[[email protected]]

http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack

[geoff]

On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack


Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack


Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.

What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters. I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared of digital "sound"!!

Cordially,
Jack

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:23:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack


Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.

What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters. I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared of digital "sound"!!

Cordially,
Jack

But, I have always been a fan of the non Pro software.
Even in a Photoshop usenet forum, I found a Damsel in distress. I guess her job was graphics at Rollsecure. She needed to make a animation from two photos (ASAP), and no one seemed to want to help her. I told her to contact me in e-mail. Maybe 45 minutes later, I sent her the Proof, she was happier than ever. What did I use? Photoshop? Nonsense, I used GIMP!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/shutterwork.gif

Jack

[geoff]

On 17/08/2017 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/



JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack


Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be
the same as that of people for whom these functions are a
specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but
would be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check
out Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when
I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records
engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.

You can try others for free to see if the workflow is the same, better,
or worse for you. Sound 'quality' in itself not likely to be
significantly different, unless Goldwave has some inherent low-spec flaws.


What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters.
I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of
DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared
of digital "sound"!!

"Know one" ?!!!

The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in recording
side as well as in domestic players. And more recently bigger deeper
faster computer processors which allowed things to be done at higher
resolution and precision that earlier.

And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to equate
over-bright with clarity.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
On 17/08/2017 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/



JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack


Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be
the same as that of people for whom these functions are a
specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but
would be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check
out Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when
I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records
engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.

You can try others for free to see if the workflow is the same, better,
or worse for you. Sound 'quality' in itself not likely to be
significantly different, unless Goldwave has some inherent low-spec flaws..


What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters.
I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of
DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared
of digital "sound"!!

"Know one" ?!!!

You no that was a typo!!


The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

That's funny, until I came here, no one or know one, new of these Sony Machines, two were very common in mastering CDs. Scott was told something by someone and had an unclear picture, even he didn't know. I thought this was "Pro" group? It was I who investigated the Sony "Hot" and not so "hot" audio from someone was was instrumental in the CD mastering business.


What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in recording
side as well as in domestic players. And more recently bigger deeper
faster computer processors which allowed things to be done at higher
resolution and precision that earlier.

'But CDs are still 16 bit.

And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to equate
over-bright with clarity.

-- I have yet to hear any thing like that on CD!
-- Like that Elton John CD I had, that made me return my very first CD player.
-- The master tapes are held in the UK, not USA, why the CD sounded more tape hiss than music!!

Let's move on!!

Jack

geoff

[geoff]

On 17/08/2017 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
That's funny, until I came here, no one or know one, new of these
Sony Machines, two were very common in mastering CDs. Scott was told
something by someone and had an unclear picture, even he didn't know.
I thought this was "Pro" group? It was I who investigated the Sony
"Hot" and not so "hot" audio from someone was was instrumental in the
CD mastering business.

I think pretty much everybody here knew what the PCM-1610 etc were.



What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in
recording side as well as in domestic players. And more recently
bigger deeper faster computer processors which allowed things to be
done at higher resolution and precision that earlier.

'But CDs are still 16 bit.

Yes, and ?


And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to
equate over-bright with clarity.

-- I have yet to hear any thing like that on CD! -- Like that Elton
John CD I had, that made me return my very first CD player. -- The
master tapes are held in the UK, not USA, why the CD sounded more
tape hiss than music!!

Let's move on!!


Starting to get silly again. Over and out.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/16/2017 8:50 PM, Geoff wrote:
The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

It depends on your definition of "DAW." Taken literally, a couple of
video cassette decks, a PCM converter, and a video editor slightly
customized for audio editing formed a digital audio workstation. But
there aren't many of us here who were around and working in audio at the
time, so it's easy to dismiss anything that came before software on a
general purpose computer as "not a DAW."


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/16/2017 8:50 PM, Geoff wrote:
The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

It depends on your definition of "DAW." Taken literally, a couple of
video cassette decks, a PCM converter, and a video editor slightly
customized for audio editing formed a digital audio workstation. But
there aren't many of us here who were around and working in audio at the
time, so it's easy to dismiss anything that came before software on a
general purpose computer as "not a DAW."

