6 ms·
Seems like Muse could handle it better but has Audacity kept up? I used it at first but moved on to Reaper quite some time ago.
by zwieback 5y ago
Seems like Muse could handle it better but has Audacity kept up? I used it at first but moved on to Reaper quite some time ago.
- jan_Inkepa 5y agoAudacity is pretty good if your focus is editing/tweaking/cutting/splicing individual/small numbers of samples. Haven't at all felt the need for something more featureful still. Ripper seems to have some other niche. ( FWIW, Audacity is a million miles better than it was 10 years ago (aka it's more stable) )
- falcolas 5y agoI've used both recently, here's my thoughts. Reaper's non-destructive editing is bloody priceless when compared to Audacity's. Plugins for reaper are... less well integrated into the application as a whole. Audacity makes for a great ACX mastering tool because of the open source, purpose made, plugins they have available. Reaper's ability to add SFX chains to tracks without modifying the track directly is pretty incredible. You can both live preview SFX changes, and change settings without having to undo between changes. I miss spectrograph editing when in Reaper. Word is there's an external plugin, but... see point 2.
- ryantgtg 5y agoMaybe stability depends on your use case. For me, Audacity has been much less stable in the last three years than it was 10 years ago. For the past three years, I've had multiple cases where features broke with an update. I (sometimes) record a podcast with a friend, and our flow involves "not updating Audacity anymore, just so we don't have to deal with bs regressions."
- moogly 5y agoReaper is a full-fledged DAW. Audacity is just a barebones audio editor.
- coldacid 5y agoThink of it this way: Audacity is nano. Reaper is fully-kitted-out Emacs with everything in ELPA.
- recursive 5y agoAudacity is free to use. (I am a Reaper user.)