Why no cheap or free audio editors for Windows?

[Caleb]

I used to love my CoolEdit 2000.

My primary uses for an audio editor are normalising, noise reduction, conversion and some basic trimming and peak modification on the wave file itself when zoomed in. Don't use it as much for mastering activities though as I can usually do them elsewhere now.

If I'm preparing waves for mapping in a sampler it can be more convenient using a standalone audio editor to one that's in a sampler. I tend to find I can do a large volume of tasks much quicker in a standalone editor.

CE2000 was a bloody fantastic piece of software... *sigh*

So - all you Acoustica people out there? Is the Noise Reduction good? This is what I really miss from CE2000 - it's noise reduction was top-notch. Does Acoustica deliver the goods?

My main reason for looking at Audition is for the Noise Reduction, but that's quite a bit to pay for one feature, so I'll consider cheaper competitors.

Caleb

[Lunch Money]

I did an informal (ie. no spectral analysis or anything) comparison of Acoustica and Audition, and was slightly more pleased with Audition. However, I was not 1600% more pleased, ya know?

At the end of the day, they both reduced noise on a vinyl I had transferred, and they both reduced hum, breath, and ambient sounds in tracks.

I had them both for 30 days (first Acoustica and then Audition) and if money weren't an object, I'd probably go for Audition still. But since money IS an object, Acoustica is fitting the bill very nicely indeed.

Not sure it'd be a go-to editor for looped samples (eg. building up a sampler instrument), since I've never used it for that purpose.

[BONES]

I also agree that normalizing is pointless. you get good resolution by recording a hot signal, not normalizing, you can't add resolution that wasn't there to begin with.

Strictly speaking, that is true but if you render to a high bit depth, normalise and convert down to CD quality you will be making the most effective use of the final bit-depth without losing any quality. Remeber, 32 bit isn't twice the resolution of 16 bit, its 2 to the power of 32 versus 2 to the power of 16. 16 bit audio has 65,536 possible values for each sample, 32 bit has 4,294,967,296 which gives you a lot of wriggle room for something that will eventually be converted down.

I just keep tabs on gain to record a signal with good level. That's essential to audio engineering

That was true of recording to tape, to minimise the effects of tape hiss and other noise factors, but with digital it is now far less relevant.

[duncanparsons]

I also agree that normalizing is pointless. you get good resolution by recording a hot signal, not normalizing, you can't add resolution that wasn't there to begin with.

Strictly speaking, that is true but if you render to a high bit depth, normalise and convert down to CD quality you will be making the most effective use of the final bit-depth without losing any quality. Remeber, 32 bit isn't twice the resolution of 16 bit, its 2 to the power of 32 versus 2 to the power of 16. 16 bit audio has 65,536 possible values for each sample, 32 bit has 4,294,967,296 which gives you a lot of wriggle room for something that will eventually be converted down.

I just keep tabs on gain to record a signal with good level. That's essential to audio engineering

That was true of recording to tape, to minimise the effects of tape hiss and other noise factors, but with digital it is now far less relevant.

hmmm. Given what you just said about bit depth, that's not entirely true if a signal never goes above, say, 12 bits, when you up the gain, you'll just be shifting those bits around, and not filling in the resulting zero's further down the bytes. Effectively it's bandwidth (if you will) remains at 12 bits, even though it may occupy bits 13..24. If the original signal was sampled to use maybe 18 bits instead, the resolution is thus greater, and will remain greater than the previous samples when gain is applied. A louder signal results in better resolution dynamics.

It's still worth recording a sound to fill the max bandwidth possible. I agree that noise is less of an issue than it was, but having a reasonably hot signal is still a good idea

DSP

[IIRs]

Effectively it's bandwidth (if you will) remains at 12 bits, even though it may occupy bits 13..24.

dynamic range surely, not bandwidth..

You are correct though: it is not possible to increase resolution by normalising, and the only time it might be useful (just before dithering & truncating to 16-bit) it is probably irrelevant anyway because the chances are you have 'maximised' it to full-scale already.

[Caleb]

I did an informal (ie. no spectral analysis or anything) comparison of Acoustica and Audition, and was slightly more pleased with Audition. However, I was not 1600% more pleased, ya know?

OK - cool.
I've downloaded it to have a look.

