has mute and > solo active. If I press Play I can hear the left channel only, and if I > now press Mute it does nothing. Under Richard's proposal Mute would be > down and if we click it, it comes up, but what happens to the audio I > am hearing? Nothing. As in 1.2.6. You are in solo mode. Something is soloed so that's what it's doing. Many mixers have a 'solo' light that comes on if anything is soloed, so that you know. Maybe we should, but not pre-1.4.0. Or maybe not at all. > I'm sticking to my line that 3b) should be the default purely because I > think the vast majority of users of Audacity are not using studio > hardware (and I'm still not quite sure why I can find -help list comments > stating that "solo means solo" is what audio mixers do). Can you point me to a few of those please? Googling "solo means solo" does not seem to turn up any external references. I do accept > that "studio" equipment is becoming more accessible to a wider range of > users, but inexperienced users or those like me who are only familiar with > consumer equipment find 1.2.6 behaviour equally maddening. For these > poeple, as default behaviour, I think we should have "Solo means Solo" > and "mute and solo are interdependent". I disagree. Mute and solo are different concepts, they should be independent. Many people can't work their own home stereo systems properly, I accept. People have taped their records whilst listening to them with the 'phono' button pressed and the 'tape' button not pressed, not understanding why the 'tape' button doesn't make the others pop out like the other ones do. Well they should learn! If they want to make their records into CDs using Audacity, or whatever, they should learn the basics or go and buy it on CD in the first place. Those that seem unable to learn are a blight on the human race. We should recruit a team of people to go to their houses, remove their computers, sit them in front of a TV until they enter a vegetative state and then do away with them. ;-) ;-) Experienced users who understand > the purpose of mute and solo buttons being independent are quite capable of > enabling suitable Preferences as a one-time chore. True, but they want it to work 'out of the box' as well. "Mix Solo" is what they are expecting, others don't know what to expect and would not be introduced to the concept if the default was "Last Solo". They would learn nothing. > I am not sure why more concerns weren't raised when we changed mute/solo > behaviour, but the issue seems so divisive that the more important choice > of Preference IMO is not whether "solo means solo" is default or not, but > a wider choice between "studio" and "consumer" solo/mute behaviour. I hope > making such a Preference choice is not too much work for the 1.4.0 schedule - > if it is then perhaps we should revert to some kind of slightly modified 1.2.6, > with 3b) as default, on the understanding that such a choice is available soon > after 1.4. > > I think a Preference for "studio" or "consumer" behaviour is the real way > to cure this issue, rather than waiting for some global way to save track states. > Possibly we don't need the shift-click preference then: when the "studio" > preference is enabled (for want of a better term), shift-click solos the track > so that others can't be heard; when "consumer" is enabled, shift-click allows > multiple solo. Sounds like a clear vote to me. So what's the count? Martyn > Even if we can't do what I am suggesting for 1.4, making 3b) default > while going back to some kind of 1.2.6 scheme benefits both camps: the > consumer camp now don't have to shift-click to solo only one track so > get a slight improvement over 1.2.6, while the studio camp retain the ability > to remember their mute patterns and get the other slight improvements > in Richard's idea. > > > > Gale > > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2007-12-01 03:10:38
|
Martyn Shaw wrote: > <snip> > > Those that seem unable to learn are a blight on the human race. > I provisionally agree, if you change "that seem unable" to "unwilling". But then we're all pretty much blights, per the "Cognitive Miser" tendency we all have at some level of saturation. How's that for relativism? :-) James Crook wrote: > Unless there is an overwhelming majority in favour of 3a as the default > and 3b as the shift-click, I want to add a preference. It would be > called something like: > > [checkbox] Solo multiple tracks uses shift-click > > I'm assuming we can quite rapidly agree that such a preference (perhaps > with a better name) is a good idea. We'd then take a vote on whether > checked or unchecked is the default state when we install Audacity, with > > Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. > Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. > So do we go for the middle of the bell curve or upper third of audio knowledge? I vote for unchecked, as a personal preference. But if it creates lots more work for support, i.e., too many people can't learn it, then I defer. We need to remember we're talking big numbers here, though. Millions. So "lots" is probably thousands. Here's a *crazy* idea -- Build two releases for Windows (numbers, again). One release is for audio-savvy, the other for beginners. Download them randomly without the user knowing which, and track support issues. - V |
