Reaper is one of the best suites around - the paths & processing software i=
s top level & unlike Audacity, it's built & maintained by folks who are com=
mitted to providing a very high level service. Audacity is 'ok' but the fac=
t that you can't monitor while making adjustments (if you do that with your=
recordings) is a major & bizarre, problem.
Reaper is actually really easy to use once when gets past the basics & ther=
e are lots of video's online showing basic set up of tracks etc.
--- In NICK DANDO <> wrote:
>
> That's good to know. I hadn't looked at Audacity for a few years, being h=
appy with Soundtrack Pro. I'll have to give it another go to see if it's ea=
sier than the somewhat baffling Reaper.
>
> Nick
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Peter Shute <>
> To: "" <>=
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 21:24
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Sound Editing Software
>
>
>
> =C2=A0
> On 31/05/2013, at 4:37 AM, "Nick Dando" <<nick.dando=
@...>> wrote:
>
> Alternatives are Reaper, which is cheap, and Audacity, which is free, but=
doesn't have the ability to deal with 24/192 recordings.
>
> Is that correct? A quick Google search says it's been able to handle 192k=
Hz recordings since at least 2011. (See http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewt=
opic.php?f=3D16&t=3D61803)
>
> Peter Shute
>
>
>
>
|