Slim down the Click Track interface

Anything you think is missing, or needs enhancement, goes here.

If you require help using Audacity, please post on the forum board relevant to your operating system:
Windows
Mac OS X
GNU/Linux and Unix-like

Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by steve » Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:30 pm

As Robert pointed out recently, the Click Track generator has "many" controls. This is particularly inconvenient for non-mouse users form whom it takes 24 clicks to cycle through the full set of controls.

There have also been occasional complaints about the lack of "musical" click sounds (a "Conga" type sound is frequently favoured in other metronome type applications).

I'm reluctant to remove existing functionality, though I think that the optional duration (minutes seconds) could probably be removed - this option has always been and remains problematic due to:
a) Inability for Nyquist to handle localized decimal separators in string type widgets.
b) Inability for Nyquist to grey out controls, so "optional" items are always a bodge.
c) Ambiguity of "minutes seconds" text format.
d) Duplication of "duration" control which is already defined by the number of measures.

I think that we could safely remove the "Individual click duration (milliseconds)" if we provide a better selection of click tones.

The number of clicks to navigate the controls can also be dramatically decreased by using the new numeric text widgets in place of the old slider widgets.

This is what I have in mind so far:

Code: Select all
;control bpm "Beats per minute (1 - 1000 bpm)" float-text "" 120 1 1000
;control t-sig "Beats per measure (1 - 32 beats / bar)" int-text "" 4 1 32
;control measures "Number of measures (1 - 1000 bars)" int-text "" 8 1 1000
;control start-time "Start time (minutes seconds)" string "" "0"
;control timbre "Click type" choice "Ping,Tick,Click,Conga,Beep,Drum" 0
;control accent "Accent strong beat (0 - 100)" int-text "" 50 0 100
;control pitch "Strong beat tuning (+/- 24 semitones)" float-text "" 0 -24 24
;control pitch "Weak beat tuning (+/- 24 semitones)" float-text "" 0 -24 24


window-Click Track-000.png
Image of proposed new interface
window-Click Track-000.png (29.85 KiB) Viewed 1427 times


I think that this interface preserves just about all of the old functionality, while improving on several features, simplifying usage, and reducing the total number of clicks to navigate the controls from 24 to 13.

When available I would also like to replace the "start time" with a "time widget" (we don't yet have time widgets for Nyquist plug-ins).

Also, "Start time" will be the actual start time if there is no selection. If there is an existing selection, then "Start time" must (unfortunately) be relative to the start of the selection because it is not currently possible to generate audio before the start of the selection. I would prefer (for clarity) that the start time was always an absolute time, but that is not currently possible for Nyquist generate plug-ins. For now it may be better to call that "Start time offset".
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
steve
Site Admin
 
Posts: 44458
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by kozikowski » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:23 am

Does one of those work out to be "3/4 time," or is that the beats per measure thing? I don't play the piano, I play at the piano. Big difference.

I don't see what the problem is with Noise click resonance - discernable pitch [q]:

I know I use that all the time.

Koz
kozikowski
Forum Staff
 
Posts: 37701
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Operating System: OS X 10.9 Mavericks

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by steve » Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:25 am

kozikowski wrote:Does one of those work out to be "3/4 time," or is that the beats per measure thing?

Yes, that's the "beats per measure" thing. I prefer the term "beats per bar", but "Click Track" has happily called it "beats per measure" for about a decade with no complaints, so I'm taking the "if it ain't broke..." approach there.

kozikowski wrote:I don't see what the problem is with Noise click resonance - discernable pitch [q]:

I know I use that all the time.

That's a joke, right? If so, it's funny ;)
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
steve
Site Admin
 
Posts: 44458
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by Robert J. H. » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:10 pm

steve wrote:
kozikowski wrote:Does one of those work out to be "3/4 time," or is that the beats per measure thing?

Yes, that's the "beats per measure" thing. I prefer the term "beats per bar", but "Click Track" has happily called it "beats per measure" for about a decade with no complaints, so I'm taking the "if it ain't broke..." approach there.

kozikowski wrote:I don't see what the problem is with Noise click resonance - discernable pitch [q]:

I know I use that all the time.

That's a joke, right? If so, it's funny ;)


Certainly a thing one uses only once in a life time.

I'm glad that you've picked this up, Steve.

It is good that the ranges are increased as well (Bpm for instance). This allows e.g. practising 16th notes runs at 120 bpm.
Robert J. H.
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 8:33 am
Operating System: Windows 7

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by steve » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:42 pm

Robert J. H. wrote:It is good that the ranges are increased as well (Bpm for instance). This allows e.g. practising 16th notes runs at 120 bpm.

I may have been a bit excessive with "1 beat per minute". Perhaps better to change that back to 30 bpm as the minimum (one beat every 2 seconds).
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
steve
Site Admin
 
Posts: 44458
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by Robert J. H. » Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:39 pm

steve wrote:
Robert J. H. wrote:It is good that the ranges are increased as well (Bpm for instance). This allows e.g. practising 16th notes runs at 120 bpm.

I may have been a bit excessive with "1 beat per minute". Perhaps better to change that back to 30 bpm as the minimum (one beat every 2 seconds).


I can't exactly recall, but there's a Jazz Piece for Piano, something like "4:08" that lasts 4:08 min. The pianist doesn't play a single note during this time. The art comes in by exactly closing the lid after 4:08 min.
What I'm getting at is this means 0.241935 bpm
bpm, if you want to practice this piece... :Grin:

I've included "Tap along" with my screen reader. The tempi are either in bpm or classic description (according to some mechannical metronoms) and the lowest tempo is 18 bpm but 25 or 30 is certainly slow eeough.

I miss the ability to generate a ritartando or accellerando.
The sliding time effect does not exactly what I want.

Robert
Robert J. H.
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 8:33 am
Operating System: Windows 7

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by steve » Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:45 pm

Robert J. H. wrote:I miss the ability to generate a ritartando or accellerando.
The sliding time effect does not exactly what I want.

and I don't think that the Time track is accessible, is it?
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
steve
Site Admin
 
Posts: 44458
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by Robert J. H. » Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:05 pm

steve wrote:
Robert J. H. wrote:I miss the ability to generate a ritartando or accellerando.
The sliding time effect does not exactly what I want.

and I don't think that the Time track is accessible, is it?


Of course not.
I could previously focus on the time line (set the mouse there), but it doesn't seem to work with the newest built.
However, the time line changes the timbre of the sound, this could sound awful with e.g. drums or conga.
Robert J. H.
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 8:33 am
Operating System: Windows 7

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by Gale Andrews » Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:17 pm

Might some users not want MIDI note-based generation, especially if we can include a beep sound? The current scheme is not convenient if you want to generate based on a pitch, because you have to know the MIDI number. But with the new scheme it seems you have to somehow know what the default "untuned" pitch is so you can then calculate the +/- difference required to generate the pitch you want.

I'd rather the weak and strong beat parameters would accept a range of MIDI notes, and ideally a two character letter-number string representing a value in the same range as the MIDI notes. For example you could enter "C4" or "60" for middle "C".


Gale
________________________________________FOR INSTANT HELP: (Click on Link below)
* * * * * Tips * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Quick Start Guide * * * * * Audacity Manual
Gale Andrews
Quality Assurance
 
Posts: 26093
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:02 am
Operating System: Windows 10

Re: Slim down the Click Track interface

Permanent link to this post Posted by steve » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:53 pm

Gale Andrews wrote:I'd rather the weak and strong beat parameters would accept a range of MIDI notes, and ideally a two character letter-number string representing a value in the same range as the MIDI notes. For example you could enter "C4" or "60" for middle "C".

What "note" does a mechanical wooden metronome have, or how about a bass drum sound with a snare drum sound for the accents, or a "woodblock" or triangle?

If you want a Conga tuned to "C#" would you know whether to select "C#2", "C#3", or "C#4" or some other C#?

MIDI note numbers are not without problems either as "Middle C" may be either MIDI note number 60, or MIDI note number 72 (depending on which standard you choose). Also, the GM (General MIDI) standard MIDI notes for (example) Congas are note numbers 62, 63 and 64, which do not relate to the tuned pitch.

If the user selects, for example, a timpani drum sound, then the default tuning should sound like a timpani drum, not like a tin box. Similarly, if they chose a glockenspiel sound, then it should sound like a glockenspiel not like a scaffold pole.

I would suggest that for harmonic sounds ("notes"), the default tuning (tuning set to zero) should be either an "A" or a "C". The octave (whether A220, A440, A880 etc) should be appropriate for the type of sound selected. I believe that this will be more intuitive and easier to use than using MIDI note numbers (which in the case of noise based sounds are by definition arbitrary).
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
steve
Site Admin
 
Posts: 44458
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Next

Return to Adding Features to Audacity



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest