[HN Gopher] Audacium has officially merged with Tenacity ___________________________________________________________________ Audacium has officially merged with Tenacity Author : app4soft Score : 109 points Date : 2023-02-17 14:44 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | CharlesW wrote: | Audacity is audio/sample editor1 that's popular as a My First | Editor(tm) for podcasters, etc. For anyone wondering why the | Audacium/Tenacity forks exist: | https://www.zdnet.com/article/audacity-reverses-course-on-pl... | | Apparently, Audacity telemetry is now restricted to a self-hosted | Sentry error reporting service, and to sending version info an IP | address (anonymized to the first 3 octets) on update checks. | | 1 It's a so-called "destructive" audio editor2, and so is | different than modern, "non-destructive" audio editors like | GarageBand, Reaper, Descript, etc. | | 2 https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/hks-communications-pro... | Blackthorn wrote: | > 1 It's a so-called "destructive" audio editor2, and so is | different than modern, "non-destructive" audio editors like | GarageBand, Reaper, Descript, etc. | | I have to say as someone who recently got into this space, the | value that these non-destructive editors provide for their | price is absurd. Reaper costs a mere one-time payment of $60 | for individual use! That's ridiculous for the value you're | getting. | squarefoot wrote: | Actually, Reaper's license expires after 2 major version | steps, that is, if you purchase a license when the major | version is x (currently it is 6.75) then you're licensed to | use it until x+1.99 (now it would be 7.99). Not to detract | anything from Reaper's value: its license is one of the best | everywhere, the cost is very affordable and the unlicensed | product isn't crippled like others around. I have been | licensed a while ago, and plan to purchase a new one as soon | as I get back to making music. I would love a crowdfunding | initiative to buy it from the creators with the purpose of | open sourcing it, but the product quality is so high that | even if possible it would likely cost a fortune. | mst wrote: | I think regarding it as a one-time payment for individual | use with free upgrades within the current and next major | version is a reasonable use of the term 'one-time payment' | in that while you can't upgrade any further after that the | software still keeps working. | | It seems to me that 'free upgrades forever' is honestly not | a wise idea if you want to develop for your actual users | rather than having to constantly try and attract more | because any existing user will never pay you again. | | So while I'm glad you mentioned the specifics, I don't | think the 'Actually,' at the start was really deserved. | (plus in general the quality of comments on the internet | starting with 'Actually,' is terribad and what followed it | in your case came as a welcome and pleasant surprise ;) | Blackthorn wrote: | > It seems to me that 'free upgrades forever' is honestly | not a wise idea if you want to develop for your actual | users rather than having to constantly try and attract | more because any existing user will never pay you again. | | Funny you should mention that... Another one of those | editors, FL Studio, has exactly that business model. It's | not as cheap as a Reaper license, but they do advertise | "free upgrades forever" and they're somehow in a good | enough position that they bought out both Melda and UVI | recently (the latter looks like a pretty big player in | the software synth space). | | The C-suite philosophy there is that new people are | constantly entering both the hobby and business which | is...well, entirely correct really. Honestly I'm glad | that it's working out for them because it's an incredibly | honest way of doing business, even if I don't use their | software myself due to a couple long-standing limitations | that hopefully they'll address soon. | dinkleberg wrote: | I imagine a big portion of imagelines (FL studio) is | through the extras they sell. You pay once for the | software, but then you buy new sound packs and VSTs. It | is a good model. | 1f60c wrote: | > "destructive" audio editor | | I clicked your link, but I'm still unsure what that means. Does | that mean it operates on the audio file directly? Or that it | has no undo functionality? Or something else entirely? | Ericson2314 wrote: | photoshop vs paint | alexvoda wrote: | it means that for certain operations/effects/filters/etc., | once done the only way to get rid of them is to undo enough | steps or to load a backup, in both cases loosing all of the | subsequent changes. | | With a nondestructive editor you can remove a change done | several steps ago AND keep all of the changes done | afterwards. | TylerE wrote: | Think of it like working in Illustrator, vs