Why no cheap or free audio editors for Windows?

[C00kie]

I still don't understand, though--

Why would you want non-destructive editing in your editor? Isn't that your host's job?

Maybe because this way the audio editor has become the host. That will work OK(ish) when doing mainly audio recording & applying VST effects. Like having Tracktion without the need for an external audio editor and no midi facilities at all

[BONES]

I tried Audacity and Acoustica. Audacity doesn't support plugin chaining (or I couldn't figure out how), so basically you apply one effect at a time destructively. Not really usable for the way I do things.

I don't get it. If I need to do things non-destructively or with VST I use my sequencer. I use Cool Edit 2000 because it works in an entirely different way. If it worked the same way I wouldn't see the point in having it.

[Hypertone]

I tried Audacity and Acoustica. Audacity doesn't support plugin chaining (or I couldn't figure out how), so basically you apply one effect at a time destructively. Not really usable for the way I do things.

I don't get it. If I need to do things non-destructively or with VST I use my sequencer. I use Cool Edit 2000 because it works in an entirely different way. If it worked the same way I wouldn't see the point in having it.

I still need to do things destructively, but it's pointless applying eq, then applying compression, because you really don't know what your doing to the audio if you can't monitor through both fx simultaneously. There is no instant bypass/effect switching when working that way, so it would be absolutely useless for mastering. I could master in my host, which I probably will do, but it would be nice to be able to destructively edit a file I am mastering. I'll probabably master in Tracktion, but I still need something to encode mp3s, Audacity and Acoustica seem pretty limited in that regard.

[bduffy]

I still don't understand, though--Why would you want non-destructive editing in your editor? Isn't that your host's job?

I'll take a stab at explaing this:

I totally see your point. For me, here's why I don't just use Cubase for simple editing (I use Wavelab mostly):

1. Cubase takes too damn long to open.
2. I can easily click back and forth between wave files and samplerates, no tracks to solo/mess with
3. I don't have to import/convert files
4. I can quickly trim, C+P, grab sections to new files - basically, edit any way I want without having to switch tools and tracks
5. I can quickly save out files in many different formats.
6. Batch Converting
7. Edit/save loops for sampling
8. offers plugins not available in any other host
9. It has purty lights.

[Lunch Money]

I still need to do things destructively, but it's pointless applying eq, then applying compression, because you really don't know what your doing to the audio if you can't monitor through both fx simultaneously.

EQ and compression are normally done in your host, non-destructively. But you want to do them in your audio editor (with VST, even!) destructively? Just render from within your sequencer.

There is no instant bypass/effect switching when working that way, so it would be absolutely useless for mastering. I could master in my host, which I probably will do, but it would be nice to be able to destructively edit a file I am mastering.

You destructively edit a file your are mastering every time you export a new render of the full track. If you're already at the mastering stage, you're not gaining anything. Doing it in your host, you apply the mastering effects, press "export" and it's all applied 'destructively' (keeping your original file intact, mind you, which is good!) to an end product. In an audio editor, assuming it can host VST or chains of effects, you put on the effects, press "export" or "save as" and it's applied destructively. There's no difference whatsoever.

I'll probabably master in Tracktion, but I still need something to encode mp3s, Audacity and Acoustica seem pretty limited in that regard.

One of the only 2 things I DO open Acoustica for is encoding mp3's. However, even without an audio editor, you export as .wav (which you should be doing anyhow, to have a record of this mastered version) and then convert to mp3 using any number of available tools.

[Hypertone]

So basically the free and cheap audio editors are glorified mp3 encoders. I totally agree.

[headquest]

To answer Lunch Money and others...

I use my audio editor (Adobe Audition 1.5) as a host when mastering. At that stage it is surely nice to be able to use my VST effects such as the Golden EQ7 and Golden Compressor GCO1. If I had something like the Wave Arts Multiband (which I'm considering) then I would also like to use that at the mastering stage.

Having said that, I sometimes apply VST effects destrucitively when preparing clips for Ableton Live. I'm still on 512MB and 4800rpm on my lappy. It's nice to add (for example) convolution reverb to a clip or track and know that I can launch it without incurring any CPU spikes, etc. In Live 4 this used to be more of an issue (no longer a problem in Live 5 to be honest, what with freeze and pdc all working when launching clips in real time) but I got into a certain way of working in Live before 5 came out.

[Lunch Money]

* Cubase takes too damn long to open.

OK, but there are other hosts that don't, and other audio editors that DO. Audition wasn't a 'snappy' opening editor, but it IS one of the best.

* I can easily click back and forth between wave files and samplerates, no tracks to solo/mess with

I'm not sure what you mean. You mean in your Audio editor, you just press "16/44.1" and it's done? That can't be right-- you'd still need to render/export in order to get a new file at a diff. sample-rate.

