Re: [Audacity-quality] Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

[Robert H. <aar...@gm...>]

Just to repeat myself for the xth time.
I'm using a version of the Vocal reduction and isolation tool that
includes the legacy effect for over a year.
I've posted it hear several times.
Here is it once more:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0yqlue4ud7ujb2r/vocalrediso.ny?dl=1

I have to read what's in the topic and why the extended algorithm
should have failed where the legacy did not.
However, this isn't an excuse since the old effect is the first entry
in the effect just posted.

Robert

On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> wrote:
> On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>
>> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>>
>
> Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
> https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
> the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound for
> centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>
>
>>
>> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
>> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> not everyone RTFM.
>>
>
> I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused
> controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
> I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.
>
> In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new effect as
> Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the
> cons.
>
> Steve
>
>
>>
>> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
>> don't work with the default choice.
>>
>> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>>
>> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson <pet...@gm...>
>> wrote:
>> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
>> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >
>> >
>> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we
>> should
>> > be removing
>> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >
>> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both
>> effects
>> > side-by-side
>> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing
>> > "Vocal Removal"
>> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the
>> very
>> > least make it
>> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >
>> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by
>> > enabling it.  We would
>> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the
>> > legacy effect to the
>> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> nomenclature
>> > change for Robert's
>> > newer effect.
>> >
>> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3
>> > development cycle:
>> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want
>> >> to
>> >> do.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> > Robert
>> > didn't name
>> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove
>> > ..."
>> > entries in the
>> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it
>> thus
>> > as a
>> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >
>> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
>> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
>> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >
>> > Peter.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > Aud...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> Aud...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>