Ideas for Version Seven

[Craig Maier]

Yeah, I think that the fully programmable method would be the way to go with this. Everyone wins that way!

[Audyossey]

...However they faced and solved this problem some years ago when trying to get people to switch from their favorite office programs to the Microsoft equivalent.

Actually many, if not most, of the Windows/Microsoft keyboard shortcuts were already commonplace before the "PC" arrived on the scene. I was using them in CP/M and on DEC workstations before the PC came out. They were also the backbone of PC DOS. The really bizarre Microsoft innovations were the keyboard combinations involving the {INSERT} and {DELETE} keys for cutting, copying, and pasting. They were logical in their way, but I could never keep track of whether I was supposed to be holding down {CTRL}, {SHIFT}, or whatever. However, even in DOS, they were supporting the "standard" shortcuts I had already become familiar with as well as the WordPerfect hotkey combos which are still supported.

Anyway, you beat me to the punch. Customizable hotkeys is the way to go and quite common in audio software. It's a boon for folks with a variety of audio software. You could go crazy trying to get your fingers to "memorize" all the shifting paradigms from program to program.

Furthermore, companies entering the field will usually adopt the hotkey setups from a dominant competitor. It makes their program more attractive to consumers by giving them one less reason not to switch to or at least try out the new application. (User thinking: "What the heck is this? Why doesn't the space key pause playback? This sucks! Where's my list of ranges? This program is a bear.") Ignoring your competition's methods and going your own way can be shooting yourself in the foot.

I might add that it's a good idea to make programmability available for just about every function in the program. Word has well over a hundred hotkey functions preset in the default setup with other functions undefined, and all of them are reprogammable. I'm sure no one uses them all, and very few know they exist. But, you may have specific projects where you're relying heavily on a particular function that you don't otherwise use often. Having the ability to use or create hotkeys for those projects is convenient.

HB

[cybertek]

New Feature for Live Forencics

Sami File Creation for closed captioning of wav files.
Example: http://www.hisoftware.com/EnduringFreedom/flash8.html

or

The ability to use tags for Transcriptions or Notes, and export to a file with time stamp, speaker description, and note/transcript to import to a program like hi-caption,Word or adobe.
Hi-Captons editor sucks and i cant get it to work with Media Player10

This is important for judicial cases especialy with audio enhanced tapes.
I would pay extra 500.00 for that feature.
can i get the beta Next Week

[Craig Maier]

We have heard that request before and will look into implementing it perhaps for version 7.

Thanks!

[ptinker56]

some more requests for DC7

* Id sure like a scripting capability with access to most/all of the features. Could be just a command-line interface. My goal would be to write scripts to automate repetitive tasks that the batch editor can't handle.

* It would be nice if the multi-filter had a pass-through for each separate filter. It would help identify just which filter in s series of filters is messing things up.

* I'd like more functions to be available in the multi-filter. Especially nice would be "file reverse" so I could de-impulse in both directions for better results.

* The continuous noise filter is the tool that's most powerful for me. It would be easier to use if it would "cache" the sampled noiseprint so that I could try different parameters without having to go back and forth between the filter and the waveform display (to re-mark the sample area).

* This may have been mentioned, and maybe it's just me: my "home" key takes me to the END of the file, and the "end" key takes me to the beginning!

Looking forward to 7!

[Audyossey]

Scripting

...Id sure like a scripting capability with access to most/all of the features. Could be just a command-line interface. My goal would be to write scripts to automate repetitive tasks that the batch editor can't handle.

A highly personal opinion, but anyone considering scripting capabilities for an application should take a look at Paint Shop Pro. This application uses Python for a number of its internal functions and for user scripts, and the implementation is the most elegant and easiest I've ever seen for an application of any complexity.

It does have the usual sort of record-a-script capability (or at least the PSP9 manual implies that it still does), but better than that, is the ability to create scripts out of the redo buffer. You simply select the steps you want in the buffer, click an icon, and you have a basic script that you can test (or use as is if you don't expect to need it in the future). From there, you can edit it in a built-in object-oriented editor. This allows you, for example, to have any step in the script pause for user input. Once you're satisfied with your script, you simply save it under a name of your choice.

If you really need to do something complex and you know Python, you can pass the script to any external editor you want. If a script includes features beyond the boundaries of the built-in editor it will automatically open in the external editor you've chosen when you select Edit.

The design of the redo buffer itself is a major part of the magic. Unlike any similar buffer I've ever seen, you can drop steps from the middle of the list and retain all the others. The program simply drops down to the first deletion in chronological order and rebuilds your file skipping over any steps you've marked for deletion but retaining them in the list in case you want to restore them. If you have any doubts about anything you've done, or just feel you might want to process the file in a different way, you can turn the whole buffer into a script and attach it to the file. (Since this is a paint program, it's stored in the alpha channel.)

(There is also the capability of permanently deleting steps and removing them from the list, and there are a few things that can't be redone.)

The potential of this approach in an audio program is staggering.