From: Doug H. <dou...@sy...> - 2007-12-02 00:50:34
|
At the risk of clouding the issue, I think the decision should follow the vision of the application. The solo mute buttons seem taken straight from a mixing console consept in which unchecked makes the most sense assuming I understand the nature of unchecked correctly, being defaulting to multiple solos allowed without special keboard trickery. If the solo button were to read "Audition" or "Feature", or something like that, then it could be a different situation. If mixing is a secondary concern to editing and other utility functions, then a case could be made to maybe change the name of the button and default behaviour to exclusive soloing. Changing the name from "solo" seems way off the beaten trail which brings the issue back to where it is. So I suppose I could argue that just because the label reads "solo" and probably will moving forward, it's a good idea to use standard "solo" behaviour. It's kind of ironic that when I've got more than one strereo track loaded it's usually because I'm ab'ing them lol This conversion did make me think. I for one will make use of the "exclusive solo" option even though I'm arguing against it as the default. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crook" <cr...@in...> To: <aud...@li...> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard usersolos more than 1 track? > > > Vaughan Johnson wrote: >> Martyn Shaw wrote: > >>> Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. >>> Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. > > It's now: > > Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib, Martyn, Vaughan in favour of unchecked. > Me, Gale in favour of checked. > > > It's looking like a walkover for unchecked. > > > On current showing we'll revert to 1.2.6 mute/solo behaviour as the > default for 1.3.5/1.4.0. > > --James. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2007-12-03 02:09:46
|
| From Martyn Shaw <mar...@go...> | Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:23:10 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a | keyboard user solos more than 1 track? > Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@go...> > > | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:06:03 +0000 > > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a > > | keyboard user solos more than 1 track? > > Let's take one example. In 1.2.6, assume I have a split left and right > > track. The right has neither mute or solo active, the left has mute and > > solo active. If I press Play I can hear the left channel only, and if I > > now press Mute it does nothing. Under Richard's proposal Mute would be > > down and if we click it, it comes up, but what happens to the audio I > > am hearing? > > Nothing. As in 1.2.6. You are in solo mode. Something is soloed so > that's what it's doing. Many mixers have a 'solo' light that comes on > if anything is soloed, so that you know. Maybe we should, but not > pre-1.4.0. Or maybe not at all. The buttons do have a highlight colour, and I don't think an extra light would clarify the confusion for those who may be confused. > > I'm sticking to my line that 3b) should be the default purely because I > > think the vast majority of users of Audacity are not using studio > > hardware (and I'm still not quite sure why I can find -help list comments > > stating that "solo means solo" is what audio mixers do). > > Can you point me to a few of those please? Googling "solo means solo" > does not seem to turn up any external references. You may not find that exact phrase. Someone stuck this on Feature Requests: http://audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Feature_Requests "Solo Button should be mutually exclusive, so that it's like universally established function of the Solo button on mixers etc. So when I Solo a different track, I don't also have to un-Solo the previously set one." I know I have seen half a dozen (?) requests asking for that in one way or another on -help list as I had been meaning to add the votes for some time but never got round to it. I also seem to recall that at least "some" of these others gave a similar rationale. However I don't really think their reasoning for wanting it is that important - I'm perfectly satisfied now that on the majority of studio mixers we're talking about, solo does mean "multiple solo". What's more important to me is that I am not convinced "multiple solo" actually suits the majority of users (therefore I don't think it should be default in our currently suggested solution). Should not defaults be set to the simplest option creating the least risk of misunderstanding (unless of course something more complex really does suit the vast majority of users)? > > I do accept > > that "studio" equipment is becoming more accessible to a wider range of > > users, but inexperienced users or those like me who are only familiar