Re: [Audacity-quality] bug 1275 - No preview in Spectral edit effects.

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

I've now put the code for checking whether a "spectral edit effect"
can be used into one place in the Audacity code.
The conditions that must be met in Audacity 2.1.2 rc1 for spectral effects are:

* Spectral Selection must be enabled for all selected tracks.
* "Toggle spectral selection" must be "on".
* There must be at lest one frequency bound defined.

In short, a spectral selection is displayed in the selected tracks.

I have kept these conditions as they currently are (though we may want
to change them at a later date, which is easier to do with them being
in one place).

When the user selects a "spectral edit effect", Audacity (not the
plug-in) checks that the conditions are met.
If the conditions are met, the effect opens. (The effect may need to
do additional error checking).
If the conditions are not met, Audacity pops up an error message.

The current error message says:

"To use 'Spectral effects', enable 'Spectral Selection'
in the track Spectrogram settings and select the
frequency range for the effect to act on."

Is that sufficient? Does anyone want to propose better wording?

Steve


On 16 December 2015 at 12:06, Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> wrote:
> On 16 December 2015 at 09:37, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> wrote:
>> As a relatively simple-minded user of Audacity I am really struggling to
>> understand why spectral selections and spectral editing should persist
>> when the user is not in a spectral view (the clue for me is in the name).
>
> I raised the same question very early on, and the explanation from
> Paul (the original developer of spectral editing in Audacity) was:
> "it is wrong in principle for the results of any effect to by
> influenced by view type."
> and Gale agreed with him.
>
> As, many months later, we still have no agreement about how to make
> spectral effects work in a user friendly way in non-spectral views, I
> pleased that we have reached a compromise to not enable spectral
> effects in non-spectral views, at least for Audacity 2.1.2.
>
> I'm with Peter on this issue - it seems blindingly obvious to me that
> "spectral" effects, which depend on "spectral" selections should be
> used in "spectral" view, where the spectral selection can be created,
> seen and modified.
>
>>
>> I can see that there could indeed be some benefits for the more
>> sophisticated users of having both the waveform and the spectral view
>> showing at the same time (and probably in the same track as Gale has
>> suggested).
>>
>> And I do like the idea that with a compound view like this we could probably
>> get away with removing the on/off switch for spectral editing.
>>
>> A composite view like this should not imo ever become the default view
>> however, as I'm sure the vast majority of our users manage just fine
>> with the bog-standard waveform view (a large number of them never
>> even into Waveform (dB) view I'm betting).
>>
>>
>> Is the thinking here that if such a compound waveform+spectral view is
>> selected then we would be able to do away with the spectral only views?
>> I haven't grasped the full extent of the discussion here.
>
> I'm imagining a "multi-view" along the lines of the "Thinklabs
> Phonocardiography, powered by Audacity" that Vaughan wrote
> (picture: http://tinyurl.com/oo2qg54 )
> Though perhaps a more general implementation that allows arbitrary
> combinations of views (for example, in some cases it would be useful
> to have both linear and logarithmic waveform views at the same time).
>
> I doubt that we would want to make this the default view in Audacity,
> but I expect that on the forum we will frequently be advising users to
> use it because it would be very useful for many types of job. Even for
> general editing the dual waveform/spectrogram view would help for
> selecting good edit points. For making "seamless loops" or "beat
> editing" it would be especially useful.
>
> For audio restoration, such as cleaning vinyl recordings, it would
> provide a much improved view of noise and clicks, and (importantly) I
> think it would make the spectrogram view easier to understand if the
> user can see how the coloured patterns in the spectrogram view
> correlate with the waveform. I would bet that even you Peter will be
> using it once you become familiar with it, at least sometimes ;-)
>
>>
>>
>> And I do note that the principal actor in this area of functionality (the
>> developer
>> of the spectral editing tools) is not participating in this discussion
>> thread. So unless
>> he engages (and agrees) then this discussion may end up just being an arid,
>> academic, one - unless another developer takes up the reins and makes the
>> required GUI changes.
>
> Implementing multiple / compound views is not dependent on spectral
> editing, but I think that spectral editing could benefit from compound
> views. If I recall correctly, James' new track panel work could/would
