Print

Print


I think it may have been Tom who said something about
all of us who use particular software as our specific
tool/tools of choice.   Everyone that I know has their
favorite, because that's what they learned and feel
comfortable with.   They all do the basic job of
capturing and editing to a greater or lesser extent
with some having more tricks up their audio sleeves.  
So, I think a lot of opinions here may be based on
comfort levels after many years (in my case) of using
what works.

Rod

--- Craig Breaden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bob, you may be right.  Perhaps a comparison of free
> (or bundled)
> softwares is in order to see how quality of the
> output WAV varies.
> This information could then be passed on to archives
> who could use it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Bob Olhsson
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From Craig Breaden: "...If they can get
> > together a volunteer (many of these archivists are
> virtually
> > volunteers themselves), a working playback deck, a
> PC, and a decent
> > audio interface, Audacity is their friend when
> they want to save a
> > tape and have to count, literally, every penny..."
> >
> > I can't think of any decent audio interface that
> doesn't come bundled with
> > better software than Audacity! If you must use a
> freebee, Reaper is worlds
> > ahead of Audacity.
> >
> > Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> > Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and
> Quality Control
> > Over 40 years making people sound better than they
> ever imagined!
> > 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com   
> http://www.thewombforums.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Craig Breaden
> Head, Media and Oral History
> Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research
> and Studies
> Main Library
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA 30602-1641
> (p) 706-542-5782
> (f) 706-542-4144
>