Comments on: Audacity: The Versatile Audio Tool for Everyone

By: Thomas M

Thomas M — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:02:02 +0000

I have no deeper knowledge of Audacity, just installed it but even if it doesn’t have multitrack functionality etc I would consider it an audio editor, not a DAW. Back in the windows days I always used Cool Edit Pro besides Logic Audio when it still was available on Windows.

Testing now Audacity to use in teaching students. Could see potential usefulness when learning songs.

By: Stephanie Lee

Stephanie Lee — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:27:40 +0000

Joel – I agree with critical mass, that’s why WavePad continues to be successful and continues to be updated and refined even though it’s closed source. Based on our climbing download and sales data WavePad and Audacity will probably be competing against each other for a while, open sourced or not.

By: Conny M

Conny M — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:33:48 +0000

With the Audacity 1.37 Beta you can import and export .AAC files,
if you have installed Audacity’s FFmpeg addon.

By: Links 15/05/2009: BIOSOS, New Elive | Boycott Novell

Links 15/05/2009: BIOSOS, New Elive | Boycott Novell — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:28:48 +0000

[...] Audacity: The Versatile Audio Tool for Everyone I spend a lot of time looking at other people’s computers, and I see Audacity installed on a lot of them. Not many software programs deserve the adverb “versatile”, but Audacity is one of them. It is the Swiss Army knife of audio applications. [...]

By: Links 13/05/2009: First Beta of KDE 4.3; France Gives Hollywood the Internet | Boycott Novell

Wed, 13 May 2009 17:33:41 +0000

By: Tom Howe

Tom Howe — Wed, 13 May 2009 09:41:40 +0000

I use audacity to create all my mp3s – a very handy tool. I always keep a portable version on my USB keyring when I’m on the move. I think the site is http://portableapps.com/

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:48:47 +0000

On the flipside, I’ve seen Audacity on the production workstations of countless professional producers and engineers. It has critical mass which will ensure it survives as an open source application. Commercial products without critical mass in the professional environment rarely hang around as long as open source products with a huge userbase.

By: Stephanie Lee

Stephanie Lee — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:07:56 +0000

I have to take an opposing view on your comment regarding Audacity’s open source status and it life span “It also means that if the current development team lose interest in the project, others are able to take it up”.

All of the developers in our sound team at NCH Software are also musicians of some sort. Yes they work with closed source code but they are unlikely to lose interest in the development project because of their genuine interest in the application and if one leaves another developer with a music background is brought on to the project. Perhaps you need to either broaden your statement or qualify it with projects that have been left to rot.

Although Audacity is a great product, and excellent competitor your “What Audacity Can’t Do” paragraph is also misleading in regards to comparing it to “specialized products” rather than it’s direct competitors like Wavosaur and WavePad.

By: Audacity: The Versatile Audio Tool for Everyone - In the Jungle | recordingdigitalaudio.com

Tue, 12 May 2009 12:08:26 +0000

[...] post: Audacity: The Versatile Audio Tool for Everyone – In the Jungle Categories : [...]

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:11:30 +0000

Good article. I think Audacity is definitely useful, despite what some commentators took from the article I wrote months ago. I considered responding to those comments at the time but refrained, but I may do so now “just for the record.” For starters, simple tasks like cross-fading between songs or removing vocals from a track (which never ends well, no matter what you use) are hardly “more versatile” than creating a complete demo. Steven may have missed the train by just reading the last few words, “though I wouldn’t recommend it”. I think I did give Audacity a bit more credit than even he has.

The truth, as I stated, is that you can use Audacity to record complete tracks, but only to a demo standard of quality, as Pink himself admitted. It’s not really just his ears, because even if you had the best audio hardware, Audacity simply lacks the features that are required to produce and mix a professional quality piece. Where is the robust send/return system required to pull off the huge amounts of buss and parallel compression involved in a New York style production? Real-time effects? As No. 4 on your “what Audacity can’t do” list implies, while the tool is great for many things, professional-quality recording projects just aren’t going to work without the right tool for the job.

I think the main thing that lead to misunderstandings there is that my article is directed towards AudioJungle authors — professionals making, or trying to make, a living from music. Amateurs will judge software on an entirely different set of criteria.