Audacity compared to Cakewalk HS2, Soundforge 5

[Doc]

I currently have Cakewalk Home Studio 2 and Soundforge 5 as my primary
tools for wrangling audio. Audacity seems interesting but is it going
to do anything that those programs don't? Or do anything better than
they do?

[Geoff]

Doc wrote:
> I currently have Cakewalk Home Studio 2 and Soundforge 5 as my primary
> tools for wrangling audio. Audacity seems interesting but is it going
> to do anything that those programs don't? Or do anything better than
> they do?

Duuno, but the versions you have are pretty ancient.

geoff

[Doc]

On Apr 4, 7:15 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:

> Duuno, but the versions you have are pretty ancient.


Perhaps but they both more than fulfill my current needs. In fact, I
have yet to explore all the functionality they have. Not a believer
in getting something newer just to get something newer.

[Sue Morton]

Try Audacity, if you don't like it or need it, there's your answer. :-)
At least it won't cost you anything to try it out.

My personal preference is Cool Edit (now Adobe Audition). But every program
has strengths and weaknesses and CE isn't always the right tool, nor is
Sonar. Then another program such as Audacity comes in handy.
--
Sue Morton

"Doc" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 4, 7:15 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:
>
>> Duuno, but the versions you have are pretty ancient.
>
>
> Perhaps but they both more than fulfill my current needs. In fact, I
> have yet to explore all the functionality they have. Not a believer
> in getting something newer just to get something newer.
>

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 4, 7:37 pm, "Doc" > wrote:

> Perhaps but they both more than fulfill my current needs. In fact, I
> have yet to explore all the functionality they have. Not a believer
> in getting something newer just to get something newer.

In that case, why even consider a change? Or are you thinking that you
don't know what you're missing?

[Geoff]

Doc wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:15 pm, "Geoff" > wrote:
>
>> Duuno, but the versions you have are pretty ancient.
>
>
> Perhaps but they both more than fulfill my current needs. In fact, I
> have yet to explore all the functionality they have. Not a believer
> in getting something newer just to get something newer.

So why ask ?

AFAIK Audacity is free, so why not just try it ? But before you draw any
conclusions maybe you should explore all the functionality of what you
already have...

geoff

[kitekrazy]

Doc wrote:
> I currently have Cakewalk Home Studio 2 and Soundforge 5 as my primary
> tools for wrangling audio. Audacity seems interesting but is it going
> to do anything that those programs don't? Or do anything better than
> they do?
>

It's a no brainer. Stick with Soundforge 5. Much easier to work with.

[Doc]

On Apr 4, 9:28 pm, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:37 pm, "Doc" > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps but they both more than fulfill my current needs. In fact, I
> > have yet to explore all the functionality they have. Not a believer
> > in getting something newer just to get something newer.
>
> In that case, why even consider a change?


With CW HS2, the options for editing the audio tracks are either
within the track view, or by invoking an audio editor outside
Cakewalk. Either way works, though Soundforge is perhaps a bit more
flexible. Just wondering about Audacity as an alternate to SF as an
external editor.


> Or are you thinking that you
> don't know what you're missing?


Partly.

[Nil]

On 04 Apr 2007, "Doc" > wrote in
cakewalk.audio:

> Just wondering about Audacity as an alternate to SF
> as an external editor.

I have a feeling that won't work. I believe Audacity doesn't work
directly on WAV files. You have to import them, at which time they are
converted to its native format. If you want WAV later, you have to
export them as such. Cool Edit/Audition, Wavelab, and Soundforge
directly edit WAV, so the edited files can be used immediately by
Cakewalk.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0500, Nil
> wrote:

>I have a feeling that won't work. I believe Audacity doesn't work
>directly on WAV files. You have to import them, at which time they are
>converted to its native format. If you want WAV later, you have to
>export them as such. Cool Edit/Audition, Wavelab, and Soundforge
>directly edit WAV, so the edited files can be used immediately by
>Cakewalk.

That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no purpose?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 4, 11:33 pm, "Doc" > wrote:

> With CW HS2, the options for editing the audio tracks are either
> within the track view, or by invoking an audio editor outside
> Cakewalk. Either way works, though Soundforge is perhaps a bit more
> flexible. Just wondering about Audacity as an alternate to SF as an
> external editor.

Oh, so you're actually using Cakewalk and that won't change. I had
Sound Forge 3 for a long time and now have Sound Forge 8. As far as
straightforward editing is concerned, they're essentially the same.
Version 8 supports more file formats and has a bunch of processing
plug-ins but that's about it. I also have Audacity and as an editor,
it's about the same as Sound Forge. I'd stick with what works for you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Doc" > wrote in message
ups.com
> I currently have Cakewalk Home Studio 2 and Soundforge 5
> as my primary tools for wrangling audio. Audacity seems
> interesting but is it going to do anything that those
> programs don't?

My understanding is that SF is limited to 2 channels, while Audacity
supports far more channels.

>Or do anything better than they do?

In the cosmic scheme of DAW software, Audacity has limited, but usable
functionality.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 5, 8:39 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> My understanding is that SF is limited to 2 channels, while Audacity
> supports far more channels.

My understanding of the rather non-specific question is that he
intends to use his older version of Cakewalk as his DAW, and is just
looking for an alternative to the Cakewalk editor, which the program
can call. If it's possible to select several tracks and call an
external editor, then you'd want a multi-track editor. But if, as I
suspect, the way to call up an external editor is to select the track
and then select the Edit function, you're only editing a single mono
or stereo track, so a multitrack editor isn't required.

[Gary R. Hook]

kitekrazy wrote:
> Doc wrote:
>> I currently have Cakewalk Home Studio 2 and Soundforge 5 as my primary
>> tools for wrangling audio. Audacity seems interesting but is it going
>> to do anything that those programs don't? Or do anything better than
>> they do?
>>
>
> It's a no brainer. Stick with Soundforge 5. Much easier to work with.

FWIW, you should be able to get a free upgrade to SF6 as SF 5 is no
longer available as a download (no updates, etc). Contact Sony Media
Software and complain about that, and they'll offer you 6 as
compensation.

--
Gary R. Hook
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit

[Nil]

On 05 Apr 2007, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote in cakewalk.audio:

> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no
> purpose?

Well, the work is given to you, Audacity just does its thing. It's all
because Audacity's native format is not WAV. I think it's .au or some
other unix format.

[Chris Whealy]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> In the cosmic scheme of DAW software, Audacity has limited, but usable
> functionality.
>
>
I've had versions 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 of Audacity crash on me on both PC and
Mac. In both OS's, Audacity reports that it can't get a new temporary
file quick enough from the file system and craps out.

Just been doing some voice overs today with Audacity on a PC, and the
whole app just disappeared on me - Poooof! Gone! Lost about 8 minutes
of VO, so it was quicker to re-record that to cobble together the .au
files left lying around in the temp directory.

Other than that, Audacity is pretty useful for basic editing tasks.

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[BobF]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:47:25 -0500, Nil wrote:

> On 05 Apr 2007, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
> wrote in cakewalk.audio:
>
>> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no
>> purpose?
>
> Well, the work is given to you, Audacity just does its thing. It's all
> because Audacity's native format is not WAV. I think it's .au or some
> other unix format.

IIRC, I've opened .wav files directly with Audacity. Did I dream this?

[Chris Whealy]

BobF wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:47:25 -0500, Nil wrote:
>
>
>> On 05 Apr 2007, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
>> wrote in cakewalk.audio:
>>
>>
>>> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no
>>> purpose?
>>>
>> Well, the work is given to you, Audacity just does its thing. It's all
>> because Audacity's native format is not WAV. I think it's .au or some
>> other unix format.
>>
>
> IIRC, I've opened .wav files directly with Audacity. Did I dream this?
>
No you weren't dreaming. Audacity can open .wav, .au, and .ogg files.
If you also get a copy of Lame, then you can import/export MP3's as well.

Audacity's native format is .au

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Nil]

On 05 Apr 2007, BobF > wrote in
cakewalk.audio:

> IIRC, I've opened .wav files directly with Audacity. Did I dream
> this?

When you open a WAV file, a little box pops up that says, "Importing
WAV file." If the file is small and you're computer is fast, you might
miss it. And you can't save them directly as WAV, only as an Audacity
project. In order to have a wav file after the session is over, you
have to choose a format and export.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:57:22 -0500, Nil
> wrote:

>> IIRC, I've opened .wav files directly with Audacity. Did I dream
>> this?
>
>When you open a WAV file, a little box pops up that says, "Importing
>WAV file." If the file is small and you're computer is fast, you might
>miss it. And you can't save them directly as WAV, only as an Audacity
>project. In order to have a wav file after the session is over, you
>have to choose a format and export.

How is au different to wav?

[Chris Whealy]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:57:22 -0500, Nil
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> IIRC, I've opened .wav files directly with Audacity. Did I dream
>>> this?
>>>
>> When you open a WAV file, a little box pops up that says, "Importing
>> WAV file." If the file is small and you're computer is fast, you might
>> miss it. And you can't save them directly as WAV, only as an Audacity
>> project. In order to have a wav file after the session is over, you
>> have to choose a format and export.
>>
>
> How is au different to wav?
>
..au supports multiple encoding formats (some use compression, some
don't) whereas .wav tends only to be used for uncompressed PCM data
(although a .wav file is capable of holding compressed data).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_file_format and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV for more info

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[anahata]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0500, Nil
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I have a feeling that won't work. I believe Audacity doesn't work
>>directly on WAV files. You have to import them, at which time they are
>>converted to its native format. If you want WAV later, you have to
>>export them as such. Cool Edit/Audition, Wavelab, and Soundforge
>>directly edit WAV, so the edited files can be used immediately by
>>Cakewalk.
>
>
> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no purpose?

Not nearly as big a deal as it looks. It's the difference between File
-> Save Project and File -> Export as .WAV. For a quick set of edits in
one session on a stero .WAV that's all you need.

There are some advantages in saving in native .AUP format if you're in
the middle of a more complex project and want to return to it to do more
work. It loads faster and it stores editing info that you'd lose using
..WAV. For instance if you've set up some multiple parallel tracks with
sections that start and finish at different points the native format
saves and restores all that context, amplitude envelopes and such. Very
different from just storing a .WAV.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:11:17 +0100, anahata >
wrote:

>>>I have a feeling that won't work. I believe Audacity doesn't work
>>>directly on WAV files. You have to import them, at which time they are
>>>converted to its native format. If you want WAV later, you have to
>>>export them as such. Cool Edit/Audition, Wavelab, and Soundforge
>>>directly edit WAV, so the edited files can be used immediately by
>>>Cakewalk.
>>
>>
>> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no purpose?
>
>Not nearly as big a deal as it looks. It's the difference between File
>-> Save Project and File -> Export as .WAV. For a quick set of edits in
>one session on a stero .WAV that's all you need.

A different issue, surely? Many audio programs allow you to save a
Project or Song file. But the included audio tracks remain in wav
format.

[Nil]

On 06 Apr 2007, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote in cakewalk.audio:

> A different issue, surely? Many audio programs allow you to save
> a Project or Song file. But the included audio tracks remain in
> wav format.

My point is that I don't think Cakewalk would know how to deal with
Audacity when used from its Tools menu.

I think the way Cakewalk uses external editors is: you select the clip,
then choose the editor from the Tools menu. Cakewalk makes a copy of
the clip (in WAV format) in your temp directory, and the editor is
called up with the file name on the command line. When your editing
session is over, Cakewalk replaces the old clip with the newly edited
one. This all depends on the file staying as WAV, with the same name as
before, and in the same location. If Audacity changes any of these
things during import, or forces you to export it to a different name or
location, they how would Cakewalk find it to bring it back into your
project?

I'm just speculating - I haven't tried using Audacity with Cakewalk or
Sonar. Maybe I'm wrong and it will work fine.

[Paul Kotheimer]

> I'm just speculating - I haven't tried using Audacity with Cakewalk or
> Sonar. Maybe I'm wrong and it will work fine.

