Reaper does non destructive editing, doesn't it? If so, it's a very differe=
nt beast to Audacity, even if it ends up delivering the same results.=0D
=0D
I've been meaning to give it a try.=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
Sent from my iPad=0D
=0D
On 02/06/2013, at 12:46 AM, "Jez" <<=
il.com>> wrote:=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
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.=0D
=0D
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.=0D
=0D
--- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
ps.com>, NICK DANDO <> wrote:=0D
>=0D
> 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.=0D
>=0D
> Nick=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> ________________________________=0D
> From: Peter Shute <>=0D
> To: "<naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
ps.com>" <<naturerecordists%40yahoog=
roups.com>>=0D
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 21:24=0D
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Sound Editing Software=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> =C2=0D
> On 31/05/2013, at 4:37 AM, "Nick Dando" <<nick.dando=
@...>> wrote:=0D
>=0D
> Alternatives are Reaper, which is cheap, and Audacity, which is free, but=
doesn't have the ability to deal with 24/192 recordings.=0D
>=0D
> 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)=0D
>=0D
> Peter Shute=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
|