Pete. Two things.
One. I wasn't meaning to imply that it was the multi tracking that was
complicated. You're right, it's just the very unusual ways of moving around,
selecting, etc.
Two. You are also right when it comes to podcasting. The early days of
podcasting likely had one spoken passage and that might be it. However, now
people do interviews, add music and other sounds, etc. Of course, some of
this can be done with physical recorders whose sounds are then imported into
SR. But it ultimately ends up in SR or some other recording app.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Torpey
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:34 PM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Audacity and Studio Recorder
I don't think it is the multi-tracking feature or the plug-ins / inserts
that make Audacity non-intuitive. There is something about the selection
process and/or nnavigating through a track that somehow seems odd. These
things are really easy and intuitive in SR. Also, I don't think having a
multi-track capability and/or the ability to add custom plugins would make
SR any more difficult to use. The keyboard approach used in SR is just more
intuitive if you can't see the screen and use the mouse to get around.
I think adding a multi-track capability and the ability to use custom
plug-ins with SR would bring this product a long way and make it useful and
productive for a much wider community of folks who use screen readers. For
those who have more simple needs, one never needs to add additional tracks
or use plug-ins. But the basic interface and paradigm of SR can handle
these things without much impact on the user.
Even spoken word audio editing has advanced these days from when SR was
first designed. We record our podcast using one microphone for each host on
two separate tracks and the person we are interviewing (via Skype or Google
Voice) on a third track. Although, as you say, SR does have some limited
multi-track capability, it is a real pain to use, not very efficient, and it
is easy to make mistakes and get audio out of sync. Thus a true multi-track
capability would certainly be useful.
A plug-in capability would also be really handy and one could leave it up to
the more advanced user to find and import their own preferred plug-ins.
I have found that a good way to approach development with limited resources
is to stretch out the time frame of the development. SR has been around for
a long time - Just think where it could be today if someone worked part time
on it for about 5% of their time each year. After 10 years you have
something worth talking about!
Oh well, just one man's opinion. That was the approach I often used
successfully in R&D at Xerox - I always kept one low-level project in the
background and after some length of time was able to all of a sudden show
something special that people couldn't figure out where it came from or how
I had the time to do it.
--Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neal Ewers
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:33 PM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Audacity and Studio Recorder
Pete, I have only played with Audacity for a day and I am finding much the
same thing. Of course, things always seem complicated in the beginning, but
there are a lot of things that don't seem intuitive to me. I guess I am too
used to Sound Forge and Sonar along with SR. So, given that I know the other
two applications, I doubt I will try to become an efficient user of
Audacity. Multi track software like Audacity and Sonar can be really
complicated. Sonar I need to know for my music production, but I have found
work around ways to do what seems like multi tracking in SR. It really
isn't, but there are ways. I can manipulate a file and insert it into
another file such that it fades in and out in just the right place. However,
when it comes to noise gate, equalization, noise reduction, I turn to one or
the other mentioned applications.
And then there is GoldWave, which I only marginally played with.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Torpey
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:01 PM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Audacity and Studio Recorder
I have tried to use Audacity since it does have a lot of keyboard commands
for people using screen readers, but somehow it isn't quite as intuitive or
easy to work with these keyboard commands and the Audacity paradigm as with
SR. I've never quite gotten over the hump. But that is what you get with a
free open source program, just not as much polish and consistency.
Audacity is workable, but not efficient to use.
--Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neal Ewers
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:40 PM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Audacity and Studio Recorder
Harry, I am not an Audacity user. I just happened to download it yesterday
and am trying to learn it. And the answer is no. The commands are not the
same. I haven't gotten very far yet, but there seem to be a lot of
differences. So, I can sede why you might be hesitant to learn a new tool.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Harry Brown
(Redacted sender "wd8oep2464" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 1:01 PM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Audacity and Studio Recorder
Hi Neal,
Does Audacity use the same windows key commands Studio recorder uses?
Harry
On 8/21/2016 2:02 AM, Neal Ewers wrote:
I suspect you will have better luck using Audacity and not Studio
Recorder, because I don't think Studio recorder will ever be made to
be what you want it to be. It's not the reason it was written, it is
not the way it is used by its users, and the many people who use it
for talking book purposes will not be able to train new people on all
the functions you want. And, do you want to pay $400 or whatever it
would cost to do all you want to do. If you only want to use one, I
would start work getting very familiar with Audacity.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Harry Brown ;
(Redacted sender "wd8oep2464" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 12:55 AM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Audacity and Studio Recorder
Hi Pete and all,
We should have choices, but a person should not have to use 2 programs
to do audio production, and, they should not have to learn 2 programs
to do audio production, as well.
So, let's get studio recorder to have the features Audacity does, and
then, everybody will only need to use Studio Recorder, and not Audacity.
Harry
On 8/11/2016 2:12 PM, Peter Torpey wrote:
Mary and others,from:
I don't know what version of Audacity you were using, but in the
latest versions there is a comprehensive manual under the Help pull
down menu. The latest version is version 2.1.2 and can be downloaded
http://www.audacityteam.org/with a keyboard, but it certainly is functional.
An overview of accessibility for different operating systems can be
found
at:
http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/accessibility.html
On that page there is also a link to using Audacity with JAWS. That
link
is:
http://vip.chowo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/jaws/Audacity-2.1.2-Guide.h
t
ml
I use Audacity in conjunction with Studio Recorder. Studio Recorder
is optimized for use via the keyboard and is extremely easy to use
with a screen reader. On the other hand, Audacity has a number of
features that can be very useful and are not contained in Studio
Recorder (such as the Noise Reduction effect, ability to import and
export almost any file format, support for multiple audio tracks,
etc.). Besides being very easy to use with keyboard commands, the
best thing I like about Studio Recorder is the ability to easily put
place markers throughout a track and label each of these place
markers with some comments. I haven't found Audacity quite as
intuitive to use
Anyway, at least we have choices and multiple tools to do the job
that needs being done.
--Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary ;
Emerson (Redacted sender "maryemerson" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:38 AM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: sound card recording
I wasn't happy with Audacity when I explored it. I was discouraged
because I couldn't find a manual, as I could with Studio Recorder. I
don't intend to start a debate; this isn't the place for it. Rather,
I'll say that SR is well worth the money, and the way it works makes
a great deal of sense to me. Having used it for over ten years, and
purchased it when it came out fifteen years ago, it's well worth the
money; it took five years to get around to starting to learn it; I
was just too busy with a hectic schedule at work, etc. I'm a fan forever!
There are functions I wish it had, but it's always met my needs for
podcasting and other audio editing.
Mary
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