You're probably right.

There is another "free" audio app by the way, called REAPER. Very
impressive and the installer is only 2 mb. It's shareware but non-
crippled. The guy who first did Winamp did REAPER and it updates
constantly. i would be using it if I weren't married to Sonar myself.

[anahata]

Nil wrote:

>
> My point is that I don't think Cakewalk would know how to deal with
> Audacity when used from its Tools menu.
>
> I think the way Cakewalk uses external editors is: you select the clip,
> then choose the editor from the Tools menu. Cakewalk makes a copy of
> the clip (in WAV format) in your temp directory, and the editor is
> called up with the file name on the command line. When your editing
> session is over, Cakewalk replaces the old clip with the newly edited
> one. This all depends on the file staying as WAV, with the same name as
> before, and in the same location.

Yes, if you run Audacity with a WAV file on the command line, the
default save is not back to the same file you loaded, nor even
necessarily in the same directory (actually to the last directory you
saved to).

So it's not ideal as an external filter tool with Cakewalk.
Mind you, being open source, it could legitimately be hacked to do
exactly what you wanted.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:22:49 +0100, anahata >
wrote:

>So it's not ideal as an external filter tool with Cakewalk.
>Mind you, being open source, it could legitimately be hacked to do
>exactly what you wanted.

Don't all non-trivial DAW programs have internal wav editors that far
exceed Audacity anyway?

[Steve Karl]

"Paul Kotheimer" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> I'm just speculating - I haven't tried using Audacity with Cakewalk or
>> Sonar. Maybe I'm wrong and it will work fine.
>
> You're probably right.
>
> There is another "free" audio app by the way, called REAPER. Very
> impressive and the installer is only 2 mb. It's shareware but non-
> crippled. The guy who first did Winamp did REAPER and it updates
> constantly. i would be using it if I weren't married to Sonar myself.

Thanks for the reminder about reaper!

[Steve Karl]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:22:49 +0100, anahata >
> wrote:
>
>>So it's not ideal as an external filter tool with Cakewalk.
>>Mind you, being open source, it could legitimately be hacked to do
>>exactly what you wanted.
>
> Don't all non-trivial DAW programs have internal wav editors that far
> exceed Audacity anyway?

Sonar's audio eding is extreemely basic.

[John Lamp]

anahata wrote:

> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0500, Nil
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have a feeling that won't work. I believe Audacity doesn't work
>>> directly on WAV files. You have to import them, at which time they
>>> are converted to its native format. If you want WAV later, you have
>>> to export them as such. Cool Edit/Audition, Wavelab, and Soundforge
>>> directly edit WAV, so the edited files can be used immediately by
>>> Cakewalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no purpose?

No purpose?!!! To be doing probably destructive edits on a copy of the
origianl? That's a major benefit IMHO! A big purpose!

> Not nearly as big a deal as it looks. It's the difference between File
> -> Save Project and File -> Export as .WAV. For a quick set of edits in
> one session on a stero .WAV that's all you need.

Not only that, but let me recount a recent use of Audacity. I had a two
hour radio show, with sponsorship accouncements each half hour. I wanted
four half hour segments to be used as "specials" (ie fillers!) later in
life.

I imported the original, used the duplicate function to create four
tracks - the half hour segments without sponsorship announcements. Named
the tracks appropriately, then used File -> Export multiple, went and
had a coffee, when I came back I still had the original, untouched, plus
four half hour WAV files for the specials.

Cheers
Goaty
--
_--_|\ John Lamp - in beautiful downtown Highton
/ \ meanderings. 2200-2400 Wednesday
\_.--._/ on 94.7 the Pulse - Geelong Community Radio
v http://www.myspace.com/meanderings_thepulse

"You know, if the internet was analogue with tubes, this stuff
wouldn't happen." - Sean S

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:04:10 +1000, John Lamp >
wrote:

>>> That would seem to be a lot of work on Audacity's part for no purpose?
>
>No purpose?!!! To be doing probably destructive edits on a copy of the
>origianl? That's a major benefit IMHO! A big purpose!

