Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Top toolbar RTA (spectrum analyzer) #2214

Open
unfa opened this issue Jul 26, 2015 · 16 comments
Open

Top toolbar RTA (spectrum analyzer) #2214

unfa opened this issue Jul 26, 2015 · 16 comments

Comments

@unfa
Copy link
Contributor

unfa commented Jul 26, 2015

The idea is to add a Foobar-like spectrum analyzer to the top panel of LMMS. There's some space there I think it might be useful to quickly check a frequency, a simple 100Hz/1kHz/10kHz grid could also be added to provide precise reference (why not?) so it's less of just a cool looking toy and more of a real tool. Here's a quick mockup:

top toolbar rta

I often find myself adding a spectrum analyser to the master bus and setting it to "Always on Top" - it helps me build the sense of where every sound resides and helps me plan my mix and even composition. very useful.

What do you think? Of course it should be possible to switch that off if the user doesn't need it and it drains his resources too much.

@midi-pascal
Copy link
Contributor

@unfa Interesting idea indeed. But... what does this means in term of additional CPU usage?
I like this but I think it should be optional (I work with a Pentium 4 CPU :)

@unfa
Copy link
Contributor Author

unfa commented Jul 26, 2015

Yeah, totally optional.

@midi-pascal
Copy link
Contributor

I think something like the master output widget with a "Click to enable" inside would be really cool.

@Wallacoloo
Copy link
Member

Wallacoloo commented Jul 26, 2015 via email

@unfa
Copy link
Contributor Author

unfa commented Jul 26, 2015

I'd like to see both the waveform and the RTA at the same time, so I'd keep them separate. Similarly like with the "oscilloscope" clicking on it could toggle it on/off.

@midi-pascal
Copy link
Contributor

Since it can be useful to see both at the same time, I would vote for separate displays.

@Umcaruje
Copy link
Member

I love this idea 👍

@budislav
Copy link

This is good idea but I think it is not so good for ui/ux side. Toolbar is not place for this. I think this should be in one window so it can be resizable and with more options. There can be Phase meter and Peak/RSM Level Meter also. This would be very handy when you do mastering. This can be implemented into tab system and if you have multiple monitors this can be on full screen.
#1911

visualization

@unfa
Copy link
Contributor Author

unfa commented Aug 2, 2015

Actually I don't do mastering in LMMS since I have Ardour, but for mixing this still could be useful.
However I didn't want it to take too much space. Maybe it could be a detachable widget that can be docked in the toolbar or maximized on another screen?

@budislav
Copy link

budislav commented Aug 3, 2015

I don't want to use two DAWs for one thing. LMMS should be good for mastering also. Still think that toolbar is not place for that and we need something bigger. You can see a data from all channels not only from master. You can dock this tab on any of horizontal sections and even to maximizing on another screen. That is a power of tab system.

lmms_dualscreens

@michaelgregorius
Copy link
Contributor

I agree with @budislav. In my opinion the toolbar is not the correct place for such a tool. Making it possible to change the size of the widget and to dock it would give the users much more options and flexibility. Please also keep in mind that high DPI displays will (hopefully) become more and more common in the not so far future and that it's therefore in LMMS' best interest to be able to render as many elements as possible at different sizes. Unfortunately the current state of the code seems to be that it is cluttered with hard coded sizes and layouts. :(

@budislav
Copy link

budislav commented Aug 3, 2015

@michaelgregorius for that reason everything should be drawn from software. I used only gradients, outlines, shadows, solid colors and transparency in my designs. So developers can easily develop all patterns like knobs, buttons, levels, backgrounds,... and UI will still remain clean, modern and user-friendly.

@tresf
Copy link
Member

tresf commented Aug 24, 2015

Can someone please explain to me what is different between this request and the Spectrum Analyzer we already have?

If there are features missing from ours, shouldn't we just have an enhancement to improve what we already have?

As far as always being on the screen, we don't have a single-window interface yet, but telling it to always be on top works well for now.

image

image

image

On a side note, we really have to start applying some practicality and feasibility to these bug reports. We're flooded every single day with people's nice-to-have wish lists, and it clutters our tracker. We need to focus on attainable goals and improving what we already have.

@midi-pascal
Copy link
Contributor

@tresf

We're flooded every single day with people's nice-to-have wish lists, and it clutters our tracker. We need to focus on attainable goals and improving what we already have.

👍 👍 So many bugs left to fix! 😄

@Wallacoloo
Copy link
Member

@tresf @michaelgregorius Holding this discussion here only serves to force readers of this issue to parse through a lot of unrelated conversation. You should move the conversation elsewhere (be it another issue, a mail-list discussion, wiki discussion page?, etc). Be sure to remove the off-topic comments from this page afterward as well.

Edit: I did not mean to imply that the conversation on development direction isn't an important one to have - just that this isn't the place for it.

@michaelgregorius
Copy link
Contributor

@Wallacoloo You're right. I have removed my off-topic comments.

@tresf tresf mentioned this issue Jun 29, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants