Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?


How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit
that the user has to interact with....


As a general rule, no UI in a competitive commercial product is THAT bad.
For example in the old days there was a lot of ranting and raving about the
UIs in MS Word and WordPerfect. On balance, they were both effective and
eventually they evolved to being almost indistinguishable from each other,
except to advanced users.

At this point we know quite well what the basic canonical functions and
features of an audio editor are. AFAIK none of the competitive products fail
to provide them. They form the backbone of the process of getting the job
done. Once you learn one of them, your learning curve for the next one is
considerably foreshortened, unless you are really inflexible. Some people
are really inflexible and go through life defeating themselves this way.

Contemplating the project I did last week, I strongly suspect that if
CE/Audition ceased to exist I could complete it with several of the
competitive products in only a little more time the first time, and
probably in about the same amount of time after a few go-arounds. Even true
given the near-total lack of integration we now know exists in some
competitive suites such as SF+Vegas. I'd just figure out some
circumventions.


  #442   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to
take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.


I know of several examples.


Name some.


Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've
seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well.


I don't use Winamp.


Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use.

All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response.


The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about
not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with.

In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous

response).

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

If I wanted a delay line...


If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm
talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay
line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the
filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of
course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well.

Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are
chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given
outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal
levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have
delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase
characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can
be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies,
while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest
frequencies.

Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped
delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not
going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you
want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample
size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes
become audible.

Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and
IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who
don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the
most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either
have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are
relatively insensitive.



  #443   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to
take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.


I know of several examples.


Name some.


Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've
seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well.


I don't use Winamp.


Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use.

All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response.


The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about
not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with.

In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous

response).

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

If I wanted a delay line...


If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm
talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay
line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the
filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of
course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well.

Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are
chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given
outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal
levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have
delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase
characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can
be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies,
while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest
frequencies.

Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped
delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not
going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you
want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample
size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes
become audible.

Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and
IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who
don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the
most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either
have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are
relatively insensitive.



  #444   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to
take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.


I know of several examples.


Name some.


Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've
seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well.


I don't use Winamp.


Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use.

All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response.


The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about
not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with.

In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous

response).

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

If I wanted a delay line...


If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm
talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay
line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the
filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of
course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well.

Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are
chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given
outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal
levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have
delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase
characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can
be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies,
while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest
frequencies.

Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped
delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not
going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you
want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample
size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes
become audible.

Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and
IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who
don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the
most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either
have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are
relatively insensitive.



  #445   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to
take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.


I know of several examples.


Name some.


Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've
seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well.


I don't use Winamp.


Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use.

All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response.


The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about
not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with.

In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous

response).

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

If I wanted a delay line...


If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm
talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay
line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the
filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of
course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well.

Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are
chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given
outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal
levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have
delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase
characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can
be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies,
while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest
frequencies.

Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped
delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not
going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you
want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample
size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes
become audible.

Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and
IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who
don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the
most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either
have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are
relatively insensitive.





  #446   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"David White" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.


They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.


If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A
given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales
are correct.


I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you
increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB,
regardless of the range allowed.


Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic
controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what
they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly
representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7).
Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being
equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies.


Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.


I think we're on the same page, here.




  #447   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"David White" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.


They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.


If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A
given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales
are correct.


I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you
increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB,
regardless of the range allowed.


Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic
controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what
they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly
representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7).
Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being
equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies.


Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.


I think we're on the same page, here.




  #448   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"David White" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.


They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.


If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A
given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales
are correct.


I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you
increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB,
regardless of the range allowed.


Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic
controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what
they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly
representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7).
Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being
equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies.


Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.


I think we're on the same page, here.




  #449   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"David White" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.


They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.


If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A
given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales
are correct.


I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you
increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB,
regardless of the range allowed.


Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic
controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what
they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly
representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7).
Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being
equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies.


Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.


I think we're on the same page, here.




  #450   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?


  #451   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?
  #452   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?
  #453   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?
  #454   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Please see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?


I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and
cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the
controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them.
Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can
download for free and run as they will...

I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment
on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you
have personal experience with the topic.


No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


  #455   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Please see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?


I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and
cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the
controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them.
Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can
download for free and run as they will...

I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment
on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you
have personal experience with the topic.


No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.




  #456   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Please see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?


I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and
cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the
controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them.
Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can
download for free and run as they will...

I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment
on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you
have personal experience with the topic.


No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


  #457   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Please see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with.


You mean like talking about current versions of SF?


I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and
cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the
controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them.
Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can
download for free and run as they will...

I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment
on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you
have personal experience with the topic.


No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


  #458   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was
right.

Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings...
  #459   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was
right.

Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings...
  #460   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was
right.

Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings...


  #461   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

No, that's what *you* said.


Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will
be my last response to you until you again start making sense.


Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was
right.

Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings...
  #462   Report Post  
Jerry Berrier
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits
Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave.


--
Jerry Berrier
Shrewsbury, MA

http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder



  #463   Report Post  
Jerry Berrier
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits
Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave.


--
Jerry Berrier
Shrewsbury, MA

http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder



  #464   Report Post  
Jerry Berrier
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits
Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave.


--
Jerry Berrier
Shrewsbury, MA

http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder



  #465   Report Post  
Jerry Berrier
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Software for Editing Sound on PC

A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits
Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave.


--
Jerry Berrier
Shrewsbury, MA

http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sound analyse software Bjarne J Aronsen Pro Audio 4 March 29th 04 09:41 AM
[OT] Sound measure software with equivalent sound level meter? jd Pro Audio 2 March 21st 04 08:34 PM
Sound vs. Audio Bob Smoot Pro Audio 3 March 9th 04 12:13 AM
What Software for Editing Sound on PC SPS22 General 122 January 27th 04 01:58 AM
science vs. pseudo-science ludovic mirabel High End Audio 91 October 3rd 03 09:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"