there is now very little difference between destructive and non destructive=
editing. if you save the file with a new name, your original file is not t=
ouched at all, in any editing program. and you can always make a copy and w=
ork on that.
From: Peter Shute <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Sound Editing Software
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.
I've been meaning to give it a try.
Sent from my iPad
On 02/06/2013, at 12:46 AM, "Jez" <<=
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 <naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
ps.com>, 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.
> From: Peter Shute <>
> To: "<naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 21:24
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Sound Editing Software
> On 31/05/2013, at 4:37 AM, "Nick Dando" <<nick.dando=
> 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=
> Peter Shute
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
Yahoo! Groups Links