> support multiple views of the same audio data.
>
>>
>>
>> On a related issue, I note that Gale has pointed out that the spectral
>> selection
>> toolbar is difficult to find.  Maybe therefore we should consider turning
>> that toolbar
>> on by default to aid "discoverability" and thereby encourage exploration of
>> the
>> spectral tools
>
> or as I suggested previously, we could consider automatically opening
> the Spectral Selection Toolbar when Spectral Selection is enabled.
>
> Steve
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter.
>>
>> Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
>> To: audacity-quality <aud...@li...>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 1:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] bug 1275 - No preview in Spectral edit
>> effects.
>>
>> On 16 December 2015 at 01:01, Gale <ga...@au...> wrote:
>>> On 15 December 2015 at 22:45, James Crook [via Audacity]
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/12/2015 21:57, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15 December 2015 at 21:04, Gale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Stevethefiddle wrote
>>>>>>> The current behaviour in Audacity 2.1.2 rc1 is that "spectral effects"
>>>>>>> can only be used in a spectrogram view. Rather than changing the
>>>>>>> behaviour now, I'll look for a way to fix preview so that it works
>>>>>>> when in spectrogram view, and give accurate error messages when they
>>>>>>> can't be applied.
>>>>>> Thanks, Steve. Needless to say, none of my strong misgivings about what
>>>>>> we have now are P1, nor is bug 1275.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stevethefiddle wrote
>>>>>>> In my opinion, the long-term solution is for Audacity to be able to
>>>>>>> show the frequency selection in a spectrogram and show a waveform view
>>>>>>> of the same audio data at the same time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>> Yes, that would have the benefit of leaving the waveform view
>>>>>> uncluttered
>>>>>> and save explicitly switching away from spectrogram. I think it could
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> transparent or toggled overlay which I have suggested before, but I
>>>>>> guess
>>>>>> that is very long term and that a mini-waveform underneath would also
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I think there are cases (e.g. when applying some EQ'ing
>>>>>> filter
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> a spectral selection in the whole track) where there is little
>>>>>> practical
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to switch from waveform to spectrogram view in the first place. Novice
>>>>>> users may find not switching more comfortable.
>>>>> If they prefer not to make the frequency selection in the spectrogram
>>>>> view, then I presume they will be making the frequency selection in
>>>>> the "Spectral Selection Toolbar" (because those are the only two ways
>>>>> to make a "spectral" selection),
>>>> +1.  That's my point too.
>>>
>>> Unless we gave them some special tool or shortcut with which to mouse draw
>>> the spectral selection in waveform view. I envisaged that displaying only
>>> high, low and centre frequency numbers (the first two just at the corners
>>> of the spectral selection).
>>>
>>> That is really the logical extension of my idea (which if we wanted it at
>>> all
>>> would make more sense than numbers that appear on switch to waveform
>>> then disappear for want of a tool to make spectral selections there).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gale seemed to be arguing they might have a previous selection made in a
>>>> now closed spectral selection toolbar.  But to my mind if they've been
>>>> using the toolbar why not stay with it?
>>>
>>> I was envisaging them not having used Spectral Selection Toolbar because
>>> it is hard to find. They would have mouse drawn a spectral selection in
>>> Spectrogram view then (perhaps because of insecurity about what they
>>> were selecting) switched to Waveform view, but then can't apply the
>>> spectral
>>> selection.
>>
>> So if we could show the spectral selection AND the waveform view, then
>> that would seem to be an ideal solution.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think Gale's scenario practically requires that the (waveform)
>>>> indicator of spectral selection ALSO allow modification of the spectral
>>>> selection too.
>>>
>>> In effect, yes, using the mouse. Click and drag up or down and you see
>>> a widget displaying numbers that change as you drag.
>>
>> I'm trying to form a mental picture of your scheme Gale:
>>
>> If I want to draw a selection from say 6000 Hz to 12000 Hz in
>> Spectrogram view, then I would zoom / scroll the vertical ruler so
>> that I can see from around 5000 Hz to 15000 Hz, then I would draw my
>> selection.
>>
>> How would I do that in Waveform view?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In which case we are discussing it from the wrong point
>>>> of view.  Gale's proposal amounts to a space-saver version of spectral
>>>> selection toolbar (saving space by being an overlay on waveform),
>>>> because the full functionality of the spectral selection toolbar will be
>>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the issue is that we are baulking at having the spectrogram
>>>> spectral selection box superimposed on top of a waveform with vertical
>>>> axis that is measured in completely different units - and Gale is trying
>>>> to accommodate our objections to that.  But that is actually a better
>>>> solution than editable numbers on the waveform. It's quicker and easier
>>>> to implement too.
>>>
>>> I never intended the numbers on the waveform to be editable as in a
>>> box. The numbers change with the act of selection.
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are many precedents of having two vertical axes for two graphs
>>>> drawn on the same horizontal axis, one vertical axis shown on the left,
>>>> one on the right.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> I still think it would be counterproductive, but I am less fussed about
>>>> it than (non editable) numbers that require a toolbar or spectrogram
>>>> open too to actually edit them.
>>>
>>> As soon as we put a combined spectral-and-time selection in spectrogram
>>> view and then forbad using that spectral selection while looking at the
>>> waveform - while also making the user find and turn on spectral selection
>>> -
>>> I thought it was just too clunky and confusing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If Gale would prefer the option of waveform plus spectrogram of same
>>>> data open at same time to the other proposals, then let us put that on
>>>> the agenda for discussion.  That is something I think there would be
>>>> widespread support for, and it would shift the conversation forward.
>>>
>>> Ideally I would not have two tracks (one spectrogram, one waveform)
>>> but show both views in one track. This disposes of the problems of
>>> switching views and of what track or mode you can and cannot draw
>>> selections in.
>>>
>>> It may of course be easier to protect naive users from making spectral
>>> selections by accident by forcing users to switch to a two-track
>>> Spectrogram-and-waveform view in order to make and use spectral
>>> selections.
>>>
>>> Possibly the two tracks would be the simplest way to solve the issue
>>> of making time selections with no frequency content while still looking
>>> at the spectrogram - if you select in the waveform section you select
>>> only time, if you select in the spectrogram section you select time and
>>> frequency.
>>>
>>> Being able thus to do away with turning spectral selection "on" and "off"
>>> would be a major benefit, though I think you could also achieve that
>>> with more difficulty the other way round, by using mouse or shortcut
>>> to draw time-with-frequency selections when looking initially at a
>>> waveform.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> In which case, what's the point of
>>>>> "spectral" editing? What benefit does it have over a "conventional"
>>>>> plug-in with frequency controls in the plug-in interface rather than
>>>>> using the "Spectral Selection Toolbar". I'm sure there will be at
>>>>> least "one" fringe case among our millions of users, but is there a
>>>>> benefit for "normal" users? As I see it, the whole point about
>>>>> "spectral" editing is that you can select part of the "spectrogram"
>>>>> and apply an effect to it.
>>>
>>> That aspect is less important to me than ease of comparison of
>>> view and ease of switching between what you select.
>>>
>>> However I have noticed a few posts on the Forum where using a
>>> spectrogram was suggested to the poster but working out what the
>>> colours and shapes meant was clearly too steep a learning curve.
>>>
>>> So I think mouse selection without having to see the spectrogram
>>> (where useful) and also displaying some kind of combined spectrogram
>>> and waveform view might make spectral selection less intimidating
>>> for such users.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gale
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which raises the point that the spectral selection aware effect dialogs
>>>> should be adaptive, and offer (possibly empty) upper and lower limits in
>>>> the dialog, if no spectral selection is active.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>>>> below:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/bug-1275-No-preview-in-Spectral-edit-effects-tp7571903p7571926.html
>>>> To unsubscribe from bug 1275 - No preview in Spectral edit effects.,
>>>> click
>>>> here.
>>>> NAML
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> View this message in context: Re: bug 1275 - No preview in Spectral edit
>>> effects.
>>>
>>> Sent from the audacity-quality mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> Aud...@li...
>>
>>
>>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> Aud...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> Aud...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>