Regular Interval Region Labels

[steve]

This is my latest version. I've not added label name options or region label options yet, so it just has the necessary controls for placing the labels.

regularintervals.png (21.63 KiB) Viewed 2786 times

Time to place first label: as in old versions.

Label placement method: "Fit closest interval" is the default. Same as "Label placement method = interval" + "Adjust label interval to fit length = Yes".
The other menu items include:

• Exact intervals: Each interval is the exact length specified.
• Fit number of labels: Same as "Number of labels" in old version.

"Exact intervals:" is equivalent to "Label placement method = interval" + "Adjust label interval to fit length = No".

As in the old version, "Fit closest interval" may give intervals larger or smaller than the size specified by the user (whichever is closest).
However, I imagine that there will be cases where the user wants the label intervals to be no more than a specified duration, for example if they want to fit a long recording on low capacity media (Anyone still use cassettes? More modern examples could include embedded systems or hardware samplers), or if they want to upload somewhere where there is a file size limit. In other words, the interval specified by the user is the maximum interval.

To cater for this case, an additional "Label placement method" option could be added: "Maximum interval".
In this case, the largest interval to fit the selection, less than the specified interval, will be used.

As an example, If the selection is 10 seconds and the specified interval is 3 seconds.
"Fit closest interval" will produce intervals of 3.333 seconds (the closest exact fit to 3 seconds)
"Maximum Interval" will produce intervals of 2.5 seconds (the largest exact fit less than 3 seconds)


The options for "Final label at:" are "Start of interval" or "End of interval".

[steve]

What should the behaviour be if the specified interval is longer than the selection?

Currently we throw an error.
I think this is reasonable because it is likely to be due to user error.

Logically and practically there is no need to throw an error.
If we are "fitting the closest interval" then the closest interval will be equal to the selection length, so 1 label if we mark the start of the final label, or 2 labels if we also mark the end.
If we are using a "maximum interval", then the same as "closest interval".
If we are using "Exact interval", then no intervals will fit so the logical result is no labels.

Personally I'm happy to throw an error message as I expect that it will only be triggered as a result of user error, but just wanting to check if anyone thinks we should take the more "logical" approach.

[steve]

Here is a version using the proposed "placement" method.
For simplicity I have stripped out all of the "advanced" options such as region labels, start time, label name, label numbering...

equalabel3.ny

Simplified Regular Interval Labels v3.

(9.5 KiB) Downloaded 98 times

[Gale Andrews]

If you'd like some examples:

I'm not into drum loops, but I still don't see the need to specify label interval and number of labels.


Gale

[Gale Andrews]

The way that I'm looking at regular interval labels is that users will either want the final label at the start of the final interval: or they want a label at the end of the final interval:

I think they just want the "final" label where the simple minded would expect the "final" label - abutting the end of the selection. But that is really an "extra" label IMO.

Are you going to reinstate region labels when we decide if these new complexities are worth it? I thought region labels was a good idea.


Gale

[steve]

I'm not into drum loops, but I still don't see the need to specify label interval and number of labels.

It's not really important here because I don't intend to add that feature to this plug-in - there is already a "bars and beats" plug-in that can do that (though I was hoping to make that a "Tools" type plug-in so that it could run without an audio track selection).

In brief, if you're making a very simple drum track, you may have 4 drum phrases - two for the main part of the song (2 so that there is a bit of variety), a "fill" which is a twiddly bit at the end of a verse or chorus, and an ending. A typical song is likely to be in 8, 12 or 16 bar phrases, often in rondo form (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, end). If you create a structure with a label track, then you can just drop in all of the "fills" in appropriate places, then add the in-between phrases. It is often useful to sketch out the complete form first and then refine it rather than strictly working bar 1, bar 2, bar 3.... in order.

If you want to get an idea about this use case, have a look at e-jay or similar (I think that e-jay provide free demo versions).

[steve]

I think they just want the "final" label where the simple minded would expect the "final" label - abutting the end of the selection. But that is really an "extra" label IMO.

It's two ways of looking at the same thing.

If you are putting up fence posts at regular intervals, you have one at the start and you may need one at the end, or the end of the fence may attach to an existing structure. If there is one at the end then there will be one more post than fence panel. If there is not one at the end then there are the same number of posts as panels. The question is how you count them. Do you count the posts (in which case the answer is the number of posts) or do you count the fence panels (in which case the number of posts is either the number of panels, or the number of panels + 1).

back to labels...

