Quantcast

Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Peter Sampson-2
Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
little canter around the paddock.


1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we should be removing
the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.

As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both effects side-by-side
in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing "Vocal Removal"
as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."


2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the very least make it
disabled by default (like Classic Filters). 

That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by enabling it.  We would
advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the legacy effect to the
Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)



Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a nomenclature change for Robert's
newer effect.

Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3 development cycle:
>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want to do.

+1

Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that Robert didn't name
it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove ..." entries in the
Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it thus as a
"removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.

And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
of them are likely to choose VR&I.

Peter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Peter Sampson-2

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
little canter around the paddock.


1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we should be removing
the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.

As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both effects side-by-side
in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing "Vocal Removal"
as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."


2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the very least make it
disabled by default (like Classic Filters). 

That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by enabling it.  We would
advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the legacy effect to the
Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)



Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a nomenclature change for Robert's
newer effect.

Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3 development cycle:
>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want to do.

+1

Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that Robert didn't name
it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove ..." entries in the
Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it thus as a
"removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.

And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
of them are likely to choose VR&I.

Peter.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Peter Sampson-2
Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
(Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.

He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
not everyone RTFM.

I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
don't work with the default choice.

If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.

I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.



Gale


On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
> little canter around the paddock.
>
>
> 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we should
> be removing
> the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>
> As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both effects
> side-by-side
> in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing
> "Vocal Removal"
> as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>
>
> 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the very
> least make it
> disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>
> That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by
> enabling it.  We would
> advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the
> legacy effect to the
> Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>
>
>
> Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a nomenclature
> change for Robert's
> newer effect.
>
> Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3
> development cycle:
>>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want to
>> do.
>
> +1
>
> Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that Robert
> didn't name
> it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove ..."
> entries in the
> Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it thus
> as a
> "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>
> And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
> For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
> fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
> of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>
> Peter.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Stevethefiddle


On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
(Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.

Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic: https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound for centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
 

He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
not everyone RTFM.

I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.

In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new effect as Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the cons.

Steve
 

I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
don't work with the default choice.

If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.

I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.



Gale


On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
> little canter around the paddock.
>
>
> 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we should
> be removing
> the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>
> As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both effects
> side-by-side
> in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing
> "Vocal Removal"
> as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>
>
> 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the very
> least make it
> disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>
> That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by
> enabling it.  We would
> advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the
> legacy effect to the
> Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>
>
>
> Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a nomenclature
> change for Robert's
> newer effect.
>
> Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3
> development cycle:
>>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want to
>> do.
>
> +1
>
> Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that Robert
> didn't name
> it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove ..."
> entries in the
> Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it thus
> as a
> "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>
> And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
> For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
> fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
> of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>
> Peter.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Robert Hänggi
Just to repeat myself for the xth time.
I'm using a version of the Vocal reduction and isolation tool that
includes the legacy effect for over a year.
I've posted it hear several times.
Here is it once more:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0yqlue4ud7ujb2r/vocalrediso.ny?dl=1

I have to read what's in the topic and why the extended algorithm
should have failed where the legacy did not.
However, this isn't an excuse since the old effect is the first entry
in the effect just posted.

Robert

On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>>
>
> Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
> https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
> the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound for
> centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>
>
>>
>> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
>> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> not everyone RTFM.
>>
>
> I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused
> controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
> I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.
>
> In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new effect as
> Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the
> cons.
>
> Steve
>
>
>>
>> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
>> don't work with the default choice.
>>
>> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>>
>> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
>> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >
>> >
>> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we
>> should
>> > be removing
>> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >
>> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both
>> effects
>> > side-by-side
>> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing
>> > "Vocal Removal"
>> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the
>> very
>> > least make it
>> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >
>> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by
>> > enabling it.  We would
>> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the
>> > legacy effect to the
>> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> nomenclature
>> > change for Robert's
>> > newer effect.
>> >
>> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3
>> > development cycle:
>> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want
>> >> to
>> >> do.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> > Robert
>> > didn't name
>> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove
>> > ..."
>> > entries in the
>> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it
>> thus
>> > as a
>> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >
>> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
>> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
>> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >
>> > Peter.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Robert Hänggi
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>>
>
> Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
> https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
> the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound for
> centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>
There doesn't seem to be a comparison between vocal remover and vocal reduction.
Did you mean between the heuristic and our algorithm (be it stereo or
mono output)?

