On 02/04/2013 06:51 AM, Tim E. Real wrote:
> On February 3, 2013 12:08:21 PM Robert Jonsson wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> 2013/2/3 Florian Jung <[email protected]>:
>>> Geoff Beasley <[email protected]> schrieb:
>>>> These are biggies for me with audio objects. Muse really has to have
>>>> them to be truely useful. It's very good as it is, but these two things
>>>>
>>>> would really make Muse important for audio work on Linux.
>>>>
>>>> I'll just keep mentioning them ;)
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> g.
>>>>
>>> hi geoff,
>>> i agree. however, i'm not such an audio guy, can you please explain me or
>>> give an example how exactly it shall work? (what's a handle, e.g.?)
>>>
>>> greetings
>>> flo
>> If I recall correctly there was a conversation about this sometime
>> last year also so there should be something in the archives.
>>
>> Googling for "fade handles" and selecting image search gives lots of
>> screenshots of how it may look.
>> Here's one from Qtractor: http://www.slackermedia.info/qtractor/Q8a.png
>> The idea is to give an easy way to fade in and out a wave part.
>>
>> A variant is the cross fade where the fade would affect two tracks,
>> one track would fade in and the other would fade out. (couldn't find a
>> screenshot)
>> Imagine for instance having recorded the same guitar part twice on two
>> different tracks. None of them are perfect but using bits from both
>> would give a good result, cross fades would make this easier to
>> achieve.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Robert
>>
> Yes, fading and cross fading are very important, a feature that I use a lot,
>   being imperfect and having a lot of takes that I need to inter-mingle.
>
> So I spent several hours yesterday revisiting this topic.
>
> Without rambling on too much... Read all before commenting...
>
> I have in my mind an outline of how to proceed.
>
> Class Part will gain a new std map list called, say, Fades.
>
> A Fade item can be either a fade in or a fade out.
> Fades are a percentage or factor, applied to the volume graph,
>   not an absolute volume level
> Ideally we should allow fading to a specific percentage, but failing
>   that fades will be from 100% volume to 0% volume.
>
> By default, fade times will have a user adjustable standard time,
>   a fraction of a second, but if desired they can stretch the time out
>   for longer periods.
> Having a default fade time saves users from having to always
>   adjust the time manually for every fade they add.
>
> It is important to allow these operations for overlapping parts
>   on the *same* track, as I often have.
>
> So how will it work?
>
> The user can add fade in and fade out items separately.
> In addition, by placing the play head at a desired point,
>   and selecting *two* parts - even on the *same* track -
>   then clicking a button "Cross-fade", then MusE will
>   automatically create *both* a fade in and a fade out item for
>   the two selected parts respectively, at the chosen position.
>
> Also, by utilizing the range cursors, MusE could automatically
>   create a fade in and a fade out item on one single part,
>   meaning a fade in or fade out 'region' between the chosen range.
>
> I feel it is extremely important that fading *not* be made part
>   of the Track Volume automation graphs.
> That is, fading should be a completely separate percentage
>   *applied* to the existing volume graph, but certainly not
>   made part of the graph itself.
> This makes it easy to keep your existing automation graphs
>   without adding clumsy cluttering fade points to them,
>   which is the current rather tedious method.
>
> Drawing the fades will be fun. Got some ideas there.
> I imagine we'll do the ol' dark shading thing to represent them.
> I also imagine that the *appearance* of the waves themselves
>   will be gradually tapered to follow the envelope of the fade.
> So the user will see what the true wave looks like, being tapered.
> Although we may want to provide some kind of switch for that,
>   since users may want to see the complete wave at all times,
>   not tapered.
> Tapering the waves also allows the user to see better two
>   overlapping waves cross-faded on the same track.
> If we taper the waves, we could even taper the rectangular
>   shape of the part - parts might no longer be rectangular!
> I've seen this in some apps. Ah well, eye candy...
>
> Since midi parts derive from class Part, putting this new
>   'Fades' map into the class Part means we can also apply fades
>   to *midi* parts !
> Again, all without disturbing the actual automation graphs.
>
> So, the only tricky thing is:
> Graphically selecting, moving, and manipulating these fade items.
> We'd likely need a new tool mode icon similar to the automation
>   tool mode, so users can manipulate these fade items.
> And we have all the challenges associated with selecting, moving etc.
>   that we currently have with audio automation graphs.
> Which is as we all know not an easy thing to tackle.
>
> Well just some ideas to chew on.
> Later.
> Tim.

love the sound of all that Tim ;)

Q: do we really need another mouse mode tho? I think they are a bit 
90's. And frankly I try not to use them unless I'm forced to. The mouse 
should be able to do what I need in the standard mode anywhere on the 
canvas imho.

anyhoo, bring it on !!


best

g

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 
and get the hardware for free! Learn more.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb
_______________________________________________
Lmuse-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmuse-developer

Reply via email to