All wave editors work on a temporary copy - hence the Undo facility.
My question was why that copy needed to be in a converted format, and
not a format anyone was likely to use for input or output. If,
indeed, this is so.

>
>> Not nearly as big a deal as it looks. It's the difference between File
>> -> Save Project and File -> Export as .WAV. For a quick set of edits in
>> one session on a stero .WAV that's all you need.
>
>Not only that, but let me recount a recent use of Audacity. I had a two
>hour radio show, with sponsorship accouncements each half hour. I wanted
>four half hour segments to be used as "specials" (ie fillers!) later in
>life.
>
>I imported the original, used the duplicate function to create four
>tracks - the half hour segments without sponsorship announcements. Named
>the tracks appropriately, then used File -> Export multiple, went and
>had a coffee, when I came back I still had the original, untouched, plus
>four half hour WAV files for the specials.

A trivial job for any wave editor, surely? Rather slower in Audacity,
as you have to wait for the format conversions?

[Nil]

On 09 Apr 2007, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> facility. My question was why that copy needed to be in a
> converted format, and not a format anyone was likely to use for
> input or output. If, indeed, this is so.

It's a design decision. You should ask the developers if you really
want to know.

> A trivial job for any wave editor, surely? Rather slower in
> Audacity, as you have to wait for the format conversions?

Importing is no slower. The only "slower" is that the user must go
through one extra step at the end, export to WAV, compared to some
other editors. It's really no big deal.

[Scott Dorsey]

Glennbo > wrote:
>
>So I kicked the tires on Audacity a bit. The VST support module makes it
>crash the moment you double click it's icon. Remove the VST support .dll
>from the plugins folder, and it fires right up again.

On which OS with which build? I have a guy running it on OSX with no problems
with VST support.
--scott

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

[kitekrazy[_2_]]

Here's another audio editor worth considering. It's $45 with free
lifetime upgrades.

http://www.goldwave.com/

[Nil]

On 09 Apr 2007, Glennbo > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> So I kicked the tires on Audacity a bit. The VST support module
> makes it crash the moment you double click it's icon. Remove the
> VST support .dll from the plugins folder, and it fires right up
> again.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily championing Audacity. I don't
really know that much about it, just fired it up and did a few simple
editing tests. Sometimes people are looking for a few, basic editor and
I wanted to make sure it worked reasonably well.

I spent about a minute trying the VST support plugin, using the beta
version of Audacity. I installed the support plugin, but my VST effects
didn't show up. Maybe I need to do something else, but that's as far as
I got.

[Geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Doc" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> I currently have Cakewalk Home Studio 2 and Soundforge 5
>> as my primary tools for wrangling audio. Audacity seems
>> interesting but is it going to do anything that those
>> programs don't?
>
> My understanding is that SF is limited to 2 channels, while Audacity
> supports far more channels.

No, SF doees many channels, as of about today. Audacity is very much a toy
in comparison.

geoff

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:08:19 +1200, "Geoff" >
wrote:

>> My understanding is that SF is limited to 2 channels, while Audacity
>> supports far more channels.
>
>No, SF doees many channels, as of about today. Audacity is very much a toy
>in comparison.

Ah, Soundforge 9. And I see the first update is already available :-)

What is it? Vegas minus the video tools? Anyone used it yet?
Comparison with Audition?

[Geoff]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:08:19 +1200, "Geoff" >
> wrote:
>
>>> My understanding is that SF is limited to 2 channels, while Audacity
>>> supports far more channels.
>>
>> No, SF doees many channels, as of about today. Audacity is very
>> much a toy in comparison.
>
> Ah, Soundforge 9. And I see the first update is already available :-)
>
> What is it? Vegas minus the video tools? Anyone used it yet?
> Comparison with Audition?

No, pretty much SF8 with multi-channel and some extra plugins and metering.
Still a file editor, not a NLE. Vegas still better for some things.

You'll have to rely on somebody else for a comparison,, my Audiion broke,
but I couldn't stand uit anyway so I didn't bother trying to fix yet. Arny
will tell you how great Audition is.

geoff