3 ms·

Agreed. I was really hoping that with 2.0, there would be at least some attempt at refining the interface. Compare the interface to Reaper (The Cockos team has

Agreed. I was really hoping that with 2.0, there would be at least some attempt at refining the interface. Compare the interface to Reaper (The Cockos team has three main contributors, right?), Cubase or Vegas, or if you want to get shiny, Propellerheads or Line6. A fresh coat of paint goes a long way.

akira2501 15y ago
Sorry to be snarky; but, compare $0 (Audacity) to $225 (reaper), $500 (cubase), $600 (vegas), $130 (Propellerheads).
- meatsock 15y ago
  149 for fl studio seems low in comparison but is a worthwhile alternative
- droctopu5 15y ago
  Audacity doesn't attempt to be a fully-featured DAW. It does what it does, and it does it nicely. Not sure you can compare it to the others with a straight face. If you're recording a podcast, I'm sure it's fine. Reaper's license only costs $225 for full commercial use exceeding $20,000 in revenue. Otherwise it's $65 for the exact same software. Not a bad deal at all.
- leviathant 15y ago
  Having bought and upgraded Vegas & Cubase, and evaluated Reaper (which is $0 for cripple-free evaluation & $60 for a non-commercial license) I am fully aware of the cost. Winamp (made by one of the guys behind Reaper) was free, even before AOL bought Nullsoft, and still managed to look better than every other MP3 player out there. There are people who have offered their services, presumably free of charge. I think Audacity would be a lot more inviting if more effort was put into the look and usability of the interface. Need money? Come up with a plan and a Kickstarter page. I'm not saying it should be a DAW. I'm just saying it should look like something that was released in 2012, rather than something that was released in 1998.
aidenn0 15y ago
It looks better than this at least: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GWheE4Gkw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GWheE4Gkw

3 ms·

Agreed. I was really hoping that with 2.0, there would be at least some attempt at refining the interface. Compare the interface to Reaper (The Cockos team has

by leviathant 15y ago

akira2501 15y ago
Sorry to be snarky; but, compare $0 (Audacity) to $225 (reaper), $500 (cubase), $600 (vegas), $130 (Propellerheads).
- meatsock 15y ago
  149 for fl studio seems low in comparison but is a worthwhile alternative
- droctopu5 15y ago
  Audacity doesn't attempt to be a fully-featured DAW. It does what it does, and it does it nicely. Not sure you can compare it to the others with a straight face. If you're recording a podcast, I'm sure it's fine. Reaper's license only costs $225 for full commercial use exceeding $20,000 in revenue. Otherwise it's $65 for the exact same software. Not a bad deal at all.
- leviathant 15y ago
  Having bought and upgraded Vegas & Cubase, and evaluated Reaper (which is $0 for cripple-free evaluation & $60 for a non-commercial license) I am fully aware of the cost. Winamp (made by one of the guys behind Reaper) was free, even before AOL bought Nullsoft, and still managed to look better than every other MP3 player out there. There are people who have offered their services, presumably free of charge. I think Audacity would be a lot more inviting if more effort was put into the look and usability of the interface. Need money? Come up with a plan and a Kickstarter page. I'm not saying it should be a DAW. I'm just saying it should look like something that was released in 2012, rather than something that was released in 1998.
aidenn0 15y ago
It looks better than this at least: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GWheE4Gkw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GWheE4Gkw