Page 1 of 4
#1
NOTE: If you're too lazy to read anything, click on the pictures and say "Oh man, Audacity can't do that..."

I'll probably get a lot of flak for this... let me start out with a few points:
1. Audacity is free, and that's technically good. If you can't get a commercial program, maybe it is your only good choice - if so, my sincere condolences.
2. Audacity is good for some things. It is multitrack, which is nice. It is really only good for podcasting and relatively simple multitrack editing which requires little effects or serious mastering.
3. DO NOT just start whining and flaming me if you have not tried good commercial editing software. AT LEAST try a demo for a program such as Adobe Audition (I only mention this because I know it has a demo and I know Pro Tools doesn't... and I've never used Pro Tools, though I assume it's leagues beyond what I've used (and therefore leagues squared better than Audacity)).
4. You can click the thumbnails to see full images.

I bring this to your attention because there are so many people who have only used Audacity and think it's actually good. I have seen people say it is just as good or better than any commercial editing software. They have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Maybe they've only used Goldwave. Comparing Audacity to real commercial software is like comparing Paint to Photoshop... except GIMP is free and not NEARLY as terrible as Audacity.

Okay, so I have a friend who edits all his music in Audacity. I did the stupid sheep thing... started recording and editing in Audacity because my friend did. I hated it. Always. Every minute of it was pure torture. I knew editing music could be SO MUCH BETTER, and it wasn't.

Eventually I slapped myself and realized how stupid I had been... I was subconciously thinking of features Audacity shoud have that I had gotten used to while editing videos in Adobe Premiere and Apple Final Cut Pro. Finally, I conciously realized I was comparing Audacity to these programs, and I started editing music in Adobe Premiere.

Yes, I edit my music in a video editor, because it is a thousand times better than Audacity will ever be. I will never edit music in Audacity again.

This is not advertising. You don't have to use Final Cut or Adobe or anything I suggest. Just, don't use Audacity if you can help it. Try to find something better. I will compare it to Premiere because that is what I have on my computer. Final Cut is virtually the same as Premiere (just better), so if I say you can do something in Premiere, assume you can do it (at least as well) in Final Cut.

Premiere offers multitrack audio editing, because this is really necesarry to do a good video. If you are editing a video and you are adding sound effects or whatever, you need multiple tracks. But they didn't stop at multitrack... they gave it many nice features anyone should expect out of an audio editing program. I will provide comparison between Premiere and Audacity to hopefully give you an idea of what good music editing is like and what you should expect and demand from any music editing software.

1. Audio scrubbing - the audio is played as you drag the playhead around. This is an extremely simple, very useful tool that is not present in Audacity. Scrubbing makes it very simple to find a beat or a click or whatever in an audio track without selecting an area, playing it, narrowing the selection, playing it again, and so on until you have exactly what you want. No guessing from looking at the waveform... you hear it as you move the playhead.

2. Non-destructive effects - Non-destructive editing applies ALL filters and effects as real-time filters applied to the track as it plays - the absence of this is a HUGE flaw with Audacity. Say you put some reverb on a track. You edit some other stuff, and then decide you don't want the reverb. In Audacity, you're ****ed. When you applied that reverb, it edited the actual waveform, the actual sound. Yeah, you can undo and lose all your other editing work, or you have to get the original track (if you happened to back it up) and edit it all over again. If you save and close and don't have a backup, it's done. You ruined it. With non-destructive effects, if you don't like something, you can just turn it off or remove it. This applies to everything, including equalizer.

Oh ****, did I just easily turn off one effect and bypass another?

3. Real-time effects adjustment - another massive flaw in Audacity. Real-time effects editing is crucially tied in with non-destructive editing. Say you didn't like that reverb. You don't want to delete it though... well, in something like Premiere you can adjust any element of it at any time. You can edit it while the audio is playing. No awful guesswork like with Audacity... no three-second preview with a delay before it loads. Effortless real time editing so you can hear how a change sounds as soon as you make it.

