FR : file statistics display (RMS, etc)

[wshaper]

Hello
Thank you very much for creating Resonic.
It is already a nice audio player, and i look forward for the forthcoming updates to use it as a sample manager.

Do you think it could be possible to add audio statistics (either in a column of the main playlist, or in a small popup window), things such as : RMS level, Peak level, Key, etc.
I guess it needs some computation in order to be able to display such informations, but it could be a nice thing to have.

Kind regards

[Tom]

Thank you very much for creating Resonic.

You're welcome.

Do you think it could be possible to add audio statistics (either in a column of the main playlist, or in a small popup window), things such as : RMS level, Peak level, Key, etc. I guess it needs some computation in order to be able to display such informations, but it could be a nice thing to have.

I'll show peak levels for a start, but things like RMS will have to be individual options, because any additional computation slows down waveform scanning. So I think the user should decide what to enable.

[wshaper]

Hi
Peak levels sounds great already !
Optional RMS is fine too (a fast browser is better than a bloated/slow one indeed)

[MaxLapierre]

I would like to see : Select a Loop/Region & Scan for RMS.

Thanks

[Blackout]

isnt RMS scanning a function that everyone turns to a mastering/wave file editor to do? why do you need this feature to sort samples quickly? if you ask me its just the first point along the road to bloatware and slowing down resonic from doing its job mighty fast and efficiently.

You will get all sorts of requests Mr Resonic for features "can i please cut and edit and paste and multitrack record etc" and you will have to be strong, you dont want resonic to end up being a sample editor like the others. Make it the true master of one thing, not an inefficient jack of all trades. You should not make resonic do the big things that editors like Wavelab and Sound Forge etc etc already out there can do. It needs to do is fast and efficient moving around of samples on your hard drive. Focus on getting the functions up and running that will make sample sorting a fast and efficient dream! That is what will make it special!

Cheers,
Blackout

[wshaper]

Focus on getting the functions up and running that will make sample sorting a fast and efficient dream! That is what will make it special!

Yes, i agree with that, and that is what audio statistics aims at imho : RMS/peak displaying is not audio editing at all, it is giving information about the sample content, which can make audio files handling/sorting/browsing easier.
So, while i agree very much about not bloating Resonic in order to keep it fast, i don't see any similarity between displaying infos & stats about the sample content and multitrack recording (which you mentionned above and which i agree is not Resonic's focus imho).

[Tom]

Well, RMS/peak statistics is among the most important features one can imagine when it comes to samples audio files so this will most definitely make its way into Resonic. However, as I often said before, if something slows the whole thing down it'll be reworked and rethought, and reworked again, until it doesn't. Or it will end up being an option, or in the ditch.

That much being said, feature-wise I can't even begin to explain what's coming these next months...

[JamesEW]

I agree with Blackout here "Make it the true master of one thing, not an inefficient jack of all trades"

I strongly agree about not bloating Resonic with complex, CPU/Ram intensive "Editor" features found in the likes of Adobe Audition, sound forge, etc. I'm not saying adding RMS readings is a bad idea btw but the priority should always be the core function - keeping it so the user can very quickly audition through hundreds of samples and audition specific parts as quickly as possible via waveform. This to me is what Resonic does brilliantly already and it sounds like this is the priority for the developer too.

That said, some of the upcoming features I look forward to alot and its even better that they may be optionally enabled / disabled so sample browsing remains as fast as possible.

[Blackout]

never once in 15 years of having samples on my hard drive have i wanted to sort samples into different folders according to "RMS value".

its more been "rokkin kicks in here, sub-kicks in there, shit sounding kicks in THIS folder". RMS value hasnt come into it. why you would really care about it is beyond me. but each to their own i guess. It just sounds very bizarre.

ive only analyzed RMS values in the mastering process/phase of a mixdown wav. And at that stage youre deep inside mastering software and creating plugin chains of EQ, limiters etc. You dont need resonic for that.

either way im glad Mr Resonic and others are in general agreeance and that it wont become bloatware this is everyones fear i think and we should all feel re-assured that the new Pro version is going to be awsome!

Cheers,
Blackout

[wshaper]

Hi
Yes, as you said, "each to their own i guess".

