SPS22 wrote:
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?


Considering Audacity *is* CoollEdit, why do you feel a need to change ? If
you feel Goldwave has more features, I suspect there may be a bunch of menus
that you have not found on CE/A .

If you feel you need to change, there's alway SoundForge and Wavelab.


geoff

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

cwvalle wrote:
"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

"SPS22" wrote in message
om...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:30:10 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"SPS22" wrote in message
. com...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
.. .

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

I like SoundForge as well. It's very powerful, so I'm only scratching
the surface as to what it can do, but I'm currently using it, along
with the noise reduction plug-in, to convert a bunch of vinyl albums
to .WAV files. It is pricey, but if you buy an older version, the
price drops substantially. I bought version 6.0 (I think 7.0 is
current), and the program only cost me about $200, with the noise
reduction plug-in.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:30:10 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"SPS22" wrote in message
. com...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
.. .

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

I like SoundForge as well. It's very powerful, so I'm only scratching
the surface as to what it can do, but I'm currently using it, along
with the noise reduction plug-in, to convert a bunch of vinyl albums
to .WAV files. It is pricey, but if you buy an older version, the
price drops substantially. I bought version 6.0 (I think 7.0 is
current), and the program only cost me about $200, with the noise
reduction plug-in.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:30:10 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"SPS22" wrote in message
. com...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
.. .

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

I like SoundForge as well. It's very powerful, so I'm only scratching
the surface as to what it can do, but I'm currently using it, along
with the noise reduction plug-in, to convert a bunch of vinyl albums
to .WAV files. It is pricey, but if you buy an older version, the
price drops substantially. I bought version 6.0 (I think 7.0 is
current), and the program only cost me about $200, with the noise
reduction plug-in.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:30:10 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"SPS22" wrote in message
. com...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
.. .

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

I like SoundForge as well. It's very powerful, so I'm only scratching
the surface as to what it can do, but I'm currently using it, along
with the noise reduction plug-in, to convert a bunch of vinyl albums
to .WAV files. It is pricey, but if you buy an older version, the
price drops substantially. I bought version 6.0 (I think 7.0 is
current), and the program only cost me about $200, with the noise
reduction plug-in.

Scott Gardner

"SPS22" wrote in message
om...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

"SPS22" wrote in message
om...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

"SPS22" wrote in message
om...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

SPS22 wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum
Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording
and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or
Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).


No comparison. SF. Goldwave is a toy in comparison, but a worthy toy.

geoff

SPS22 wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum
Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording
and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or
Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).


No comparison. SF. Goldwave is a toy in comparison, but a worthy toy.

geoff

SPS22 wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum
Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording
and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or
Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).


No comparison. SF. Goldwave is a toy in comparison, but a worthy toy.

geoff

SPS22 wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum
Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording
and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or
Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).


No comparison. SF. Goldwave is a toy in comparison, but a worthy toy.

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

cwvalle wrote:
"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


geoff

cwvalle wrote:
"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


geoff

cwvalle wrote:
"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


geoff

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...

After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a
spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

It is 2 track however, not multi track

CE/Audition is both 2 track and multi track.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A
either. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. I beleive that
possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. But I prefer SF's
user interface and way of working.


geoff.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer
CE/A either.

Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of
their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there
were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization
that favored WL for less-experienced users.

We don't all have to fawn over the same application.

Agreed.

However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to
do and whether a product has the necessary features.

I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my
needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers
unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which
followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96.

I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a
difference to justify switching.

There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far
more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long
appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet
made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium
in CE2.

I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality.

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based.
This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that
WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the
Steinberg line for multitracking.

Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase
+ Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition.

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs
were for the features that both implemented.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by
how similar the programs were for the features that
both implemented.

Which version of Sound Forge are you referring
to (empirical experience)?

"Arny Krueger" wrote

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by
how similar the programs were for the features that
both implemented.

Which version of Sound Forge are you referring
to (empirical experience)?

"Arny Krueger" wrote

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by
how similar the programs were for the features that
both implemented.

Which version of Sound Forge are you referring
to (empirical experience)?

"Arny Krueger" wrote

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by
how similar the programs were for the features that
both implemented.

Which version of Sound Forge are you referring
to (empirical experience)?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are
disk-based.

No, since "6" SF has been non-destructive (ie RAM-based).

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are
disk-based.

No, since "6" SF has been non-destructive (ie RAM-based).

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are
disk-based.

No, since "6" SF has been non-destructive (ie RAM-based).

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are
disk-based.

No, since "6" SF has been non-destructive (ie RAM-based).

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer
CE/A either.

Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of
their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there
were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization
that favored WL for less-experienced users.

We don't all have to fawn over the same application.

Agreed.

However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to
do and whether a product has the necessary features.

I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my
needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers
unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which
followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96.

I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a
difference to justify switching.

There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far
more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long
appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet
made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium
in CE2.

I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality.

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based.
This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that
WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the
Steinberg line for multitracking.

Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase
+ Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition.

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs
were for the features that both implemented.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer
CE/A either.

Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of
their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there
were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization
that favored WL for less-experienced users.

We don't all have to fawn over the same application.

Agreed.

However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to
do and whether a product has the necessary features.

I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my
needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers
unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which
followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96.

I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a
difference to justify switching.

There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far
more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long
appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet
made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium
in CE2.

I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality.

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based.
This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that
WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the
Steinberg line for multitracking.

Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase
+ Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition.

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs
were for the features that both implemented.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer
CE/A either.

Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of
their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there
were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization
that favored WL for less-experienced users.

We don't all have to fawn over the same application.

Agreed.

However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to
do and whether a product has the necessary features.

I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my
needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers
unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which
followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96.

I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a
difference to justify switching.

There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far
more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long
appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet
made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium
in CE2.

I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality.

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based.
This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that
WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the
Steinberg line for multitracking.

Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase
+ Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition.

But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working.

During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs
were for the features that both implemented.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A
either. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. I beleive that
possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. But I prefer SF's
user interface and way of working.


geoff.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A
either. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. I beleive that
possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. But I prefer SF's
user interface and way of working.


geoff.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis
and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A
either. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. I beleive that
possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. But I prefer SF's
user interface and way of working.


geoff.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...

After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a
spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

It is 2 track however, not multi track

CE/Audition is both 2 track and multi track.



Hey asshole
I didn't say i prefer it
read my ****ing post
you **** ant
All i said was i like SF
you mother ****ing
**** in the face
**** for brain
**** nosed
idiot