Why no cheap or free audio editors for Windows?

[audiobot202]

Just curious, but why does every one master out side of their host- I cant think of a single thing some audio editor could do that I couldnt do in Sonar to the entire project before rendering. Im genuinely curious as to why- so please enlighten me.

1 Not everyone owns Sonar.
2 A dedicated audio editor can usually always do a lot more and faster than any host, making mastering, comparisons and sound mangling easier and quicker.
3 To do it all in something like Tracktion might take up quite valuable system resources, especially if you apply CPU intensive mastering plugins at the end. An audio editor is optimised for it's job.
4 Editors like Audition and SF offer very good plugins with the intended use of mastering or analysing audio.

[audiobot202]

Headquest, you beat me to it dude !!

[headquest]

Regarding the Cool Edit downloads...

For the record, Adobe own all the rights to Syntrillium's Cool Edit software. Anyone else selling or distributing the code is in violation of Adobe's rights.... i.e. it's illegal/warez/cracks

[IIRs]

Maybe your host has better metering than mine but I really need the accuracy of an audio editor to make sure everything is properly normalised.

Normalising is pointless, or worse.

[Jbravo]

normalising everything is stupid, but there is a place for it on certain tracks and you need an audio editor to see instantly what the peak levels is. Also you can check for other things like DC offset etc.

I know some people can open bottles with their teeth but I find it easier just to use a bottle opener

[Lunch Money]

Just curious, but why does every one master out side of their host- I cant think of a single thing some audio editor could do that I couldnt do in Sonar to the entire project before rendering. Im genuinely curious as to why- so please enlighten me.

That's what I've been getting at since page 1. It doesn't make any sense to me, either. I only use an editor for conversion, noise reduction, and occasional sample lifting (even then, I'll generally just render a clip in Tracktion)

1 Not everyone owns Sonar.

You don't need to.

2 A dedicated audio editor can usually always do a lot more and faster than any host, making mastering, comparisons and sound mangling easier and quicker.

In what way? 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.

3 To do it all in something like Tracktion might take up quite valuable system resources, especially if you apply CPU intensive mastering plugins at the end. An audio editor is optimised for it's job.

Surely you must realize the inanity of this. To master in your audio editor would take the same amount of resources unless you have already rendered a stereo "mixdown" from your host. I mean, you realize that you CAN render a stereo mixdown in Tracktion (right into the same edit, which will also auto-mute all the tracks OR replace them, whichever you prefer) or ANY other host and then move on to the mastering phase? If you're not going to have all your individual tracks with effects in your audio editor, why would you do so in your host? It's literally boggling my mind that you're making it sound like you HAVE to leave all your tracks individually.

Or, put more succinctly: Your audio editor is using less resources because you have already rendered a stereo mixdown. Just do the same thing inside your host.

4 Editors like Audition and SF offer very good plugins with the intended use of mastering or analysing audio.

Yes, this could be a good point. Some audio editors' included algorithms and tools may end up better than what you own for your host. If you have a bunch of great stuff for your host, there's no reason for the editor, but if your editor has more 'capable' tools then by all means, it could prove very useful.

Greg

[bduffy]

OK, Lunch. I'm going to try this again (I love how impassioned we can get about...audio editors!). I think the initial problem here is that I'm a Cubase user and you're a Traktion user, and I'm sure that Traktion is a much less "heavy" app than Cubase. You have to import audio into the Project Pool first, it has to be converted to the project's samplerate, and any editing I do has to be exported to a new file. Now in Wavelab I could open my file, load up my VST/DX plugins, do my edits, put markers/loop points directly into that wavefile, and hit Ctrl+S - and now that wave file is destructively edited. I can't do that in Cubase or Sonar. So there's an example of using VST plugins in an editor, too.

Is that any closer to a justification? This is awkward cos I've never had to defend it before! lol.

EDIT:

* 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.

Sorry, Greg, I forgot this one; I need to clear this up. What I meant was that in a dedicated audio editor, the wave files open up in their own floating windows, which you can cascade, tile, stack and move around as you wish. You can simply click back and forth from one to the other - no "solo" or "mute" or linear stacking - while also flipping bewteen samplerates and bit depths. Being able to instantly switch beck and forth between two or more files is cruical to the mastering process, and this is where having non desctructive VST plugins inserted in a Master Bus could be helpful too.

[audiobot202]

In what way? 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.

It has nothing to do with a checklist or file types LM. It has everything to do with ease and speed of use. An editor presents you with a dedicated window, with a legible waveform. It sports a raft of useful processes and effects that, in the case of the bigger ditors, are certainly better tyhan the equivalents in a sequencer environment.

Surely you must realize the inanity of this. To master in your audio editor would take the same amount of resources unless you have already rendered a stereo "mixdown" from your host. I mean, you realize that you CAN render a stereo mixdown in Tracktion (right into the same edit, which will also auto-mute all the tracks OR replace them, whichever you prefer) or ANY other host and then move on to the mastering phase? If you're not going to have all your individual tracks with effects in your audio editor, why would you do so in your host? It's literally boggling my mind that you're making it sound like you HAVE to leave all your tracks individually.

