New version of "Crossfade Tracks"

[Gale Andrews]

or rather than making that an option?

Are you requesting an option:
"If start of selection is equal distance from the start of the track as the end of the selection from the end of the track, then: Fade-In / Fade-out"

If I am understanding that correctly, it would not seem to help the case I have where I want to crossfade the entire standalone clip and the end of the selection is the end of the track (and the project). Do you mean the standalone clip would have to be centered with respect to the other track?

Of course if I had the standalone clip at the start of project, I would not have seen this "problem" if the standalone clip was fully selected. The problem would occur with the standalone at the start of the project if the selection in the standalone was not "mainly" to right of centre. It would occur in the setup in my image whenever the selection is not "mainly" to left of centre.

you could simply drag the second track above the first track

Scrap that - it's been a long day.

You could extend the selection just a tiny bit to the right (as little as one sample distance is enough)

Yes if you zoom in that far. If you don't zoom in, and so extend the selection a long way, the fade is affected.

The reason that I want the fade direction to be automatic is because if you have a lot of crossfades to perform, then you can simply repeat the effect, which is extremely efficient and convenient.

It would be nice if a behaviour rule could be devised to avoid adding an option, but do you see a rule that would cover the cases described here?

Should there be a "Fade Direction" option such as

* Based on selection position (default)
* First track fades in, next fades out

I assume the non-default option would have to be that and not e.g. "Always crossfade adjacent tracks".


Gale

[steve]

Should there be a "Fade Direction" option such as

* Based on selection position (default)
* First track fades in, next fades out

I considered many such schemes, but they all become excruciatingly complicated if we attempt to cover all cases.
If we have those two options (above), then surely we would also want "First track fades out, next track fades in".

What about a case where the user wants to fade out the full duration of one audio clip and fade in the full duration of another, and the two audio clips are not entirely overlapping?

tracks009.png (18.28 KiB) Viewed 1037 times

or if they want to crossfade like this:

tracks010.png (18.25 KiB) Viewed 1037 times

or like this:

tracks011.png (18.15 KiB) Viewed 1037 times

or like this:

tracks012.png (18.13 KiB) Viewed 1037 times

What I'm proposing is something that works really well for the most common case and not worry about other 0.01% oddball cases (for which there are other tools available. Better to do one thing well than many things badly.

By the way, I forgot to mention that the posted NY file is only intended as a demo for review purposes - it's not the finished thing.

[steve]

It would be nice if a behaviour rule could be devised to avoid adding an option, but do you see a rule that would cover the cases described here?

Dealing with that one case would be resolve by making the default "Fade In" rather than "Fade Out", but of course that would not work if the first track was entirely selected.

I don't see that there can be any way for the effect to guess what the user wants here:

tracks013.png (20.5 KiB) Viewed 1038 times

We could perhaps have a choice control:
If only one track selected: Fade Out / Fade In

fullwindow-Crossfade Tracks2-000.png (20.99 KiB) Viewed 1038 times

I'm not sure that I actually like this idea, but it's a possibility.

Is this case really common enough to be worth bothering with, or could it just be documented as a limitation?

[steve]

Is this case really common enough to be worth bothering with, or could it just be documented as a limitation?

Unless you have a strong objection, I think that I'll go with documenting the limitation for now.
I have a further improvement in mind that will behave better with your example (and similar cases), but currently it is blocked by bug 865 (Nyquist effects render white-space as silence). Bug 865 is definitely fixable because Leland wrote a "proof of concept" fix for it that worked, but that has not yet made its way into the code base, so it's just a matter of time.

The release version will of course work on stereo tracks (the demo posted is mono tracks only).

How I'd like this to work eventually, is that the fade is applied to the "audio clip" closest to the selection.
In the "normal" case, the effect will behave like the demo posted in this thread.
In the case of you example, the user can extend the selection to the right, and the result will be like this (currently not possible due to bug 865):

tracks014.png (17.11 KiB) Viewed 1017 times

[Gale Andrews]

Is this case really common enough to be worth bothering with, or could it just be documented as a limitation?

Unless you have a strong objection, I think that I'll go with documenting the limitation for now.

Certainly it must be documented as a limitation, if there are no "fixes", and a workaround suggested (it seems the best workaround is use another effect).

I doubt crossfading with a standalone clip is as low as a 0.001% (or similar) occurrence. The currently released effect does this very well. Are you completely convinced the improvements the new effect delivers (and could deliver with Nyquist fixes) are better than the currently released effect? That is not pejorative, if you are convinced, OK.

Like you I don't much like "If only one track selected: Fade Out / Fade In" in a crossfade tracks (plural) effect.

What about a case where the user wants to fade out the full duration of one audio clip and fade in the full duration of another, and the two audio clips are not entirely overlapping?

That "kind of" works with the currently released effect, but you don't get a complete fade.

If there was an option for "Fade out first track, fade in next", it would work with the new effect (but you would have to change the option). Yes OK, we would also need "Fade in first track, fade out next".

But isn't "Fade out first track, fade in next" actually the most common case, more so than fade in first, and more so than working on more than two tracks (where we get the main benefit of making the selection determine the fade direction)?

I have a further improvement in mind that will behave better with your example (and similar cases), but currently it is blocked by bug 865 (Nyquist effects render white-space as silence). Bug 865 is definitely fixable because Leland wrote a "proof of concept" fix for it that worked, but that has not yet made its way into the code base, so it's just a matter of time.

[...] How I'd like this to work eventually, is that the fade is applied to the "audio clip" closest to the selection.
In the "normal" case, the effect will behave like the demo posted in this thread.
In the case of you example, the user can extend the selection to the right, and the result will be like this (currently not possible due to bug 865):

That's fine if the user understands how the effect works (by reading the Manual or by experimentation). Some users may find it easier to understand "first track fades out, next fades in".

And if we ever get into shortcuts applying specific parameters of an effect, and Repeat Last Effect being able to switch the parameters of an effect without opening the effect, the objections about having fade direction options would be removed.


Gale

[steve]

it seems the best workaround is use another effect

Yes, and there's no shortage of options.
If I recall correctly, you generally preferred the "Crossfade Clips" effect. If the user does not mind the crossfade being "permanent", then putting both clips onto one track and using Crrossfade Clips is one option. Fade In / Fade Out is another (for linear fades) or Adjustable Fade, or the Envelope tool (Yuk).

As I said previously, the primary purpose of this effect is for crossfading tracks - for example, making a DJ mix, or a compilation CD, or a "mashup". In such cases, "fade out before fade in" is probably a little more common (I'd guess no more than 60:40).

I used to do a lot of "mashup" type mixes when preparing soundtracks for theatrical performances. For that type of work, having to put the fade-out track above the fade-in track each time is not a practical option. It is easier to just make the crossfades manually (which is what I did). The new effect would be a godsend for that type of task.

Probably also worth noting that with real-world audio, the case that you gave is likely to be far less problematic than with test tones.

Example:
If these are the track and we want to crossfade "all" of the lower clip

tracks015.png (23.39 KiB) Viewed 989 times

It almost certainly does not make a significant difference to make the selection like this;

tracks016.png (23.67 KiB) Viewed 989 times

and the resulting crossfade:

tracks017.png (22.72 KiB) Viewed 989 times

After which you can trim or silence the "missed bit" of the first track:

tracks018.png (22.55 KiB) Viewed 989 times

That takes slightly longer than with the current effect, but I think is more than made up for by the convenience when crossfading lots of audio clips like this (which can now be done in just a few seconds once the pieces are positioned).

tracks019.png (35.36 KiB) Viewed 989 times

[steve]

Certainly it must be documented as a limitation, if there are no "fixes"...

There is a possible "fix", but I'm not sure how best to implement it. I'm inviting suggestions...

IF the "two track only" limitation is reinstated, then we could have a control:

Track to fade out: (choice) Auto / Top / Bottom
or
Track to fade out: (choice) Auto / First / Second

The disadvantage of this is that it reimposes the "two track only" limitation (so we're just replacing one limitation with another).

The benefit of removing the "two track only" limitation is not only that it allows crossfading multiple tracks (which I agree is an unusual fringe case), but because it allows the crossfade to be made to one track at a time. Applying the effect to one track at a time is a useful feature because it allows the effect to be used for several types of "non-typical" use cases.

Also, it is unusual (inconsistent) for effects to disallow processing of an arbitrary number of tracks.

One example where processing one track at a time is required was previously shown here:

• We could make the "two track only" requirement apply only when the fade direction is applied manually (not a good solution).
• We could change the requirement to "no more than two tracks". This is a little better in terms of flexibility, but then the option to set the second track to fade out does not make sense (alternative wording for the fade direction control?).

[steve]

I think that my favourite solution so far is to have an option:

Fade direction: (choice) Automatic, | Alternate Out/In, | Alternate In/Out

This could be implemented without reinstating the "two track only" rule. Any better ideas?

fullwindow-Crossfade Tracks2-001.png (31.38 KiB) Viewed 986 times

[steve]

I think that my favourite solution so far is to have an option:

Fade direction: (choice) Automatic / Alternate Out/In / Alternate In/Out

Yes, I think I like this. Feel free to give it a whirl and comment. I've added an updated version HERE (direct link).

[steve]

By the way, thanks Gale for bouncing ideas. I think that the latest version is a definite improvement.