with > > consumer equipment find 1.2.6 behaviour equally maddening. For these > > poeple, as default behaviour, I think we should have "Solo means Solo" > > and "mute and solo are interdependent". > > I disagree. Mute and solo are different concepts, they should be > independent. I suggest they are only different concepts in terms of mixing hardware. To many unfamiliar with such, the concept of a track being "solo", and then when you press mute nothing happens and the audio carries on as before, is highly confusing. I could not understand it for quite some time when I first used Audacity, or what purpose this might serve. If you are in Windows Media Player or Winamp and press mute, you expect the audio to shut up. >.. they should learn! If they want to make > their records into CDs using Audacity, or whatever, they should learn > the basics or go and buy it on CD in the first place. Those that seem > unable to learn are a blight on the human race. As Vaughan said, this should be "unwilling" not "unable". If we want to design some aspect of Audacity so that only a minority understand that aspect properly, then IMHO we should explain it in documentation, not leave the user to guess/fend for themselves. We can't teach them that way. > > Experienced users who understand > > the purpose of mute and solo buttons being independent are quite capable of > > enabling suitable Preferences as a one-time chore. > > True, but they want it to work 'out of the box' as well. "Mix Solo" > is what they are expecting, others don't know what to expect and would > not be introduced to the concept if the default was "Last Solo". They > would learn nothing. As I suggested I think more advanced concepts should not be default especially if it's actually correct that only the minority of users appreciate them. Whatever those without experience of mixers expect, it isn't that tracks can be solo and mute at the same time. FWIW just from my own experience, I use Audacity primarily to manage and edit a very large quantity of digital audio files, many of which titles are different versions of exactly the same recording (maybe one is MP3, another FLAC, one is off a CD but it was an indifferent remaster...). Yesterday I was doing something I quite often do which was take a 3 hour WAV file with many pieces on it, listen to each one, import other versions of the same recording for comparison and so on. I can't easily use labels in this scenario so I "split new" each piece at a time and zoom in. Now for me, James' new method in 1.3.4 is just so much easier to work with. I might occasionally want to mix one version into another to get an interesting EQ (if they are actually at the same speed), but that's rare. Of course I can get by in 1.2.6 or 1.3.5 (if we change) but it's far more awkward and unintuitive. As I (more or less) understand why 1.2.6 had mute/solo like it is, the checked or unchecked "multiple solo" option does not make all that much difference to me, once I know it exists. I simply don't want the irrelevant (to me) independence of mute or solo; and since I think those for whom it's most useful are an important but nonetheless minority group of users, I would rather have a Preference that mute and solo are interdependent. If I was using some kind of highly specialised sequencing/mixing software, that would be another question, as in using it for my purposes I would be in a big minority, and a particular type of layout/behaviour may well be in the majority interest. I don't in fairness perceive the level of user confusion/irritation with this that there was with say "greyed out effects". However if we have now changed our mind and want a Preference to cover solo/mute behaviour then (unless impractical for coding purposes) I think a Preference for mute/solo interdependence is far better. It gives the "audio mixers" what they want and makes non-mixing tasks much more intuitive (even if people don't yet realise that because they haven't been able to try it that way). If this is a non-starter for some reason then let's explain why mute/solo "should" be this way a bit more in the manual and FAQ. Of course "Angry, New York" will never want to know, but let's try and educate those that may be willing to learn, if we really think they should not have the option of mute/solo being as they are now. Gale |
From: James C. <cr...@in...> - 2007-12-01 16:31:38
|
Vaughan Johnson wrote: > Martyn Shaw wrote: >> Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. >> Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. It's now: Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib, Martyn, Vaughan in favour of unchecked. Me, Gale in favour of checked. It's looking like a walkover for unchecked. On current showing we'll revert to 1.2.6 mute/solo behaviour as the default for 1.3.5/1.4.0. --James. |
From: Federico G. <gr...@rf...> - 2007-12-05 15:25:07
|