I'd call that "not a DAW" because the whole idea of the DAW is that you
can work faster than realtime. Being able to load files into the computer
and edit on the screen totally changed the world in the eighties and nineties,
and totally changed the studio workflow.

I remember editing PCM F-1 tapes, and just doing basic sequencing was a
painful thing that took hours. When Sonic and Waves came along, you just
loaded it unattended (sadly that was still in realtime), made a few cuts
on the screen, and dumped it back (often also in realtime unfortunately).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

It looked pretty content-free. Sadly, there is no best software. The stuff
that I obsess over, like making sure I can get a bit-for-bit copy from input
and output, are not something the pop music people care about. The stuff the
pop music people care about, like added control functions for tracking to
click and being able to run multiple plugins in parallel, are not things that
I care about.

If it were not like this , there would be no need for multiple packages
out there.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing applications
now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although there
are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

Except that the DAW is more than just software.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 18/08/2017 12:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:


And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing applications
now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although there
are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.

Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as a
DAW.


If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

Except that the DAW is more than just software.
--scott

Yeah, but the hardware side is (shoot me) easier than the software.
You just pick whatever you want, need or can afford.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/08/2017 6:02 AM, geoff wrote:
On 18/08/2017 12:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing
applications
now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although
there
are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.

Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as a
DAW.

Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days. Vegas
does support MIDI controllers though which is something else of course.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.

When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
virtual instruments?

It's true that not too many use MIDI synthesizers as sound sources in
music these days, but many still have a MIDI keyboard and/or drum
controller to record MIDI tracks live. MIDI is definitely alive and well.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 18/08/2017 6:02 AM, geoff wrote:
On 18/08/2017 12:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing
applications
now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although
there
are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.

Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as a
DAW.

Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days. Vegas
does support MIDI controllers though which is something else of course.

Vegas is one of the ones I was specifically thinking of.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 18/08/2017 5:04 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/08/2017 6:02 AM, geoff wrote:

Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as
a DAW.

Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days. Vegas
does support MIDI controllers though which is something else of course.

Trevor.





Must dust off my Mackie control. (Everythiing currently in storage).

geoff

[jtees4]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:07:09 +1200, geoff
wrote:

On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
http://www.toptenreviews.com/softwar...ting-software/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack


Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool edit
pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
not to love??

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two
programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi-
track features bolted on. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
audio editing.

[geoff]

On 19/08/2017 10:16 AM, Nil wrote:
On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
not to love??

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two
programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi-
track features bolted on. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
audio editing.



REAPER's intuitive layout and workflow reputedly inspired by Vegas. I
still use Vegas for straight audio (or audio/video) projects. And Acid
or REAPER for those that require MIDI input/output or virtual
instruments. Not to mention SF of course.


geoff

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:09:41 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 19/08/2017 10:16 AM, Nil wrote:
On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
not to love??

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two
programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi-
track features bolted on. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
audio editing.



REAPER's intuitive layout and workflow reputedly inspired by Vegas. I
still use Vegas for straight audio (or audio/video) projects. And Acid
or REAPER for those that require MIDI input/output or virtual
instruments. Not to mention SF of course.


geoff

NCH Softwa

"Save around 50% off the normal price if you buy online on or before the end of August 2017".

They sound desperate.

Jack

[Nil[_2_]]

On 18 Aug 2017, geoff wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

REAPER's intuitive layout and workflow reputedly inspired by
Vegas. I still use Vegas for straight audio (or audio/video)
projects. And Acid or REAPER for those that require MIDI
input/output or virtual instruments. Not to mention SF of course.

