Why does "Graphic EQ" remove previous Envelope edit?

Help for Audacity on Windows.
Forum rules
ImageThis forum is for Audacity on Windows.
Please state which version of Windows you are using,
and the exact three-section version number of Audacity from "Help menu > About Audacity".


Audacity 1.2.x and 1.3.x are obsolete and no longer supported. If you still have those versions, please upgrade at https://www.audacityteam.org/download/.
The old forums for those versions are now closed, but you can still read the archives of the 1.2.x and 1.3.x forums.
Post Reply
LeeX
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:24 am
Operating System: Windows 10

Why does "Graphic EQ" remove previous Envelope edit?

Post by LeeX » Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:02 am

Hi,

I'm using Windows version 2.3.3.

Here is what I did:

(1) use Envelope tool to edit a section of a track, and get this:
2.JPG
2.JPG (31.59 KiB) Viewed 121 times

(2) then use "Graphic EQ" to apply -9.9dB at 10KHz (or whatever) to the same section of the track. After apply Graphic EQ edit, the previous Envelope edit gets removed:
1.JPG
1.JPG (30.49 KiB) Viewed 121 times

Can someone please tell me why Graphic EQ edit removes previous Envelope edit, and how to avoid it?

Thanks & regards,
Lee

steve
Site Admin
Posts: 81649
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Re: Why does "Graphic EQ" remove previous Envelope edit?

Post by steve » Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:43 am

It's a bug, and it is already recorded on the Audacity bug tracker.
One possible workaround is to "apply" the envelope (using "Tracks > Mix > Mix and Render") before applying EQ. The downside is that it makes the envelope permanent rather than editable.
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

LeeX
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:24 am
Operating System: Windows 10

Re: Why does "Graphic EQ" remove previous Envelope edit?

Post by LeeX » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:47 am

Thank you for your confirmation and information. I prefer keeping Envelope editable if possible as we may need to re-edit it again later. Is there any plan to fix it in next release?

Thanks & regards,
Lee

waxcylinder
Forum Staff
Posts: 14687
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:03 am
Operating System: Windows 10

Re: Why does "Graphic EQ" remove previous Envelope edit?

Post by waxcylinder » Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:27 am

I changed this from a ENH enhancement to an actual bug in the bugtracker and upgraded it to P3, adding a Release Note and a Workaround:
https://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1686

Peter
________________________________________FOR INSTANT HELP: (Click on Link below)
* * * * * FAQ * * * * * Tutorials * * * * * Audacity Manual * * * * *

LeeX
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:24 am
Operating System: Windows 10

Re: Why does "Graphic EQ" remove previous Envelope edit?

Post by LeeX » Sat Jun 20, 2020 5:43 pm

Thank you for the information.

The workaround (i.e. "apply" the envelope using "Tracks > Mix > Mix and Render" before applying EQ) works. It lets EQ be applied without removing existing Envelope.

However I notice another issue after using the above mentioned workaround. Please see screenshots and questions below.


(1) This is the section before I use the workaround on the track (i.e. before running "Tracks > Mix > Mix and Render"):
before_Mix-and-Render.JPG
before_Mix-and-Render.JPG (20.31 KiB) Viewed 89 times

(2) This is the same section after I use the workaround:
after_Mix-and-Render.JPG
after_Mix-and-Render.JPG (22.14 KiB) Viewed 89 times

Two questions:
Q1: why does this workaround amplify track so much, so clippings (red lines) are added? This will reduce sound quality and add some noise, right?
Q2: In order to minimize such impact (i.e. amplify track and add clippings). Would it be possible to apply this workaround to only the section where I need to apply EQ on top of existing Envelope? So the rest sections of the track won't be changed by the workaround. I guess the answer is "No" as the workaround "Tracks > Mix..." is for the track, but just to confirm it with you.

Thanks & regards,
Lee

Post Reply