Re: [Audacity-quality] Edit > Labelled regions

[Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...>]

On 17 September 2012 17:42, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>
> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
> | Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:42:31 +0100
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Edit > Labelled regions
>> On 16 September 2012 23:06, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>> >
>> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
>> > | Sun, 16 Sep 2012 10:44:33 +0100
>> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Edit > Labelled regions
>> >> The reason for may original post was for clarification regarding the
>> >> intended behaviour and to suggest that the current behaviour is
>> >> flawed. It may or may not be worth considering feature enhancements,
>> >> but I think that the priority must be to ensure that the current
>> >> behaviour is correct and documented.
>> >>
>> >> If the current  behaviour with touching/overlapping regions is
>> >> intended and is to be retained, then it needs to be in the manual (at
>> >> present it isn't).
>> >
>> > I added a ToDo-2 (waiting for the server to reconnect to MySQL).
>> >
>> > It would also be better if
>> > http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Edit_Menu#labeled
>> >
>> > had images of multiple labels being affected.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately the images need to be done by Bill really, otherwise
>> > the exact drop shadow settings in whatever image tool he is using
>> > have to be faked for every image. Added a ToDo.
>> >
>> >
>> >> I suggest that the behaviour for the "split" options is unintuitive
>> >> because splits will occur for each label position if they do not touch
>> >> or overlap, even if they are separated by as little as one sample
>> >> period, but as soon as they touch the behaviour changes with no
>> >> persuasive or obvious reason for why it should change.
>> >
>> > It depends how you think about it. The Labeled Region function
>> > for silence, for example, treats the three joined labels as one.
>>
>> Whether "Labelled Regions > Silence" acts on one label at a time, or
>> treats all touching/overlapping labelled regions as one will make no
>> visible difference for users.
>
> But it could create an expectation that Split also acts on a group
> of touching/overlapped labeled regions rather than each region.
>
> That was my assumption before all this started.
>
>
>> >> The reason that I think that it is not the current behaviour is not
>> >> the most useful behaviour is because of an actual user case:
>> >>
>> >> I was wanting to split a long recording into individual clips, so I
>> >> marked each song with a region label, selected "All" (Ctrl+A) and
>> >> applied "Region Labels > Split".
>> >
>> > That assumes you wanted labels as well. If you didn't, it would be
>> > simpler to just use CTRL + I instead of CTRL + B.
>>
>> I did want the labels as well - they had the song names typed in them.
>
> Then that is a "use case"!
>
>
>> >>I expected that "Region Labels >
>> >> Split" would "split at region labels" and was surprised that it did
>> >> not do so. The function is called "Labelled Regions" (plural) so I
>> >> would expect it to operate on multiple labelled regions, not on one
>> >> concatenated region.
>> >
>> > In many cases such as a long recording from cassette or CD, user
>> > would not want the region labels touching.
>>
>> A user *may* not want the region labels touching. It depends whether
>> they want to keep the inter-track spaces or not. If they are just
>> shuffling the track order then they probably will want to keep the
>> spaces. Either way that is not a reason to "merge" the labels for the
>> purposes of "Labelled Regions > operation".
>
> It's a reason to suggest the use case you came up with may not
> be common.
>
> See below.
>
>> > If you had a number of groups of concatenated labels, plural would
>> > still be appropriate.
>> >
>> > See below.
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 16 September 2012 00:03, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
>> >> > | Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:54:56 +0100
>> >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Edit > Labelled regions
>> >> >> The behaviour that I would expect (and consider most useful), taking
>> >> >> as an example:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 10 seconds of audio (0 to 10 seconds)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labels at:
>> >> >> 2 seconds to 3 seconds
>> >> >> 3 seconds to 5 seconds
>> >> >> 5 seconds to 8 seconds
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Audio track and label track selected from 0 seconds to 10 second.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Cut
>> >> >> 2 seconds to 8 seconds is cut and may be pasted into an audio track.
>> >> >> Pasted audio is one audio clip of 6 seconds duration
>> >> >
>> >> > This happens now (and of course the selection length is irrelevant
>> >> > as long as it touches labels one and three).
>> >> >
>> >> > I note Cut and Delete are incompatible with Sync-Locked Tracks,
>> >> > I guess this was one of the things we wanted to fix?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Same as selecting and cutting 2 to 8 seconds.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's my point. How much easier it would be if you could select
>> >> > multiple labels (for example, with the keyboard, TAB into the first
>> >> > label, then CTRL + TAB to add the following labels to the selection).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Delete
>> >> >> 2 seconds to 8 seconds is deleted but not saved to the clipboard so
>> >> >> cannot be pasted into an audio track.
>> >> >> Same as selecting from 2 to 8 seconds and deleting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Split Cut
>> >> >> 2 seconds to 8 seconds is cut and may be pasted into an audio track.
>> >> >> A gap (white space) remains from 2 to 8  seconds.
>> >> >> Pasted audio is 6 seconds total duration as 3 audio clips of durations
>> >> >> 1, 2 and 3 seconds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Split Delete
>> >> >> 2 seconds to 8 seconds is cut leaving a gap (white space) from 2 to 8  seconds.
>> >> >> Audio not saved to clipboard.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Silence Audio
>> >> >> 2 to 8 seconds is made silence. No splits.
>> >> >
>> >> > But this happens now. And I agree "no splits" is the most useful
>> >> > case.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> (Do we need an option "Labelled regions > Split and Silence"?
>> >> >> I don't think so.)
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think so either (or if we do, we need "Split and *" for all
>> >> > the Labeled Regions commands).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Copy
>> >> >> 2 seconds to 8 seconds is copied and may be pasted into an audio track.
>> >> >> Same as selecting and copying 2 to 8 seconds.
>> >> >> Pasted audio is one clip of 6 seconds duration
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Split
>> >> >> Splits at each label position creating 5 clips:
>> >> >> 0 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 5, 5 to 8 and 8 to 10 seconds.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not convinced I would want that to happen in all cases, so
>> >> > the question (if we want Labeled Regions at all in the longer
>> >> > term) is if we want an extra command for each Split function
>> >> > that adds splits to joined or overlapping labels.
>> >>
>> >> If you want to apply just one pair of splits it is just as easy to
>> >> select the (one) region that you want to split and press Ctrl+I. I
>> >> don't see much reason to use "Edit menu > Labelled Regions > Split"
>> >> for such a simple operation.
>> >>
>> >> Unless there is a good reason (user case) to do so then I see no
>> >> reason to extend (complicate) the menu with unnecessary options.
>> >
>> > We don't want to introduce a regression if there is a good
>> > use case to only split at the borders of a concatenated
>> > group of labels. You may need to ask the person who
>> > designed the feature.
>>
>> Who was that? How do I find out?
>
> Just do some searching:
> http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/Edit-functions-for-Labeled-Regions-td249688.html

Thanks. I thought that there may be some way to who committed what code.

>
> You can study the original patch there, but I have no idea if Arun
> is still contactable.

He doesn't appear to have been active in the last 6 years as far as I can tell.

>
>
>> Perhaps it was an oversight rather than an intended feature (or even "a bug").
>> I raised this question on -quality because I don't know if it is
>> intended or not. If it is intended, then I'd like to suggest changing
>> the feature as a feature request/enhancement. If it is not intended
>> then I'll put it onto Bugzilla. Can anyone clarify?
>
> It's speculation but I would assume it to be intended. After all, the
> user did join or overlap the labels. As you point out, if you keep the
> labels one sample, apart you can retain individual splits.

If I'd only wanted to split one section, I'd only have created one label.
I created multiple labels because I wanted to split into multiple parts.

I know there are workarounds, and I know that it is not a common case,
but that's no reason to not fix it. Unless there is a user case to
justify the current behaviour (and no user case has been put forward)
then my assumption is that it is a bug.

Steve


>
> If we are only arguing about "Split" then personally I can live
> with one extra menu item to cover your use case, rather than
> change the current behaviour.
>
> Did you have any comments about my other questions -
>
>>> "Labelled Regions > Split Cut" may not split at all labelled positions.
>>> "Labelled Region > Split" may not split at all labelled positions.
>>
>> Are you talking about the repeatable "problem" that split lines
>> do not occur at label joins or overlaps?
>>
>> Or a moonphase problem of some sort as yet undescribed?
>>
>> What about the paste after "Split Cut"?  If the paste is into another
>> clip then split lines are only added at the outer boundaries of the
>> paste. Is this OK for you? I think this behaviour is expected for a
>> paste that was not from a Labeled Regions operation.
>
>
>
>
> Gale
>
>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Join
>> >> >> Not applicable in this example, but the same behaviour as now:
>> >> >> Any white space gaps that are entirely within 2 to 8 seconds will join.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labelled regions > Detach at silences
>> >> >> Any silence between 2 to 8 second will be removed and replaced with white space.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Summary:
>> >> >> 1 To aim for a consistent behaviour in which splits are not created
>> >> >> unless explicit within the function (Split Cut, Split Delete and
>> >> >> Split).
>> >> >> 2 If splitting is explicitly stated in the function (Split Cut, Split
>> >> >> Delete and Split) then splits occur at each label position.
>> >> >
>> >> > OK (with reservations about 2) but can you identify which of the
>> >> > above functions are not actually working now?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Labelled Regions > Split Cut" may not split at all labelled positions.
>> >> "Labelled Region > Split" may not split at all labelled positions.
>> >
>> > Are you talking about the repeatable "problem" that split lines
>> > do not occur at label joins or overlaps?
>> >
>> > Or a moonphase problem of some sort as yet undescribed?
>> >
>> > What about the paste after "Split Cut"?  If the paste is into another
>> > clip then split lines are only added at the outer boundaries of the
>> > paste. Is this OK for you? I think this behaviour is expected for a
>> > paste that was not from a Labeled Regions operation.
>> >
>> >
>> >> "Labelled Regions > Split Delete" is probably not operating internally
>> >> on each labelled region, but from a user perspective this makes no
>> >> difference.
>> >
>> > Does this matter since we do not affect the labels, only their
>> > audio?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gale
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> On 15 September 2012 20:24, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > | From James Crook <cr...@in...>
>> >> >> > | Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:15:10 +0100
>> >> >> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Edit > Labelled regions
>> >> >> >> On 14/09/2012 22:27, Gale Andrews wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > If we silence joined labels individually when there is a region
>> >> >> >> > spanning them, doesn't that mean that all labels become clips?
>> >> >> >> No.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sorry if I am being obtuse, but I am still not grasping what you
>> >> >> > are driving at.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I can see the case for Labeled Regions > Split creating split
>> >> >> > lines at each joined or overlapped label.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But if a user does Edit > Labeled Regions > Silence Audio
>> >> >> > over a group of joined labels "individually", but we don't
>> >> >> > mark each label with a split line, what is the difference with
>> >> >> > what happens now?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you are just asking for what I was asking for - ability to
>> >> >> > silence chosen labels from a run of joined labels - I don't see
>> >> >> > an easy mechanism to do that from Edit > Labeled Regions
>> >> >> > without a second cascade.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > To me, this would be better done with modified clicks or Labels
>> >> >> > Editor.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> A label is a labeled region.  If we have selection of multiple
>> >> >> >> >> non-contiguous labels I hear that as meaning the same thing
>> >> >> >> >> as selection of multiple non-contiguous labeled regions.
>> >> >> >> > It is similar, but the GUI way of doing it is would be more flexible
>> >> >> >> > and faster (if supported by a right-click menu).  For example, I
>> >> >> >> > can then select labels 1, 3 and 7 of seven labels for silencing.
>> >> >> >> > With Labeled Regions I get all seven labels silenced.
>> >> >> >> My picture of multiple selections is that I can drag to select labels 1
>> >> >> >> to 6, then ctrl-click label 4 and ctrl-click label 7 and have labels
>> >> >> >> 1,2,3,5,6,7 selected.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Or, select one label then CTRL-click the next ones to be included
>> >> >> > in the selection.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > One problem is that currently, CTRL-click a label plays the audio
>> >> >> > of that label, which could be useful in some circumstances but not
>> >> >> > others.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So we might have to use SHIFT-click as we do when including
>> >> >> > tracks in the selection.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gale
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> If I now apply an effect or silence the selected labels there is no
>> >> >> >> doubt in my mind as to what happens to the audio.  We don't, for
>> >> >> >> example, get an echo applied twice to a region because it is in label 2
>> >> >> >> and label 3 and those labels overlap.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The one case I see an ambiguity is duplicate selected labels (or
>> >> >> >> equivalently paste, since copy followed by paste should do the same as
>> >> >> >> duplicate).  There is a version of duplicate that applies the
>> >> >> >> duplication at the audio level and there is a version of duplicate that
>> >> >> >> applies the duplication at the label level.  The difference is clear
>> >> >> >> when labels overlap.  With overlapping labels I would usually want
>> >> >> >> duplication at the label level, and the overlapping clips causing new
>> >> >> >> audio tracks to be made so that the clips are independent.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --James.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> Aud...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality