Adjustable Fade

[waxcylinder]

what we have to remember is that this is not a beginner's tool (or even a tool for the low-skilled to average-skilled user).

I am not sure I agree. The major gap we have is there is nothing between the non-GUI fades and Envelope Tool. I am comfortable with making this low to average skilled, but let's remember that most users are not mathematicians.

Look, I am a mathematician - and I'm still confused by all this

[Gale Andrews]

26C

In 25f:

• the difference between the gain and % choices is clearer
• those who want sliders won't be offended
• you can "store" an alternative set of values if you don't mind changing the units

...

The objections to 26c may be that:

• we have lost the "linear units" (so it may force dB default which will be worse for beginners)
• we have the Nyquist interface issue that text in the box disables the sliders (but I think Nyquist users largely accept that)?

The three +'s from 25f can be accommodated in this design.
We do not need to lose "linear units".

They can't (I think) be accommodated without the much greater complexity of this new suggestion (or at least, without adding another choice control).

I see major problems with linear gain as explained already.

The slider range is 0 to 1, which is the majority of user cases, and intuitively suggests 1 = 100% / unity gain and 0 = 0% / silence.

There is nothing "intuitive" about that for the average user. Those switching from % presets to the sliders could get really confused.

The interface clearly states that ALL other controls are disabled when a preset is selected, so there is little room for confusion there.

I thought we had decided against that model?

As far as I understand what you are proposing, the presets (real ones this time) will be linear. While I like the idea of presets (as you know) and some percentages "to and from" are useful, I think there can never be enough presets for values. Everyone not covered by those presets e.g. "from 80% to 20%" (as per numerous Feature Requests) will be forced into a now much more complicated effect. As an initial reaction, I doubt this is the right approach.

The "Gain Input Method" provides options for:

• Sliders
• Text (gain)
• Text (dB gain)

So the Sliders are Linear gain? If so, the choice should be marked that.

There could be an option for "Text (% of original)" but I don't think that it is necessary (or desirable) as these are intended as "advanced" controls - there are presets for novice users.

I disagree, because too much average level functionality is being pushed into the "advanced" part of the effect.

I think a lot of work will be needed to degeek your latest idea, so my vote remains with 26c at the moment, even if the default has to be dB. At least dB will be safer and more understandable than "linear". There is the same problem with Transcription Toolbar, where some people are confused what 0.5x means and want % choices.


Gale

[yulac]

what we have to remember is that this is not a beginner's tool (or even a tool for the low-skilled to average-skilled user).

I am not sure I agree. The major gap we have is there is nothing between the non-GUI fades and Envelope Tool. I am comfortable with making this low to average skilled, but let's remember that most users are not mathematicians.

Look, I am a mathematician - and I'm still confused by all this

If you mathematician you shold uerstand unity gain and exponential/log, waxcylinder? So what is it you do not uerstand? I am not mathematician but I uerstand some of the concepts math and audio. But if someone like you doesnt uerstand, then the developer should make this simple for all like 26c? And look at how other audio programs give a nice clear ui fade that looks like a user not a developer authored it...

[steve]

And look at how other audio programs give a nice clear ui fade that looks like a user not a developer authored it...

Thanks again for your comments yulac, I wish more users would actively engage in the development process as you have.
I am the developer of this plug-in effect, and yes I'm also an Audacity user.

I have looked at the way that other audio programs give a nice clear UI fade - one that I particularly like is the "Curved Gain" effect in "Rezound", however there are some major differences to consider:

Most other programs approach this type of effect via a graphical (picture) of the fade that is to be produced.
I develop Nyquist plug-ins. I am not a C++ programmer, so I am bound by the limitations of the Audacity/Nyquist interface, which does not support rich graphical UI's.

In most other applications similar effects are not accessible for visually impaired users, but in Audacity we do our utmost to make Audacity accessible for all.

As a sighted user, I would love to be able to make the UI similar to that in Rezound, but Nyquist plug-ins can't do that and it would not be accessible, so we need a different solution.

[steve]

The big problem with dB values on sliders is that the sliders in Nyquist plug-ins are linear scale.
(you usually end up using text input instead of the sliders)

Can this be mitigated to some extent by skewing the scale so it contains the entire useful range (goes above 0)?

I've been looking at the code that creates the Nyquist plug-in interface. I'm not a C++ programmer but it looks to me like it should be possible to have a true logarithmic slider control. If any of the Audacity developers are interested in this I'd love to discuss the possibility with them.

In the mean time we need to work with what we have. If logarithmic sliders are developed later then this (and other) plug-ins could be refined to take advantage of the feature.

[yulac]

And look at how other audio programs give a nice clear ui fade that looks like a user not a developer authored it...

Thanks again for your comments yulac, I wish more users would actively engage in the development process as you have.
I am the developer of this plug-in effect, and yes I'm also an Audacity user.

I have looked at the way that other audio programs give a nice clear UI fade - one that I particularly like is the "Curved Gain" effect in "Rezound", however there are some major differences to consider:

Most other programs approach this type of effect via a graphical (picture) of the fade that is to be produced.
I develop Nyquist plug-ins. I am not a C++ programmer, so I am bound by the limitations of the Audacity/Nyquist interface, which does not support rich graphical UI's.