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 04:34:34PM +0000, James Crook wrote: James Crook wrote: > Unless there is an overwhelming majority in favour of 3a as the default > and 3b as the shift-click, I want to add a preference. It would be > called something like: > > [checkbox] Solo multiple tracks uses shift-click > > I'm assuming we can quite rapidly agree that such a preference (perhaps > with a better name) is a good idea. We'd then take a vote on whether > checked or unchecked is the default state when we install Audacity, with > > Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. > Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. > >..... > > Vaughan Johnson wrote: > > Martyn Shaw wrote: > > >> Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib in favour of unchecked. > >> Me, Gale(?), Vaughan(?) in favour of checked. > > It's now: > > Richard, Kevin, Doug, sl-contrib, Martyn, Vaughan in favour of unchecked. > Me, Gale in favour of checked. > > > It's looking like a walkover for unchecked. > > > On current showing we'll revert to 1.2.6 mute/solo behaviour as the > default for 1.3.5/1.4.0. > Hi folks, For what it's worth, we at Radio Free Asia, prefer option "3a" (the unchecked option) as it matches the behavior of other audio apps and consoles we use. If there is a preferences option to toggle the behavior it's a win-win situation. regards, donfede + RFA -- Federico Grau Free Software Developer and Sysadmin Radio Free Asia 2025 M Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 202-587-2046 Telephone 202-721-7468 Facsimile CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact ne...@rf.... |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2007-11-30 02:43:28
|
| From Richard Ash <ri...@au...> | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:20:50 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Anyone have suggestions on how a keyboard | usersolos more than 1 track? > On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 17:19 +0000, Gale Andrews wrote: > > The proponents of "solo means solo" also usually say that this is the > > "universally established function" of "solo" on audio hardware. Who is > > right? Soloing one track then another to hear them in isolation really > > is something that is often done, and can't be done in one click with > > the old mute/solo system. > I don't know what hardware other people are using, but certainly on all > the (mostly budget) analogue sound desks I've used, the function of > solo is to cut the main mix from the control output, and connect the track > you've pressed to main out. If you press the solo button on another > track, then it gets mixed with the first one, so you hear the two tracks > you have soloed. Admittedly, you can use two hands (or two fingers) to > make a quick switch, but there isn't (on any analogue desk I've used) a > way to do a one-press change of solo track. This is mainly practical - > to do it means making one switch turn another off, which either requires > a lot of mechanical complexity, or even more electrical complexity. Seems odd, though we should accept Richard's experience with the mixers he's used. I have I admit no experience of mixers, but every amplifier I have used (budget) largely functions by press one switch turns the other off (e.g. select tape output and phono output is stopped). > This leaves us with a behaviour something like this for deciding what to > do with the audio for a given button state: > 1) Any number of tracks may be soloed. The output will be the mix of the > soloed tracks (no other conditions). Break here if any tracks are > soloed. > 2) As a special case, if no tracks are soloed, all tracks will be > considered for output (dependant on their mute state). Continue to 3) > 3) Any number of tracks may be muted. They will not be sent to the > output. This only executes if no tracks are soloed. > > For the buttons, we want behaviours like this: > 1) Click on mute button in unmuted state: Mute track, don't alter other > tracks (button goes down. May or may not affect audio output) > > 2) Click on mute button in muted state: Unmute track, don't alter other > tracks (button comes up. may or may not affect audio output) > > 3a) Click on solo button in non-soloed state: Solo track. Don't alter > any other track states (button goes down. Always has an effect on audio > output, but may not be sole audio output) > > 3b) Click on solo button in non-soloed state: Solo track. Cancel all > other solo states. (button goes down, this is the only track heard). > > 4) click on solo button in soloed state: unsolo track. Don't alter other > tracks (Button comes up, all tracks except muted ones are heard). > > The question is how we achieve 3a and 3b which are both possible on > pressing the same button. My view is that making 3a the default and 3b > happen on shift-click would be a good solution. Sorry must be overtired or something, but reading it a few times I am not quite clear, are you saying that we're back to the old scheme where tracks can be both muted and soloed? This is perhaps the crucial issue for me and a crucial point of confusion for some users. I really don't want that at all and I suspect the majority of users who just want to work with one (split) track or one or two tracks really won't prefer that to our current solution. If a track