Audacity 2.0 Released

[fas42]

For those interested in such matters, and who are unaware of the update, or just uncomfortable using beta versions of software, the next, proper version of Audacity has just been officially released ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, I don't have a single clue on what Audacity 2.0 is. :b

 

[fas42]

Don't worry, Bob, if you're not familiar with computer software for viewing and editing digital audio, then Audacity, a free version of such, will be of little use to you! But, it's a great way of seeing what's going on inside digital audio files, get a better understanding of what the music looks like as a waveform ...

That said, you have indicated many times you're pretty much a novice with computer stuff :b, but if you're interested in playing around with this sort of thing I would be happy to lend a hand getting a copy running on your machine, just for you to have a fiddle with! Should be pretty straightforward to get it working for you, I can guide you through with PM's if you like.

So, if you're interested, just give me a yell ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Thanks Frank, you're a real trooper!

And that 'Audacity' stuff, what is the benefit? Will it give me free Music?
...Like great music selections? :b
...Or is it just to look at what music looks like on graphs, the waves?


Bob

 

[Bruce B]

It's just a picture representation Bob.

Will it do 24bit yet?

 

[NorthStar]

Ah thanks Bruce, that's what I thought.

 

[fas42]

It's just a picture representation Bob.

Will it do 24bit yet?

Not quite sure what you mean, Bruce. Internally the waveform is processed at 32 bit accuracy, this is close to 200dB dynamic range -- I think that should be good enough for most people! To test this, I can attentuate a waveform by 100dB, and then amplify that below CD resolution signal by 100dB again, and the signal is still fully detailed -- plenty of room for playing around with ideas. By contrast, Reaper say is only 24 bits resolution internal; I confirmed the latter by doing the same test there, which turned the audio into a very Lego blocky version ...

As regards output, or exporting to file formats, no problems doing 24 anything; I've gone up to 768kHz sampling rate without trouble. Only thing here, resampling takes many, many minutes, and enormous files, obviously enough, will be generated.

Frank

 

[rbbert]

Not quite sure what you mean, Bruce. Internally the waveform is processed at 32 bit accuracy, this is close to 200dB dynamic range -- I think that should be good enough for most people! To test this, I can attentuate a waveform by 100dB, and then amplify that below CD resolution signal by 100dB again, and the signal is still fully detailed -- plenty of room for playing around with ideas. By contrast, Reaper say is only 24 bits resolution internal; I confirmed the latter by doing the same test there, which turned the audio into a very Lego blocky version ...

As regards output, or exporting to file formats, no problems doing 24 anything; I've gone up to 768kHz sampling rate without trouble. Only thing here, resampling takes many, many minutes, and enormous files, obviously enough, will be generated.

Frank

Audacity has had 32 bit processsing with almost any sampling rate imaginable for quite awhile (although I don't use it, many do)

 

[fas42]

Ah thanks Bruce, that's what I thought.

But it can go beyond that, Bob, it you want to play! :b

You're interested in DSP, and this can be a king of doing such things, if you want to get your hands dirty. The ultimate equaliser so to speak. Don't like how a track sounds? Open it, change the frequency response in every area you want, as savagely as you like, with absolutely no damage to the audio quality and save it as a new version. Very straighforward once you get a feel for it. You can even redraw the wave by using the program as a pencil to change the shape: get rid of a nasty glitch somewhere, say.

Very powerful stuff, if you enjoy fiddling ...

Frank

 

[rbbert]

But it can go beyond that, Bob, it you want to play! :b

You're interested in DSP, and this can be a king of doing such things, if you want to get your hands dirty. The ultimate equaliser so to speak. Don't like how a track sounds? Open it, change the frequency response in every area you want, as savagely as you like, with absolutely no damage to the audio quality and save it as a new version. Very straighforward once you get a feel for it. You can even redraw the wave by using the program as a pencil to change the shape: get rid of a nasty glitch somewhere, say.

Very powerful stuff, if you enjoy fiddling ...