4. Good equalizer - Audacity's equalizer is torture to use. It is neither real-time nor non-destructive. It doesn't have band-knobs (ex. bass, mid, treble) for easy editing, just a graph you can change around. It turns equalization into guesswork unless you are an absolute expert at it. In a good audio program, you can turn that treble knob back and forth while the track is playing and decide what you like best. My friend, who is madly in love with Audacity, says Audacity is better because it's not limited to five bands. First off, you probably won't need more than five bands, but if you do, you could just apply multiple equalizers and change what frequency each band controls. And that graph at the top of the equalizer shown below? You can edit it directly if you hate knobs.

A good easy-to-use real time equalizer? What a novel concept!

5. Keyframes - the benefits of keyframes for heavy editing cannot be understated, and of course they are absent from Audacity as well. Say you've got that reverb again, but you want it to build up. Start with just a little and gradually grow until eventually it sounds like you're blasting sound in a cave. In Audacity, you have to have two copies of the same track, one with the effect and one without. Then you have to have the volume of the "clean" track decrease while the volume of the reverb track increases. This is a hassle and can easily take ten minutes or more to get right. With keyframes, you take the one track, make a keyframe at the beginning and set the reverb amount to 5%, and another keyframe at the end and set that amount to 100%. The reverb will smoothly and perfectly transition in, and it takes mere seconds to implement. You can also keyframe pan, which means you can easily have a track slide back and forth between the left and right channels, making it easy to do crazy stereo effects. In Audacity, you have to do the fading between left and right tracks crap...

Keyframing the mix of the reverb... though you can keyframe ANYTHING you can adjust.

6. Master volume - Audacity doesn't have master volume. WHAT THE ****? You can change the master playback volume but it will export at the original volume. In Premiere you can adjust the volume of each track and the master volume on a slider-based screen that looks just like a mix-board.

OH WUT? I don't understand this it's too confusing. </sarcasm>


Audacity does have its uses. I actually record in Audacity and export each track as a WAV and then edit in Premiere (since Premiere is a video editor, it does not make recording audio into the program a simple task). But really... you shouldn't be mastering your songs in Audacity if you can avoid it. Maybe you've got plenty of money and you have pedals and boxes for all of your effects and so forth and you literally record a perfect track that needs absolutely no editing... that's great, but that's certainly not a wholly realistic idea... sound engineers and mixing boards exist for a reason...

I will leave you with two quotes.

"Well I still use Audacity, even though you have better luck ****ing a goat with your guitar. It is a really terrible program. [...] If you can find something besides Audacity that is good i suggest using that, Audacity is just so ****ing horrible" - Jim Morgan

"They're under the impression that because something is free, this places it on some golden dais beyond censure. It's no virtue to give away something that no-one in their right mind would buy." - Tycho of Penny Arcade (talking about Playstation Home but it obviously applies to other things)
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#2
tl;dr
Quote by Ed Hunter
Kick your brother in his penis adorned head.
#3
Cool story bro.
Quote by Telestar
Trust me man, it's Smoke on the Water. Deep Purple only wrote one song.
#4
If you don't like it don't use it then? Not everybody can afford Adobe Audition.
Got on the bus with me daysavaaaa
#5
Quote by weemansyndrome
If you don't like it don't use it then? Not everybody can afford Adobe Audition.

This is for the benefit of people who don't know better (which is a lot of people).

I know audio software is complex to program, but I think we should expect better from the free/open source community. GIMP is close to Photoshop and it's free. OpenOffice is 100% equivalent to Microsoft Office and it's free. Audacity is terrible, and since they're approaching it the wrong way, I think it is fundementally flawed and can never be a truly good editing program. It's possible they'll someday implement realtime nondestructive effects, but that seems so very unlikely.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#7
Quote by WtrPlyr
Who cares? Use what you want to use


I bring this to your attention because there are so many people who have only used Audacity and think it's actually good. I have seen people say it is just as good or better than any commercial editing software. They have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.


Gee, what a mind-bending concept... informing other people... you see people all the time bashing this amp and that guitar and this pedal and these strings. Except I'm not just yelling about my opinion, I am backing it up with considerable evidence.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
#8
Quote by thelonesoldier
This is for the benefit of people who don't know better (which is a lot of people).

I know audio software is complex to program, but I think we should expect better from the free/open source community. GIMP is close to Photoshop and it's free. OpenOffice is 100% equivalent to Microsoft Office and it's free. Audacity is terrible, and since they're approaching it the wrong way, I think it is fundementally flawed and can never be a truly good editing program. It's possible they'll someday implement realtime nondestructive effects, but that seems so very unlikely.

