Transport and Meter toolbars dockable in the Mixer Board.

[steve]

This is why I suggested the Master Fader should always be visible,

How about if the Master Fader Track were always created at the top, immediately below the Time Track (if one exists)?

I think that it is important to allow for extensibility in the design, which is why I particularly like the idea of a "Master Track".
I've been using the term "Mater Fader Track" throughout this discussion for clarity regarding the feature in this context, but it could be called "Controller Track" or something similar as track automation can usefully go a lot further than only automating the mix level. As examples, eventually the "Master Track" track could also control a real time output EQ and MIDI controller data (for controlling outboard, or virtual outboard gear).

I think if there are "automation" features, the track gain sliders should move, otherwise it is not clear what is happening.

As Bill has been suggesting, it is more usual (in DAWs) for that not to happen, but Audacity is not like other DAWs in that it is primarily a destructive editor, and as such I think that visual feedback of what is occurring on the track level is more important than for real-time DAWs. I don't have a very strong preference regarding this, but on balance I prefer that track gain sliders move in response to Master Track automation.

What do you mean by "thinned" - some points are discarded?

That's how other multi-track applications handle it, though I think that whether it is necessary will depend on implementation. "Recording" slider movements may generate a lot of controller points, which may produce an unacceptable overhead (particularly for MIDI data that has a limited throughput). "Thinning" the data (discarding very tiny intermediate control points that lie between between other control points) can help to reduce the overhead with no audible difference.

I still feel that closing the Fader Track would require a warning and a Preference for that warning - it would be really dangerous if the gain was set to unity on close.

If a Master Fader track was being used then the user would invariably want it to be enabled for export, so I'd have no objection to a warning if the Master Track was not in Play mode on export, even without a "don't show again" preference. For my own use I would always leave this warning enabled. If the user really wants to export without Master Fader automation then they can either, delete the automation data, remove the Master Fader track or dismiss the warning. Exporting without automation (when automation is present) is most likely to be a user error, so should require definite action from the user.

The case for Export Multiple is somewhat less clear. In most cases I would expect that Mater Track automation would not be wanted when using Export Multiple for exporting based on tracks. This should probably be the default option in the Export Multiple dialogue.

What happens if you do close Fader Track then re-open it - do you lose only the envelope points or also the fader gain?

What happens if you close any other kind of track?
Do we currently have a FR for "Export Envelopes"?

[billw58]

I think if there are "automation" features, the track gain sliders should move, otherwise it is not clear what is happening.

The Master Fader will move, and I think that is enough visual feedback.

I still feel that closing the Fader Track would require a warning and a Preference for that warning - it would be really dangerous if the gain was set to unity on close.

What happens if you do close Fader Track then re-open it - do you lose only the envelope points or also the fader gain?

"Closing" (i.e. deleting) the Master Fader track is the same a deleting any other track, including a Time Track - the information it contains is discarded. So, yes, this probably needs a warning.

So to clarify, you mean that any envelope points are ignored (when not in automation-read mode), but not the (implied) vertical level of the envelope?
In which mode is the fader when you export?

If the Master Fader track is not in automation-read mode the envelope is ignored but the level of the fader (which is now independent of the envelope) is applied.
The mode on export is whatever mode is set on the track - automation-read on or off.

I'm not trying to turn Audacity into Pro Tools, but we have had requests for non-destructive fades and my feature request page addresses that
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Propo ... elope_Tool
including the ability to treat track envelopes as fader automation.

Another nice feature to have would to be able to move the entire envelope up or down without adjusting every envelope point. Perhaps alt-drag of the master fader could do that.

-- Bill

[Gale Andrews]

How about if the Master Fader Track were always created at the top, immediately below the Time Track (if one exists)?

Still doesn't help that much if your tracks don't fit in the vertical scroll. Do other DAW's not keep the Master Fader Track always on screen?

What happens if you close any other kind of track?

You would lose the data, though I don't see that as given for a Fader Track if there is a separate Master Fader Slider; I could see people actively wanting to close the Fader Track, roll it up or otherwise get it out of the way. You could "reset" the Master Fader Track Envelope with a warning. Possibly you should be allowed to close or minimise it in some way that indicated it still existed then retain the envelope. Possibly you could even "mute" (disable) the envelope temporarily.

I would think we should redesign the Track Control Panel and make better use of space when rolled up before embarking on the more exotic things in this thread.

Do we currently have a FR for "Export Envelopes"?

Three explicit votes versus 21 for some (presumably "simple") "Master Fader".

The type of missing envelope that is much more often requested is a panning envelope (42 votes). But I don't sense too much interest in it ourselves?

move the entire envelope up or down without adjusting every envelope point. Perhaps alt-drag of the master fader could do that.

Yes someone asked for that on [email protected] recently.



Gale

[steve]

Do other DAW's not keep the Master Fader Track always on screen?

No, and people don't generally have a problem with that. Mixing is usually done from their "Mixer Board" view.

Possibly you could even "mute" (disable) the envelope temporarily.

That can be done within Bill's proposal.
If neither "Play" or "Rec" are enabled, then all it needs is for the Master Track to be set to unity gain, and it is in effect "disabled".

This feature would be very useful when working on a soloed track (especially as, if making an edit to a quiet part of the soloed track, the playback level can be temporarily boosted without changing the track gain, by switching off "Play" and "Rec" in the Master track, then pushing up the Master Track gain fader - as soon as "Play" is enabled in the Master Track the Master Track gain fader will be pulled back down to the "recorded" level as shown by the Master Track gain envelope).

I don't think that this current proposal is particularly "exotic". It just requires one more track - the Master Track, which has a counterpart in the Mixer Board.
Whether the individual audio track faders "follow" the Master Track, or whether the Master Track operates "post audio track faders" is a detail that can be discussed but does not conflict with the overall idea. All of the "operational details" that have been discussed are just "consequences" of having a Master Track (that can be automated), and in considering these consequences, they all look good. The idea is to add a Master Track, then see what logically follows from having a Master Track.

Whether the audio track gain sliders follow the Master Track is a question of whether:
a) The Master Track is a "controller" for the audio tracks.
b) The Master Track is a "post audio track" channel.

Option (b) will be more familiar to users of DAWs and mixing desks.
For Audacity I think I prefer (a) because we are not (conceptually) dealing with real-time routing of audio signals (as is the case with a real-time DAW). In the Audacity model we are dealing with, you do something and Audacity does something - in this case, move the Master Fader and it affects the tracks.

[billw58]

Whether the audio track gain sliders follow the Master Track is a question of whether:
a) The Master Track is a "controller" for the audio tracks.
b) The Master Track is a "post audio track" channel.

Option (b) will be more familiar to users of DAWs and mixing desks.
For Audacity I think I prefer (a) because we are not (conceptually) dealing with real-time routing of audio signals (as is the case with a real-time DAW). In the Audacity model we are dealing with, you do something and Audacity does something - in this case, move the Master Fader and it affects the tracks.

And I prefer (b) for Audacity. We may not be a DAW but I see no reason to go so far from normal DAW behaviour. Also, having the Master Fader adjust the individual track gain sliders would complicate any later addition of fader automation for tracks.

-- Bill

[steve]

And I prefer (b) for Audacity.

I don't have strong opposition to (b). I consider it to be a "detail" of implementation that we can decide on later (with developer input regarding the practicalities of coding it). The main idea that I'm enthusiastic about is that of adding a Master Track/Master Fader combination (as an option).

[waxcylinder]

To be moved to the new FR archive discussion section after a month's quiescence.

Peter.