Adjustable Fade

[steve]

"Mid-Fade Cut/Boost" will not work with "Log" ....

I've changed my mind about this.
"Mid-Fade Cut/Boost" can work with logarithmic and exponential fades. I'll try it out in the next version.

[Gale Andrews]

"Mid-Fade Cut/Boost" can work with logarithmic and exponential fades. I'll try it out in the next version.

Does this merely mean that those not using presets could have more choice of Fade Types?

Or, that you want a model where all dropdown choices permit access to all the sliders, without one-click presets (so more like the version prior to "#23")?

The rest of this was written assuming users of an expanded set of one-click presets have no access to the other controls.

Most of the extra steps this entails come from having the gain controls specify "Initial" and "final". If there are a sufficient range of presets (8 or 10 being sufficient IMO) then I think it's acceptable that the two gain sliders are either specified as "High" and "Low" or not specified (if we retain the "Fade Direction" control).

Retaining "Fade Direction" saves some extra steps in some cases. It might initially be a little confusing to those using presets, causing them to wonder if they really need to set this as well, but I don't object to it. I still think it should be called Fade In or Out, not Up or Down, even if we call the gain sliders high or low. Otherwise, two identical things are labelled differently.

Labelling of gain sliders
If we specify which gain slider is which and the user enters them the wrong way round, I think just let the plug-in "correct" it.

If we don't specify which slider is which, it might make more problems than it's worth trying to give the sliders an understandable label. I think it would be least confusing to use "High/Low" for an unspecified slider, but I can't think of anything better than

High or Low Gain (dB)
Gain to complete fade (dB)

at the moment.

Presets

I am still not convinced the "Use Presets or Controls" control should default to "Use Controls". A default is usually the most common case, not the least common. If the vast majority want a "quick fade", then the proportion of those that actually want the default preset (Fade In as currently suggested) will be heavily penalised, particularly if they only use it once in a session as part of a workflow. In any case, should a default preset be fade out, if fade outs are more common?

I agree there is a (very slight) downside that if "Use Controls" is not default, it may not be obvious to novices that the presets are presets. If this is deemed serious, I think labelling of the control would solve it, e.g.

Code: Select all

Use Fade Preset ornUse Controls below"

Code: Select all

;control preset "Use Preset [PR] or Controls" choice "Use Controls,PR:Fade In (Linear),PR:Fade Out (Linear),Use Controls" 1

"Use Controls" could still be top of the list as in the above example, to aid discovery.

For the actual presets, you suggest

• Fade In (linear)
• Fade Out (Linear)
• Exponential In
• Exponential Out
• Eq. Power In
• Eq. Power Out
• 'S' Curve In
• 'S' Curve Out

Are you sure we don't need a pair of log presets? I think including presets that are most useful is what matters, but if one or two log presets are useful, we should consider them even if they are "easy to select" with Mid Fade Cut/Boost.

It may be disconcerting if people know that Envelope Tool produces "log fades" and are looking for an easy log preset, but we don't have them (called as such). I would think yes, if we include any explicitly named "exponential" presets we may have to say something in the Manual about Envelope Tool and exponential fades.

Mid-Fade slider
With your new -1/+1 slider, what is the EQ power setting?


Gale

[steve]

Does this merely mean that those not using presets could have more choice of Fade Types?

The log/exp code is not yet complete, so my comment was more of an update on progress and a correction to something that I wrote previously rather than an announcement.

You wanted a "logarithmic" fade, by which I assume you meant what Soundtrack Pro call an "Exponential Fade" as in the Envelope Tool. If we are to have such a fade as a preset (which I think is a good idea if we are to have more presets), then I think it is better to have a proper one rather than the "Simple" curve approximation.

While writing the code, it occurred to me how it would be possible to make it adjustable, which would then make it possible to create logarithmic and exponential fades from the same code. Just because the feature is in the code does not mean that we have to use it, but it does mean that if we want it, either now or at a later date, then the code is in place and is just a matter of enabling it or commenting it out. So yes, those not using presets could have more choices though I don't know how worthwhile that will be until I've tried it. More importantly now is that it provides the code for a preset which you specifically asked for.

If we are to have a logarithmic and/or exponential fade, we really need to decide what we are going to call them. I'm in favour of going with Soundtrack Pro as I think that is technically correct and I think that most people have an idea of what an "exponential decay" is (and/or "exponential growth").

I still think it should be called Fade In or Out, not Up or Down

I've used the terms "Fade In" and "Fade Out" when referring to "fading in from silence" and "fading out to silence".
I've use the terms "Fade Up" and "Fade Down" when referring to "fading from one level up to a higher level" and "Fading from one level down to a lower level". Fading down from say unity gain to -3 dB is not really "fading out", it's just "gone down a bit".

If we don't specify which slider is which, it might make more problems than it's worth trying to give the sliders an understandable label.

I thought the same. In version 24 (not complete yet) it is "High point gain" and "Low point gain". I'll leave it like that for now and it can be updated if anyone thinks of something better.

A default is usually the most common case, not the least common.

It is very unlikely that any of the users will exclusively use one preset - at the very least I'd expect both "In" and "Out" presets to be used. My comment about "fade outs" being more common than "fade ins" was specifically about fading out songs / pieces of music, but there are many other uses of fades. Over all fade uses, fade ins are probably just as common as fade outs.

I agree that if we use a preset as the default, the obvious choice is "Linear Fade In" or "Linear Fade Out", but these are likely to be the two least used options as Audacity already has a faster, more convenient version of these. We can only choose one item as the default and there is a very high probability that it will not be the one that a user wants. Even if we pick the right "shape" it is likely to be in the wrong direction half the time.

On the other hand, anyone using the main features of this effect (the controls) may never need to change this setting. Having "Use Controls" as the default is no hindrance for preset users because much of the time they will need to change it anyway, but it is a positive advantage to everyone else. Choosing one of the presets as a default is little or no advantage to preset users but a disadvantage to everyone else.

Those that actually want the default preset are not penalised in the slightest by having "Use Control" as the default. They are being helped because displaying "Use Controls" the first time that the effect is used reinforces the message "that the controls only work when "enabled" and not for presets".
Not having "Use Controls" as the default does penalise those that want to use the controls (and arguably all those that want to use a different preset).

Are you sure we don't need a pair of log presets?

That depends on what you mean by "log". By "Exponential" I meant as in exponential growth/decay (like the Envelope tool).

With your new -1/+1 slider, what is the EQ power setting?

This effect does not have EQ. I was referring to "Pro Fade Out", which has a first order Butterworth filter with a corner frequency that slides down from half the sample rate to 100 Hz.

[waxcylinder]

With your new -1/+1 slider, what is the EQ power setting?

This effect does not have EQ. I was referring to "Pro Fade Out", which has a first order Butterworth filter with a corner frequency that slides down from half the sample rate to 100 Hz.

Which is why we will still need to have "Pro Fade Out" in addition to this tweakable fade (as it does "stuff" that the tweakable fade doesn't - and no other fade that we currently have does either).

I would also still vote for adding Steve's "Cross-Fade-Classic" too -just because it is so darn simple and effective to use with minimal fuss.

Peter.

[Robert J. H.]

A little side remark.
It is maybe only a possibility for the distant future but nevertheless worth a short reflection.

The idea is the following:
Your plug-in doesn't apply the fades, instead it serves as a setup or editor for the fades for a session. This means:
Under effects there will be the following PLUG-INS :
Fade In
Fade Out
Fade Setup
Cross Fade
In your plug-in the user sets the preferences for the other 3 effects. In this way, You can omit the direction control and the doubled sets of presets (Fade in linear, Fade out linear etc.), because fade out will be the inverse of fade in and crossfade will alternate between successive tracks. The user could thus setup his favorite fade type and afterwards apply the fades with one click or keystroke only, without changing the direction inbetween. If the user calls a fade effect for the first time, a warning could be given out, something like:
"fade type is not yet set. Call 'Fade Setup' to specify one or call the effect again (Ctrl-R) to apply the default linear fade effect."
The settings of the fade setup would be stored in either *scratch*, a text file in the plug-ins themselves or the preference file. It depends on how long the settings should be stored (one session or over several ones). If you find that a bad idea, just ignore this post...

[steve]

The idea is the following:
Your plug-in doesn't apply the fades, instead it serves as a setup or editor for the fades for a session.

What an interesting idea Robert. I agree that it is probably some way off in the future, but a very interesting idea.

[waxcylinder]

The idea is the following:
Your plug-in doesn't apply the fades, instead it serves as a setup or editor for the fades for a session.

What an interesting idea Robert....

+1

Yup that was an interesting -off-the-wall way of looking at the problem; like it.

[steve]

"Mid-Fade Cut/Boost" can work with logarithmic and exponential fades. I'll try it out in the next version.

Does this merely mean that those not using presets could have more choice of Fade Types?

A bit more progress on the log/exponential fades.

I need to do more testing, but at the moment I think that I'll leave this just as a preset in this plug-in. I may put it into version 24 for a second opinion but as a variable curve I don't think that it offers much that is sufficiently different from what is already available.

This is, however, extremely good for cross-fading because the curve shape is a little more "pointed" than other curves. I guess it's not really surprising that curves based on logarithms are good for crossfades. I can definitely use this bit of code in a future cross-fade effect.

[steve]

A little side remark.
It is maybe only a possibility for the distant future but nevertheless worth a short reflection.
...

I've copied this post to a new topic so that it doesn't get lost: http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic ... 74#p192974

[steve]

Or, that you want a model where all dropdown choices permit access to all the sliders, without one-click presets (so more like the version prior to "#23")?

The main feature requested on the wiki is:

Fade In/Fade Out:

• New controls for start and end amplitude - quick linear fade from say 0.8 to 0.2, much simpler and quicker than the Envelope Tool (and VI-accessible)

so I think this feature should be central to the plug-in, as in version 23.

Generally I like presets in plug-ins, but they can become problematic in Nyquist plug-ins as the interface does not support either the controls reacting to the preset, or greying out of disabled controls.

The purpose of presets in any program is to provide convenient access to commonly used settings.
I think that we can go back to a layout similar to version 23 (which looks like the favourite so far) if we add logarithmic and exponential fades.

Using the "Soundtrack Pro" terminology, the logarithmic fade could be configured to provide an "Equal Power" curve when Mid-Fade level is zero.
This then provides the following "preset" shapes when Mid-fade is at the default (zero):

• Linear
• "S" curve
• Logarithmic (Eq Power)
• Exponential

Fade in and fade out versions of each preset could be selected by choosing "Fade In" or "Fade Out".

I think this would provide a sufficient number of presets without having a separate "non-adjustable preset" selection.