Why no cheap or free audio editors for Windows?

[Andywanders]

Hypertone: I understand exactly what you mean.
I made a similar topic here not long ago.

There's just no such thing as a decent free(or even very cheap) audio editor, which *should* have VST support, IMO...

Oh no..?

Look here.

[Lunch Money]

Normalising is essential to ensure the maximum use of available bit-depth. If you are not normalising your audio you have wasted bit-depth which equals lower quality.

I'm not enough of an audio engineer to argue this point effectively, but my alarm bells ARE going off that it's vaguely opinion and hear-say like, rather than factual.

There's not a thing in a "mastering" checklist of things to-do that an editor can do better, except perhaps export to a variety of file types, which to me is NOT part of the mastering process.

... except normalising.

Actually, I forgot that one on my list-- I DO use my editor's normalise function, but I don't do it at the mastering stage, I do it at the mixing stage.

BUT, I've always just done so because I've heard that a 'bad' normalising algo can screw up your sound. Then recently, I was thinking, "WTF? I don't get it... it's just levels for crying out loud." If someone could explain the difference to me between adding gain "on the fly" using a level fader in my host (which is what we ALL do when we're mixing) and adding gain destructively with an editor's normalise function, I'd appreciate it.

Seriously. Or, since that's an involved explanation and nobody has THAT much time, a good link to a reliable source would suffice. The reason I ask is this: until recently, I had forgotten/overlooked the fact that in Tracktion, you can change the gain levels of clips, and the waveforms will automatically update so that you can have that visual reference, as if you had destructively changed the gain and re-imported. So lately, I've just been doing that, and increasing the gain of individual clips until the highest peak is just shy of fullscale.

Then, when it's time for my final export, I let Tracktion find the "normalized level" which just means that it scans the entire edit and adjusts the master volume slider so that (in the setting I choose, at least) it's at a spot where the loudest peak in the edit is at 0db. So again, not a destructive normalise.

Now, since everyone uses a combination of their track level faders and their master level faders to adjust appropriate levels (generally attenuating, but sometimes increasing), what possible difference can a normalise function do? And then, when you normalise in your wave editor, it doesn't seem to be a long process, either... not like a bit-depth/rate conversion.

So, like I said, I HAVE been using my editor to normalise, but considering that volume faders are an inextricable part of the mixdown process, what is the audio doing in a better way?

I'm seriously at a loss.

Now, I'm not necessarily trying to debate-- I know my limitations-- but I admit that I do have one side I'm leaning towards: logic is telling me that if people use their track and master volume faders during mixdown anyhow, why should normalising be seen as some sort of complex and important algorithm? As far as I know, the maths are very basic, the results very predictable, and the chance of error infantessimal. It's not like you're applying dither or something more complex like that.

But, predispositions aside, I'm willing to be educated here....

To master in your audio editor would take the same amount of resources unless you have already rendered a stereo "mixdown" from your host.

Actually, because your editor is not real-time it will always use 100% of availble resources to do things as quickly as possible.

TBH I use CE2k far less now that I used to but I still think that there are too many things that it does better to ever consider being without. But what my host offers is the ability to do many things that may once have tempted me to spend big bucks on WaveLab or Audition to get through. Its just a matter of thinking things through a little more to come up with optimum workflows.

Right. I'm not sure if we're on the same side or debating a point here. I see nothing to argue with, so I guess we agree. If you're saying that once upon a time editors offered tools that simply weren't available in the host, I also agree with that. And in some host / editor combinations, that still holds true.

Greg

[edited to fix quote function]

[Hypertone]

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. If my understanding is correct, normalizing drops unused bits. I've never used it, I just keep tabs on gain to record a signal with good level. That's essential to audio engineering.

When it comes to mastering, I use limiting to get the signal to the max. The only need I see for normalizing is to get some audio files all to similar levels, and that would only be necessary if you were pasting together some dialogue for a film or something.

[funkadil]

Logic 2006 is a free audio production suite:
http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?26000000037648

Did nobody notice this or am I just feeding the fire? Sorry if I am. God damn.

[Hypertone]

lmao

[cold c]

... except normalising.

I'm sure it was mentioned in this topic already, but sequencers like SX3 can do normalising and similar simple tasks, offline as well (non realtime). Also, as has also already been mentioned in this thread the main advantages in using an editor are interface/'workflow' related, and IMO the SX3 audo editing interface is intentionally left in an unrefined state in order to leave sales figures for Wavelab as unaffected as possible.

Obviously, if your sequencer doesn't do those required processes then an audio editor may be required.

I'm not saying audio editors are not needed because at the moment they still have interface advantages and many specific features that are unavailable in current sequencers, simply that sequencers like SX3 have expanded their functionalities to include the most commonly used processes that are related to music production.

Other tasks like crossfade looping, loop tone equalizing, setting file attributes like sampler loop points and note data for a sampler, are not always needed for everyday usage. Again, if your sequencer doesn't do those processes and you require them, then use an application that does.