Robert

>
>>
>> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
>> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> not everyone RTFM.
>>
>
> I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused
> controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
> I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.
>
> In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new effect as
> Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the
> cons.
>
> Steve
>
>
>>
>> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
>> don't work with the default choice.
>>
>> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>>
>> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
>> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >
>> >
>> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we
>> should
>> > be removing
>> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >
>> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both
>> effects
>> > side-by-side
>> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing
>> > "Vocal Removal"
>> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the
>> very
>> > least make it
>> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >
>> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by
>> > enabling it.  We would
>> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the
>> > legacy effect to the
>> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> nomenclature
>> > change for Robert's
>> > newer effect.
>> >
>> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3
>> > development cycle:
>> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want
>> >> to
>> >> do.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> > Robert
>> > didn't name
>> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove
>> > ..."
>> > entries in the
>> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it
>> thus
>> > as a
>> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >
>> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
>> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
>> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >
>> > Peter.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Stevethefiddle


On 18 May 2017 at 06:15, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>>
>
> Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
> https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
> the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound for
> centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>
There doesn't seem to be a comparison between vocal remover and vocal reduction.
Did you mean between the heuristic and our algorithm (be it stereo or
mono output)?

In that topic, (which I think is the largest published "real world" test, and the only published test to compare Audacity's shipped effects with a third party application that I'm aware of),  most of my posts that include audio examples aim to show the 'best quality' results achievable for the given audio samples with Audacity's shipped effects. The source material is included in the posts if anyone wishes to verify or improve on my results. In all cases I was finding that VRAI (the new effect) was the clear winner of the shipped effect for isolation (the old VR effect can't do that at all), and that in many cases the old VR effect was marginally better for vocal reduction.

The "separateLeadStereo" python script was the clear winner with mono sources (neither of Audacity's tools can do mono sources), and was the winner with 'some' types of stereo sources, but always _extremely_ slow.

The "invert and add" algorithm is included in the shipped VRAI effect, but it comes  at the bottom of the "Action" choice list just above the "Analyze" option, and it is not clear if the frequency controls are active or not.

My inclination is to leave these effects as they currently are until we are able to grey out controls, and then rename the VRAI effect, possibly change the order of the "Action" choices (to be decided), and retire the old VR effect. By implementing all of these changes at the same time, the name change serves to inform users that the effect has changed, so users will be less surprised by changes in the effect itself. In other words, I think best that we hold off changing the name until we are ready to make the other changes.

Steve


Robert
>
>>
>> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
>> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> not everyone RTFM.
>>
>
> I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused
> controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
> I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.
>
> In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new effect as
> Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the
> cons.
>
> Steve
>
>
>>
>> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
>> don't work with the default choice.
>>
>> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>>
>> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
>> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >
>> >
>> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think we
>> should
>> > be removing
>> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >
>> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both
>> effects
>> > side-by-side
>> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider choosing
>> > "Vocal Removal"
>> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at the
>> very
>> > least make it
>> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >
>> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply by
>> > enabling it.  We would
>> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore the
>> > legacy effect to the
>> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> nomenclature
>> > change for Robert's
>> > newer effect.
>> >
>> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the 2.1.3
>> > development cycle:
>> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they want
>> >> to
>> >> do.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> > Robert
>> > didn't name
>> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove
>> > ..."
>> > entries in the
>> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding it
>> thus
>> > as a
>> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >
>> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the more
>> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
>> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >
>> > Peter.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Robert Hänggi
On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 May 2017 at 06:15, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> >> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> >> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> >> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
>> > https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=
>> 95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
>> > the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound
>> for
>> > centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>> >
>> There doesn't seem to be a comparison between vocal remover and vocal
>> reduction.
>> Did you mean between the heuristic and our algorithm (be it stereo or
>> mono output)?
>>
>
> In that topic, (which I think is the largest published "real world" test,
> and the only published test to compare Audacity's shipped effects with a
> third party application that I'm aware of),  most of my posts that include
> audio examples aim to show the 'best quality' results achievable for the
> given audio samples with Audacity's shipped effects. The source material is
> included in the posts if anyone wishes to verify or improve on my results.
> In all cases I was finding that VRAI (the new effect) was the clear winner
> of the shipped effect for isolation (the old VR effect can't do that at
> all), and that in many cases the old VR effect was marginally better for
> vocal reduction.
>
> The "separateLeadStereo" python script was the clear winner with mono
> sources (neither of Audacity's tools can do mono sources), and was the
> winner with 'some' types of stereo sources, but always _extremely_ slow.
>
> The "invert and add" algorithm is included in the shipped VRAI effect, but
> it comes  at the bottom of the "Action" choice list just above the


You're still looking at the shipped version and not the one with the
link provided some three posts back.

> "Analyze" option, and it is not clear if the frequency controls are active
> or not.
>
It seems to me fairly obvious that the filter acts on the label
provided, namely "Vocals"
You could add "(For Actions 1 to 4)" at the filter entries if this
makes it better.
> My inclination is to leave these effects as they currently are until we are
> able to grey out controls, and then rename the VRAI effect, possibly change
> the order of the "Action" choices (to be decided), and retire the old VR
> effect. By implementing all of these changes at the same time, the name
> change serves to inform users that the effect has changed, so users will be
> less surprised by changes in the effect itself. In other words, I think
> best that we hold off changing the name until we are ready to make the
> other changes.

Which I can't support. We are dragging the old effect to long around.
I would either disable or remove the old effect (going to the download
page) and ship the newest version of VRI.
I would wait with the name change though. The effect would merit
"Vocal Removal and Isolation" only if it was changed:
- to be a C++ effect (Currently, I can't work with Visual studio
because the screen reader doesn't yield any editor content).
- it features eg some refinement code such as from the python script
to include mono tracks as well or reduce reverberation or musical
noise.

Robert

>
> Steve
>
>
>> Robert
>> >
>> >>
>> >> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
>> >> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> >> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> >> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> >> not everyone RTFM.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused
>> > controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
>> > I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.
>> >
>> > In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new
>> > effect
>> as
>> > Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the
>> > cons.
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> >> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> >> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> >> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
>> >> don't work with the default choice.
>> >>
>> >> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> >> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> >> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>> >>
>> >> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> >> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> >> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> >> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> >> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> >> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gale
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson
>> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
>> >> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think
>> >> > we
>> >> should
>> >> > be removing
>> >> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both
>> >> effects
>> >> > side-by-side
>> >> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider
>> choosing
>> >> > "Vocal Removal"
>> >> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at
>> the
>> >> very
>> >> > least make it
>> >> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >> >
>> >> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply
>> >> > by
>> >> > enabling it.  We would
>> >> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore
>> >> > the
>> >> > legacy effect to the
>> >> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> >> nomenclature
>> >> > change for Robert's
>> >> > newer effect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the
>> >> > 2.1.3
>> >> > development cycle:
>> >> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they
>> >> >> want
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> do.
>> >> >
>> >> > +1
>> >> >
>> >> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> >> > Robert
>> >> > didn't name
>> >> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove
>> >> > ..."
>> >> > entries in the
>> >> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding
>> >> > it
>> >> thus
>> >> > as a
>> >> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >> >
>> >> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> >> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the
>> >> > more
>> >> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
>> >> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >> >
>> >> > Peter.
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Stevethefiddle


