well, I always keep a copy of the original recording anyway & certainly I t=
hink most folks would advise that. One often returns to tracks & sometimes =
any editing (even the simple top & tailing) decisions change with time.
--- In umashankar <> wrote:
>
> there is now very little difference between destructive and non destructi=
ve editing. if you save the file with a new name, your original file is not=
touched at all, in any editing program. and you can always make a copy and=
work on that.
> =C2=A0
> umashankar
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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 diffe=
rent beast to Audacity, even if it ends up delivering the same results.
>
> I've been meaning to give it a try.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 02/06/2013, at 12:46 AM, "Jez" <<>> wrote=
:
>
>
>
> Reaper is one of the best suites around - the paths & processing software=
is top level & unlike Audacity, it's built & maintained by folks who are c=
ommitted to providing a very high level service. Audacity is 'ok' but the f=
act that you can't monitor while making adjustments (if you do that with yo=
ur recordings) is a major & bizarre, problem.
>
> Reaper is actually really easy to use once when gets past the basics & th=
ere are lots of video's online showing basic set up of tracks etc.
>
> --- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogr=
oups.com>, NICK DANDO <nick.dando@> wrote:
> >
> > That's good to know. I hadn't looked at Audacity for a few years, being=
happy with Soundtrack Pro. I'll have to give it another go to see if it's =
easier than the somewhat baffling Reaper.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Peter Shute <pshute@>
> > To: "<naturerecordists%40yahoogr=
oups.com>" <<naturerecordists%40yaho=
ogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 21:24
> > Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Sound Editing Software
> >
> >
> >
> > =C3=82
> > On 31/05/2013, at 4:37 AM, "Nick Dando" <nick.dando@<nick.dando@=
>> wrote:
> >
> > Alternatives are Reaper, which is cheap, and Audacity, which is free, b=
ut 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 19=
2kHz recordings since at least 2011. (See http://forum.audacityteam.org/vie=
wtopic.php?f=3D16&t=3D61803)
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
|