Of course I realise that tracks can be bounced and mixes can be rendered. That works for you ok, but doesn't work well for me because I find T2 still to be quite buggy with a few of the effects and instruments I use regularly. And yes, I have theoretically already a mixdown from the host, so your point is not relevant. For me, leaving many of the tracks unrenderd leaves me plentuy of room to tweak the mix should I need to. Tracktion GUI refresh rates are sluggish enough without having to whack limiters, final plugs and fx chains in the master slot.

Or, put more succinctly: Your audio editor is using less resources because you have already rendered a stereo mixdown. Just do the same thing inside your host.

Yes, but as I've stated, quite succinctly, the host doesn't offer me the same level of editing capability.

If doing all of this in Tracktion works for you, then that's cool. It doesn't suit my needs for the above stated reasons. I prefer finer control over the rendered mix and I find that a good audio editor offers the right balance of editing capability and numerous effects in a dedicated package.

[headquest]

If doing all of this in Tracktion works for you, then that's cool. It doesn't suit my needs for the above stated reasons. I prefer finer control over the rendered mix and I find that a good audio editor offers the right balance of editing capability and numerous effects in a dedicated package.

Yes, I'm with you all the way there

I don't export tracks seperately or remix in Audition... I render down to a stereo .wav file in my prefered host or the moment. Then I import that stereo file into Audition and do whatever work is necessary.

As I explained in one of the earlier posts here (responding to Bones, I think) the "Mastering stage" (which is probably a misnomer anyway ) need not necessarily be a lengthy or complex process if the mixing I did in my host is well done... but sometimes it just plain isn't well done!

Having a final stage working in a different and fresh environment certainly helps me to (quite literally!) "see the wood through the trees". I like to see where the peaks are, and check for DC offset, etc just as Jbravo said (and I think it is a fairly standard practice for computer based musicians).

Having said all that, I wouldn't personally use any of the freeware or cheaper editors listed in this thread at this important phase...

My music may be total crap, but I do take enough pride in it - and can afford - to use a top-drawer package for audio work. That way I only have myself to blame for the outcome!! And as I said before the quality of the effects more than justifies the cost of Audition or SoundForge (which has recently come down significantly in price).

For those that can't afford one of the big-gun editors, I can understand that mastering in a decent host is probably the best option

[Lunch Money]

bduffy-- Fair enough about your first point (Cubase's way of working). Ditto for samplerate, though I can't honestly say I'd ever do what you do. Since you DO want to use that technique, though, who am I to argue?

audiobot-- I think it's been a long time since you used Tracktion. Didn't you switch to eXT?

Either way, it's easy to say, "It's just easier and faster in an editor", but I don't necessarily have to buy it. I don't see any reason it SHOULD be.

I accept both yours and headquest's assertions that the different environment promotes a different approach and a different set of effects/algos though. Can't argue with that one.

Greg

[Hypertone]

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

I thought it was $55?

[audiobot202]

audiobot-- I think it's been a long time since you used Tracktion. Didn't you switch to eXT?

Eh? Nah...Energy XT is still too young and underdeveloped for me at the moment

[bduffy]

bduffy-- Fair enough about your first point (Cubase's way of working). Ditto for samplerate, though I can't honestly say I'd ever do what you do. Since you DO want to use that technique, though, who am I to argue?

audiobot-- I think it's been a long time since you used Tracktion. Didn't you switch to eXT?

Either way, it's easy to say, "It's just easier and faster in an editor", but I don't necessarily have to buy it. I don't see any reason it SHOULD be.

I accept both yours and headquest's assertions that the different environment promotes a different approach and a different set of effects/algos though. Can't argue with that one.

Greg

Cool, thanks for trying to understand! I don't know if I explained it correctly, but I'm glad you can do it all-in-one, cos that would drive me crazy.

[Lunch Money]

bduffy, I THINK I do understand what you're saying. However, I personally just 'trust' that my dither and export will sound more or less like what I'm hearing when I'm listening in 24-bit (actually, 64-bit, but through the soundcard's converters, which downsample to 24-bit before converting to analog, if I understand correctly).

I'm sure there must be some sort of differences detectable with spectral analysis and all that stuff, but I'm not worried about it. I trust my conversion programs enough. And I wouldn't know how to fix "samplerate conversion" problems inside an editor anyhow.

Greg

[bduffy]

bduffy, I THINK I do understand what you're saying. However, I personally just 'trust' that my dither and export will sound more or less like what I'm hearing when I'm listening in 24-bit (actually, 64-bit, but through the soundcard's converters, which downsample to 24-bit before converting to analog, if I understand correctly).

I'm sure there must be some sort of differences detectable with spectral analysis and all that stuff, but I'm not worried about it. I trust my conversion programs enough. And I wouldn't know how to fix "samplerate conversion" problems inside an editor anyhow.

Greg

OK, I don't think I'm following you know! Ha ha...I didn't think we were talking about conversion problems, maybe I got lost...

I just meant that Cubase has to import and convert any wave file to the project's master sample rate, whereas in Wavelab I can have a 44k, 92k and 8-bit file open at the same time, no conversion necessary.