11 May
2004
11 May
'04
2:02 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-bounces(a)music.columbia.edu [mailto:linux-audio-
user-bounces(a)music.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Harper
I haven't used Audacity much, but as far as I know, some differences
are:
- Audacity is easier to use.
For me Audacity is only good for editing samples/sound files.
Using it as the many HDR for your DAW is not an option (yet). Lack of
realtime effect sends, bussing, automation, etc. would make it difficult
for me to suggest to anyone to use audacity as the center piece to their
DAW. That being said, it's a great program for what it does (I use at
home (linux CCRMA) and at work (winXP) for sample tweaking and editing.
_________________________________________________
Scanned on 11 May 2004 15:54:01
Scanning by http://erado.com
12 May
12 May
7:22 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Newbie checks in
For me Audacity is only good for editing samples/sound
files.
Using it as the many HDR for your DAW is not an option (yet). Lack
of realtime effect sends, bussing, automation, etc. would make it
difficult for me to suggest to anyone to use audacity as the center
piece to their DAW.
That depends what your needs are. If using an analogue mixer with
outboard effects, for example, you may not need these features within
the software. Many kinds of music don't require heavy effects
processing or editing, such as the live acoustic material I'm
recording this week.
(One of the best selling records last year, by the White Stripes, was
recorded on analogue tape with no automation whatsover...)
Many musicians use 'portastudio' devices because they like the
simplicity. I'll go for something that 'just works' over
feature-packed bloatware any day.
Cheers
Daniel
7591
days inactive
7592
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel James -
Matthew Allen