Okay, fair point. But you've got to give a bit of credit to the guys who make Audacity. Yeah, it's nowhere near perfect but still, they're giving it away for free rather than crippling it with ads or charging for it, y'know?
Got on the bus with me daysavaaaa
#9
You're not really informing. You are saying do not use audacity, it sucks. But in much more words. I like Audacity, I am in no need of a 'better' program and I'm sure there are more people like this. If they think they'd need an other program, they'd go searching for it an find the better program their selves.
#10
a lot of people, like me, just use it for quickly getting down an idea with a toneport or microphone, where sound quality isn't the be all and end all.

i doubt anyone's going to be producing a top40 album with audacity. if it works for you, use it. you make some fair points but i don't see where this is going.
#11
Okay, fair point. But you've got to give a bit of credit to the guys who make Audacity. Yeah, it's nowhere near perfect but still, they're giving it away for free rather than crippling it with ads or charging for it, y'know?

Yes, that's true. It's good for other things. Just not music.

I like Audacity, I am in no need of a 'better' program and I'm sure there are more people like this.

Have you used a really good program? You might think you don't need something better because you haven't tried it. Your grandmother probably thought a rotary dial phone was great and nobody would ever need a better phone. I guarantee you will make better sounding music with better software. Since that's sort of implicit, perhaps what's more important to mention is you will save considerable time and effort with better software. You don't have to jump straight to Pro Tools or whatever. But again, to me this is like the step from Paint to Photoshop (or GIMP). You can technically do anything in Paint since you can edit each pixel (well, obviously not vector art). You could painstakingly create any pixel based image... that doesn't mean it's a good idea or anyone should.

If they think they'd need an other program, they'd go searching for it an find the better program their selves.

If they think. Besides that, people who are new to editing may be completely unaware of concepts such as real-time and non-destructive editing. Again, grandmother analogy.


a lot of people, like me, just use it for quickly getting down an idea with a toneport or microphone, where sound quality isn't the be all and end all.

That's fine... if you're just doing a demo or recording an idea, then why worry about it? Audacity is easy to record with. But it might be a good idea to try something a little more advanced for the final version of a song.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#12
I like Audacity, it's easy to use and since i have no problems and no complaints about my recordings why change? I am not a professional musician but if i wanted i could go to any studio and record there.

People use it because it's easy, i understand your points of course a program with better software is going to be better.

In the end Audacity suits me just fine so i really don't need to look elsewhere. If it's not broke don't fix it...
The most talented man on earth...
#13
I don't need anything audacity can't give me, therefore I don't need a other program and certainly not something I have to pay for or are full of annoying ads.
My grandfather actually still has a rotary dial phone because he doesn't have a reason to buy an other telephone. He likes what he has.
#14
thelonesoldier, we get it man. You don't like audacity.
I think its alright but haz_uk makes a good point.

Of course it isn't perfect but for amatuer bands just doing small recordings its totally fine.
#15
+1 for thelonesoldier just for writing such a long and quite detailed article
#16
Quote by DeadIdentity81
I like Audacity, it's easy to use and since i have no problems and no complaints about my recordings why change? I am not a professional musician but if i wanted i could go to any studio and record there.

People use it because it's easy, i understand your points of course a program with better software is going to be better.

In the end Audacity suits me just fine so i really don't need to look elsewhere. If it's not broke don't fix it...

I've already addressed this multiple times... you think it'd good because you haven't used something really good. 15 years ago, film was good for cameras... Your parents probably thought having VHS home videos was amazing... you can write perfectly fine on a typewriter, why would you ever need something better?

You can't just walk into a professional studio and say "Hey, I'm gonna record some **** right now, okay?" You either convince them to let you use the studio and pay a lot of money, or you are famous and pay a lot of money. Then you pay a lot more money for someone to engineer it. And you pay by session. Good editing software is a one-time investment and will last for as long as you want. You can use it whenever. It's a great way to bridge the gap.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#17
Quote by Tster
thelonesoldier, we get it man. You don't like audacity.
I think its alright but haz_uk makes a good point.

