Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Audacity 4.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 278 posts

Re: Audacity 4.0

#251

Post by Joel_Mckay »

germandiago wrote: post #249
MrDOS wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the Qt 6 build system is vastly easier to work with. Also, Audacity is not the first major FOSS project to successfully migrate from wxWidgets to Qt: Dolphin, the GameCube/Wii emulator, made a similar migration several years ago[0][1][2][3]. [0]: https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2017/06/03/dolphin-progress-rep... [1]: https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2018/02/03/dolphin-progress-rep... [2]: https://do…

I recall (could be wrong, talk from the top of my head), VLC also did it years ago.

You are correct, but did VLC become more stable and easier to maintain? Maybe... =3

Re: Audacity 4.0

#252

Post by KPGv2 »

niek_pas wrote: post #140
korzinka wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notation is cool and just right, the more I learned the more I appreciated how great contemporary notation is. Yes it's challenging to read sometines but the subject is challenging too, surely you could try to simplify it for certain applications but you'd lose a lot of flexibility. Fighting notation is like fighting piano keyboard which is also extremely convenient thing to play compared to other stuff, even to grid…

I find conventional Western notation works quite well for communicating notes, rhythms, and basic expression, but it breaks down pretty quickly once you move beyond that. E.g. a lot of the common techniques on electric guitar (bends, palm muting, tremolo/whammy bar stuff, pick slides, slap/thumping, pinch harmonics, raking) don't really have a convenient notational shorthand. That's without even mentioning synthesize…

> how do you notate 'gradually increase the filter cutoff here'?

probably a standalone Italian word would be fine, or some special < like we have for gradually increasing volume

Re: Audacity 4.0

#253

Post by KPGv2 »

wrs wrote: post #196
somat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem in music notation is that it was designed for an 8 note system and we use a 12 note system. It's.. fine I guess, they got those extra four notes in there and millions of people read music with no problems. But it does create a lot of confusion for novice readers who now think those 8 notes are somehow more important than the other 4 or that the sharps and flats are somehow half notes(they are…

A lot of Chesterton’s Fence going on here… I remember thinking this way when I still had a pretty low-level understanding of music (like, “I’m reading arbitrary pitches and pushing the matching keys on the piano”), but once I started understanding bigger musical concepts/chunks, the reason for the notation became clearer, and now I see why it’s a pretty good local maximum for readability. The majority of music uses a…

> Stringed instruments like guitars

guitar is a percussion instrument :D

Re: Audacity 4.0

#254

Post by analog31 »

korzinka wrote: post #124
Lio wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indirectly related his video on music notation itself, "Notation Must Die: The Battle For How We Read Music"[1], is really good IMHO. > Many people feel that western notation makes it unnecessarily hard to read music. If we want to sight read, learn music theory or just practice an instrument, surely there's a better way? Right? This has been a hot topic for almost 1000 years... AND I PUT IT TO BED RIGHT HERE! 1. htt…

Notation is cool and just right, the more I learned the more I appreciated how great contemporary notation is. Yes it's challenging to read sometines but the subject is challenging too, surely you could try to simplify it for certain applications but you'd lose a lot of flexibility. Fighting notation is like fighting piano keyboard which is also extremely convenient thing to play compared to other stuff, even to grid…

I'm a musician, and am fluent at sight-reading. My perspective doesn't even consider the pro's and con's of conventional notation. The network effect is overwhelming.

Written music involves a symbiosis between the composer and the performer. You have to find people who are willing to do both of those jobs, in sufficient number to make performances happen. If you choose a new or idiosyncratic notation system, nobody will play your stuff.

In the future one could imagine automating the process of converting from one notation to another. But a lot of sheet music is still not in computer readable form. From what I've read, OCR'ing sheet music is still an unsolved problem.

Re: Audacity 4.0

#255

Post by boomlinde »

soundworlds wrote: post #241
boomlinde wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw the Tantacrul video back when it was released. I think that's when I went ahead and bought myself a personal Reaper license. My thought then was: wtf are their priorities like if they'll focus on a complete overhaul of the admittedly basic but functional interface over broken recording and playback of audio?

