Does Goldwave rename the marks? Seems like this should work without giving it much thought. -----Original Message----- From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donald L. Roberts Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:48 PM To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Are there still plans to enhance StudioRecorder? I hope I am not opening a can of worms by suggesting this; however, the only thing I really wish could be added to Studio Recorder is a good equalizer. I do some volunteer work digitizing cassettes, and if I find it necessary to run a Studio Recorder project through the Goldwave equalizer, I lose all of my custom marks. Don Roberts On 5/2/2013 6:55 AM, Jamie Pauls wrote: > Hi, Larry: > > First, thank you for your thorough response to my question. I totally > get your point about the difficulty in including multitrack support in > SR. Quite honestly, I expected that answer and I believe that adding > support for .flac files as well as VST and DirectX plugins would be > much more beneficial to a large user base. Those of us doing > multitrack work certainly have a great product in Reaper, and that > community is working to gain access to current versions of the > program. It is most encouraging to learn that Studio Recorder is still > being looked at in the area of future development. I'm sure you guys > will get to it when you can. > > Keep up the good work. > > Jamie P > > *From:*studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Larry > Skutchan > *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:15 AM > *To:* <studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > *Subject:* [studiorecorder] Re: Are there still plans to enhance > Studio Recorder? > > Hi Jamie. > > We do plan to continue development on Studio Recorder to let it > continue to be the best way to create and edit spoken word content. > > This certainly includes support for larger files and probably support > for some kind of plugin architecture. > > What we are not too sure about is multi track support. We all > recognize this is a valuable tool and adding multi track support would > take it to a whole new level, so we will be considering that aspect carefully. > > What we cannot tell for certain yet is when all this will occur. We > are coming to a point where some resources will be freed up this year, > and Studio Recorder is certainly in contention for some serious attention. > > As you know, Rob is the software engineer on this project, and he > knows the code, architecture, and functionality like nothing else. He > is, unfortunately, too good for his own good. He has several projects > where he is the lead, and they are all important. > > Feel assured, though, that we are trying to get him some additional > help, so things could be looking up. > > Thanks for your valuable input, and please do keep those suggestions > and ideas coming. > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Jamie Pauls <jamiepauls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:jamiepauls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > > wrote: > > > > Greetings to the APH development staff and the list in general: > > Several months ago there was discussion of possible enhancements to > Studio Recorder, but Larry was pretty frank about the fact that > resources at APH were tied up with several very important projects. > I'm curious if there is currently any work being done on a new version > of Studio Recorder that would address things such as plugin support > and maybe even true multitrack capability. I realize this would take > the product into a whole new area, and I understand that this simply > may not be practical in the forseeable future, but I am still curious > as to where things stand. I'm hoping APH will be able to comment a bit > on this. I continue to be a very happy SR user along with other > programs such as Goldwave and Reaper. > > Take care and have a great week. >