Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
best sound edeting software..
- Thread starter dave1234
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reason isn't a sound editor at all, infact it doesn't even record external audio. Cubase isn't really an editor either, it's a sequencer, although it does have a halfway decent waveform editor in it. If you are not trying to actually compose your own music and are just looking for an editor to chop up/edit/treat/optimize etc take a look at Bias Peak or TC Works Spark. Infact you can download Spark ME for OSX for free. It's a great editor and very capable and you can see if you even need the extra features of Spark XL, most likely not.
http://www.tcworks.de
Enjoy!
I agree with the above. Spark Me does it for me. A bit ugly but easy to use, lots of plug-ins to play with.
Talking about editing... you can edit your post using the 'edit post' button on the bottom-right corner of your post.
irmongoose
irmongoose
ahh, yes! I knew I forgot one! Peak is also one.
And I was basing my comment on ones I have heard of people using. I know realtively nothing about sound editing, but since he didnt ask anything but "what is the best sound editor" I just threw out some programs that I knew of that people used.
Next time, I leave it to the pros
Duff-Man says......Sound editors range from the freeware (like SparkME mentioned above - it's middle brother SparkLE is a pretty good one too for the mid-range products), to the inexpensive shareware like $25 Amadeus and Cacophony up to the $400 and $500 Peak and Spark "full editions." Perhaps if you told us what you need it for and what your budget is we could help weed through them all and find something to suit your needs....oh yeah!
I've found Sound Studio and Amadeus to be the easiest to use sound editors. Unfortunately, Sound Studio seems to have a chronic problem of crashing. It just crashes randomly. I've discovered that if I save immediately after recording and don't edit at the same time, it is fairly stable.
Spark ME I found to be a pain to use, largely because of its interface. For example, you can't just click out of a text field once you've typed in it; you must hit the return or else it won't save your changes. Also, it won't let you edit one file and record another, which is much more efficient for transferring LPs to CDs, for instance.
Overall, I would recommend Sound Studio or Amadeus, 50 and 35 bucks, respectively. One nice feature of Amadeus is that it can scan for clicks and pops and repair them.
Spark ME I found to be a pain to use, largely because of its interface. For example, you can't just click out of a text field once you've typed in it; you must hit the return or else it won't save your changes. Also, it won't let you edit one file and record another, which is much more efficient for transferring LPs to CDs, for instance.
Overall, I would recommend Sound Studio or Amadeus, 50 and 35 bucks, respectively. One nice feature of Amadeus is that it can scan for clicks and pops and repair them.
I know that most of the sound eddit software i am about to mention is pc based but its all great stuff but like someone has mentioned if you mention what your planning on doing it helps ..
but heres what i recomend
Cool edit pro
sound forge 6
check out
www.computermusic.co.uk
the above site covers a load of info for your audio edditing needs also recomend getting the subsciption you get a cd and the odd dvd with it full of software edit programs synths wave files aif files etc etc .. they also offer tips and stuff how to recard stuff and yes it covers macs and pcs...
most audio programs are used on the pc though ive hit this problem since switching and thanks to this post i now know about other editing programs .......
Sabenth
but heres what i recomend
Cool edit pro
sound forge 6
check out
www.computermusic.co.uk
the above site covers a load of info for your audio edditing needs also recomend getting the subsciption you get a cd and the odd dvd with it full of software edit programs synths wave files aif files etc etc .. they also offer tips and stuff how to recard stuff and yes it covers macs and pcs...
most audio programs are used on the pc though ive hit this problem since switching and thanks to this post i now know about other editing programs .......
Sabenth
For real unabashed editing power, you won't get better than ProTools from digidesign. They make an entire range of mid- to pro-level audio editing software and hardware, which includes everything from waveform editors to sequencers to plug ins and filters, equalizers, etc.
One question you need to ask yourself is whether or not you need to be able to edit in multiple tracks at the same time, or if you just want to be able to cut and paste a single track at a time. Generally speaking with all of the software programs mentioned already, you will get what you pay for. $50-$150 = single track editor, <$200 = good single track editor/wanting multitrack, $250+ = getting better with single, adding features in multi. $500+ = professional features that most home/casual users won't need or take the time to learn to use.
One question you need to ask yourself is whether or not you need to be able to edit in multiple tracks at the same time, or if you just want to be able to cut and paste a single track at a time. Generally speaking with all of the software programs mentioned already, you will get what you pay for. $50-$150 = single track editor, <$200 = good single track editor/wanting multitrack, $250+ = getting better with single, adding features in multi. $500+ = professional features that most home/casual users won't need or take the time to learn to use.
