Re: new user trying to set up a processing chain

[raymond grote <musicalman517@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
<jn.ml.sxu.88@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> 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
> Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
>


_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users