On 18 May 2017 at 13:56, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 18 May 2017 at 06:15, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> >> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> >> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> >> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
>> > https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=
>> 95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
>> > the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality sound
>> for
>> > centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>> >
>> There doesn't seem to be a comparison between vocal remover and vocal
>> reduction.
>> Did you mean between the heuristic and our algorithm (be it stereo or
>> mono output)?
>>
>
> In that topic, (which I think is the largest published "real world" test,
> and the only published test to compare Audacity's shipped effects with a
> third party application that I'm aware of),  most of my posts that include
> audio examples aim to show the 'best quality' results achievable for the
> given audio samples with Audacity's shipped effects. The source material is
> included in the posts if anyone wishes to verify or improve on my results.
> In all cases I was finding that VRAI (the new effect) was the clear winner
> of the shipped effect for isolation (the old VR effect can't do that at
> all), and that in many cases the old VR effect was marginally better for
> vocal reduction.
>
> The "separateLeadStereo" python script was the clear winner with mono
> sources (neither of Audacity's tools can do mono sources), and was the
> winner with 'some' types of stereo sources, but always _extremely_ slow.
>
> The "invert and add" algorithm is included in the shipped VRAI effect, but
> it comes  at the bottom of the "Action" choice list just above the


You're still looking at the shipped version and not the one with the
link provided some three posts back.

Yes. We are discussing the shipped effects.

I agree that your 'new' version is an improvement, but issues remain with the frequency controls. Not only the not greying out, but, for example, if the low frequency settings is inadvertently set too high, it can fail with the unhelpful error:
"Nyquist returned the value: 120"

I've not fully tested the new version, but I think we need to do more to mitigate these problems, and my personal preference would be to make such improvements before we retire the old effect.

Steve


> "Analyze" option, and it is not clear if the frequency controls are active
> or not.
>
It seems to me fairly obvious that the filter acts on the label
provided, namely "Vocals"
You could add "(For Actions 1 to 4)" at the filter entries if this
makes it better.
> My inclination is to leave these effects as they currently are until we are
> able to grey out controls, and then rename the VRAI effect, possibly change
> the order of the "Action" choices (to be decided), and retire the old VR
> effect. By implementing all of these changes at the same time, the name
> change serves to inform users that the effect has changed, so users will be
> less surprised by changes in the effect itself. In other words, I think
> best that we hold off changing the name until we are ready to make the
> other changes.

Which I can't support. We are dragging the old effect to long around.
I would either disable or remove the old effect (going to the download
page) and ship the newest version of VRI.
I would wait with the name change though. The effect would merit
"Vocal Removal and Isolation" only if it was changed:
- to be a C++ effect (Currently, I can't work with Visual studio
because the screen reader doesn't yield any editor content).
- it features eg some refinement code such as from the python script
to include mono tracks as well or reduce reverberation or musical
noise.