Caleb

[BONES]

hmmm. Given what you just said about bit depth, that's not entirely true if a signal never goes above, say, 12 bits, when you up the gain, you'll just be shifting those bits around, and not filling in the resulting zero's further down the bytes. Effectively it's bandwidth (if you will) remains at 12 bits, even though it may occupy bits 13..24. If the original signal was sampled to use maybe 18 bits instead, the resolution is thus greater, and will remain greater than the previous samples when gain is applied. A louder signal results in better resolution dynamics.

It's still worth recording a sound to fill the max bandwidth possible. I agree that noise is less of an issue than it was, but having a reasonably hot signal is still a good idea

Well thankyou for completely agreeing with me. Next time read the whole thread and you won't look so damned stupid.

[IIRs]

hmmm. Given what you just said about bit depth, that's not entirely true if a signal never goes above, say, 12 bits, when you up the gain, you'll just be shifting those bits around, and not filling in the resulting zero's further down the bytes. Effectively it's bandwidth (if you will) remains at 12 bits, even though it may occupy bits 13..24. If the original signal was sampled to use maybe 18 bits instead, the resolution is thus greater, and will remain greater than the previous samples when gain is applied. A louder signal results in better resolution dynamics.

It's still worth recording a sound to fill the max bandwidth possible. I agree that noise is less of an issue than it was, but having a reasonably hot signal is still a good idea

Well thankyou for completely agreeing with me. Next time read the whole thread and you won't look so damned stupid.

Thats not what you said, dipshit

[duncanparsons]

hmmm. Given what you just said about bit depth, that's not entirely true if a signal never goes above, say, 12 bits, when you up the gain, you'll just be shifting those bits around, and not filling in the resulting zero's further down the bytes. Effectively it's bandwidth (if you will) remains at 12 bits, even though it may occupy bits 13..24. If the original signal was sampled to use maybe 18 bits instead, the resolution is thus greater, and will remain greater than the previous samples when gain is applied. A louder signal results in better resolution dynamics.

It's still worth recording a sound to fill the max bandwidth possible. I agree that noise is less of an issue than it was, but having a reasonably hot signal is still a good idea

Well thankyou for completely agreeing with me. Next time read the whole thread and you won't look so damned stupid.

hmmm... my repost was intended in good humour..

for clarity, i'll reiterate the point I was responding mostly to:

That was true of recording to tape, to minimise the effects of tape hiss and other noise factors, but with digital it is now far less relevant.

My point was that it may be less relevant, but it is still relevant, and thus not to be disregarded, and I gave my reasons not to disregard it.

I know we're pretty much batting from the same hymnsheet, but I felt that the point should be clarified (rather than homogenised)



ATB
DSP

[undef]

i tried to use the vst-dx adapter with eXT and it constantly crahes (in arcoustica and goldwave) too bad that the clever eXT-trick wont work (at least for me)

[Lunch Money]

Caleb-- the great thing is that both of those editors offer fully-functional 30-day trials! So you have either 2 free months of editing goodness completely on the up-and-up, or 1 month of editing goodness while comparing back-to-back.

Either way, install them when you're entering a time where you suspect you'll be doing a lot of editing, and you'll easily know by the end of the month which one is better suited to your needs.

[sinkmusic]

I created a thread for that particular quesiton, but i am expecting an answer here as this forum is active...
Is there any freeware audio editor for windows that can handle a video file, in order to modify the audio part ?
I do not think audacity or krystal does...
the thread i created is here : http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1428239

[BONES]

hmmm... my repost was intended in good humour..

Yeah, we saw the smilie.

for clarity, i'll reiterate the point I was responding mostly to:
That was true of recording to tape, to minimise the effects of tape hiss and other noise factors, but with digital it is now far less relevant.
My point was that it may be less relevant, but it is still relevant, and thus not to be disregarded, and I gave my reasons not to disregard it.

True but, like I said, if you read the lot you would have seen that I was saying from the outset that its important to render at a higher bit-depth. But thanks for the clarification. I suppose it is really the digital equivalent of using good quality, low-noise tape.

[fake]

Audacity does support vst but you have to download a patch for it.

fake

[Hypertone]

Why do none of these editors allow you to set sample loop points? I am convinced the developers of these programs have never really used an audio editor.