5 ms·

> "destructive" audio editor I clicked your link, but I'm still unsure what that means. Does that mean it operates on the audio file directly? Or that it has n

by 1f60c 4y ago

> "destructive" audio editor I clicked your link, but I'm still unsure what that means. Does that mean it operates on the audio file directly? Or that it has no undo functionality? Or something else entirely?

stonogo 4y ago
A "destructive" editor is just an editor. Your text editor is a "destructive" editor. A "non-destructive" editor does no editing, and instead stores (in a separate file) a sequence of patches to apply to the original file, resulting in your desired output. This isn't really editing, but the industry didn't do a good job at naming this stuff.
jaywalk 4y ago
It's spelled out pretty directly: "if you delete something, save your progress, and close your project, you will never be able to restore what was deleted"
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  What you said may apply to both "non-destructive" and "destructive" editors just as well. A better example would be "if you add reverb to your track, save your progress and close your project, you won't be able to unreverb it". With "non-destructive" editor, all you did was to add a flag that your track should have a reverb added to it, so you can easily disable or adjust parameters of your reverb afterwards without having to rely on undo.
bombcar 4y ago
It's the difference between making changes to the audio itself, and storing the changes as "now do this to the audio". Similar to photoshop using layers to apply all the changes you've done (so you can undo particular ones easily/turn them on/off) and doing everything in the "flat" image space. Or using git to track a file's changes vs just editing the file directly.
- doodlesdev 4y ago
  Photoshop is still a destructive editor, it just has layers to separate what you're destroying. Smart objects are the non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't really do a lot with them. A better example of a non-destructive photo editor would be Affinity Photo [0], which by design everything operates similar to a Photoshop smart object. [0]: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/ https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
  - mikae1 4y ago
    > Smart objects are the non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't really do a lot with them. And adjustment layers, right? And let's not forget that Photoshop also includes Camera Raw which is totally non-destructive and saves all changes in XMP (which is interchangeable with Lightroom).
margorczynski 4y ago
I think it operates on the absolute state of the audio where e.g. Reaper uses deltas - your current result is simply all of the deltas applied on after the other so it is easy to go back with each change by just removing a delta from the sequence. Quite similar to e.g. Event Sourcing vs your regular source of truth in the DB
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  I don't think this is the right description. DAWs (digital audio workstations) edit by using metadata. Suppose you have an audio file that is 2 minutes long. You start using it in the application. The application notes "we have 2 minutes of audio, taken from the start of this file". Now if you "delete" the last minute of the file, nothing is done to the file, but the "metadata" inside the DAW now says "we have 1 minute of audio, taken from the start of this file". If you then copy 20 seconds from the middle of that section, the DAW refers to this with metadata essentially saying "20 seconds of audio starting 20 seconds into this file". Nothing is ever done to change the contents of the actual file. ps. I write a DAW for a living.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    The descriptions seem equivalent, to me. I tend to think of it as: a "source" is either raw audio, or the result of applying a parameterised filter to zero or more sources.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      The reason it's not equivalent to me is that the concept of "a series of deltas" does not make clear that what is edited (with or without a delta model) is metadata. No DAW ever edits an audio file (except for a few specific operations where the user explicitly requests that). All the edits are carried out on metadata (some would call them an EDL - edit decision list; some would use other names). But the delta model is orthogonal to this.
      - 4y ago
alexvoda 4y ago
it means that for certain operations/effects/filters/etc., once done the only way to get rid of them is to undo enough steps or to load a backup, in both cases loosing all of the subsequent changes. With a nondestructive editor you can remove a change done several steps ago AND keep all of the changes done afterwards.
Ericson2314 4y ago
photoshop vs paint
TylerE 4y ago
Think of it like working in Illustrator, vs working not just in photoshop, but photoshop with a flattened source image.

by 1f60c 4y ago

stonogo 4y ago

A "destructive" editor is just an editor. Your text editor is a "destructive" editor. A "non-destructive" editor does no editing, and instead stores (in a separate file) a sequence of patches to apply to the original file, resulting in your desired output. This isn't really editing, but the industry didn't do a good job at naming this stuff.

jaywalk 4y ago

It's spelled out pretty directly: "if you delete something, save your progress, and close your project, you will never be able to restore what was deleted"

seba_dos1 4y ago
What you said may apply to both "non-destructive" and "destructive" editors just as well. A better example would be "if you add reverb to your track, save your progress and close your project, you won't be able to unreverb it". With "non-destructive" editor, all you did was to add a flag that your track should have a reverb added to it, so you can easily disable or adjust parameters of your reverb afterwards without having to rely on undo.

bombcar 4y ago

It's the difference between making changes to the audio itself, and storing the changes as "now do this to the audio". Similar to photoshop using layers to apply all the changes you've done (so you can undo particular ones easily/turn them on/off) and doing everything in the "flat" image space. Or using git to track a file's changes vs just editing the file directly.

doodlesdev 4y ago
Photoshop is still a destructive editor, it just has layers to separate what you're destroying. Smart objects are the non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't really do a lot with them. A better example of a non-destructive photo editor would be Affinity Photo [0], which by design everything operates similar to a Photoshop smart object. [0]: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/ https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
- mikae1 4y ago
  > Smart objects are the non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't really do a lot with them. And adjustment layers, right? And let's not forget that Photoshop also includes Camera Raw which is totally non-destructive and saves all changes in XMP (which is interchangeable with Lightroom).

margorczynski 4y ago

I think it operates on the absolute state of the audio where e.g. Reaper uses deltas - your current result is simply all of the deltas applied on after the other so it is easy to go back with each change by just removing a delta from the sequence. Quite similar to e.g. Event Sourcing vs your regular source of truth in the DB

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
I don't think this is the right description. DAWs (digital audio workstations) edit by using metadata. Suppose you have an audio file that is 2 minutes long. You start using it in the application. The application notes "we have 2 minutes of audio, taken from the start of this file". Now if you "delete" the last minute of the file, nothing is done to the file, but the "metadata" inside the DAW now says "we have 1 minute of audio, taken from the start of this file". If you then copy 20 seconds from the middle of that section, the DAW refers to this with metadata essentially saying "20 seconds of audio starting 20 seconds into this file". Nothing is ever done to change the contents of the actual file. ps. I write a DAW for a living.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  The descriptions seem equivalent, to me. I tend to think of it as: a "source" is either raw audio, or the result of applying a parameterised filter to zero or more sources.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    The reason it's not equivalent to me is that the concept of "a series of deltas" does not make clear that what is edited (with or without a delta model) is metadata. No DAW ever edits an audio file (except for a few specific operations where the user explicitly requests that). All the edits are carried out on metadata (some would call them an EDL - edit decision list; some would use other names). But the delta model is orthogonal to this.
    - 4y ago

alexvoda 4y ago

it means that for certain operations/effects/filters/etc., once done the only way to get rid of them is to undo enough steps or to load a backup, in both cases loosing all of the subsequent changes. With a nondestructive editor you can remove a change done several steps ago AND keep all of the changes done afterwards.

Ericson2314 4y ago

photoshop vs paint

TylerE 4y ago

Think of it like working in Illustrator, vs working not just in photoshop, but photoshop with a flattened source image.