 |
 |
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 >