If the user specifies the number of labels, then I think they should get that number of labels, not one more. So we are counting the "posts" not the "panels".
I also think that the plug-in needs to be consistent (it becomes impossible to name things if it is not consistent).
So with this scheme we are not adding "one more label", we are either labelling to the start of the last region, or to the end of the last region and the user gets the number of labels specified.

Are you going to reinstate region labels when we decide if these new complexities are worth it? I thought region labels was a good idea.

I don't see it as "new complexities". I see it as "simplifications". The plug-in produces predictable results, for example, if they ask for 10 labels then they get 10 labels, not "10 or 11" labels.
There is a little extra functionality in that the user can now specify the maximum label interval. I think this option is worth having, in fact I'm a little surprised that there have not been complaints that "fitting" sometimes creates longer sections than the specified interval.

Yes, hopefully region labels can be added back, as can custom label names and numbering. Most of the code is already written, we just need to agree on which features we want.

[steve]

Does this have legs?

[steve]

I've searched through the forum and on-line for occurrences of use cases for regular interval labels.
By far the most common use case that came up was "Splitting a long recording for CD tracks".
The case given in the manual (Distributing a large file on the internet) was the next most common.

For both of these cases, 60 seconds seems to be rather a short default. About 3 minutes would seem to be more appropriate.

There have also been some "bug reports" and feature requests:

1. "Or: Number of Labels" does not work. (user error) The user adjusted the slider for "Number of Labels" but had not selected that option in the drop-down.
2. "Number from" can be negative. A feature request for numbering to only be positive numbers.
3. Feature request: Allow more than "100" in "Number of labels".
4. Feature request: Allow "Begin numbering from" to be greater than 100.
5. Feature request: Split at closest silence.
6. Comma not accepted as decimal separator.

I think that combing the "Label intervals or number of labels" helps to avoid (1).
(2) seems like a reasonable request as I have not found any use cases where negative numbers might be required. This is implemented in the attached version but could be removed if there is demand.
(3) and (4) are resolved by making the controls text input like the other numeric controls.

I think that (5) would be better handled in an "advanced sound finder" plug-in rather than in "Regular Interval Labels".

There is currently no perfect solution for (6) as Nyquist is not yet locale aware. The best compromise I can think of is to allow dot or comma as decimal separator (regardless of locale).


Although there appears to be little interest on the forum, I hope I have not been wasting my time in completing this new version.
The other new features in version 4 are to accommodate the various use cases described previously in this topic.

[Gale Andrews]

I've searched through the forum and on-line for occurrences of use cases for regular interval labels.
By far the most common use case that came up was "Splitting a long recording for CD tracks".

Yes - the only feature requests I've seen for Regular Interval Labels are to put a "regular labels" feature into Silence Finder. There are only two "votes" and not yet on the Wiki.

The case given in the manual (Distributing a large file on the internet) was the next most common.

For both of these cases, 60 seconds seems to be rather a short default. About 3 minutes would seem to be more appropriate.

On the face of it, that seems reasonable.

Are these use cases smallish numbers?

I've seen a few use cases in my inbox that make 20 - 60 seconds a reasonable default, such as muzak for automated telephone messages, advertising jingles, or making more manageable sections for editing (but that would be better with region labels).

[*]"Number from" can be negative. A feature request for numbering to only be positive numbers.

I don't follow that. If they don't want a negative number, don't add a minus sign.

I wouldn't remove that. I know people who use that for a special purpose such as the first few files are lead-ins of some sort, indicated by a negative number in the file name.

Feature request: Split at closest silence.[...] would be better handled in an "advanced sound finder" plug-in rather than in "Regular Interval Labels".

I'm inclined to agree - though it shows again that some people want some kind of combination of silence splitting and equalized length.

Comma not accepted as decimal separator.
There is currently no perfect solution as Nyquist is not yet locale aware. The best compromise I can think of is to allow dot or comma as decimal separator (regardless of locale).

Personally I am fine with people using the separator that accords with the regional environment they set the computer to. If we wanted choice of separator irrespective of locale I think we'd have to offer it for all effects, shipped or not.

Although there appears to be little interest on the forum, I hope I have not been wasting my time in completing this new version.

So is your latest attachment the one you are now promoting, Steve?

To someone used to the current Regular Interval Labels, I would be worried about them coming across the new one and saying WTF

OK they can use it and try and figure out the option they want to use (and which one is the option they were using before) but the names used for the options convey little to me.

The reductions in the number of controls may be good, but the new feature for region labels which is likely to be useful should I think be in any new version.


Gale