Frank

There are much better fairly inexpensive (and of course expensive too) programs for EQ

 

[fas42]

There are much better fairly inexpensive (and of course expensive too) programs for EQ

I guess it depends on what you mean by better. For example, you can pull in Reaper modules, at no cost, which are extremely powerful, to do extra fancy things. The interface isn't cute, I agree, with a pretty, look like a pro's piece of kit with real knobs and dials screens sense about it, but it gets the job done. Personally, I like software that has the guts to do the job even it looks very pedestrian, rather than with one with a swanky interface but not much under the hood ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

But it can go beyond that, Bob, it you want to play! :b

You're interested in DSP, and this can be a king of doing such things, if you want to get your hands dirty. The ultimate equaliser so to speak. Don't like how a track sounds? Open it, change the frequency response in every area you want, as savagely as you like, with absolutely no damage to the audio quality and save it as a new version. Very straighforward once you get a feel for it. You can even redraw the wave by using the program as a pencil to change the shape: get rid of a nasty glitch somewhere, say.

Very powerful stuff, if you enjoy fiddling ...

Frank

Thanks Frank, but the only music I like to fiddle with is the one I play myself "en direct". :b
...Like from my guitars, my flutes, & my harmonicas.

Bob ain't into computerized music;
everything he owns is from physical circles (round discs) mediums. :b

 

[rbbert]

I guess it depends on what you mean by better. For example, you can pull in Reaper modules, at no cost, which are extremely powerful, to do extra fancy things. The interface isn't cute, I agree, with a pretty, look like a pro's piece of kit with real knobs and dials screens sense about it, but it gets the job done. Personally, I like software that has the guts to do the job even it looks very pedestrian, rather than with one with a swanky interface but not much under the hood ...

Frank

I'm talking about simple sound quality; I'm sure Bruce can explain the technical aspects better than I, but having tried a number of sub-$1000 EQ plug-ins I can say that similar EQ changes don't necessarily sound the same between the different programs making those changes.

 

[fas42]

Thanks Frank, but the only music I like to fiddle with is the one I play myself "en direct". :b
...Like from my guitars, my flutes, & my harmonicas.

Bob ain't into computerized music;
everything he owns is from physical circles (round discs) mediums. :b

If you get sound from CD, SACD, DVD, etc, that is all "computerised" music: music servers and using computers is simply changing the way you playback the exact same tracks, it's all digital, or computer, audio. Like using tape versus LPs in the analogue side of thing, sort of.

To give a simple example: you have a CD with a track you don't like. You put that CD in your computer, "copy" the track to the computer, use Audacity to fix it up a bit, and then copy that new version to a CD that can be written on: something like taping a vinyl track with fiddling inbetween. Then you play the "new" version in the same way you always have ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

I'm talking about simple sound quality; I'm sure Bruce can explain the technical aspects better than I, but having tried a number of sub-$1000 EQ plug-ins I can say that similar EQ changes don't necessarily sound the same between the different programs making those changes.

I can understand that: once you start playing with audio in the digital world the sky's the limit. A more ambitious EQ module may say that a simple change is occurring but it's doing extra processing that you're not really aware of, whereas Audacity will do exactly what you ask of it. You could achieve the same with the Audacity, but that would require the user to have greater technical knowledge; the expensive modules pre-package all the extra finessing ...

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

For some reason I think I read Audacity could only record at 16bit with it's ASIO drivers. Was I mistaken?

 

[NorthStar]

OK Frank, I see your valid point. :b

 

[fas42]

For some reason I think I read Audacity could only record at 16bit with it's ASIO drivers. Was I mistaken?

Okay, Bruce, understand your question now: the short answer is No, there is a problem in Windows but not, say, Linux. A long answer explaining things is at http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=58593

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, as an aside, I just stumbled on this.

 

[fas42]

Frank, as an aside, I just stumbled on this.

Yep, another version of tone controls, altering the frequency response to "mimic" the supposed sound of a certain audio medium, vinyl in this case. Digital processing will get more and more in the hands of consumers, in cheaper and cheaper forms: as I mentioned in another post, I'm sure it will get to the point where the consumer will be able to access, purchase, the raw tracks, the microphone feeds so to speak, and do a mix to suit themselves and the equipment being played on; or purchase someone else's custom mix settings to get a certain flavour. Then the main choice will be whether to do a dynamic mix, create the final track as you listen to it, which increases the chance of sound quality problems; or do it beforehand, as a oncer, and copy it, "burn" it to some storage medium as your preferred, premium version.

Frank