[kovacs]

Hypertone: I understand exactly what you mean.
I made a similar topic here not long ago.

There's just no such thing as a decent free(or even very cheap) audio editor, which *should* have VST support, IMO...

Oh no..?

Look here.

Since when was $99 "free"?

[herodotus]

RE: Normalizing

Normalizing is a strange word that simply means “increase the volume of the signal by whatever amount is needed to bring the highest peak up to 0 dB, full-scale. Normalizing audio during a CD transfer is simply an easy way to get the audio as loud as it can be without changing the dynamics whatsoever. From an audiophile point of view it is the proper technique to get the hottest signal on CD with no distortion of the signal at all.

The rest here.

[morelia]

Soundforge Audio Studio 70.00, energyXT to do plugin chaining ($cheap.00), not having to spend a fortune on my ideal choice which is wavelab, priceless. Well several hunder dollars in reality.

[Lunch Money]

For if and when I do plug-in chaining in Acoustica, that was a priceless tip given earlier in the thread: using the DX wrapper until native VST support is built-in.

I can't remember who that was, but thanks for it. Not sure if I'll use it myself any time soon, but it's definitely something to remember for this and other situations.

Herodotus: That's the conclusion I've been steering toward, but just didn't have any knowledge to back it up. I have to admit, Rip doesn't really talk about the actual 'computer function' known as Normalising (ie. yes, it's just a volume increase, but the bits and bytes MUST be rearranged in order to achieve this), though. Perhaps it's really just (as I suspect) too simple to even bother trying to give it the same kind of significance that we give to, for example, dithering algorithms.

In other words, I DO think I'm on the right trail and that my new way of working in Tracktion is having no negative effect on my recordings, but I'd still like to see it from a 'technical' perspective, too. Most of that article talks about Limiting, and not necessarily in the digital domain (ie. with software).


---

Or, in case it got lost in the shuffle of my blabbing: What's the digital difference between me adding 6dB of gain with a Tracktion level fader, and adding it with an editor's "normalize" function? As far as I can tell, none, but I'm still open to being proven wrong.

Greg

[headquest]

A couple of points about normalising...

FIrstly, you don't need an editor for it! Tracktion's normalise function works just fine so far as I can tell, so there's no need to export. I think that most if not all the major hosts have a normalise function for audio files. (NB, I still prefer to do it in my editor, irrespective of the host I'm using. I like the accuracy and speed of visual feedback)

Secondly, (this is probably quite wrong from an audio engineering perspective ) my personal method is to normalise all audio clips on a track by track basis prior to mixing. That way I know for sure that 0dB on the mixer fader is the highest level to use, and mix downwards from there. (sometimes out of laziness I also shove a limiter on a track set to 0dB but with zero compression going on unless the track is set to clip).

So normalising happens a lot here, but on a track by track basis.

At the mastering stage I tend to use hard limiting rather than normalisation... and this is another reason why I personally choose to master in Audition rather than my host... the hard limiting in Audition is about as transparent as it gets

[Lunch Money]

Audition's hard limiting IS great.

I also normalise each track before mixing, in most cases. If the levels are already hot enough, I might not bother. I don't "export" files to normalise per se... I guess technically they are... maybe...? But I launch my editor from within Tracktion, normalise, and they update inside of Tracktion without even closing it. Close the editor and continue along.

However, I'm finding this current method of using the clip gain slider (not even the internal "normalise" function of Tracktion, which is buried in menus) to be pretty effective and efficient so far.

Greg

[headquest]

I don't "export" files to normalise per se... I guess technically they are... maybe...? But I launch my editor from within Tracktion, normalise, and they update inside of Tracktion without even closing it. Close the editor and continue along.

That's eactly what I mean/do, yes. (It is exporting ). It works identically in either Tracktion or Live - a single key command/mouse click opens up Audition within the sequencer

However, I'm finding this current method of using the clip gain slider (not even the internal "normalise" function of Tracktion, which is buried in menus) to be pretty effective and efficient so far.

I sometimes use the clip gain slider in Live to save time (and the waveform grows as you do it so you see whether it will clip or not ).

I agree about normalise in Tracktion - it is rather hidden away. I never understand it when people say Tracktion is "easy"... it is on the surface (and has a great workflow without doubt )... but there's a lot of stuff that is hidden quite deep in the secret labyrinth of menues.

[Andywanders]

There's just no such thing as a decent free(or even very cheap) audio editor, which *should* have VST support, IMO...

Oh no..?

Look here.

Since when was $99 "free"?

Wavesurgeon Basic $35

Wavesurgeon Advanced $52

Mobius $99

Indeed, not free, but very cheap... Yes..!

Besides, the demos are almost unrestricted.

[Lunch Money]

C'mon, who REALLY uses the Tracktion editor functions?