Of course it isn't perfect but for amatuer bands just doing small recordings its totally fine.

Or for the price of one midrange instrument or amp they could have a single program that would make all of their music sound better. A guitarist spends $2000 on an amp, how does that help the singer or the bassist or the drummer? (Well, the bassist can probably use it, but I don't play bass so I don't know whether a bassist really needs a dedicated bass amp for recording.) You spend a few hundred on a good editing program, everybody wins.

+1 for thelonesoldier just for writing such a long and quite detailed article

Thanks
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#19
I'm not enforcing anything. I am informing. You don't have to listen, but hopefully someone will not be completely close-minded and will learn something from this thread.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
#20
Well, I wouldn't expect a free program to be perfect, or even professional, but I still use Audacity to do simple things like recording. I would definitely prefer Adobe Audition or ProTools over Audacity, but I don't need and cannot afford that kind of investment right now.
#21
Quote by thelonesoldier
Or for the price of one midrange instrument or amp they could have a single program that would make all of their music sound better.


I don't think the song on your profile could sound any worse, so I'm assuming, if a good recording program makes your music sound better, it's recorded with Audacity?
#22
Yeah: frankly, you're not even giving a unbiased opinion. Truth be told: you're an idiot for not knowing how to correctly achieve half of those things, through the program. What could you POSSIBLY expect, from a FREE program? That's like saying that Paint con not achieve some of the things that Photoshop can.

REEEAAALLY? NO WAY.

I've used Audacity for several recordings: ones that I've actually posted in several locations. I achieved a decent sound: the only issues came with my input tone not being as good then, as it is now.

Okay: so you can't just "shut off" an effect, after editing? Hey, guess what? You shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff until you're at the mastery stage, anyway. Plus, you could just save multiple forms of the files, and backup and big changes you make. Simple as that.

I now use Cakewalk Sonar 7, which I have no real problems with. Is it perfect? No. Is it ProTools? Heck no. Does it do everything that I, as a knowledgeable amateur recorder need out of a program that I received for free? You betcha'.

Save the complaints for programs you actually spent a dime on, maybe? For anyone who's just looking to record some songs: Audacity is amazing. I've since used several programs, after Audacity, and I still go back to it regularly, for simple things. I stand behind this great software, and have it installed on all of my current computers, and all computers to come.

Grow up.
Last edited by TwistedVince at Dec 14, 2008,
#23
Quote by thelonesoldier
I'm not enforcing anything. I am informing. You don't have to listen, but hopefully someone will not be completely close-minded and will learn something from this thread.


Close-Minded? CLOSE-MINDED? Are you KIDDING me?

You're absolutely calling a useful program for anyone who can't spend money on a program for one purpose alone, a piece of junk; and you're NOT close-minded?

Who do you think that you're kidding? I'm not even necessarily flaming saying you don't like the program, and don't think it should be used: I'm flaming you for the egotistical arrogance that you're demonstrating with you're approach to stating that fact.

"Informing", eh? Haha: what a joke. Well, let me "inform" you, that you're discouraging the use of a program, simply because you're unaware of how to do a select list of things, through it. Would you like me to list everything that Audacity CAN do (free program) that Audition ($50-$400) cannot? I guarantee you that it's longer than your opposing list.
#24
Well i can't be bothered learning to use new software, Audacity is fine for what i need.
Gear:

  • ESP LTD SC 207
  • Washburn X200 PRO E
  • Squier Strat (in bits LOL)
  • Line 6 Toneport ux1
#25
a program should be changed if its hindering your progress in writing music and achieving the sound you want.

this may or may not mean you need to change from audacity to.. whatever.

I've been using the Cool edit pro 2 for .. 8 years? its never held me back so i don't change it even tho its brutally outdated, not supported anymore and doesn't run VST. but hey it gets the job done. i might give adobe a shot tho.. i could REALLY use a more streamlined use of EQ.. especially something that can show me the spectrums of the instruments i'm using.. it'd make mixing bass freq's SO MUCH EASIER.
Grammar and spelling omitted as an exercise for the reader.
#27
Quote by thelonesoldier
I've already addressed this multiple times... you think it'd good because you haven't used something really good. 15 years ago, film was good for cameras... Your parents probably thought having VHS home videos was amazing... you can write perfectly fine on a typewriter, why would you ever need something better?