Of course, adding scripting on this scale is also a major endeavor involving the creation of commands and parameters for virtually every aspect of the program.

Unfortunately, since Corel took over the program, documentation of the scripting capabilities has almost completely disappeared. The manual and the web site barely touch on it. It's obvious that they purchased the company in order to eliminate an economical competitor for their top-of-the-line overpriced paint program. They're gradually positioning it as a photo editor. To their credit, they've dropped the already reasonable price as well, but the idea is to get you to buy several smaller programs in place of just one. If you can find a copy of PSP 9, the user manual does give a reasonably complete rundown of the scripting capabilities, although nothing complete enough to use an external editor easily. For example, there's no list of the PSP commands and their parameters.

A better model in this respect is the personal publishing program, PageStream, which also uses Python (or optionally, on Amigas, AREXX). In this case, the developer has provided complete documentation of all the commands in a separate readme file?a file which grows with just about every update to the program.

HB

[cromag]

I was reading through the thread and thinking to myself, "Sounds like they need an Arexx port, like most of the software on my Amiga 3000," when I hit the last post, by Audyossey:

(or optionally, on Amigas, AREXX)

The really nice thing about Arexx (or Rexx on non-Amiga platforms) is how thoroughly it is documented. I'm a big believer in documentation.

I don't know much about Python, but it sounds like it's more common on contemporary systems than Rexx/Arexx. Still, scripting is a big assett on almost any program, and providing access to a common scripting language across several different programs at the very least lowers the learning curve. At best, users may find commonalities that the developers don't foresee

[Audyossey]

I was... thinking to myself, "Sounds like they need an Arexx port, like most of the software on my Amiga 3000,"...

The strength of AREXX on the Amiga was that it was a system standard. This meant that virtually every program provided an AREXX port which virtually any other program could use to communicate with it. I believe Open Office uses REXX as a common standard among its modules. I've no experience there.

As I understand it, because Python doesn't have this kind of universality, even those programs which use it rarely have the communication ports. Again, it's my understanding that you'd have to write scripts at both ends in order to get two programs to interact the way they can with just one script on the Amiga.

Assuming Amiga OS4 continues to evolve, I believe the plan is to make Python an alternative to AREXX. This would make it easier to develop multiplatform applications like PageStream. As you say...

Still, scripting is a big assett on almost any program, and providing access to a common scripting language across several different programs at the very least lowers the learning curve. At best, users may find commonalities that the developers don't foresee

[Craig Maier]

A scripting feature using Visual Basic will be included in version 7.

[cromag]

To Audyossey:

Yeah, you're right. I read too much into it.

Still, looking at three packing boxes of LPs, I could probably find a use for a "mere mortal" scripting language.

[Dan McDonald]

I don't know if this is difficult or not, but I would find it helpful if you could highlight an area and right click so that it gain-normalized within the highlighted area.

I'm not certain exactly how it works now. It seems as if the entire file gets gain -normalized when you have only a small section highlighted, although sometimes I have seen it so something like this where it only gain-normalized a portion of the file (the part that's highlighted). Not sure if that's a bug or I'm just not doing it right.

Dan

[Craig Maier]

Right now, it takes the highlighted area and gain normalizes it to it full scale output. But, thereafter, the program thinks that the gain normalized function has been completed, so it will not do it on another section of the particular file.

We can look into that for version 7.

Right now, what I do is to look for weak spots in the .wav file, highlight them and then raise the gain on those with the gain change function. Sometimes I do a quick fade in and then fade out so that it is not so obvious that I did something to that segment - - - makes it less abrupt. However, if you only make a 3 dB increase, it is unnecessary to use fade in and fade out. Once everything is balanced up to my satisfaction, then I apply the gain normalize on the entire file.

[Dan McDonald]

thanks Craig -

That's similar to what I do now also, but it can get kind of tedious.

That explains what was happening if I did something like accidentally have an area highlighted when I gain normalized, then tried to gain-normalize the rest of the file!

I guess another option would be to right-click on a highlighted area and have something like "add 3 dB" or maybe make it adjustable so that you could add 6 dB or subtract 3.

I run into this a lot in situations where you have a musical group and one person is on mike but the other one is not, and they talk back and forth. I enjoy cleaning up the file and getting it so that you can hear the conversation.

I have one where a member of the Grateful Dead asks Joan Baez if she knows "Wang Dang Doodle" and when she says no, he suggests she stay around after the show and he'll teach it to her. I find those kinds of things interesting, but a lot of work to get listenable.

Dan

[Craig Maier]

Dan,

When I have been confronted with the sort of situation that you described (like cleaning up reel to reel recordings of old our High School plays), I have found the following to be quite useful:

1. Highlight the area of speech that is weak.
2. Selectively apply the Forensics AFDF lightly to that area.
3. Apply one of the Bandpass Speech Filter presets.
4. Tweek the gain of the signal with the gain change routine.

I have gotten excellent results using that technique. You might want to give that one a try next time you come across that situation and see what happens.

[Dan McDonald]

Thanks Craig -

I'll give it a try.

Dan