I have to point out that DigiDesign intentionally cripples the compatibility of many of their products so that you have to keep buying from them when you upgrade. PT LE, for example, can't run with some of the higher end I/Os, regardless of the fact that you may not need the features of PT 6.0. It may be important to consider if you choose to evaluate pro-sumer options.
Dan
Dan
Pro-Tools is the best
Pro-Tools is the industry standard that every other sound editing application is measured against. Unlike most of the other software mentioned here, propriety hardware must be bought along with Pro-Tools (unless you already have a DigiDesign system and want to upgrade).
Pro-Tools has the cleanest interface of all the sound editors and working with it is a pleasure comparable to working with PhotoShop. If you know Pro-Tools well you have a better chance of working in a reputable sound studio than someone who knows some obscure Windows software.
By the way, DigiDesign never stated that they will never do a Pro Tools Free for OS X; they just did not have one ready for Pro Tools 6's release earlier this year. Pro Tools Free for OS X may be with us by the end of the year.
Pro-Tools is the industry standard that every other sound editing application is measured against. Unlike most of the other software mentioned here, propriety hardware must be bought along with Pro-Tools (unless you already have a DigiDesign system and want to upgrade).
Pro-Tools has the cleanest interface of all the sound editors and working with it is a pleasure comparable to working with PhotoShop. If you know Pro-Tools well you have a better chance of working in a reputable sound studio than someone who knows some obscure Windows software.
By the way, DigiDesign never stated that they will never do a Pro Tools Free for OS X; they just did not have one ready for Pro Tools 6's release earlier this year. Pro Tools Free for OS X may be with us by the end of the year.
from what i've heard from a friend of mine (big time producer/engineer) - protools 6 isn't very good at all. He bought it, installed jag but felt that it was way too slow, even on a dual 1.25 G4. He has since downgraded to 5 - which is supposedly the dogs danglies
ooh. i've got a dual 500. maybe i'll just stick w/ running on os9 'til i figure out to stay w/ protools LE (and buy a bunch of RTAS plug-ins) or switch back to either Digital Performer or Logic (and see where they end up going w/ plug-in standards).
In my day sound editors needed dongles!
Well if your friend just switched from using OS 9 to OS X of course he would call it slow. OS X takes some getting used to but when users realize that they do not have to make tea while they burn a CD for example they find it hard to go back to one-task-at-a-time OS 9. Basically your friend lives in the past.
Well if your friend just switched from using OS 9 to OS X of course he would call it slow. OS X takes some getting used to but when users realize that they do not have to make tea while they burn a CD for example they find it hard to go back to one-task-at-a-time OS 9. Basically your friend lives in the past.
About those Mac users late to OS X
At my work a 733 G4 is loaded with Pro Tools 5 in OS 9 & Pro Tools 6 in OS X. None of the sound editors (the people that is) working there have tried using PT6 yet because the only one that knows how to use OS X is me... and I am employed to edit video.
My point is, OS X is a new operating system and that intimidates a lot of people; they have to re-learn a lot of things that were previously taken for granted (such as how to connect to the internet). Pro Tools was not updated for OS X until a few months ago so a lot of its users have to climb a steep learning curve if they want to use the latest Apple hardware.
At my work a 733 G4 is loaded with Pro Tools 5 in OS 9 & Pro Tools 6 in OS X. None of the sound editors (the people that is) working there have tried using PT6 yet because the only one that knows how to use OS X is me... and I am employed to edit video.
My point is, OS X is a new operating system and that intimidates a lot of people; they have to re-learn a lot of things that were previously taken for granted (such as how to connect to the internet). Pro Tools was not updated for OS X until a few months ago so a lot of its users have to climb a steep learning curve if they want to use the latest Apple hardware.
Re: About those Mac users late to OS X
To me, moving to OS X was super easy and straight forward. I had now problems with the interface and all of my old problems seemed to dissappear. Of course, new problems did arise, but they were miniscule compared to the problems I had with 9. OS X just works.
P-Worm
To me, moving to OS X was super easy and straight forward. I had now problems with the interface and all of my old problems seemed to dissappear. Of course, new problems did arise, but they were miniscule compared to the problems I had with 9. OS X just works.
P-Worm
Moved, and seconded.