can't be both muted and soloed in your scheme, then I prefer of course that 3b) is default (the new preference that says "Use shift-click to solo multiple tracks", "Shift-click solos multiple tracks" or something). James's "Solo multiple tracks uses shift-click" is nice but a user may not read "Solo" as a verb as we intend? I was slightly sceptical of the change to the current scheme but in a month or so I really like it as it's simple and there are no apparent contradictions in the default usage - solo means solo, and you can't as the common parlance would imply have a track that is solo and muted. Shift-clicking to allow multiple solo muddies that, but since I originally suggested it myself as a way of softening the change, I can't argue. I do think however as Martyn pointed out that the word "Solo" is a misnomer if we allow soloing multiple tracks. Without wanting to make things more complex than they are, could shift-clicking to permit soloing multiple tracks change the button to "Listen" - or should it now be something like that anyway? If Richard's scheme means a reversion to tracks can be soloed and muted at the same time, then I'd want a different preference (on by default) "Solo and mute mutually exclusive" (or whatever description) that's basically James' original idea - what we have now minus the shift-click to solo multiple tracks. When this option is unchecked, do whatever we think best for the power users who want behaviour more like audio hardware (presumably with shift-click for 3a) which solos that track so that no other track is heard). Gale |
From: Kevin D. <kc...@mt...> - 2007-11-30 06:02:52
|
I guess it is a question of your intended audience. I use Audacity because I cannot afford, nor necessarily need for field recording, software such as Logic and ProTools. At the recording studio where I work, and in the Audio Production & Technology degree I'm studying, all software and all hardware operates under the paradigm "3a" >> 3a) Click on solo button in non-soloed state: Solo track. Don't alter >> any other track states (button goes down. Always has an effect on audio >> output, but may not be sole audio output) Users from this background will be expecting Solo to work in this fashion. I can readily see, however, that a novice user may be expecting the word "solo" to operate like a radio button, rightly so, as that is what it would seem to imply. As stated before, I'm for the availability of such a feature, but I do not feel that "3a" should be omitted from Audacity's capabilities. An interesting discussion! -Kevin Dixon |
From: Richard A. (audacity-devel) <ri...@au...> - 2007-11-30 16:50:16
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > Seems odd, though we should accept Richard's experience with the mixers > he's used. I have I admit no experience of mixers, but every amplifier I > have used (budget) largely functions by press one switch turns the other > off (e.g. select tape output and phono output is stopped). Kevin Dixon wrote: > I guess it is a question of your intended audience. I use Audacity because > I cannot afford, nor necessarily need for field recording, software such > as Logic and ProTools. At the recording studio where I work, and in the > Audio Production & Technology degree I'm studying, all software and all > hardware operates under the paradigm "3a" >>> 3a) Click on solo button in non-soloed state: Solo track. Don't alter >>> any other track states (button goes down. Always has an effect on >>> audio >>> output, but may not be sole audio output) > > Users from this background will be expecting Solo to work in this fashion. Kevin has hit the nail on the head. The standard for broadly studio-orientated equipment (which now extends down a long way) is different to that for broadly consumer/hifi equipment. Kevin and I have the former firmly in mind, and view the track controls as part of essentially a mixing process. Gale is entirely right that non-studio equipment often has a one-of-many set-up with interlocked pushbuttons, the fundamental difference being that this is equipment that isn't capable of mixing audio, so only one source can ever be selected. > Sorry must be overtired or something, but reading it a few times I am > not quite clear, are you saying that we're back to the old scheme where > tracks can be both muted and soloed? This is perhaps the crucial issue > for me and a crucial point of confusion for some users. I really don't > want that at all and I suspect the majority of users who just want to > work with one (split) track or one or two tracks really won't prefer that > to our current solution. Maybe. The fact it doesn't work will drive anyone used to studio equipment up the wall because the two functions are completely independent on studio equipment. There is a clear priority, with solo overriding mute, but they never mess with each other's states. Some systems will take this further with mute groups and multiple mute buttons per channel, all of them independent in the channel but linked to global mute masters (so a track can be muted in several different ways at the same time). Richard |