Thank you Paul. The WSRS results really surprise me. I just had a look at=
Reaper, it seems WAY too complex for traditional wildlife sound audio edit=
ing, and with such a frustratingly complex interface. Inexpensive though. =
Audacity, with its clunky too-busy tools window, no I don=92t like it eith=
er (even tho its free).
Aesthetically and practically Sound Studio 4 is now my preferred choice for=
basic stereo editing, you can custom design your colour scheme which does =
make a big difference, to me at any rate. I have found a darker blue backg=
round with lighter turquoise waveform is restful on the eyes when you are p=
rocessing for many hours. The tools window of Sound Studio is very elegant=
, only the essentials are on show. Short cuts work in a similar way to Pea=
k, so I feel right at home here. And I can now use my favourite EQ plug-in=
apQualzr2 with Sound Studio.
Raven - I downloaded the Lite version but it would not install. Can=92t be=
bothered with it. Amadeus is better for sonograms in any case, in my opin=
ion.
It=92s probably time we did another survey for our Australian Wildlife Soun=
d Recording Group. I know Adobe Audition, Pro Tools, Izotope RX and Peak w=
ere the Oz favourites a few years back.
Vicki
(Former sound editor for AWSRG)
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 10:17 pm, [naturerecordists] <na=
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Vicki
> In a recent survey of Wildlife Sound Recording Society members, Audacity=
and Reaper were the most popular applications. (Wildlife Sound Journal Vol=
14 No.3). Personally I use Amadeus and Reaper, then iZotope RX for noise r=
eduction.
>
> Paul
>
> WSRS web officer
>
>
>
|