Since the transition, problems in all sorts of areas (particularly those crappy extension conflicts) have all but disappeared. Now I've got a smooth running machine with very few if any problems, and I haven't looked back since. Except of course, looking back at Quark, but you know, that's what you have to do. As for audio, I'd love to have PT6, but unfortunately the guy before me was a PC editor, so I get the joy of CoolEdit Pro 2. Not bad, but would be better on my mac.
Well if your friend just switched from using OS 9 to OS X of course he would call it slow. OS X takes some getting used to but when users realize that they do not have to make tea while they burn a CD for example they find it hard to go back to one-task-at-a-time OS 9. Basically your friend lives in the past.
It seems there's a really naive breed of mac zeliot rearing it's cluelessly devoted head since OS X came out!!!
OS X is not perfect, someone wanting to stay with OS 9 is NOT living in the past, they're living in the realworld, a world where they're software does what it's supposed to do and they can actually use their software in the first place, they also might not have a spare 3 grand (underexagerated) to pay for plug-in upgrades and/or replacing their whole system due to the fact any mac with PCI graphics is worthless for protools under OS X!!!
I know Protools 6.0 has far smoother screen redraws and the interface is snappier under a high load under OS X on a dual G4 , lots of people have commented on this and from a technical point of view, this is purely because Protools 6.0 is fully multi-threaded and can use 99% of 1 cpu purely for plug-ins leaving the other cpu to handle MIDI, automation, screen-redraws etc... The OS 9 version just uses 85% of 1 CPU for everything. Apart from this, Protools 6.0 (and subsequent bug fix releases) are causing a LOT of people problems.
On top of the 100s of problems people have been having, a lot of people have seen pathetic increases in processing power with the new mac models. the difference between OS X and OS 9 performance has only been in favour of OS X when dual cpus are used and even then, people running a lot of OS 9 only software synths and plug-ins just CAN'T use OS X at present for lack of software. Running Protools 6.0 on a single cpu G4 seems to be hell for a lot of people, lower plug-in counts, sluggish performance, OS X really does seem like the bloatware OS from hell unless you've got loads of cpu power to throw at it.
To give you some example of exactly how OS X performs with Protools LE, here's some random results from a benchmark test members of the DUC have performed called the "dave c test" :
Dual 500Mhz G4 19 tracks (11 under OS 9) - This is very impressive but exposes the huge weakness of the G4 when far higher clockspeeds don't even come close to double the performance.
Dual 1.25Ghz G4 29 tracks, Dual 1.42Ghz G4 32 tracks (not OS 9 bootable)
Single 1.2GHz G4 24 tracks (Sawtooth G4 '100Mhz FSB' with a sonnet cpu upgrade)
If it wasn't disappointing enough to compare single vs dual cpu performance (you're not getting you're money's worth of out of a dual 1.42GHz G4 at all), it completely takes the piss once you compare it with PC results like this :
2.24Ghz Pentium 4 : 32 tracks + 24 aux (taken from the 'best system for under $1000' thread in the PC protools LE forum)
That's 160 plug-ins on the most expensive mac or 280 on a PC you could build in triplicate for the cost of the Mac. It's not digidesign's programming that's causing such a wide performance gap, it's bandwidth restrictions of the G4. I shudder to think how a 3Ghz Pentium 4 would stack up against the top of range powermac but a 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 of similar spec to the 2.24Ghz model didn't even manange 1 extra track so maybe it's not so bad.
It's almost entirely Apple's fault this situation even exists, if they hadn't dropped OS 9 support, digidesign would have had more time to work on Protools 6.0. and get all the bugs out, as it stands, without releasing it even in it's present form, they would be denying the whole audio community the industry standard system on the industry standard platform.
If you're looking for a multi-track sample editor and you've got a mac that can boot OS 9, get protools free just to try it out. The only thing that might throw you at first is that you need to create 2 mono tracks to record in stereo, this is because it's based on a fairly old version of Protools LE. For quick, basic 2 track editing, Yamaha TWE 2.0 is rock solid and free (if they have a place to download it still, it's fairly old now).
It seems there's a really naive breed of mac zeliot rearing it's cluelessly devoted head since OS X came out!!!
OS X is not perfect, someone wanting to stay with OS 9 is NOT living in the past, they're living in the realworld, a world where they're software does what it's supposed to do and they can actually use their software in the first place, they also might not have a spare 3 grand (underexagerated) to pay for plug-in upgrades and/or replacing their whole system due to the fact any mac with PCI graphics is worthless for protools under OS X!!!
I know Protools 6.0 has far smoother screen redraws and the interface is snappier under a high load under OS X on a dual G4 , lots of people have commented on this and from a technical point of view, this is purely because Protools 6.0 is fully multi-threaded and can use 99% of 1 cpu purely for plug-ins leaving the other cpu to handle MIDI, automation, screen-redraws etc... The OS 9 version just uses 85% of 1 CPU for everything. Apart from this, Protools 6.0 (and subsequent bug fix releases) are causing a LOT of people problems.
On top of the 100s of problems people have been having, a lot of people have seen pathetic increases in processing power with the new mac models. the difference between OS X and OS 9 performance has only been in favour of OS X when dual cpus are used and even then, people running a lot of OS 9 only software synths and plug-ins just CAN'T use OS X at present for lack of software. Running Protools 6.0 on a single cpu G4 seems to be hell for a lot of people, lower plug-in counts, sluggish performance, OS X really does seem like the bloatware OS from hell unless you've got loads of cpu power to throw at it.
To give you some example of exactly how OS X performs with Protools LE, here's some random results from a benchmark test members of the DUC have performed called the "dave c test" :
Dual 500Mhz G4 19 tracks (11 under OS 9) - This is very impressive but exposes the huge weakness of the G4 when far higher clockspeeds don't even come close to double the performance.
Dual 1.25Ghz G4 29 tracks, Dual 1.42Ghz G4 32 tracks (not OS 9 bootable)
Single 1.2GHz G4 24 tracks (Sawtooth G4 '100Mhz FSB' with a sonnet cpu upgrade)
If it wasn't disappointing enough to compare single vs dual cpu performance (you're not getting you're money's worth of out of a dual 1.42GHz G4 at all), it completely takes the piss once you compare it with PC results like this :
2.24Ghz Pentium 4 : 32 tracks + 24 aux (taken from the 'best system for under $1000' thread in the PC protools LE forum)
That's 160 plug-ins on the most expensive mac or 280 on a PC you could build in triplicate for the cost of the Mac. It's not digidesign's programming that's causing such a wide performance gap, it's bandwidth restrictions of the G4. I shudder to think how a 3Ghz Pentium 4 would stack up against the top of range powermac but a 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 of similar spec to the 2.24Ghz model didn't even manange 1 extra track so maybe it's not so bad.
It's almost entirely Apple's fault this situation even exists, if they hadn't dropped OS 9 support, digidesign would have had more time to work on Protools 6.0. and get all the bugs out, as it stands, without releasing it even in it's present form, they would be denying the whole audio community the industry standard system on the industry standard platform.
If you're looking for a multi-track sample editor and you've got a mac that can boot OS 9, get protools free just to try it out. The only thing that might throw you at first is that you need to create 2 mono tracks to record in stereo, this is because it's based on a fairly old version of Protools LE. For quick, basic 2 track editing, Yamaha TWE 2.0 is rock solid and free (if they have a place to download it still, it's fairly old now).
Sounds good on paper...
I can appreciate the point you are making with the speed comparisons between G4s & Pentiums. Sure an increase in the number of real-time tracks has its advantages but that is only one part of a good sound editing system. Of more importance is the stability of the system and in this area Windows-based Pro Tools systems fall short of the standards set by Apple. It is no good creating a session with endless tracks and effects if your operating system is going through 'that time of the month' and you lose all your work.
Anyway, Apple systems usually work out of the box with DigiDesign's products while Windows computers are hit & miss. For example, one of the sound technicians I work with bought a Digi 002 system recently and built himself a Windows PC to use with it. He based his purchase decision on the fact that more real-time tracks were demoed on the Windows system than the Mac. It was no surprise to myself when a week after the purchase he complained that he could not get his computer to work with the Digi 002.
I can appreciate the point you are making with the speed comparisons between G4s & Pentiums. Sure an increase in the number of real-time tracks has its advantages but that is only one part of a good sound editing system. Of more importance is the stability of the system and in this area Windows-based Pro Tools systems fall short of the standards set by Apple. It is no good creating a session with endless tracks and effects if your operating system is going through 'that time of the month' and you lose all your work.
Anyway, Apple systems usually work out of the box with DigiDesign's products while Windows computers are hit & miss. For example, one of the sound technicians I work with bought a Digi 002 system recently and built himself a Windows PC to use with it. He based his purchase decision on the fact that more real-time tracks were demoed on the Windows system than the Mac. It was no surprise to myself when a week after the purchase he complained that he could not get his computer to work with the Digi 002.
You really need to provide more details before we know what you want. Lots of people are suggesting stuff like Peak and everything, but if you need multitrack editing, Peak is worthless.