I think you may be underestimating how crucial a good User Interface is for widespread adoption of a product..

I think you may be underestimating how important playing back and recording audio is for an application built for that purpose.

This was already a widely adopted piece of software. It was my go-to for light audio work like trimming a sample, for being free and easy to use for exactly that.

Re: Audacity 4.0

#256

Post by boomlinde »

TehCorwiz wrote: post #212
boomlinde wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw the Tantacrul video back when it was released. I think that's when I went ahead and bought myself a personal Reaper license. My thought then was: wtf are their priorities like if they'll focus on a complete overhaul of the admittedly basic but functional interface over broken recording and playback of audio?

There were a bunch of minor versions between 3.0 and 4.0 made up of fundamental refactor work to establish separation of concerns. As I understand it from the call graphs he shared, the problem was that the UI was reaching deep into the audio code directly instead of using a clear API boundary to separate concerns and route commands and change state. So fundamentally while the UI worked, it also was deeply entwined w…

> So, if you're going to have to rewrite your UI layer to disentangle it from your back-end anyway why not also bring it up to speed?

So, if you're going to have to rewrite your back-end to disentangle it from your UI layer anyway why not also bring it up to speed?

Re: Audacity 4.0

#257

Post by kashunstva »

simonask wrote: post #243
wrs wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Chesterton’s Fence going on here… I remember thinking this way when I still had a pretty low-level understanding of music (like, “I’m reading arbitrary pitches and pushing the matching keys on the piano”), but once I started understanding bigger musical concepts/chunks, the reason for the notation became clearer, and now I see why it’s a pretty good local maximum for readability. The majority of music uses a…

Totally agree with your comment, but I just wanted to add that the major scales aren’t what’s prioritized - every major scale has a parallel minor scale with the same key signature. In fact, this is true for all diatonic scales, which are the foundation of Western music and have been for centuries. The major scale is just the ionic, the minor is the aeolian. There’s also dorian, phrygian, lydian, etc., and all of the…

> every major scale has a parallel minor scale with the same key signature.

Actually the parallel minor does not share the key signature with the major; it is simply the minor with the same tonic.

The _relative_ minor shares the key signature with its major; and its tonic pitch is a minor third lower.

Re: Audacity 4.0

#258

Post by forevernoob »

Sophira wrote: post #20

How's the telemetry situation nowadays? I haven't been updating my copy for a while.

Not sure, but since I've installed is as a Flatpak (org.audacityteam.Audacity) I simply disable its network capabilities via com.github.tchx84.Flatseal

This way, even if they had telemetry, I wouldn't really care.

Re: Audacity 4.0

#259

Post by pmkary »

I'm so happy to see it be released. I had watched their YouTube coverage of what and why they were doing what they were doing and I'm so happy. As much as Audacity bears a nostalgia and mental safe zone in its look and design, it was too good of a software to let rot in technical debt and code spaghetti and getting behind. The world really needed an open source good looking easy to use workstation that is not as complicated as Pro Tools or Logic... I'm so thankful for Muse rescuing so many of the great apps (I really really am thankful for the MuseScore getting that amazing recently for example, or bringing the wonderful wonderful engine of StaffPad to it...)

Re: Audacity 4.0

#260

Post by tyffanypastecf »

mikae1 wrote: post #80
Lautzi wrote: post #9

I highly recommend this video [1] by the Head of Software at Muse who had a big part in the development of Audacity 4.0. Some great insights and really fun to watch! [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYM3TWf_G38

So, they've realized podcasters and vloggers are a large part of their target audience. Then I believe they have to implement some models for speech restoration. These days most people just Adobe Podcast Enhance and forget and, from what I've seen there isn't an open source GUI based tool for automated voice processing out there. Must add that it's so awesome to have an open source Qt based audio editor on KDE Plasma…

[dead]
Post reply on HN