Okay, you just answered my previous question. Well, I don't have four or five hundred Canadian to spend on Sound Forge, and I've gotten quite fast with Gold Wave's interface and never much cared for Sound Forge's. And I've been very surprised in recent months, after avoiding it, to discover that Gold Wave's noise reduction has come an awful long way. Its recent ability to use Winamp plugins to control output has also been a major plus. All my radio shows and other sound editing are done with Gold Wave. So I guess it's largely a preference thing, though I will continue to suggest that the benefits of SF over GW are not $3 or $3 hundred worth. Bruce
-- Bruce Toews E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Patrick Perdue wrote: > Hello Bruce, > > On Thursday, January 5, 2006, 10:39:29 PM, you bellowed the following: >> I believe in Gold Wave. It's gotten a lot of knocking over the years from >> people who sincerely believe that anything other than Sound Forge is a >> hopeless program to use. > > > Well, I bought goldwave in 1998 after using it for a year as a demo, then > two more years before switching to sound forge, and > sure, it's accessible and easy to use for what it is, but the interface > is a might too non-standard/clunky for me. > The whole start/end marker thing is a bit of a pain to deal with if you > don't know ahead of time where you're going to be if you're zipping > arounmd in huge increments of a multi-hour long file as I do often in > sound forge. > I like the one cursor approach myself -- very easy to deal with, and > it's a lot easier to quickly jump outside of a selection you've made > without selecting the entire file, or going into an edit box and typing > in numbers, or jumpng to a queue point that you may have had to set up > before starting, which then may have changed as certain parts of the > file get editted out. > > Also, the DirectX manager isn't very accessible yet, and Goldwave just > doesn't have the mastering capability I need. It's compressor is, well, > a bit plastic, and the noise reduction algorithm is based from FFT, > which does the whole under-water thing. > It's saving crase is that the pop/crackle removal thing works pretty > well on digital cracks such as continuous DC offset issues, but not very > well on things like restoring vinyl. > > The biggest advantage of keeping goldwave for me though is the format > support it has. Coming from a non-corperate environment, it does support > more formats than sound forge probably ever will, which I do like still. > > It's kind of interesting to note that goldwave seems to have a bigger learning > curve than sound forge does, at least for basic editting, even for > sighted folks from what I've read. I started my > audio editting existence on goldwave, and didn't like sound forge at all > at first, because.. well, it was too standard and a shock to get used to > word processing editting concepts applied to audio in such a fassion, > which I know sounds a bit strange, but there you are. > > -- > Good Friday, > _______________________________________________ PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more... http://www.pc-audio.org To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is a service of MosenExplosion.com. To see what other lists we offer, visit us on the web at http://www.MosenExplosion.com
