Re: [Audacity-quality] Notch Filter

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> 
| Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:33:34 +0100
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Notch Filter
> Bill W raised a question on the forum:
> 
> "Do we want to a) update the notch.ny filter and b) include it with Audacity.
> 
> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/nyquist/notch.ny
> 
> I find the UI a bit confusing (you have to select "alternative" for
> the "Notch choice" in order for the "Notch frequency" entry to be
> used). The UI could be updated to use version 3 controls. The maximum
> Q is a bit limited at 5, and the minimum Q is 0.01!
> 
> On the wiki noise removal page a recommendation is made to use a notch
> filter to deal with whistle or hum, then users are directed to the
> Nyquist prompt. Wouldn't it be better to include this simple plug-in
> instead?"
> 
> (hope you don't mind the quote Bill)
> 
> I agree with him, so we have written a new notch filter.
> You can read the full discussion here:
> http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=40592
> or skip to the end for the final effect plug-in.

I guess it's a case of "convenience versus space". Given we now have 
a good graphic EQ I would see the current Bass Boost and a new Notch 
Filter as close to superfluous, unless VI users struggle with the EQ. 
Are there any technical objections to using EQ rather than Notch? 
Obviously if we prefer to use EQ we should adjust the Wiki page.  

With reference to "space in the menus", Steve has developed a number 
of closely related text envelope/fade plus/cross-fade plug-ins which 
will probably add one or two extra plug-ins if we include them
(depending on what they replace). I'm not sure how close they are to 
"ready for discussion", but I think the current text envelope still needs 
to consider an option for a target level as well as a change amount, on 
the basis this is what users most commonly ask for. This group of 
plug-ins probably need a separate thread when we are ready to 
discuss. 

Other new plug-ins that I think would really give quite an exciting new 
twist to 2.0 would be David Sky's Sequencer: 
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/nyquist/seq2.ny

and (possibly a weaker case) Binaural Tones:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/nyquist/bitone2.ny

I'd be very glad to have thoughts about those two, especially from 
Steve about how "technically ready" they are. 





Gale