working not just | in photoshop, but photoshop with a flattened source image. | stonogo wrote: | A "destructive" editor is just an editor. Your text editor is | a "destructive" editor. A "non-destructive" editor does no | editing, and instead stores (in a separate file) a sequence | of patches to apply to the original file, resulting in your | desired output. This isn't really editing, but the industry | didn't do a good job at naming this stuff. | jaywalk wrote: | It's spelled out pretty directly: "if you delete something, | save your progress, and close your project, you will never be | able to restore what was deleted" | seba_dos1 wrote: | What you said may apply to both "non-destructive" and | "destructive" editors just as well. A better example would | be "if you add reverb to your track, save your progress and | close your project, you won't be able to unreverb it". With | "non-destructive" editor, all you did was to add a flag | that your track should have a reverb added to it, so you | can easily disable or adjust parameters of your reverb | afterwards without having to rely on undo. | bombcar wrote: | It's the difference between making changes to the audio | itself, and storing the changes as "now do this to the | audio". | | Similar to photoshop using layers to apply all the changes | you've done (so you can undo particular ones easily/turn them | on/off) and doing everything in the "flat" image space. | | Or using git to track a file's changes vs just editing the | file directly. | doodlesdev wrote: | Photoshop is still a destructive editor, it just has layers | to separate what you're destroying. Smart objects are the | non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't | really do a lot with them. A better example of a non- | destructive photo editor would be Affinity Photo [0], which | by design everything operates similar to a Photoshop smart | object. | | [0]: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/ | margorczynski wrote: | I think it operates on the absolute state of the audio where | e.g. Reaper uses deltas - your current result is simply all | of the deltas applied on after the other so it is easy to go | back with each change by just removing a delta from the | sequence. Quite similar to e.g. Event Sourcing vs your | regular source of truth in the DB | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I don't think this is the right description. | | DAWs (digital audio workstations) edit by using metadata. | Suppose you have an audio file that is 2 minutes long. You | start using it in the application. The application notes | "we have 2 minutes of audio, taken from the start of this | file". Now if you "delete" the last minute of the file, | _nothing_ is done to the file, but the "metadata" inside | the DAW now says "we have 1 minute of audio, taken from the | start of this file". | | If you then copy 20 seconds from the middle of that | section, the DAW refers to this with metadata essentially | saying "20 seconds of audio starting 20 seconds into this | file". | | Nothing is ever done to change the contents of the actual | file. | | ps. I write a DAW for a living. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | The descriptions seem equivalent, to me. I tend to think | of it as: a "source" is either raw audio, or the result | of applying a parameterised filter to zero or more | sources. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The reason it's not equivalent to me is that the concept | of "a series of deltas" does not make clear that what is | edited (with or without a delta model) is metadata. No | DAW ever edits an audio file (except for a few specific | operations where the user explicitly requests that). All | the edits are carried out on metadata (some would call | them an EDL - edit decision list; some would use other | names). But the delta model is orthogonal to this. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _No DAW ever edits an audio file (except for a few | specific operations where the user explicitly requests | that)._ | | This feels like semantics. No self-respecting DAW will | overwrite your source files, but the DAW's project file | is, technically, an audio file. And here's a 30-second | video file: A = BlankClip() B = | A.Subtitle("Hello, world!") Dissolve(A, B, 30) | | (Modified from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl | e=AviSynth&oldid=11...) | | You're using "audio file" in a domain-specific way. The | common meaning of "audio file" is "a file that contains | audio": a .aup file is an audio file, just the same as a | GarageBand project is, to a room full of 14-year-old | amateur musicians. | jcelerier wrote: | when i was a 14 (or even 12) year old amateur musician it | was very obvious to me that DAW projects weren't audio | files, I have never ever seen anyone saying this except | your post across all my childhood friends who were | dabbling with "artisanal" versions of FL studio, cubase | SX, etc etc | swyx wrote: | > It's a so-called "destructive" audio editor | | this is out of date as of Audacity 3.1. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH1CndkiBiU | CharlesW wrote: | Wow, that's _great_ news for its users! Non-destructive | effects as well! | | https://support.audacityteam.org/audio-editing/using- | realtim... | andrepd wrote: | Audacity also offers non-destructive editing. | Retr0id wrote: | IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to | their release builds. | | The telemetry in Audacity is behind both a build flag, and a | runtime opt-in setting (although it was originally going to be | opt-out, hence the uproar (I need to go fact-check this, it's | been a while)). | | So, if you install Audacity through your distro's package | manager, you're probably not getting any telemetry, opt-in or | otherwise. | | With that in mind, I'm not sure I understand why these forks | exist exactly. If I was a windows or macOS user, I might be | interested in telemetry-free builds, and I'd be very thankful for | anyone providing them, but I'm not sure why a whole fork is | needed to do that. | | Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have | diverged significantly from upstream Audacity (simply from | looking at commit counts and screenshots etc.), so it's | apparently not a simple build-config-change and rebrand. However, | the marketing blurb on https://tenacityaudio.org/ does not make | it clear which features are distinct from upstream. | | Edit: You can read about the telemetry options currently present | in Audacity here: https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop- | privacy-notice/ | jraph wrote: | > Edit: You can read about the telemetry options currently | present in Audacity here: | https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ | | Seems pretty reasonable actually. I remember that the situation | was more arguable when there were the push backs against the | privacy issue, The Muse seems to have responded appropriately | to the criticisms. | | The community split is unfortunate and sad but I sympathize | with people wanting to avoid having to sign a CLA. One of the | benefits of contributing to a GPL project without a CLA is that | for the project to get rid of the GPL, it has to go out of its | way asking for permission to every contributor or to remove the | concerned code, which ensure your code does not risk ending up | in a future, proprietary version of the project. | | The reasons given for the existence of the CLA are reasonable | too and I empathize (ability to release under GPLv3 and to | release an version in Apple's App store, citing the example of | VLC), but the CLA gives way too much right to The Muse which | has all the rights to say "thank you, now we will actually make | Audacity proprietary". Ideally its scope should be reduced. | duped wrote: | Muse group has a history of acting as a bad actor, eg | UltimateGuitar.com. They don't have much goodwill to deserve | the benefit of the doubt here. | jraph wrote: | They sure take concerning decisions. | | The MuseScore 4 release is otherwise awesome (and we must | credit them for this!), but they include a non-free (but | gratis) optional sound renderer, Muse Sounds, and don't | make it very clear they do it (edit: and Muse Hub too, same | thing). They also encourage users to save their work in the | cloud way too strongly. | | I'm not interested in their cloud. I would be interested in | Muse Sounds, but there is no way I'm going to start to rely | on non-free software today. The whole point of MuseScore, | besides it being beginner-friendly, is that's it's free | software and Tantacrul sells this aspect very well in its | first video about MuseScore by the way. | | I actually told them my concerns about Muse Sounds at their | FOSDEM stand after they asked me if I saw issues with the | new version. Maybe if there are enough voices about this... | andrepd wrote: | >They also encourage users to save their work in the | cloud way too strongly. | | I mean... I usually don't like those sorts of things | either, but it's literally a window when you click save, | before the main dialog, asking whether to save on the | computer or their cloud, with a tick box if you want to | skip and always save on the computer. Doesn't get much | lighter than this, other than not having cloud | integration at all... :) | dspillett wrote: | _> I 'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly._ | | A large part of it is mistrust of Muse, over the initial opt- | out nature of the new telemetry and over other past decisions, | unrelated to Audacity, that people have found questionable.1 | Fool me once, and all that. | | _> Looking at the git