In most other applications similar effects are not accessible for visually impaired users, but in Audacity we do our utmost to make Audacity accessible for all.

As a sighted user, I would love to be able to make the UI similar to that in Rezound, but Nyquist plug-ins can't do that and it would not be accessible, so we need a different solution.

Yes, but I think from Nyquist wish lists there shall be many defacts and limitations... one defect is that no dropout with the advanced controls and no short controls side to side or nice groupings in own pannel Am I right. So I think your adaption of 26c is no success yet. Ckick track is a bit the same but that shall be easy to uerstand. Adjustable fade is lot of boxes but complicated concepts for some as well --- overload for user ---not maybe such a good mixture.

I hoop if your adaption is used it can be thought some more , it is not right yet (maybe)

Sorry my english

[steve]

If we want a linear gain in the choices then I think it should be called that, probably "Gain (Linear)".

That looks good to me.

Also I am not sure in the 26, 26a, 26b versions that it is clear enough that you can enter positive dB gains (hence my idea of adding "+ or -" in the choice text).

Mostly the requirement will be for "minus" dB.
If I were in a situation where I needed +dB and I was not sure if it was supported or not, I'd try it and see what happens.
Dominic always advocated "discover-ability", which I've always thought of a "trying things out to see what happens. It's probably more important that we declare what the plug-in can't do than spell-out everything that it can.
I'm not against adding "+ or -" in the choice text, but I'm not sure that it is necessary and we need to try to avoid making the interface too cluttered.

Obviously if there was a decent GUI with Nyquist the different values could be more physically separated in some way.

That would be nice

The adaption is too complex again,,,

That's why there are simple presets.
The "complex" controls are there for people that need the additional complexity. If you don't need that complexity then you don't have to worry about it - select a preset and all of the complexity is disabled.

GAIN is dB if I unerstand...

"Gain" is a ratio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain

The interface clearly states that ALL other controls are disabled when a preset is selected, so there is little room for confusion there.

I thought we had decided against that model?

We decided against the model where some of the controls were disabled.
If "some" controls are disabled some of the time, then that is confusing.
If "all" of the controls are disabled and it is clearly stated that "Presets override all other controls", then I see little room for confusion.

Everyone not covered by those presets e.g. "from 80% to 20%" (as per numerous Feature Requests) will be forced into a now much more complicated effect.

That is exactly why we can't get away from the complexity of this effect.
Sometimes a user will want 80% to 20%, sometimes they may way double volume to half volume, sometimes they will want a "higher curve", sometimes they will want a "smooth" ('S' shaped) transition, sometimes they will want something that we've not thought of.
There is no getting away from the fact that providing everything that everyone might want will make this a complex effect.
Providing multiple alternative ways to achieve the same result (for example, choice of linear gain, % or dB) only adds to the complexity.

There could be an option for "Text (% of original)" but I don't think that it is necessary (or desirable) as these are intended as "advanced" controls - there are presets for novice users.

I disagree, because too much average level functionality is being pushed into the "advanced" part of the effect.

but every time I try to implement "average level functionality" you tell me they are too "advanced" and "complicated".
Please - show me the goalposts.

[waxcylinder]

what we have to remember is that this is not a beginner's tool (or even a tool for the low-skilled to average-skilled user).

I am not sure I agree. The major gap we have is there is nothing between the non-GUI fades and Envelope Tool. I am comfortable with making this low to average skilled, but let's remember that most users are not mathematicians.

Look, I am a mathematician - and I'm still confused by all this

If you mathematician you shold uerstand unity gain and exponential/log, waxcylinder? So what is it you do not uerstand? I am not mathematician but I uerstand some of the concepts math and audio. But if someone like you doesnt uerstand, then the developer should make this simple for all like 26c? And look at how other audio programs give a nice clear ui fade that looks like a user not a developer authored it...

Sorry Yulac - I was being a bit facetious and joking there

I understand the jargon and the concepts involved here - what I don't understand fully is how these controls fully interact with each other and more paricularly what the effect is on the processed audio is and why and when you would choose various options. I have no experience of modern mixing desks.

At this stage (in the interest of helping Steve with the testing) I am deliberately trying to stay a a bit of a "naive user".

WC

[steve]

Translated into our current ideas, 25f might like this (v26c):

I don't personally like the use of non-standard notation and terminology in Audacity, but if we were to go with "% of original" as a concession to novice users then what options would we have in the "Fade Type" choice list?

[yulac]

The adaption is too complex again,,,

That's why there are simple presets.
The "complex" controls are there for people that need the additional complexity. If you don't need that complexity then you don't have to worry about it - select a preset and all of the complexity is disabled.

I dont agree steve the presets are too limited yet the remaining of it too hard for average user.

GAIN is dB if I unerstand...

"Gain" is a ratio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain

U don;t uerstand me maybe. Surely the gain in the pannel slidders is dB ... the mouse picture says so. So you must distinguish all the gain choice clearly