Improving waveform dB vertical scale

[Paul L]

There are only a few choices for the bottom of the scale in preferences. Would there be any special difficulty in letting you choose any dB value within certain bounds?

There are also no gradations for the negative part of the wave.

[kozikowski]

I think the negative gradations is an old, valid complaint of mine. It didn't bubble up to the top because I never use Waveform dB and I suspect few other people do, either. It's harder to edit in dB, almost impossible if you are in values higher than 60.

The dB range matches the meters. If it didn't I think you might derive contradictory information. That's bad enough now with the blue waves in percent and the meters in dB.

"How come the sound meters are still flashing, but there aren't any blue waves?"
(... and variations on the above.)

Koz

[Paul L]

I never use Waveform dB and I suspect few other people do, either. It's harder to edit in dB, almost impossible if you are in values higher than 60.

It is my favorite view for editing voice! I do not understand why you think it is "harder to edit." I like how little crackles are more easily seen, and I like it how drops in volume between syllables become very steep sided.

That is, using a scale of 60. But having some setting between 60 and 96 would be even better.

[steve]

There are also no gradations for the negative part of the wave.

That's a long standing complaint, but unfortunately I think it is hard to fix. If you want to have a go then I can show you where it is in the code, but beyond that I get completely lost. It is not easy code.

What I would like is an option for dB on the "normal" linear view (as is more usual in other audio editors), but that's not easy either.

[Paul L]

Do you know why I can't choose any lower limit between -60 and -96, Steve? Someone told me it complicates the math, but I don't get why it would.

[Paul L]

I guess another good question about views, is why the dB floor or the spectrogram window or window type can't be varied independently among tracks. But of course that means somehow adding controls to tracks.

[steve]

Do you know why I can't choose any lower limit between -60 and -96, Steve? Someone told me it complicates the math, but I don't get why it would.

If this is what you mean, then it's rather easy:

dbrange.png (46.51 KiB) Viewed 2701 times

[Paul L]

Ah, I should get out of 2.0.3 one of these days.

But why discrete choices anyway?

[steve]

I should get out of 2.0.3 one of these days.

But why discrete choices anyway?

Why not?
Do you want a slider? or text input? or a rotary control?
I don't see that it makes much difference while the control is hidden away in Preferences.
I guess the developer though that half a dozen options was enough.

There is a feature request on the wiki:

Control for Meter/Waveform (dB) display range on the fly instead of in global preferences (2 votes) Cascading menu item "Meter/Waveform dB range > " in the right-click meter menu?

Do you want to vote for that?

[steve]

I agree that the current list of options for dB range has a bit of a gap:

• 36 dB (shallow range for high-amplitude editing)
• 48 dB (PCM range of 8 bit samples)
• 60 dB (PCM range of 10 bit samples)
• 96 dB (PCM range of 16 bit samples)
• 120 dB (approximate limit of human hearing)
• 145 dB (PCM range of 24 bit samples)

In case it is of use to anyone, I've attached a patch that fills that gap to give:

• 36 dB (shallow range for high-amplitude editing)
• 48 dB (PCM range of 8 bit samples)
• 60 dB (PCM range of 10 bit samples)
• 72 dB (PCM range of 12 bit samples)
• 84 dB (PCM range of 14 bit samples)
• 96 dB (PCM range of 16 bit samples)
• 120 dB (approximate limit of human hearing)
• 145 dB (PCM range of 24 bit samples)