tree, it 's clear that these forks have | diverged significantly from upstream Audacity_ | | That in itself would be a reason, certainly from a dev's PoV, | on top of that trust thing. If both projects fit what they | want, but the downstream ones do it in a way they prefer, that | is enough difference even if | | _> [sic] the marketing does not make clear the difference from | upstream_ | | implies that there is no major difference2 from an end-users | PoV3 at this point. | | -- | | [1] I've not looked into the latter in much detail, my use of | Audacity is so infrequent currently that I don't think I've | updated (or, obviously, switched to something else) since | before the hoo-hah. | | [2] Yet, at least. | | [3] beyond the telemetry and potential trust issues | btown wrote: | With Muse Group's ownership and Tantacrul/Martin Keary as Head | of Product of Audacity [0][1], Audacity will be moving in a | radically different direction from a UI/UX perspective. I | happen to think this will be a good thing, and I happen to | think that (opt-in) telemetry is a perfectly good way of | ensuring that a consumer-facing open-source project doesn't | just build for its loudest users, especially in the context of | large interface redesigns. And with MuseScore 4, the creative | team struck what I think is a great balance between | streamlining the interface and avoiding the removal of | complexity/advanced features. | | But I can also see why a fork can and should diverge, for those | who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the | software. I hope the Tenacity project succeeds! | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMWNvwLiXIQ | | [1] https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martin-keary-88a5a7159 | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution | of the software._ | | As I recall, Tenacity started with some significant reworking | of the development toolchain. But I get your point: that's | not something end-users normally care about. | btown wrote: | Not sure about Tenacity's situation, but there are | certainly ways in which development toolchains can be | reworked to lend themselves towards predictable performance | and reliable release management! | wizzwizz4 wrote: | While true, this doesn't mean slow-moving evolution of | the project. A project can have predictable toolchain | performance and reliable release management and rewrite | the whole thing every six months. | anigbrowl wrote: | A more readable summary: https://github.com/Audacium/audacium | anaganisk wrote: | Why is error reporting telemetry bad? Im really lost at why this | is such a big deal. They're not collecting personal info. They | are just looking to make the product better. | sneak wrote: | When, where, and how you use your tools is personal info, even | if your name is not put on the data. | Entinel wrote: | This is not true legally. If there is no way to link back to | you personally then it is not PII. | Ruthalas wrote: | Correct me if I am wrong, but it's going to be tied to your | IP address. | | So it will be tied to a unique identifier. | dspillett wrote: | As has been repeatedly argued in cases of IP-rights- | holders-vs-sharers, an IP address on its own does not | identify an individual. We argue that both ways depending | on what suits us at the time, or we are as bad as the | music industry flipping between "you bought the CD" and | "you licensed the music" when it suits them to. | Nullabillity wrote: | There's a huge difference between "identifiable enough to | be legal evidence" and "identifiable enough to be | unethical to collect". | Ruthalas wrote: | That's fair. (Though I certainly haven't argued it either | way previously myself.) | | I do think it makes your statement that cannot, "be | linked back to you personally", a little less absolute. | dspillett wrote: | That was someone-else's statement, not mine. | | My take: An IP address is usually not, in fact almost | always not, PII on its own, but there are circumstances | where it is part of a package of data that is PII, and | others where it could be considered "circumstantial PII". | Timon3 wrote: | This is only true in certain jurisdictions. The GDPR | recitals specifically mention IP addresses as examples of | personal data: | | > Natural persons may be associated with online | identifiers provided by their devices, applications, | tools and protocols, such as _internet protocol | addresses_ , cookie identifiers or other identifiers such | as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave | traces which, in particular when combined with unique | identifiers and other information received by the | servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural | persons and identify them. | | from https://gdpr.eu/recital-30-online-identifiers-for- | profiling-... | | Further support for this