Why Do you Use an Audio Editor?

[Jace-BeOS]

Today I just used Adobe Audition to sample and edit blown and tapped bottle noises. As well as trimming, one thing that was particularly not likely to be done easily in Logic was turning two mono samples of taps into one stereo sample. I also maximized and compressed them somewhat.

In the process I discovered that Reason's file browser hates files that have changed at all; I had to close and reopen Reason before I could load the samples again. This is offensively sloppy on Propellerhead's part. Since their built-in audio editor had no channel tools, I had to use an external editor, and then I just gave up sampling inside Reason and went to Audition for the rest of my little project.

Couldn't be done in a DAW. At least, not as easily. I thought I'd be able to do things more quickly in Reason vs Logic. Nope.

[Kalamata Kid]

The main difference between a DAW like let's say Cubase and an Audio Editor let's say Samplitude is the later has no midi tracks. The main function of an Audio Editor is to mix and to master. How wrong am I about this?

An Audio editor should only work on 1 track of audio. If it works on more audio tracks I would call it a DAW.

Yes. And working with MIDI is a main goal of a sequencer.

Sequencer -> MIDI
Audio Editor -> editing of 1 track audio, mastering, converting etc.
DAW -> mixing (and "all-in-one" solution ideally)

Sample Editor > one audio track or clip
Audio Editor > one or more audio tracks, Primarily for mixing and mastering
DAW > Midi and audio all in one work station.
Sequencer > midi only recording and editing