On 5/29/25 13:47, Brandon Hale wrote: I use Audacity. I tried Tenacity, all it did was crash or otherwise not work. When Audacity dropped telemetry, I never bothered with Tenacity again. I've used Wavbreaker <https://wavbreaker.sourceforge.io/> to split album recordings into separate tracks. It suffers UI issues I've encountered with a number of other graphics and audio applications: icons and most everything else is almost unusable on my 4K/hidpi display, they're just too tiny. Come on, people, use SVG, not tiny little bitmaps! And make sure your applications windows are resizable. When I was mixing 12 track recordings of my church band, I used Audacity. I don't come from a background of using mixing boards and just wasn't able to get that mindset into my head. I appreciate the power that DAWs offer, just don't find them usable for me. Finally, I think I can still safely say that pro-audio users in the Linux world are a tiny fraction of the pro-audio world that includes Microsoft and Apple, and we're an even tinier fraction of Linux audio users. So maybe there's not a crowd of users clamoring for Linux pro-audio tools? As long as they can hear their media of choice, and participate in online video conferences, I don't think many Linux users think about audio. Question: How to visually-challenged Linux users do such editing? Ideas? -- David W. Jones gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com "My password is the last 8 digits of π."

I don't think the issue is Linux's interest among the general populous. There has been a considerable amount of progress made on the web front and now with Web Audio API and other modern browser technology many new kinds of products are coming out that sort of replace the need to learn how to edit audio. I'm talking about services like Descript and Riverside.fm, who have clever web-based tools that abstract away the editing process to make it much more approachable for the average user. Audio editing in particular requires some knowledge of audio, i.e., zero crossing, fading, clipping, etc., and Descript came up with a way to make it as simple as editing a word document. The other issue is that while audio quality could be considerably higher learning a tool like Wavelab or Audacity, the need simply is not there anymore. Podcasts that make millions a year do just fine publishing Zoom calls over non-mastered 92kbps stereo MP3 files. Why bother using tools like timeline-based audio editors in such a landscape? On 5/29/25 19:59, Brandon Hale wrote:

On Thursday, May 29, 2025 10:24:53 PM Central Daylight Time Paul Davis wrote: A little knowledge of audio is a dangerous thing? -- Chris

On 5/29/25 20:59, Brandon Hale wrote: I've noticed this also. While I appreciate seeing more linux use, I note that Resolve and Reaper aren't open source, which saddens me. I do like Resolve, despite not being open source. A bit off topic, but two nice features of Resolve that I'll point out that is that is has a great audio editing system, inherited from Fairlight consoles.  This would likely lessen the appeal of using a separate audio editor. The second great feature is that is has good workgroup tools, either based on Postgres locally (or with VPN), or via their new cloud service. For multi-editor projects, this is great, and this is a feature that could easily be worth seeing in other tools like Ardour, Shotcut, or Kdenlive.