Robert
>
> Steve
>
>
>> Robert
>> >
>> >>
>> >> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether the
>> >> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> >> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> >> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> >> not everyone RTFM.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out unused
>> > controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
>> > I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out controls.
>> >
>> > In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new
>> > effect
>> as
>> > Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh the
>> > cons.
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> >> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> >> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> >> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the sliders
>> >> don't work with the default choice.
>> >>
>> >> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> >> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> >> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>> >>
>> >> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> >> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> >> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> >> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> >> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> >> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gale
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson
>> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for a
>> >> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think
>> >> > we
>> >> should
>> >> > be removing
>> >> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have both
>> >> effects
>> >> > side-by-side
>> >> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider
>> choosing
>> >> > "Vocal Removal"
>> >> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we at
>> the
>> >> very
>> >> > least make it
>> >> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >> >
>> >> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply
>> >> > by
>> >> > enabling it.  We would
>> >> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore
>> >> > the
>> >> > legacy effect to the
>> >> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> >> nomenclature
>> >> > change for Robert's
>> >> > newer effect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the
>> >> > 2.1.3
>> >> > development cycle:
>> >> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they
>> >> >> want
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> do.
>> >> >
>> >> > +1
>> >> >
>> >> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> >> > Robert
>> >> > didn't name
>> >> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three "Remove
>> >> > ..."
>> >> > entries in the
>> >> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding
>> >> > it
>> >> thus
>> >> > as a
>> >> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >> >
>> >> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> >> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the
>> >> > more
>> >> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that more
>> >> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >> >
>> >> > Peter.
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Gale
Administrator
About the suggested name change for Vocal Reduction and Isolation
to "Vocal Removal and Isolation", I don't think an effect should change
name without changes to the effect.

Also I assume we chose the tern "Reduction" so as not to over-egg
what was possible, for the same reason we have Noise Reduction
and not Noise Removal. Arguably the current name of VR&I is correct.

I'm not convinced the problems with VR&I are worse than the negative
aspects of keeping the old effect, when there is an obvious temporary
solution of adding text to VR&I to cover the sliders issue and we could
adjust the action order. I'd get rid of the old effect now, but I can see it
is a relatively fine call.

The idea mentioned in the Forum topic of working on mono audio
is very interesting. Could that be incorporated into VR&I?