I used Cakewalk and Sonar for many years, since it was a DOS MIDI-only
program. I leared to use it, but everything always seemed more of a
hassle than it should be. I started checking out Reaper soon after it
was released. I used it occasionally for a few years (thanks to their
indefinite trial period) but for some reason it just didn't work for
me. I could never seem to find the function or feature I was looking
for. But I kept dabbling for the longest time until one day suddenly
all the pins fell into place and the lock opened. Now I find it very
easy to use, certainly FAR easier than Sonar. I guess I kept expecting
to see the inconveniences of Sonar and was confused when I didn't. Free
of those incumberances, it all made for a much more sensible and
efficient workflow. If I have a criticism of Reaper it's that it has
too many advanced features exposed, and it took me a while to find the
common options among the many choices. "With great power goes great
responsibility".

It's not perfect, of course. Its MIDI editing features are still a
little buggy/unpredictable, but they're usable and improving all the
time. They recently added notation features, which are pretty decent. I
think that, being the "new" kid on the block, the Reaper author had the
advantage of seeing all the mistakes that had been made before him,
plus judging from his excellent Winamp, I think the guy just has a
natural good sense of how to impliment functionality for the user. I
also guess that, being the sole or primary author, the guy has been
able to see his sensible design through from concept to market. Better
than Sonar's (and probably most other long-in-the-tooth software's)
design-by-committee approach.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
not to love??

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two
programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi-
track features bolted on. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
audio editing.

As I know, most people in usenet have hacked copies, nothing legitimate.

Jack

[geoff]

On 19/08/2017 12:52 PM, wrote:


As I know, most people in usenet have hacked copies, nothing legitimate.

Jack


In *your* natural circles, sure. Less likely here.

groff

[Neil[_9_]]

On 8/18/2017 6:16 PM, Nil wrote:
[...]

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two
programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi-
track features bolted on.

Audition is the continuation of Cool Edit _Pro_ after its acquisition by
Adobe, and it was/is a multi-track recorder. I've used it with various
multi-input cards (up to 32 simultaneous tracks) for decades.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Nil[_2_]]

On 19 Aug 2017, Neil wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

On 8/18/2017 6:16 PM, Nil wrote:

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those
two programs are really single audio file editors with some
clunky multi- track features bolted on.

Audition is the continuation of Cool Edit _Pro_ after its
acquisition by Adobe, and it was/is a multi-track recorder. I've
used it with various multi-input cards (up to 32 simultaneous
tracks) for decades.

Yes, I know and I said as much. But Audition's multi-track features
seem to me to be extremely clunky and hard to work with, at least in
versions 1.2 through 3. Maybe later versions are easier. Maybe it just
doesn't fit in with the way I think and work.

Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features.

[jtees4]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:16:22 -0400, Nil
wrote:

On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
not to love??

I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two
programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi-
track features bolted on. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
audio editing.

For awhile, I used Reaper to record and mix everything and then master
in Audition...I guess I was just more familiar with it. Then I got a
new computer and didn't load Audition inti it, and have not used it
since. What I love about reaper is, I know what I need to
know....whenever anything else comes up...I simply go into Google and
typw "reaper blah blah blah" and get instant info from multiple
sources on what I am trying to do.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 19 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:

For awhile, I used Reaper to record and mix everything and then
master in Audition...I guess I was just more familiar with it.
Then I got a new computer and didn't load Audition inti it, and
have not used it since.

I use Audition for surgical edits - fix a crackle here, fix a plosive
there, small edits that would be difficult or impossible in Reaper
itself. And I also use it to check my rendered file - the waveform
display is more detailed, so I can better see if there are any
overages, check the head and tail silences, etc. Audition is still
always part of my process.

What I love about reaper is, I know what I
need to know....whenever anything else comes up...I simply go into
Google and typw "reaper blah blah blah" and get instant info from
multiple sources on what I am trying to do.

Yeah, that's great. Lots of user resources and video tutorials. The PDF
manual is also excellent and very complete.

[PStamler]

Please do not feed the Troll. He has descended to frothing gibberish.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:16:36 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Please do not feed the Troll. He has descended to frothing gibberish.

Start your OWN Subject, leave mine alone!

Thank you!

Jack


Peace,
Paul