Re: [Audacity-devel] Reassigned spectrograms
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Audacity-devel] Reassigned spectrograms
|
From: James C. <cr...@in...> - 2015-08-19 08:04:42
|
On 19/08/2015 00:11, Paul Licameli wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:56 PM, James Crook <cr...@in... > <mailto:cr...@in...>> wrote: > > On 18/08/2015 22:54, Paul Licameli wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:37 PM, James Crook <cr...@in... >> <mailto:cr...@in...>> wrote: >> >> On 18/08/2015 18:50, Steve the Fiddle wrote: >> > On 18 August 2015 at 16:50, James Crook <cr...@in... >> <mailto:cr...@in...>> wrote: >> >> ---- >> 1: Waveform >> 2: Waveform (dB) >> 3: Spectrogram >> 4: Spectrogram (refined) <-- I think this is better wording >> than the >> technically correct '(reassigned)'. >> 5: Pitch (EAC) >> >> >> So for waveforms, the two scale types; for spectra, the three >> algorithms instead of (as in the past) the scale types. Scale >> types not specified above. > AND 3 user defined viewing styles. > > Scale types not specified above, and so can be changed by user for > that style, as can window size etc. > > I might decide that my 6 is: > > 6: Short-Range Spectrum > > And use a small window for it. > >> ---- >> >> Which are 5 configured 'viewing styles' We have also user >> defined >> styles 6, 7 and 8 which will only show if the user gives them >> a name. >> >> We can only configure these 8 Viewing Styles from the standard >> preferences dialog. We can, for example, use a different >> window size on >> Pitch than on Spectrogram. Paul's per track detailed >> configuration goes. >> >> In Preferences Dialog, Waveform and Spectrograms no longer >> appear under >> Tracks, instead they appear under a new entry "Viewing >> Styles". This >> has all eight entries. Each can be configured and the last >> three can be >> given names. The predefined ones grey out some controls, >> such as the >> ability to change the name and the algorithm. This means the >> predefined >> styles will continue to be where they should be and do what >> they say >> they do. >> >> >> I think this should give enough flexibility and be much >> better than what >> we currently have in audmain/master. Implementing it >> introduces some >> schedule risk, so I want to check that there is (now) >> consensus that >> this is what we should do. >> >> >> --James. >> >> >> These are strange ideas I don't fully understand and I fear it is >> rather late to code this... > It IS late to code it. > >> Waveforms and spectra are very different animals. > Yes. And perhaps in time Pitch, reassigned spectrogram and > ordinary spectrogram will diverge further too. > > > But those three are very alike in being affected by window size and > function. I think zero padding might apply to the Pitch algorithm > too, I have to think about it. And then there are the other exotic > algorithms now in Plot Spectrum only. One might ask, if Enhanced > Autocorrelation can be done both there and in display, then why not > the others too? > > >> There would need to be waveform styles, for saving combinations >> of one set of settings, and spectogram styles for a different set >> of settings. I don't see how you would have one preference page >> with all eight settings. > You'd have one preference page for each style 1..8, making 8 > pages, in the tree for them, > and one page listing the names of the 8 styles and the algorithm > (which would now also include the option of 'Waveform' as an > algorithm). The algorithm then determines what page/fields show > when you click on that style in preferences tree. > > > Clearer? > > > Okay, yes. One needs a page to present the settings, but there is a > major top-level choice determining what fields are in that page. I > have assumed this top choice is binary. You think it should be four > or five-way (and if I am right about other spectral algorithms, even > more-way). Almost. There are four choices on the top level "Viewing Styles" page for each of the 8 styles. So on the top level styles page you see a list of 8 style names, each with a drop down choice. The choices are Waveform, Frequencies, Reassignment, Pitch (EAC). Since the last three are (currently) all so similar they all lead to a page with the same layout of fields. At a later date these pages could diverge. > Nothing would prevent more than one style choosing the same algorithm > but then choosing other details for that algorithm, so the page layout > for that algorithm could be reused. That is an important part of the point doing it. In the User defined styles I could set up additional preset viewing styles for the ones I want. MOST users won't bother. But I almost certainly would, and would welcome the ease of switching between a short range and long range spectrogram. > All too futurey for 2.1.2. No. Not too futurey. Doable. > The crisis now is the unpopular decisions I made, and what parts of my > project I should retract. Please see the other thread I recently > started. In short, let's keep the familiar Waveform and Waveform dB, > but then simplify the rest of the drop-down to Spectrogram and > Spectrogram Settings... That still does not satisfy Steve's issue that it isn't clear that these are per-track settings. There is also a concern I have not mentioned that the per-track settings make the project file not backward compatible. We may have to up the project-version number in the project file (technically we should have for 2.1.1 but we kind of get away with it). However your proposal to only configure spectrogram is much simpler and low risk to implement, so if Steve and Peter are OK with --- Waveform Waveform (dB) Spectrogram ---- Spectrogram Settings --- Then that is what we go for. It is simpler and lower risk. If they are not OK with it, as Steve has not actually made a counter proposal that keeps reassignment in, we go with my solution and accept the schedule risk. [I would add background and wave colour to the waveform page to make that page a bit more useful] --James. |
