Sound / Silence Marker

[steve]

Discussed many times before but never resolved... When Sound Finder was first introduced it was proposed that it should eventually be integrated with Silence Finder.

Would this be too complicated?
If it is, then which features would you wish to retain/discard?

SoundSilenceMarker.png (46.09 KiB) Viewed 7452 times

Controls:

• Sound/Silence threshold (dB): The detection threshold below which audio is considered "silent" and above which "sound".
• Min detected silence (seconds): Silences shorter than this are ignored.
• Min detected sound (seconds): Sounds shorter than this are ignored.
• What to label: Choice - Sounds / Silences.
• Can label either sounds or silences.
• Where to label: Choice - Before Start / Middle / After End / Region.
  
  • Can produce point labels:
    
    • before the start of the detected region,
    • in the middle of the detected region,
    • after the end of the detected region.
  • or can label the region (region label).
• Before Start max offset (s): If a label is placed before the start of a sound/silence, this sets the maximum time (seconds) before the start. Detected regions are not allowed to overlap and the first label cannot be before the start of the selection.
• After End max offset (s): If a label is placed after the end of a sound/silence, this sets the maximum time (seconds) after the end. Detected regions are not allowed to overlap.
• Label text (optional): If not empty, each label will have this label text.
• Number from (optional): If not empty, each label will start with a number, counting up from this number. Leading zeros are honoured.

[billw58]

Looks good to me. I don't think you can really do without any of those options (aside from label name and number, but that is so simple and useful it should be included).

It would certainly be simpler than having the two different effects.

Is this a GUI mockup, or do you have code ready to post?

-- Bill

[steve]

Is this a GUI mockup, or do you have code ready to post?

Part way between the two.
It is partly coded. I don't want to waste a lot of time on this if it is not what people want.
Thanks for the feedback Bill.

[Robert J. H.]

I actually prefer two effects instead of one.
The Analyse menu does not contain an overwhelming amount of effects and if I can decide right at the very beginning if I search for Sound or silence - what's wrong about that?
Of course the both effects have to be identical in structure.
Ok, I use them only once in a decade, so my opinion is rather biased and unreliable.

[steve]

Of course the both effects have to be identical in structure.

Which currently they are not, so if you want to search for sounds and use point labels, then hard luck, or if you want to search for silences and use region labels, again, hard luck, or if you want the labels numbered and search for silences, then yes you've guessed it, hard luck again. The proposed effect offers a lot more flexibility, which I hope is without too much more complexity.

[Robert J. H.]

Yes, they are not, but they should be equally structured.
I actually embrace a re-definement of those effects.
The only Thing that I propose is that they are seperated within the menu and not within the plug-in itself.
Of corse, one can put a compressor and a Expander into the same effect but both are often available as a unique device.
So, if the user knows what he's looking for, he can decide right away from within the menu. This could make the Parameters a Little bit more consise and readable.
As I said, this works only in the Analyse menu which doesn't hold a hundred items at once.
Anyway, as Long as Labels are poorly accessible , I rather don't care and so don't give too much weight on my opinion.

[steve]

I rather don't care and so don't give too much weight on my opinion.

OK, I'll agree to disagree on this occasion

After the "where to label" option I've added one more option.

• Crackle rejection: Choice Enabled / Disabled. This will particularly benefit users that are splitting vinyl recordings as it makes silence detection immune from the effects of crackles.

I have also reversed the order of "Label text" and "Number from" as I think that it will generally be more useful for label numbers to be before other label text.

SoundSilenceMarker.png (49.36 KiB) Viewed 7430 times

[Robert J. H.]

Dont't be obsequious...
Thats a great idea about the crackling.
Am I right that instantaneous Peaks are ignored?

[steve]

Am I right that instantaneous Peaks are ignored?

You are, but reading that has made me realise that it's not quite right. When enabled, very short "isolated" sounds within a period of silence are ignored (not counted). In fact this will make the silence count slightly wrong - the clicks should be added to the silence count.

[Robert J. H.]

From the view Point of power or energy it is indeed silence as soon as it lies below the threshold.
For certain applications, the usage of an constant threshold is not Adequate. But your working with the RMS values in the first place, this evens out the irregularities to a certain degree.
Sound Events are a fascinating subject to Analyse.
If I Play a note on the trumpet sforza (bAAahuuuuaAAAAh), you will immediately know that it is one tone, but the Sound finder will most likely detect two tones.
And he won't detect the first Transition or attack and will decide that the tone Ends amidst in the exponential decay (of which there are two in a sforza).
A really excellent Sound finder must therefore work with more Parameters than only energy.
Maybe the yin function could be examined too. It offers a "cheap" way to determine if the so called silence is only the cyclic tail/decay of a Sound. It appears to me that this differenciation is important when the user decides to mark the end of sounds or the Overall range. Am I wrong?