Gale


On 18 May 2017 at 14:47, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 18 May 2017 at 13:56, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 18 May 2017 at 06:15, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> >> >> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> >> >> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> >> >> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
>> >> > https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=
>> >> 95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
>> >> > the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality
>> >> > sound
>> >> for
>> >> > centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>> >> >
>> >> There doesn't seem to be a comparison between vocal remover and vocal
>> >> reduction.
>> >> Did you mean between the heuristic and our algorithm (be it stereo or
>> >> mono output)?
>> >>
>> >
>> > In that topic, (which I think is the largest published "real world"
>> > test,
>> > and the only published test to compare Audacity's shipped effects with a
>> > third party application that I'm aware of),  most of my posts that
>> > include
>> > audio examples aim to show the 'best quality' results achievable for the
>> > given audio samples with Audacity's shipped effects. The source material
>> > is
>> > included in the posts if anyone wishes to verify or improve on my
>> > results.
>> > In all cases I was finding that VRAI (the new effect) was the clear
>> > winner
>> > of the shipped effect for isolation (the old VR effect can't do that at
>> > all), and that in many cases the old VR effect was marginally better for
>> > vocal reduction.
>> >
>> > The "separateLeadStereo" python script was the clear winner with mono
>> > sources (neither of Audacity's tools can do mono sources), and was the
>> > winner with 'some' types of stereo sources, but always _extremely_ slow.
>> >
>> > The "invert and add" algorithm is included in the shipped VRAI effect,
>> > but
>> > it comes  at the bottom of the "Action" choice list just above the
>>
>>
>> You're still looking at the shipped version and not the one with the
>> link provided some three posts back.
>
>
> Yes. We are discussing the shipped effects.
>
> I agree that your 'new' version is an improvement, but issues remain with
> the frequency controls. Not only the not greying out, but, for example, if
> the low frequency settings is inadvertently set too high, it can fail with
> the unhelpful error:
> "Nyquist returned the value: 120"
>
> I've not fully tested the new version, but I think we need to do more to
> mitigate these problems, and my personal preference would be to make such
> improvements before we retire the old effect.
>
> Steve
>
>>
>> > "Analyze" option, and it is not clear if the frequency controls are
>> > active
>> > or not.
>> >
>> It seems to me fairly obvious that the filter acts on the label
>> provided, namely "Vocals"
>> You could add "(For Actions 1 to 4)" at the filter entries if this
>> makes it better.
>> > My inclination is to leave these effects as they currently are until we
>> > are
>> > able to grey out controls, and then rename the VRAI effect, possibly
>> > change
>> > the order of the "Action" choices (to be decided), and retire the old VR
>> > effect. By implementing all of these changes at the same time, the name
>> > change serves to inform users that the effect has changed, so users will
>> > be
>> > less surprised by changes in the effect itself. In other words, I think
>> > best that we hold off changing the name until we are ready to make the
>> > other changes.
>>
>> Which I can't support. We are dragging the old effect to long around.
>> I would either disable or remove the old effect (going to the download
>> page) and ship the newest version of VRI.
>> I would wait with the name change though. The effect would merit
>> "Vocal Removal and Isolation" only if it was changed:
>> - to be a C++ effect (Currently, I can't work with Visual studio
>> because the screen reader doesn't yield any editor content).
>> - it features eg some refinement code such as from the python script
>> to include mono tracks as well or reduce reverberation or musical
>> noise.
>>
>> Robert
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >> Robert
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> >> >> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> >> >> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> >> >> not everyone RTFM.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out
>> >> > unused
>> >> > controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
>> >> > I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out
>> >> > controls.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new
>> >> > effect
>> >> as
>> >> > Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh
>> >> > the
>> >> > cons.
>> >> >
>> >> > Steve
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> >> >> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> >> >> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> >> >> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the
>> >> >> sliders
>> >> >> don't work with the default choice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> >> >> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> >> >> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> >> >> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> >> >> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> >> >> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> >> >> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> >> >> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gale
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson
>> >> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> should
>> >> >> > be removing
>> >> >> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have
>> >> >> > both
>> >> >> effects
>> >> >> > side-by-side
>> >> >> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider
>> >> choosing
>> >> >> > "Vocal Removal"
>> >> >> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we
>> >> >> > at
>> >> the
>> >> >> very
>> >> >> > least make it
>> >> >> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > enabling it.  We would
>> >> >> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > legacy effect to the
>> >> >> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> >> >> nomenclature
>> >> >> > change for Robert's
>> >> >> > newer effect.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the
>> >> >> > 2.1.3
>> >> >> > development cycle:
>> >> >> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >> >> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >> >> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they
>> >> >> >> want
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> do.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > +1
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> >> >> > Robert
>> >> >> > didn't name
>> >> >> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three
>> >> >> > "Remove
>> >> >> > ..."
>> >> >> > entries in the
>> >> >> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> thus
>> >> >> > as a
>> >> >> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> >> >> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Peter.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Vocal Reduction and Isolation versus the legacy Vocal Removal

Stevethefiddle


On 18 May 2017 at 15:20, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
About the suggested name change for Vocal Reduction and Isolation
to "Vocal Removal and Isolation", I don't think an effect should change
name without changes to the effect.

Also I assume we chose the tern "Reduction" so as not to over-egg
what was possible, for the same reason we have Noise Reduction
and not Noise Removal. Arguably the current name of VR&I is correct.

I'm not convinced the problems with VR&I are worse than the negative
aspects of keeping the old effect, when there is an obvious temporary
solution of adding text to VR&I to cover the sliders issue and we could
adjust the action order. I'd get rid of the old effect now, but I can see it
is a relatively fine call.

I agree that it's a fine call, so I'll not complain either way.
 

The idea mentioned in the Forum topic of working on mono audio
is very interesting. Could that be incorporated into VR&I?

The "separateLeadStereo" script is impressive in that it works at all, but it is ***extremely*** slow, the code is extremely complex, and for many types of audio the results are very poor (which you don't know until you have waited several minutes to process just a few seconds of audio). For the right type of audio the results can be highly impressive, but unless it can be made at least 100x faster I don't see it becoming something that we would want to ship as standard.

Steve
 



Gale


On 18 May 2017 at 14:47, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 18 May 2017 at 13:56, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 18 May 2017 at 06:15, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 18/05/2017, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > On 18 May 2017 at 02:21, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Steve had the concern that Vocal Reduction and Isolation is much
>> >> >> slower than Vocal Remover, except for the "Remove Center Classic:
>> >> >> (Mono):" choice which is the same as the old effect. This choice
>> >> >> is near the bottom of the action choices, so hard to find.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, as indicated by the tests in this forum topic:
>> >> > https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=
>> >> 95619&hilit=vocal+isolation
>> >> > the simple "invert and mix" method can often give better quality
>> >> > sound
>> >> for
>> >> > centre reduction than the more complex stereo algorithm.
>> >> >
>> >> There doesn't seem to be a comparison between vocal remover and vocal
>> >> reduction.
>> >> Did you mean between the heuristic and our algorithm (be it stereo or
>> >> mono output)?
>> >>
>> >
>> > In that topic, (which I think is the largest published "real world"
>> > test,
>> > and the only published test to compare Audacity's shipped effects with a
>> > third party application that I'm aware of),  most of my posts that
>> > include
>> > audio examples aim to show the 'best quality' results achievable for the
>> > given audio samples with Audacity's shipped effects. The source material
>> > is
>> > included in the posts if anyone wishes to verify or improve on my
>> > results.
>> > In all cases I was finding that VRAI (the new effect) was the clear
>> > winner
>> > of the shipped effect for isolation (the old VR effect can't do that at
>> > all), and that in many cases the old VR effect was marginally better for
>> > vocal reduction.
>> >
>> > The "separateLeadStereo" python script was the clear winner with mono
>> > sources (neither of Audacity's tools can do mono sources), and was the
>> > winner with 'some' types of stereo sources, but always _extremely_ slow.
>> >
>> > The "invert and add" algorithm is included in the shipped VRAI effect,
>> > but
>> > it comes  at the bottom of the "Action" choice list just above the
>>
>>
>> You're still looking at the shipped version and not the one with the
>> link provided some three posts back.
>
>
> Yes. We are discussing the shipped effects.
>
> I agree that your 'new' version is an improvement, but issues remain with
> the frequency controls. Not only the not greying out, but, for example, if
> the low frequency settings is inadvertently set too high, it can fail with
> the unhelpful error:
> "Nyquist returned the value: 120"
>
> I've not fully tested the new version, but I think we need to do more to
> mitigate these problems, and my personal preference would be to make such
> improvements before we retire the old effect.
>
> Steve
>
>>
>> > "Analyze" option, and it is not clear if the frequency controls are
>> > active
>> > or not.
>> >
>> It seems to me fairly obvious that the filter acts on the label
>> provided, namely "Vocals"
>> You could add "(For Actions 1 to 4)" at the filter entries if this
>> makes it better.
>> > My inclination is to leave these effects as they currently are until we
>> > are
>> > able to grey out controls, and then rename the VRAI effect, possibly
>> > change
>> > the order of the "Action" choices (to be decided), and retire the old VR
>> > effect. By implementing all of these changes at the same time, the name
>> > change serves to inform users that the effect has changed, so users will
>> > be
>> > less surprised by changes in the effect itself. In other words, I think
>> > best that we hold off changing the name until we are ready to make the
>> > other changes.
>>
>> Which I can't support. We are dragging the old effect to long around.
>> I would either disable or remove the old effect (going to the download
>> page) and ship the newest version of VRI.
>> I would wait with the name change though. The effect would merit
>> "Vocal Removal and Isolation" only if it was changed:
>> - to be a C++ effect (Currently, I can't work with Visual studio
>> because the screen reader doesn't yield any editor content).
>> - it features eg some refinement code such as from the python script
>> to include mono tracks as well or reduce reverberation or musical
>> noise.
>>
>> Robert
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >> Robert
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He also said that it was not clear in the effect interface whether
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> sliders are supposed to have an effect with this Remove Center
>> >> >> Classic (Mono):" choice (a Nyquist limitation). The Manual was
>> >> >> changed to say that the sliders have no effect with this choice, but
>> >> >> not everyone RTFM.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm hoping to change that so that Nyquist plug-ins can grey out
>> >> > unused
>> >> > controls, though it is not likely to be for 2.2.0.
>> >> > I'd be happier to retire the old effect when we can grey out
>> >> > controls.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the mean time, I think it's worth considering renaming the new
>> >> > effect
>> >> as
>> >> > Peter suggested. On balance, I think the pros for renaming outweigh
>> >> > the
>> >> > cons.
>> >> >
>> >> > Steve
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I could still live with removing Vocal Remover if "Remove Center
>> >> >> Classic: (Mono):"  was the default choice and renamed as "Vocal
>> >> >> Remover (mono)". If there was a likely intention to make it a C++
>> >> >> effect in future, I could live for now with text that said the
>> >> >> sliders
>> >> >> don't work with the default choice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If there are users missing out on stereo vocal reduction due to
>> >> >> not switching from Vocal Remover, forcing them to try Vocal
>> >> >> Reduction and Isolation may not be a bad move.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would not expect as many people to ask where Vocal Remover
>> >> >> is as those who ask where Leveller is, because the new effect has
>> >> >> a similar name to the legacy effect. Novice users only ask where
>> >> >> Noise Removal is because they can't get Noise Reduction to work
>> >> >> with their old settings. That should not be a problem if the Vocal
>> >> >> Reduction and Isolation default is the old Noise Removal effect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gale
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 17 May 2017 at 16:27, Peter Sampson
>> >> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Time to let one of my favourite hobby-horses out of the stable for
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > little canter around the paddock.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1)  As I have written for the previous two releases I really think
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> should
>> >> >> > be removing
>> >> >> > the legacy effect "Vocal Removal" from the next Audacity release.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As I have written before it is confusing for may users to have
>> >> >> > both
>> >> >> effects
>> >> >> > side-by-side
>> >> >> > in the Effect menu - and the naive are more likely to consider
>> >> choosing
>> >> >> > "Vocal Removal"
>> >> >> > as it sounds much more powerful than "Vocal Reduction ..."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) If we are not going to remove it I would suggest that that we
>> >> >> > at
>> >> the
>> >> >> very
>> >> >> > least make it
>> >> >> > disabled by default (like Classic Filters).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That way those that desperately want/need it can restore it simply
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > enabling it.  We would
>> >> >> > advise users in the Release Notes of the change and how to restore
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > legacy effect to the
>> >> >> > Effect menu. (And similarly on the Effects pages in the Manual.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Either way (or even if we leave it in as-is) I would opt for a
>> >> >> nomenclature
>> >> >> > change for Robert's
>> >> >> > newer effect.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Robert wrote in the email discussion thread in the course of the
>> >> >> > 2.1.3
>> >> >> > development cycle:
>> >> >> >>And it would be trivial to rename the effect to
>> >> >> >>"Vocal Removal and Isolation"
>> >> >> >>should users not be able to connect the meaning to the thing they
>> >> >> >> want
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> do.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > +1
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now I think that is an excellent idea - and it's a great pity that
>> >> >> > Robert
>> >> >> > didn't name
>> >> >> > it that way in the first place.  There are, after all, three
>> >> >> > "Remove
>> >> >> > ..."
>> >> >> > entries in the
>> >> >> > Action dropdown menu in the VR&I effect dialog- so we are branding
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> thus
>> >> >> > as a
>> >> >> > "removal" effect - so this name change would be in line with that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And if we do insist in still having both for 2.2.0:
>> >> >> > For a naive user given the choice of just "Vocal Removal" or the
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > fully-functioned "Vocal Removal and Isolation" - I suspect that
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > of them are likely to choose VR&I.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Peter.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Loading...