A couple of possible uses :
- I wish to be able to sort my samples by "loud" or "quiet" (using RMS) ;
- I would like to be able to know, in a folder containing hundreds of sounds, which samples are normalized and which aren't (using peak detection) ;
- In a folder of normalized loops or stems, i wish i could sort them by "loud" and "quieter", even if some occasional peaks can occur (think about a stem-rendered track whe pre-mastering, where no brickwall limiter has been applied yet) : RMS is ace for this task.
- If i am doing some mastering on full tracks, or if i need to check some reference files, and that i want to know their loudness quickly, RMS sorting would be a nice timesaver/workflow enhancer ;
- When working with one-shot drumsamples, i can imagine several other possible applications where RMS and peak displaying/sorting would be very helpful (for instance, in a folder with hundreds of normalized one-shot samples from the same source, i'd be curious to check -not by ear- if there are big RMS differences between them) ;
etc;

Cheers

[Blackout]

Hi
Yes, as you said, "each to their own i guess".

A couple of possible uses :
- I wish to be able to sort my samples by "loud" or "quiet" (using RMS) ;

as I said...you think that the level of a kick drum sample (that is going to be turned up to the right level in the track via the mixer anyways) is worth sorting your samples against? instead of how it sounds? bizarre.

- I would like to be able to know, in a folder containing hundreds of sounds, which samples are normalized and which aren't (using peak detection) ;

you are still going to have to "look" at each sample, resonic is not going to flag hundreds of sounds for you in one function. You cant tell when you "look" at each sample waveform as you are auditioning whether the wave file is loud or soft? it would look fairly obvious

- In a folder of normalized loops or stems, i wish i could sort them by "loud" and "quieter", even if some occasional peaks can occur (think about a stem-rendered track whe pre-mastering, where no brickwall limiter has been applied yet) : RMS is ace for this task.

I don't believe resonic has ever suggested a "sort by RMS" function. You want resonic to scan a whole folder of wav files and list them from top to bottom based on the RMS level of each? you realize this is going to grind resonic to a complete halt....its going to take many minutes to do this, you think this is going to be instant? you don't think this is going to slow resonic down from the snappy program it is now ? do you care?

- If i am doing some mastering on full tracks, or if i need to check some reference files, and that i want to know their loudness quickly, RMS sorting would be a nice timesaver/workflow enhancer ;

exactly my point, this is what your mastering editor software is for. they all list RMS readings based on a waveform area that is highlighted. so you want to leave your editor (eg Sound Forge) that already has this function, load up resonic to perform the same function, write down the reading, then close resonic, and load up Sound Forge and the wave form and plugins again. When you could just ask Sound Forge? huh? this workflow of yours is a nice timesaver?

- When working with one-shot drumsamples, i can imagine several other possible applications where RMS and peak displaying/sorting would be very helpful (for instance, in a folder with hundreds of normalized one-shot samples from the same source, i'd be curious to check -not by ear- if there are big RMS differences between them) ;

so youre not happy to check by ear, and your not happy to check by sight either (looking at the waveform). Big RMS differences would stick out visually like a sore thumb.

maybe what you are wanting is for resonic to have a decent level meter with a peak-hold function. that is a more reasonable suggestion. and would not slow resonic down...

Cheers,
Blackout

[wshaper]

Hi, Blackout.
I fear that we will still disagree about this one
We might have different workflows, and i respect yours, even if i would find it strange or "bizarre", as you said.
I think it's up to me to know if i would use such a feature and why, in which scenario (whatever other users do or don't according to their very own workflow, as, again, as you said "to each his own"), and it's up to the developer to tell us if it would slow down developement or slow down the program to the point it is not good for it.
I came to this forum to make suggestions, and let the developer tell from his technical point of view and according to his vision he has for his software : of course other users are welcome to discuss if one FR would suit their own workflow, but telling that "you realize this is going to grind resonic to a complete halt" should only be said from the developer's insight.
I am not a developer, but a user, and therefore i can't speak for the developer if suggestion A or request B would be a technical nigthmare. I can only tell that, as a user, i would use "feature A" or "suggestion B", and that it is something lacking from other programs i have tried.

I dont think SoundForge has an integrated browser displaying loudness values (and other informations) of several files at once and allowing to move/delete them with a single mouseclick ?
If I'm wrong, please correct me, as i am looking for such a tool for a while (again, we don't need to focus on RMS, it is just one parameter) and last time i checked i didn't find this feature in SF specifications. And when i asked for a program with similar feature (displaying audio-related informations and being able to sort files, move or delete them... which imho is a browser task, not an editing task at all) on another forum, it seemed that no one was aware about any software with such a feature (which, again is a sample management feature, not an audio editing feature).
As Resonic now has a company forum on KVR, i would be curious to read the results from a poll asking people "would you find a use for displaying RMS and Peak values in a sample browser/manager"

Last, I want to make clear and obvious that i am saying that "RMS is the only truth" and/or a "total must have n°1 priority", but being able to display it and sort / browse / manage files according to such values (instead or along with alphabetical, length, bitrate, etc) seems to me : 1-more a sample browser related feature than an audio editor feature, 2- something which many people could use in a variety of different scenarii, and 3- a rather unique feature afaik ;
To me, it is the same as bitdepth or samplerate or channel number : if we follow your "use only your ears and heart" diktat, samples browser shouldn't even display bitrate. But most samples browsers do, and people seem to like and use it

Cheers

[Blackout]

hey wshaper.

you came up with a great suggestion inadvertantly! list files according to sample rate. Another would be list according to bit depth....highest bit depth at the top of the file list. Another 2 columns in the resonic browser next to "Size, Artist, Title, Year, Length..." then add "Sample Rate, Bit Depth". They are great ideas! I would use this...very handy! Reading the header of the file to get this information would take only milliseconds. (if only it was the same for RMS.)

anyways i respect your comment that we must leave such things up to Mr Resonic. At the end of the day if such a concept is a "specialized function" that you can turn on or off, then no-one could complain about its sluggish consequences on resonic. And as long as by default when you installed it this box is "unticked" then who am i to complain.

All the best!
Blackout

[Tom]

If you add pineapple chunks to spaghetti Bolognese, it's no longer spaghetti Bolognese? It still is, but with a twist

and it's up to the developer to tell us if it would slow down developement or slow down the program to the point it is not good for it.

Agreed

But you both have a point. My thoughts on this:

1) RMS will eventually happen, Resonic Pro only of course

2) All files that already have a waveform in cache could show peak values in the filelist

3) Determining RMS values for all files in a folder would take up quite a bit of time ("minutes" indeed, depending on what's in there) and would require Resonic to make it a background task, hence requiring some kind of queue system for background tasks that can be interacted with by the user (abort, pause, etc.). This makes for some tedious coding, but will have to be done eventually.

4) I could imagine having an option to manually RMS-scan a bunch of selected files, or the whole folder, or tick a option to always scan the folder

5) This won't be enabled by default, ever, unless the user sets an option

[wshaper]

Hi, Tom & BlackOut

It looks like everyone will be pleased, thank you very much
Yes, optional to avoid sluggyness is best of course, so we can keep Resonic fast -but powerful-.

you came up with a great suggestion inadvertantly! list files according to sample rate. Another would be list according to bit depth....highest bit depth at the top of the file list. Another 2 columns in the resonic browser next to "Size, Artist, Title, Year, Length..." then add "Sample Rate, Bit Depth". They are great ideas! I would use this...very handy!

It's (nearly) already there... and might be there sooner or later ?
As bitrate is related to sample & bit depth (at least for WAV), sorting them by bitrate allows you to know if all files in a folder have the same bit/samplerate :


Cheers !

[Tom]

Besides, level meter with RMS display and variable time window + scale is coming in Resonic Pro.



http://resonic.at/labs/39#lab39

[wshaper]

yipee !
Thank you

PS : When using it with one-shot samples, will the vumeter hang/freeze when the sample has been played so that we can see the average RMS level ?

[Tom]

PS : When using it with one-shot samples, will the vumeter hang/freeze when the sample has been played so that we can see the average RMS level ?

Don't have that planned yet, but for a start you can just loop the sample then. Will think about that.

[Blackout]

would still be nice to have a sorting column for "No. of Bits". 16 bit, 24 bit. etc.

[BTGbullseye]

would still be nice to have a sorting column for "No. of Bits". 16 bit, 24 bit. etc.

Yeah, bit depth sorting would be nice.