You can't just walk into a professional studio and say "Hey, I'm gonna record some **** right now, okay?" You either convince them to let you use the studio and pay a lot of money, or you are famous and pay a lot of money. Then you pay a lot more money for someone to engineer it. And you pay by session. Good editing software is a one-time investment and will last for as long as you want. You can use it whenever. It's a great way to bridge the gap.


Actually I know someone who has a home recording studio and can use it anytime I need. I use Audacity to record my riffs and song ideas. I actually think it sounds great as well. I have seen many programs used to edit music in the studio..
The most talented man on earth...
#28
It helps you learn how to record in the first place, you can't sit someone in front of pro tools and expect them to get it at all. It's not perfect but you can definitely make good recordings on it if you know what you're doing. If you get good tracks in the first place you don't have to do too much editing later.
#29
I use audacity for recording little song ideas. My sound quality isn't too bad, though there is some background hiss that won't go away (not sure if its the program or the sound card, because it sure as hell isn't my equipment)

Here's a link.

myspace.com/andrewricemusic
#30
Quote by UNIe
Well, I wouldn't expect a free program to be perfect, or even professional, but I still use Audacity to do simple things like recording. I would definitely prefer Adobe Audition or ProTools over Audacity, but I don't need and cannot afford that kind of investment right now.


Yeah I agree. I mean, yeah, Audition and ProTools are probably leaps and bounds above Audacity (never used either so I can't personally say), but a lot of people aren't into it enough to make that kind of investment you know? A lot of people are just looking for an easy, free, decent program to use for their hobby, they'd have no reason to shell out a few hundred dollars for those programs.

And what did you expect? For Audacity to be on par with Audition and ProTools? C'mon people, you get what you pay for, it's as simple as that. I use Audacity because I'm only a hobbyist for now, and it's free.
Quote by Sicko 21X7
tremelo the brown note until she caves
#31
don't think the song on your profile could sound any worse, so I'm assuming, if a good recording program makes your music sound better, it's recorded with Audacity?

WOW. Cheap shot. I've only been playing for a year, never taken lessons, and I recorded WITH A ****ING MICRO CUBE. Into a desktop computer's microphone port. And that's my FIRST SONG. I left some mistakes in it because I got used to them and stopped caring. I said in the description that it's not good. And I edited that in Premiere (which I also said in the description). Here, I'll add the original Audacity mix to my profile, you can compare them. I changed from Audacity to Premiere halfway through so the Audacity mix doesn't have the outro (which would have been a huge pain in the ass to do with the same stereo effects).

Yeah: frankly, you're not even giving a unbiased opinion. Truth be told: you're an idiot for not knowing how to correctly achieve half of those things, through the program. What could you POSSIBLY expect, from a FREE program? That's like saying that Paint con not achieve some of the things that Photoshop can/

I'm sorry? Have you completely ignored everything I wrote? I explained how to do everything I have talked about in Audactiy and how it is a pain in the ass. I have used Audacity enough to know how it works, and how it doesn't. I didn't even mention everything, like trimming clips. Yes, OBVIOUSLY I'm biased. Grand observation there. Anyone with an opinion is biased. But my original intention was just to inform people who think Audacity is amazing that they're missing out. I've gotten carried away debating with people, but it was never my intention to change what program everyone is using. But it would help.

That's like saying that Paint con not achieve some of the things that Photoshop can.

REEEAAALLY? NO WAY.

GIMP. Open Office.

Okay: so you can't just "shut off" an effect, after editing? Hey, guess what? You shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff until you're at the mastery stage, anyway. Plus, you could just save multiple forms of the files, and backup and big changes you make. Simple as that.

I specifically mentioned using a backup. It's a hassle. It's much more work. Yes, you shouldn't use Audacity for mastering.

Save the complaints for programs you actually spent a dime on, maybe?

Already addressed this too. I'm done responding to you since you didn't read anything I wrote.

Actually I know someone who has a home recording studio and can use it anytime I need.

That's great. So does everyone else, right? Oh, wait. Do they use Audacity in that home recording studio?