interpretation in case the above | comes off as "only if combined with other data": | https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data- | protection/r... | noman-land wrote: | I just wanna live my god damn life in peace instead of | wondering if my belongings are leaking data about me. | | If I want to help the developers debug their app for free I | will decide on my own when and how to do that. | | I consider any breach of these desires to be ideologically | repugnant and indicative of an extreme disrespect for users of | your app. | Entinel wrote: | > If I want to help the developers debug their app for free I | will decide on my own when and how to do that. | | You say this like you pay for the app. Audacity is free. | jszymborski wrote: | Audacity is free, my data is not | stonogo wrote: | Whether or not I paid for the app and whether or not I want | to help debug it are two completely separate and unrelated | questions. | Entinel wrote: | They aren't though. You say "help debug it" as if you are | actually lifting a finger to help. In reality, you have a | problem that a company provides you an app for free and | wants your anonymous data to help improve it. Something | that cost you nothing in terms of time or money. Also | something you can opt out of if you find that agreement | disagreeable for whatever reason. | stonogo wrote: | If my data is valuable to them they can pay me for it. | | And don't forget this company initially tried to ship | telemetry-by-default in this software before there was | backlash. They retreated to a reasonable compromise, but | in no way are they entitled to a single byte of my data. | I owe them nothing. I did not compel them to "provide me | an app for free," not only because that app existed long | before they bought its branding, but also because I had | no voice in their licensing policy. | | If they want to amend their license to require telemetry, | they may do so, and I will stop using the software. But | never, ever, as long as I live, will I owe them shit. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _In reality, you have a problem that a company provides | you an app for free and wants your anonymous data to help | improve it._ | | No, _in reality_ , you have a company that _bought_ the | branding of a piece of free software. They didn 't make | Audacity. They contributed to versions 3.0 through 3.2.1 | (which I've, personally, never used). They had nothing to | do with the award-winning version 1.3.x, nor anything up | to 2.4.2. | | I'm not against companies taking on the maintenance of | free software projects - provided it's not an Embrace | Extend Extinguish ruse -, but throwing money around | wouldn't entitle one to claim credit. (I'm not aware of | Muse Group claiming credit for Audacity, but if anyone | _is_ pulling a stunt like that, I would like to write | them a strongly-worded letter.) | noman-land wrote: | Audacity chose to make itself free. It had nothing to do | with me. I don't owe them anything for that. Giving someone | a gift does not entitle you to a gift of your choice in | return. | croes wrote: | Data traffic without consent is bad. | rightbyte wrote: | Unless it is opt-in it is spyware. | | You can't trust devs that have such bad judgement that they | would even think about doing it opt-out with the opt-in data | either. | bqmjjx0kac wrote: | Is (was?) Audacium related to Audacity at all? | masklinn wrote: | I think it's one of the audacity fork from when the main devs | put telemetry in audacity a year or two back. | [deleted] | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | Could anyone familiar with this add something about Audacium to | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audacity_(audio_editor) if it's | significant to its history? I tried to understand what happened | and if there was a fork but couldn't. | branon wrote: | If you want to understand even less, check this one out: | https://github.com/Sneeds-Feed-and-Seed/sneedacity | petecooper wrote: | >Audacium has officially merged with Tenacity | | This appears to be the Tenacity referenced: | | https://tenacityaudio.org | | https://codeberg.org/tenacityteam/tenacity | | https://github.com/tenacityteam/tenacity | mgsk wrote: | Not sure why they wouldn't include that link in the | announcement/on github. | Arnavion wrote: | Probably didn't think of it. If you were using Audacium it's | because you were looking for Audacity forks in general, so | you would already know about Tenacity too. | tevon wrote: | The Audacity of it! | LeoPanthera wrote: | I'm surprised Tenacity isn't in Homebrew, even as a cask. | ilyt wrote: | Great! They can call it Audacity now | talkingtab wrote: | or tenacium | seba_dos1 wrote: | Tenacious A | 60secs wrote: | or Teneculum ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-17 23:00 UTC)