Re: new user trying to set up a processing chain

raymond grote <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.audio.sox
Message-ID <CAM4wmjrdad8DAOukR6yhAeeWrrn-Sa8RFd=FOP59hpadNvkzJw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jeremy, You're correct, I didn't give enough information.
I'm using Windows 10. I'm not at a very proficient level with
scripting. I see the potential of it, but am not confident with a
scripting language yet. I'm assuming batch script would be fine for my
needs, but right now I'm just trying to learn some basics, so that I
have a better idea of what I'll be scripting when I get there.

I totally understand what you're saying about making sure the
processing is easy to follow and adjust, rather than trying to make it
run as efficiently as possible. I tend to agree with that mindset, but
I feel like there's a line between an easy-to-follow way, and a way
that's hacked together because you don't understand the basic tools
which make certain things a hundred times easier. I sometimes feel
like I'm on the wrong side of that, So I'm a bit paranoid that I'm
doing things in a stupid way haha

A simple example follows. Not sure if I'd actually use this, I was
just trying to think of a situation which illustrates my
uncertainties.
Step 1. I have a file called test.wav and I want to pitch shift it.
sox test.wav temp.wav pitch -500
Step 2. Then I should mix the pitch shift copy with the original, and
apply reverb to the mix.
sox -m test.wav temp.wav test_processed.wav reverb

File/directory structure should be simple. Basically, the original
file and the _processed version should be in the same folder, at least
for now. Temp.wav is not needed. It would be useful to hear
intermediate results, but assuming I don't need to check those, I
really don't need it.

So my question is twofold. Is it common practice to launch sox once
for some processing and then again for other stuff? I know you can
chain effects in one sox instance, but mixing is not an effect as I
understand, which is why I came to the conclusion that you needed to
use a separate instance for mixing. But for all I know, I'm missing
something. Secondly, is it a good idea to use a temporary output file
on the hard drive as I have done for intermediate processing steps?


On 11/16/20, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2020-11-16 10:04, raymond grote wrote:
>
>> As someone who is generally good at putting pieces together, I can
>> work out how to do this in a messy way. Basically I would manually
>> mix/process each file. But I unfortunately struggle with efficiency
>> sometimes, so it would be quite tedious to do this to multiple files.
>
>> So, I'm primarily trying to work out how much I can do with one
>> instance of sox, and if multiple instances are required, where would
>> they split?
>
> I think your question's a bit too vague to answer easily.
>
> What OS are you using, and what scripting language (or shell?) are you
> comfortable with?
>
> Do you have an idea yet of what directories/folders you're planning to
> keep files in?
>
> Do you know how you plan to name them? (Eg, are you going to have base
> leafnames and add words to imply what changes you've made, so that eg
>
>    mysong.wav
>
> might end up with modified versions named eg
>
>    mysong (shifted 2khz).wav
>
>    mysong (shifted 2khz) (reverb).wav
>
> or could it be ...mysong\file001.wav        (the original)
>             and ...mysong\filennn.wav        (the n'th variant)?
>
>
> Do all the files you want to process have a similar naming style?
>
>
> As far as sox goes, I am not personally in favour of trying to use
> chains
> of commands, because although efficiency may be a problem, stuff can run
> while I look for food, have a shower, sleep etc... and simplicity in the
> scripts wins over for me.  (I'm a retired professional programmer, so my
> "simple" might be more complex than yours. And my scripts are written in
> ooREXX and run under Windows.)
>
> It's also (I think) a great deal easier (if you realise later on that a
> sequence of effects didn't do quite what you wanted) that you can go
> back
> and redo (say) the third change taking the output from the second one.
> You can't do that if you no longer have the intermediate files.
>
> Also at the start when you are experimenting, I think you'd want to test
> each stage separately.
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sox-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.