RE: Sound Forge Vs. studio Recorder

  • From: "Mika Pyyhkala" <pyyhkala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:26:41 -0500


I too am trying to figure out, for purposes of podcasting, whether to use:
*Sound Forge (pro or lite) or
*Studio Recorder

Right now I have trials of both, but I have really not played with Sound
Forge have been just using Studio Recorder...


-----Original Message-----
From: blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Gassman
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:17 AM
To: blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Sound Forge Vs. studio Recorder

I did radio with my brother John for 30 years.  We did interviews with radio
personalities from the thirties, forties, and fifties.  We also played the
We still have the collection of 30 thousand shows, on open reel tape but no
real room to house it except in storage.  So I am working to digitally learn
how to edit on the computer.
My thought was to use Sound Forge.
I had sound forge 5 professional, but it is on another PC and not accessible
at this time.
So, I think I'll just buy version 8.  It will probably do for what I am
exploring at the moment.  That is to do the occasional radio show and
Larry Gassman

At 11:59 AM 2-24-2006, you wrote:
>Hi John.
>What are the major differences between Sound Forge lite and its big
>Does the lite version offer a true scrubbing mode like the full version?
>--Best regards,
>--Rick Alfaro
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Gasman
>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:11 PM
>To: blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Sound Forge Vs. studio Recorder
>You are right and that's why I bought Sound Forge.
>At 10:28 AM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
> >Studio recorder was designed for voice recording. It is a tool for 
> >book narration with good accessibility and stability.
> >
> >SoundForge was designed as an editor for film sound tracks, radio 
> >work, and other specialized tasks. It has a lot of processor choices 
> >and special effects. They can both be used for basic editing, but 
> >it's like comparing apples and oranges. In my opinion, you should sit 
> >down and assess your needs. What audio tasks do you want to perform? 
> >Figure out which features you need--reverb, noise reduction,
> >  tone indexing. Are you going to edit any music?
> >
> >When evaluating software, you have to know what you want to do with 
> >the tool. They are good products, but direct comparison is difficult.
> >
> >Just my opinion,
> >
> >Judy
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> >[mailto:blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Gasman
> >Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:01 PM
> >To: blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Sound Forge Vs. studio Recorder
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >I just bought Sound Forge and like it a lot.
> >I also just heard the ACB Main Menu feature on APH's Studio Recorder.
> >My brother is going to purchase a sound editor.
> >For those of you with experience in using both applications, how do 
> >they compare? I know they are both accessible. Does it come down to 
> >user preference?
> >I know the full version of sound forge is expensive, I bought the 
> >less expensive version for now.
> >I'm currently using it for editing files. I don't have a podcast yet 
> >although I may someday.
> >I'd be interested in opinions as to which sound editor is most blind 
> >friendly.
> >
> >I know that the lite version of Sound forge is $69 and the full 
> >version is about $299.
> >Studio recorder has only one version and its $200.
> >Neither is cheap.
> >Thanks for any input.
> >John
> >
> >
> >          John Gassman
> >mailto:jjgassman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Recognition Of The Problem is 51% Of The Solution
>          John Gassman
>Recognition Of The Problem is 51% Of The Solution

Other related posts: