wikiloops v16 was open for preview & now live :)

So the track waveform-

Bravo, Looks great.

I did notice its subject to screen resolution so if its half the window on PC it may be a quarter window on phone.

Can that be made to reflect track volume I.E. also be a True Peak RMS meter of a track (Or LUFS)? Every streaming sight wants about 14 LUFS , maybe make it so 14 LUFS is half the window up to a center line?

May help out standardize volume levels a bit .

---

I noticed that to and it may be overall track volume related.

---

When you click on "lyrics" on a song they look to need word wrap or something .. harder to read on this version. No longer separated into paragraphs .. just one big lump of words lol

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54171558695_e5a5164aca_o.jpg[/img]

---

Wouldn't that be a bit too ambitious?
...but not impossible using a library like Juce https://juce.com/

---

Ambitious is good.

And for a website promoting jamming and creating songs online it quite honestly would benefit everyone’s mixes .

There is an industry world wide standard for volume levels every streaming site adheres to why not the Loops?

All I’m suggesting is have the track waveform have some kind of volume target to try to achieve like a centerline running thru it that represents 14 LUFS .so not only is it pretty to look at but also serves an important mixing function people can learn from.

I just make music Didier, I leave that programming stuff to Dick and company. If he sees this I can just suggest it .

---

Hello Littlewing,

Far be it from me to want to criticize your suggestion which seems very relevant to me.Particularly to obtain an album that has consistent sound quality between all the tracks that compose it...

Revamping software is usually accompanied by new features.

[img]https://scontent-cdg4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/467522574_28097686999815582_2084924718647907661_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=DeLgrhfL0ZIQ7kNvgGUvrR3&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-cdg4-1.xx&_nc_gid=AQW04a0K1VRbH_dbKqHQq8m&oh=00_AYBX_RUHpWEGeJIpM6eFJOYOba1r5SYzS2WLnsfQ8uiVPw&oe=674F2FC9[/img]

---

I didn’t take it that way my friend. it’s all good .

---

Hey folks :)

I'm working down the mentioned bugs & will report when these are fixed.

Since there is some interest around the new player features, let me offer a quick run-through of what this is, how it works and what might be worth considering. Fasten seatbelts.

Let's clarify some terms, so we wont get lost in misunderstandings here:
- we have "the waveform", that is that greyish zig-zaggy thing that the cursor of the player moves along, and it represents the combined "mono" volume of the stereo track that is playing.
Fat grey bumps indicate high volume, thin line at the center represents silence.
That has been around for long.

- then we have "the frequencies", those are the bumpy colorful bars that indicate the volumes of the frequencies at the cursor position, with the right hand side (orange) representing the bass frequencies, and the left hand end (blue) the high frequencies.

Whilst the waveform remains static during playback, the frequencies get re-drawn on every frame, causing some compute overhead (which obviously causes some problem on Pewis iPad),
as the current slice of audio is being analyzed for its frequencies.

Note that it is your browser which is doing the analysis in real time, so yes, we have put foot on the grounds of audio manipulation on the client side, which offers a box of things, at the risk of over-doing it and crashing smaller devices capacities.

One could go overboard and include EQ and compression which you could alter while listening to someones mix,
and sure, one can do more visualisation, probably including LUFS.
I'll explore the options and see what makes sense for the 'loops.

Things like the radio or the album players would benefit from some type of volume-smoothening so one doesn't need to reach out to adjust volume when the next track comes up.
On the other hand, you guys have been extremely touchy on "did the player alter my audio?", and we've been deliberately not touching that, leaving the sound entirely up to you.

Now, my question concerning the LUFS-meter and other similar features is this:
What is the benefit of noticing you missed the recommended volume mark after uploading to wikiloops?
You can and could already tell that in the past,
simply by noticing "Ernies waveforms are always much fatter than my tracks, maybe I should increase volume?",
and the LUFS meter would tell you little more than that.
At a moment in your "production lifeycle" where you can't change the track any longer, as it is already uploaded (sure, can delete and re-upload, but...).

So, I'd think whoever wants to mix to a standard LUFS level needs to monitor that in the DAW where adjustments can be made, there is rather little use for it on wikiloops IMHO, or am I missing something here?

I'm currently toying with ideas like displaying the chords of the current part in the player as a future option... plus some other ideas ;)

---

displaying the chords...is this key detection? or simply displaying the chords if supplied?

---

I have noticed that on the "Remixes of ..... tracks" page,
the Tracks that correspond to "uploads by ...." are also displayed.
Windows 10 - Chrome

---

ivax attached the following image:

no chord detection, I don't think that would work overly well. I'd rather display whatever the user stated on the part markers, tho that might turn out to be a little tricky if multiple lines of chords are specified per part. It's just an idea, I'll play around with it a bit.
I still feel there is potential in the markers, if only they are convenient to set up. The whole drag and drop thing is still a little wonky... there's room for improvement in that area.

---

Re markers: What I would find helpful would be to not to have to drag the colored markers but to (additionally/alternatively) be able to enter timestamps for the markers. I usually have an arranger line on my DAW that shows me that the intro goes to 34,5 sec, chorus 1 to 58,3 sec and so on. As I already have that, it would be easier to be able to enter those values instead of dragging the colored bars around. (And no, I enter those values manually on my DAW, there`s not automatic part recognition :D )

---

Doesn't really matter but I think you have that the wrong way around.

---

just a thought, I'll use an outside site every now and then when bpm is not supplied. don't know how easy/hard that is, but a utility page where that could be done would be cool (maybe supply track ID and boom...bpm). not sure how often that happens though so might not be worth the time.

---

If you have any effect unit or modeler etc... with tap delay you can simply tap the beat and get bpm off that. I have a foot pedal under the desk I simply tap like a kick drum and see the bpm of any song right in front of me on my amp modeler.. If you dont then there are ways in Reaper.

If you have an effects unit with tap delay and it supports foot pedals thats the cheapest and easiest way of getting bpm.

I do know its hard to find a bpm vst,I assume there is a reason why that is. You would think you would see alot of those.

---

just an fyi, noticing this evening, via chrome, the "thumbs" aren't thumbing. they are, like you can "thumb", but when you refresh, it still appears like you haven't "thumbed", but says you have in the 'stat section'. tried a hard refresh and cache dump and still the same.

---

Wow , Thank you for that detailed explaination Dick.

Im. the one bringing up the LUFS and such because I see alot of potential in all this great work you did. I see a valueable tool.

Now ..your question since Im the one inquiring about volume standards and LUFS.

Your question was :
"What is the benefit of noticing you missed the recommended volume mark after uploading to wikiloops? "

None. Thas not what I see as important.

What I do see as important and this has to do with prior conversations (I know Wolfgang participated)is by having a reference line or some sort of indicator for 14 LUFS or 0 db. This simply gives a visual target for a "recommended suggested volume level."

Every streaming service (Youtube, Soundcloud, Apple Music, Google...etc...) wants around 14 LUFS. Youtube actually wants 0db peak which is similiar.

I feel it would be good practice to at least provide a visual indicator of where "IDEALLY" a track should be volume wise as per the industry standard.

This in turn would train beginners in best practice , and should one pay attention to this "ideal volume indicator" wikiloops tracks that end up on Youtube videos would already be at the ideal volume when creating a video.Thats the reward. No extra work because you did it right the first time because Dick gave you the tools you needed .

Im just inquiring about maybe a reference line down the center OR have the vertical height on the colored waveform turn RED when you are over the 0db mark ...if possible.

Weve discussed this before and if there is a solution to standardizing volumes I see this as a possible solution we didnt have before.

There would be no consequence for anybody uploading a quiet track . But with the waveform catching peoples attentions, my spider sense tells me based on the prior discussions weve had , A visual indication of "Ideal volume " would benefit by encouraging persons to do it "the correct way".

The 14 LUFS is encouraged by every other music stream site world wide. Why not the Loops too?

Like I said Im just thinking a middle reference line that would show the track in relation to 0db or 14 Lufs (same volume basically) and even if you presented it as "Wikiloops optimal volume" its doing it the right way. I just didnt understand everything I was looking at with this new waveform and you just explained it and truthfully , its more then I thought it was , so Ill read on .

I would ask Wolfgang for his input because other then me , he was calling for something similiar and we didnt know how to go about getting everyone here to make an effort to get songs the same volume.

Theres no penalty or consequence for an upload low in volume or blaring loud,but if you pin a post in the forum with everything you explained above, someone whos even moderately skilled at mixing will see the benefir in it when they read your break down of the waveform.
"Just get the upload volume to get near the reference line , or not turn the colors red or whatever."

Id get Wolfs input and Im not looking for anything overly complicated I dont think.

I DO see what you did as a great tool for mixing and we mixers and knob twiddlers LOVE things like that. If there is an Industry standard for volume , why not a reference in the waveform of where "Ideally you should be volume wise".


Thanks for the detailed explanation , Ill come back and read it further as Im interested at the thought and effort in this and again ...I see it as having great possibilities.

This explaination of the waveform should be its own post, and pinned under "Recording and mixing".

"Is my track to quiet oir too loud" runs thru everyones head when uploading beginner or seasoned pro. Why not take the guess work out with a simple bar or changw of color to red to take the guess work out. Measure the volume of an Olivebee track and set that as "the ideal suggested level".(Olives are all near the 14 LUF/0db level)

Wolf and Olive off the top of my head, would probably be two to consult with further.
Theres one or two forum posts on this topic that noone had any idea how to encourage people to adhere to. I see this waveform as possibly the answer.

Regards

14 is average across the board
[img]https://static.emastered.com/images/blog-assets/5982.webp?v=1717336859[/img]

---

Here ya go
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Facebook_Thumb_icon.svg/512px-Facebook_Thumb_icon.svg.png?20190503123028[/img]

You can also be the first to beta test the new V16 alternate Thumb...

[img]https://robinderosa.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/facebook-1558618_1280-284x300.png[/img]

---

Re LUFS
Initially concerned as I thought that Joe was asking for Loops to manipulate the tracks to get to 14, but having read his explanation I do like the idea of a simple reference line.

---

Concerning the "LUFS line" as a orientation mark... I see the reasoning.

There are two things I'll try to investigate here, but I am still a little doubtful whether the indicator will really be of a lot of help, let me explain why:

We are looking at the volume peaks of the encoded mp3 here, at a pretty low scale, squeezing three minutes of audio on 600px monitor width, and squeezing anything from silence to overdone volume on 40px height.
If the visualization reaches the LUFS line (or say 0 dB) and you can actually see that peak at that scaling, then I'd bet you crossed the line somewhere. 1px represents several audio slices, so for it to reach the 0dB mark, the average signal of those combined slices needs to come out at 0dB, meaning some slices will most likely be above.
That's why it takes experience and well set compression to get near the 0dB line without running into clipping issues.

For newbees to the recording world, I'd really recommend to make sure the loudest peak doesn't touch 0dB.
As for remixing & collaboration, I rather post-compress a track with low volume in my mix than work with an over-saturated recording that is mixed to 14 LUFS.
Give me a track whichs loudest peaks land in the range between -6dB to -3dB, and where the quiet parts go no lower than -20dB and I'll be a happy mixer - that is way below 14 LUFS, but I want to mix and not consume a mix, mind the gap.
We are really making nobodys life easier if every template & mix is compressed to reach that line, that only makes sense when creating a "final" mix containing multiple instruments IMHO.

I need to experiment about a little, but I am also in doubt the mp3 format actually captures anything above the 0dB line. There is a chance that those peaks are simply cut away, so the visualization would never exceed the 0dB mark,
making it look like you've done good reaching the 0dB mark, but giving no hint why your audio sounds really wrecked.

Bottom line: If the aim is to give guidance to new collaborators, I'd think the "red zone" should be lower than 0dB, and the "average visual level" (the line that the quiet parts should not fall below) would be a second nice to have.... that might clutter our 40px height display pretty bad, just check this quickly sketched screenshot:

---

Dick attached the following image: