Discussion:
Audacity vs Goldwave and Cooledit?
(too old to reply)
Bill in Co.
2003-12-04 16:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Am I correct in assuming that Audacity (which I have just started using) is
essentially a stripped down version of Goldwave and/or Cooledit? (assuming
you have some plug-ins installed in Audacity)?
Stratomaster
2003-12-04 18:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill in Co.
Am I correct in assuming that Audacity (which I have just started using) is
essentially a stripped down version of Goldwave and/or Cooledit?
(assuming
Post by Bill in Co.
you have some plug-ins installed in Audacity)?
What sets Audacity apart is it's open source. Anyone who wants to can look
at and modify the source code. As far as I know, it's built from the ground
up as its own entity. Any resemblence to Goldwave or Cooledit (and any
other recording program for that matter) is most likely due to the standard
nature of the user interface.

BTW: to find some good sources for free VST plug-ins, do the following
Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=freeware+%2B+VST&btnG=Google+Search
Bill in Co.
2003-12-04 19:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for the link. I had only looked at the VST plugins mentioned on the
Audacity web site, but it looks like there's a lot more.

I guess what I was wondering was if Audacity does all the basics, but Goldwave
and/or Cooledit are a "step up"?
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
Am I correct in assuming that Audacity (which I have just started using) is
essentially a stripped down version of Goldwave and/or Cooledit? (assuming
you have some plug-ins installed in Audacity)?
What sets Audacity apart is it's open source. Anyone who wants to can look
at and modify the source code. As far as I know, it's built from the ground
up as its own entity. Any resemblence to Goldwave or Cooledit (and any
other recording program for that matter) is most likely due to the standard
nature of the user interface.
BTW: to find some good sources for free VST plug-ins, do the following
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=freeware+%2B+VST&btn
G=Google+Search
Stratomaster
2003-12-05 20:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Audacity is very comparable to Cooledit (I'm unfamiliar with Goldwave). On
the other hand, Cooledit Pro would be a step up, but then again it costs
mucho denaro. Audacity will do most things for most people. However, if
you need advanced features like 24 bit 96 KHz support, you would need to
step up to Cooledit Pro.
Post by Bill in Co.
Thanks for the link. I had only looked at the VST plugins mentioned on the
Audacity web site, but it looks like there's a lot more.
I guess what I was wondering was if Audacity does all the basics, but Goldwave
and/or Cooledit are a "step up"?
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
Am I correct in assuming that Audacity (which I have just started using) is
essentially a stripped down version of Goldwave and/or Cooledit? (assuming
you have some plug-ins installed in Audacity)?
What sets Audacity apart is it's open source. Anyone who wants to can look
at and modify the source code. As far as I know, it's built from the ground
up as its own entity. Any resemblence to Goldwave or Cooledit (and any
other recording program for that matter) is most likely due to the standard
nature of the user interface.
BTW: to find some good sources for free VST plug-ins, do the following
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=freeware+%2B+VST&btn
Post by Bill in Co.
G=Google+Search
snarfdude
2003-12-06 17:11:37 UTC
Permalink
cool edit pro seems to be establishing itself (oh sorry....adobe
audition now) as a standard in radio production because it's cheaper
then most for what it does, multitrack, wav editing, with preset fx,
etc.....but if you are looking for a basic wav editor, audacity is a
great program for a great price. it really depends on what you want to
do.

SD!



On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:00:24 GMT, "Stratomaster"
Post by Stratomaster
Audacity is very comparable to Cooledit (I'm unfamiliar with Goldwave). On
the other hand, Cooledit Pro would be a step up, but then again it costs
mucho denaro. Audacity will do most things for most people. However, if
you need advanced features like 24 bit 96 KHz support, you would need to
step up to Cooledit Pro.
Post by Bill in Co.
Thanks for the link. I had only looked at the VST plugins mentioned on
the
Post by Bill in Co.
Audacity web site, but it looks like there's a lot more.
I guess what I was wondering was if Audacity does all the basics, but
Goldwave
Post by Bill in Co.
and/or Cooledit are a "step up"?
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
Am I correct in assuming that Audacity (which I have just started
using) is
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
essentially a stripped down version of Goldwave and/or Cooledit?
(assuming
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
you have some plug-ins installed in Audacity)?
What sets Audacity apart is it's open source. Anyone who wants to can
look
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Stratomaster
at and modify the source code. As far as I know, it's built from the
ground
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Stratomaster
up as its own entity. Any resemblence to Goldwave or Cooledit (and any
other recording program for that matter) is most likely due to the
standard
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Stratomaster
nature of the user interface.
BTW: to find some good sources for free VST plug-ins, do the following
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=freeware+%2B+VST&btn
Post by Bill in Co.
G=Google+Search
Bill in Co.
2003-12-06 17:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Well, I've installed and starting using Goldwave (the older version, 4.26) and
it works really great for some of the stuff that Audacity can't do. But I do
agree that Audacity is probably easier to use for the simple routine editing
stuff - at least for me, at this point in time.

I also happened to notice that Cooledit2K has a massive 8 MB install file,
which really surprised me, in stark comparison to Goldwave's at about 800KB.
Plus (as someone said here) the shareware Goldwave isn't restricted in any of
its functions (at least not in this older version). So I think I'll stick
with Goldwave at this point.
Post by snarfdude
cool edit pro seems to be establishing itself (oh sorry....adobe
audition now) as a standard in radio production because it's cheaper
then most for what it does, multitrack, wav editing, with preset fx,
etc.....but if you are looking for a basic wav editor, audacity is a
great program for a great price. it really depends on what you want to
do.
SD!
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:00:24 GMT, "Stratomaster"
Post by Stratomaster
Audacity is very comparable to Cooledit (I'm unfamiliar with Goldwave). On
the other hand, Cooledit Pro would be a step up, but then again it costs
mucho denaro. Audacity will do most things for most people. However, if
you need advanced features like 24 bit 96 KHz support, you would need to
step up to Cooledit Pro.
Post by Bill in Co.
Thanks for the link. I had only looked at the VST plugins mentioned on the
Audacity web site, but it looks like there's a lot more.
I guess what I was wondering was if Audacity does all the basics, but
Goldwave and/or Cooledit are a "step up"?
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
Am I correct in assuming that Audacity (which I have just started using)
is essentially a stripped down version of Goldwave and/or Cooledit?
(assuming you have some plug-ins installed in Audacity)?
What sets Audacity apart is it's open source. Anyone who wants to can look
at and modify the source code. As far as I know, it's built from the
ground up as its own entity. Any resemblence to Goldwave or Cooledit (and
any other recording program for that matter) is most likely due to the
standard nature of the user interface.
BTW: to find some good sources for free VST plug-ins, do the following
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=freeware+%2B+VST&btn
Post by snarfdude
Post by Stratomaster
Post by Bill in Co.
G=Google+Search
Loading...