I use audacity for recording little song ideas. My sound quality isn't too bad, though there is some background hiss that won't go away (not sure if its the program or the sound card, because it sure as hell isn't my equipment)

If you want you can listen to both versions of the song in my profile. You don't have to listen to all of it if you think it's horrible like everyone else, but you can hear the hiss that is in Audacity and is not in Premiere. Premiere's equalizer is much more powerful and easier to use and I was able to very easily remove the hiss.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#32
All you can name are 6 minor things that Audacity can't do compared to professional programs that cost triple digits? Those things would only matter to someone who is so serious about recording that they would purchase ProTools anyway. Get over yourself, Audacity is great for the low budget musician. It never claimed to be a Protools replacement.
Last edited by drewfromutah at Dec 14, 2008,
#33
Quote by drewfromutah
All you can name are 6 minor things that Audacity can't do compared to professional programs that cost triple digits? Those things would only matter to someone who is so serious about recording that they would purchase ProTools anyway. Get over yourself, Audacity is great for the low budget musician. It never claimed to be a Protools replacement.


These things aren't minor. They are very significant, they make a big difference in the editing process. And I can name many other things (trimming, zooming, crossfading, and so on) but they are less important and the original post is long enough already. I'm not even comparing it to Pro Tools, I was directly comparing it to a video editor, which is still better than Audacity. Someone could be moderately serious about recording and want something better than Audacity without wanting Pro Tools specifically.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#34
Quote by thelonesoldier
These things aren't minor. They are very significant, they make a big difference in the editing process. And I can name many other things (trimming, zooming, crossfading, and so on) but they are less important and the original post is long enough already.


Question, who died and left you in charge? If you don't like Audacity fine, but there are a lot of folks who use it and seem to get by nicely with it.

And you are free to follow the links on the Audacity home page and volunteer to help program those changes that you feel are so necessary.

Tony (let's just say, I have a lot more that I could say but I won't)
#35
I didn't say I was in charge of anything. Don't put words in my mouth. This was primarily to inform people who think Audacity is top **** because they haven't used a good program. To let people know who don't know any better. Again, it's no different that someone saying "this amp sucks you shouldn't use it" except I am providing lots of clear evidence of why Audacity isn't good for music editing.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
#36
You're comparing a Free software to 399$+ software.
Just cause you can't use it doesn't mean it sucks.
/thread
#37
Quote by Darkshade666
You're comparing a Free software to 399$+ software.
Just cause you can't use it doesn't mean it sucks.
/thread

I know how to use Audacity, that's how I was able to explain what it cannot do. You don't have to use any program I've mentioned. I'm sure there are other less expensive editors that are better than Audacity. And $400 is less than the cost of many instruments and amplifiers, among other equipment. So for the price of one piece of equipment you could have a program that you can use with anything you record.

And, once again, GIMP and OpenOffice. Free software, easily comparable to software costing hundreds of dollars.
If you're not getting enough gain, you should totally just daisy-chain some solid state amps with headphone jacks together. Remember: Need gain? Use a chain!
------
Quote by Normul
You spell things like a jackass
Last edited by thelonesoldier at Dec 14, 2008,
#38
Quote by Darkshade666
You're comparing a Free software to 399$+ software.
Just cause you can't use it doesn't mean it sucks.


I have to agree with ya there DarkShade, I didn't hear nothing on his "demo" tracks that I couldn't do with Audacity, blindfolded and with one arm tied behind my back

But that's just me

Tony
#39
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
No one, who wants Pro sound quality, relies on digital and software based crap. Eventually you'll want a nice guitar, an amp, a mic, a preamp, a mixer, and a soundcard.

I'd rather buy the actual "physical" gear and use audacity, than buy pro tools and deal with digital crap, and connect the guitar straight to the pc.
I'm sure everyone here agrees.

PS : Why do you care anyway ?
#40


In my lesson I wanted to take a more hands on approach. I could write pages of theory explaining exactly how to sweep but what help does reading do. Hands on is the absolutely BEST way to learn. I show these things to some students of mine and they can all sweep to a satisfactory degree for their age (14-15).

So please don't tell me that my lesson is not effective. Open your mind.



Ah, it's all clear now, you complained on his lesson being not effective. You're the kind of person who always complains instead of trying to solve things.
Page 1 of 4