A survey about your Audio editing usage

[fmr]

Also keep in mind what already exists:

Audacity - best for applying VSTs (eq-ing, compressing) and noise-cancelling

Compared to what?
...

If you read this thread carefully you would have realized that it is
about light FREE audio editors only. That is the play field we're
talking about here.

Really? Said whom?

[Tj Shredder]

Not supporting plugins in an audio editor immediately cuts off a huge wealth of DSP possibilities. If you're going to try to supply that natively in the app that's great, but you cannot possibly include them all. Plugins aren't necessarily musical, the same ones are useful for sound design and audio restoration.

Without vst support it would be almost useless... That certainly is a must...

[npigrounet]

Also keep in mind what already exists:

Audacity - best for applying VSTs (eq-ing, compressing) and noise-cancelling

Compared to what?
...

If you read this thread carefully you would have realized that it is
about light FREE audio editors only. That is the play field we're
talking about here.

Really? Said whom?

Me, the OP.

But it's more complicated than that, so I understand that you didn't get what I meant, it's totally my fault (sorry).

More explanations: yes I've begun to work on a free and open-source (GPL) audio editor. I would like to address the issues found in free audio editors and create a modern, pretty and convenient audio editor that could rival (and surpass someday) the other free ones, and be used with a beginner, amateur or semi-pro level. I don't want to compete with huge DAWs or powerful restoration software like RX or Wavelab. This would be too ambitious for a project made on free time by two people (at the moment). Existing apps like Audacity, Wavosaur or Waveshop begin to look a bit dated, and development seems to have been stopped. From my research people don't find them visually attractive moreover.

I truly believe that their is some work to do in that area. All your comments are very interesting and, globally, I agree with you all.

[Tj Shredder]

I am still missing Sounddesigner II and Peak... Yes, there is a place for a new and simple destructive editor...

[himalaya]

I'm currently editing 919 sample files in a single DAW project. I know which app allows me to do it efficiently.

[BONES]

Also the question if you pay for your non free products?
Asuming there is a lot of piracy in the pro audio world?
Or does someone want to tell the crackers that its better to use a free tool then a cracked one?

I assumed he was just trying to assess whether or not you were willing to put your money where your mouth is. i.e. Do you use Nuendo because you decided it was worth paying for or because you got it for free? In that context it's a valid question.

What I don't get is audio editors that seem to have the ambition to become multitrack DAWs. Programmers should be aware that a multitrack DAW has to do much more than simply record and edit multitrack audio.

You need to understand that multi-track audio editors have been around a lot longer than DAWs. There was a time when you had a sequencer and a multi-track audio editor. Together they made up your DAW, which was the physical box it all ran in. It's just that the sequencers grew to become the all-in-one solution you are used to and made multi-track audio editors seem a bit unnecessary. It was never their fault.

[BONES]

My first audio editor was Cool Edit 95. The application was free but you could pay for extensions so I ended up with mine fully loaded with all the tools plus a 4-track mixing option which still only cost $80 or so. It's big brother, Cool Edit Pro, could handle lots of audio tracks and it was so good Adobe bought it, changed the name to Audition, dropped the cheap version and completely ruined the interface.

Next I bought SoundForge which I really rate. It's awesome but sometimes I missed having the ability to use the multi-track to cross-fade loops and stuff. Eventually I bought Adobe CS for work so I got Audition for free and started using it instead of paying for a SF upgrade.

The only properly free editor I've used is Ocenaudio and it's great. It has easily the best UI and it's workflow is reasonably similar to the others. It misses out on a few headline features, mostly noise removal and restoration type things, but I still rate it quite highly.

[himalaya]

I don't want to compete with huge DAWs or powerful restoration software like RX or Wavelab. This would be too ambitious for a project made on free time by two people (at the moment).

I don't know how far you want to take your project, but one essential feature that I and my colleagues look for in an editor is customisation. From being able to re-assign default key-shortcuts to the ones I prefer, to creating action-key bindings, where one press of a button initiates a string of actions.
A simple example. In my chosen DAW/editor I can press my key of choice and it will:
- move down a track
- maximise its height while minimising the height of the previous track (or all other tracks)
- mute all tracks
- solo the currently selected track
- select the item/clip

So one button press prepares a clip/item for editing for me. If I'm working with hundreds of wav files, each on its own track, I can edit each one with great speed and efficiency, as I move to each track and the associated item/clip at a press of a key on my keyboard.

The next part you want to get right (besides obvious stuff like having all essential editing tools implemented well), is flexible export options. At one point, not many editors got it right, and even my DAW of choice didn't have all the options that I needed. I placed a feature request and luckily it was quickly implemented by the developers (bless them).

These are just quick examples of features that have nothing to do with some of the very advanced editing tools available in apps like the RX, but ones that I feel a good audio editor needs. By the way, another cool feature is a link between your audio editor and other, more specialised apps like the RX. In my DAW, I press a single button, it opens up RX with the file from my DAW, I edit it in RX, click save and it's already available for further editing in my DAW. Seamless.

If you want to take it deeper so that your audio editor has the basics on which you can build, PM me and I'll put you in touch with other pros, colleagues of mine, who could give you great ideas.

[fmr]

I am still missing Sounddesigner II and Peak... Yes, there is a place for a new and simple destructive editor...

Me too. I started with Alchemy, and was a Peak user since day one. But SD II, Alchemy and Peak easily outperform the likes of Audacity, Wavosaur, etc. Yes, I know they come from the 80s, but having worked with them, I know what I'm talking about.

[fmr]

You need to understand that multi-track audio editors have been around a lot longer than DAWs. There was a time when you had a sequencer and a multi-track audio editor. Together they made up your DAW, which was the physical box it all ran in. It's just that the sequencers grew to become the all-in-one solution you are used to and made multi-track audio editors seem a bit unnecessary. It was never their fault.

Actually... NO. When multitrack audio editors started to appear, some sequencers were already capable of doing MIDI and audio - Studio Vision, for example, was born in 1990 (Pro Tools was born in 1991). OSC Deck, the first multitrack audio editor, and the ancestor of Pro Tools was born around 1990 too (maybe 1989).

MOTU Digital Performer came right after Studio Vision. Cubase Audio was born in 1991.

So, the multitrack audio editors coexisted with the digital audio sequencers, with the latter winning the final battle, since they had the advantage of unifying under the same working environment MIDI and audio.

Audio editors like Peak, for example, are what we still need.