* I don't have to import/convert files

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. That's one of the primary functions of an audio editor. For some people, that's their only purpose of an audio editor is specifically to import and convert files.

* I can quickly trim, C+P, grab sections to new files - basically, edit any way I want without having to switch tools and tracks

I'm so confused. I've never found anything easier than Tracktion (a sequencer) for trimming and copying and pasting. "Save selection as..." in audio editors is cool, but in Tracktion (and other hosts, I imagine), you just set markers and "Export only between the markers" which is pretty much the same thing... or no?

* I can quickly save out files in many different formats.

I'll give you that. Many sequencers have this built in, but mine doesn't. It's AIFF or WAV, with OGG and FLAC hopefully also on the way. But they're not all as instantly-accessible. This IS one of the reasons I see audio editors being useful, though, so I don't mind giving you this one.

- Batch Converting

OK, but I'm getting the vague sensation we're losing track of what I was asking.

- Edit/save loops for sampling

Definitely one of an audio editor's primary strengths. Tools for finding zero crossings, loop points, etc. For sure.

- offers plugins not available in any other host

Right, but again I think we're losing track of what I was getting at. If the audio editor is offering other algorithms, that is for sure a reason to go for it. I'd rather use Audition's noise reduction algorithm than try to render through a "noise reduction plug-in" in my host.


Now, I'm not trying to be intentionally contrary, but my point wasn't really addressed. I never asked what use an audio editor was (or at least I don't think I did) because I myself have one. I use Acoustica. What I was asking was, "why would you need VSTs being loaded". Then I had to rephrase it to say, "Why would you really need non-destructive editing in your editor".

Audition has several levels of 'undo', which is cool as far as non-destructive work goes. But the whole point of it is to do it 'destructively' and then see the changes reflected in your waveform. Anything that I could do with a VST, I can do in my host.

I'll go out on a limb and say that it IS conceivable that I'd want to be able to apply my VST effects 'destructively' (ie. not permanently, since there's still an undo button! Just not in realtime!) to a clip. But more often, I'm using the audio editor for functions that my host doesn't do such as destructive noise reduction, destructive sample-rate changes, destructive compression IF I like the editor's compression algorithm. Finding and exporting 'samples'...

But anything else, involving non-destructive work, a 'chain' of effects, or work like that, can be done in my host.

Editors have a purpose, but to me unless it's something very well-stocked and crazily full-featured (because at this point in time, I don't mind a few drop-down menus!), it's a very very limited purpose. Anything beyond that, and you're just using a sequencer/host that happens to call itself an 'editor' still.

Greg

[IIRs]

I have a license for Soundforge 7, but I actually prefer Acoustica for most things these days

[Karma_tba]

Although I rarely have the need to use an editor...there is Audacity..it's free.

[haydxn]

acoustica is t3h r0xx0rsz and t3g ch3apsz0rsz. i also agree with pretty much everything lunch money has said here.

[spacedad]

there's even;
http://www.oli4.ch/laoe/
it's free and it's for windows.

[BONES]

So basically the free and cheap audio editors are glorified mp3 encoders. I totally agree.

I use Cool Edit 2000, a cheap audio editor, for lots of things:
1) Extracting hits from loops/tracks/etc. [Slicers make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever]
2) Trimming dead bits from rendered audio.

3) Normalising rendered audio.
4) Maximising rendered audio.
5) Downsampling audio files.
6) Converting audio formats.
7) All audio recording.
Cleaning up vocal takes [pop/breath removal, retiming, etc]

I do these things because they are much more easily done in an editor where you can see waveforms in far more detail. For things that involve the interaction of different effects/elements, like mastering, I use my host.

To answer Lunch Money and others...

I use my audio editor (Adobe Audition 1.5) as a host when mastering. At that stage it is surely nice to be able to use my VST effects such as the Golden EQ7 and Golden Compressor GCO1.

I can do that at least as effectively in my host. By rendering at 32 bits I don't need to be so concerned with overall levels because I can normalise in CE2k and downsample to 16 bits without losing anything. That means for every song I have a file with the mix and another one for mastering. I render the mix and load it up as a stereo audio file in the mastering file. Paying for an audio ediotr that simply duplicates the work of my host seems pointless. That's exactly what makes cheap editors so appealing.

[rockstar_not]

Goldwave is brilliant and does chains etc:

http://www.goldwave.com/

Exactly. This is a great audio editor - free - no VST, but does support DX - and has about a million file types that it can shuttle back and forth between.

-Scott

[duncanparsons]

what about Krystal Audio Engine, or is that too much for what you want?

DSP