This article is part of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. If you would like to participate, don't hesitate to join!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It needs some "audacity" to say that the software is free. If you download the software it needs to be activated for 39 or 59$ otherwise you'll have a nasty voice logo every 7-10 seconds on your audio file. Does somone convince me of the contrary?--Moroderen (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you have downloaded a commercial competitor by mistake. I have Audacity installed on two PCs here and it is 100% open source and free of charge, too. See SourceForge for complete information. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Right I followed a misleading link to AVS audio editing software, many thanks --Moroderen (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could point you in the right direction! Happy recording. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that even if the product did cost $39 or even $100,000, in the context of this article, it would still be free, as the article refers to the use of the word free, in terms of free software, not in terms of price. --Davidgumberg (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/CISDOC/Audacity+Tutorial - "However, many other effects do change the content, either subtly or radically. You can tell when this happens because you will see the shape of the waveform change when you apply these effects. If the actual sample points are changed, this is called destructive editing."
"When learning to edit audio, it can be helpful to think of each sample point as an individual letters in a long text document. Just like in Word, you can cut "letters" out and paste them to wherever you like. To continue the analogy, you can also affect the way those letters "look" by applying effects. Some effects don't change the actual data, or the sample points, themselves. This is called non-destructive editing. Examples of this are shifting the slider to the left of a track to increase its overall volume. However, many other effects do change the content, either subtly or radically. You can tell when this happens because you will see the shape of the waveform change when you apply these effects. If the actual sample points are changed, this is called destructive editing. Though this may sound bad, in actuality, this is a necessary part of audio editing. Destructive editing simply means that the original sample you've been working on has been changed. Audacity is a powerful program in that it utilizes many non-destructive editing techniques, usually allowing you to revert back to the original sound file either through a series of undos or by turning off certain editing effects. Applying many destructive effects in a row can have a negative effect on sound quality, so it's a good idea to keep track of them as you apply them, and make sure you're only using ones you really need."
so in saying "Audacity is a powerful program in that it utilizes many non-destructive editing techniques, usually allowing you to revert back to the original sound file either through a series of undos or by turning off certain editing effects." it doesn't support what you have said.
So I will add your one ref there to the article and challenge the parts that are not referenced. If you can find a better ref then please feel free to put it back in with the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is a blog, that's why I didn't add it. The only "non-destructive" features of Audacity are the envelope, volume, and pan tools. All effects are destructive. Saying "you can undo so it's not destructive" is just deceptive. You can't "turn off" any effects in the application. People say Audacity is non-destrucive because they want to make it sound better than it actually is. A non-destructive effect/filter is applied in real time and does not actually make permanent changes to the waveform, so you can edit, disable, or remove it later.
Say you apply an echo filter and then an equalizer filter in Audacity, and then decide you don't like the combination. You can't adjust the echo. You have to undo twice, removing both filters, and then apply them again with the settings you want. Say you applied both filters, saved, and quit. Well, then you're screwed. In an actual non-destructive editor, you could just uncheck a check box to temporarily disable the echo filter. You could still adjust its settings. You could change the effect order so the echo came after the equalizer. Or you could delete either filter. At any time. You could save and quit and come back later and still be able to completely adjust or remove either filter. Such true non-destructive editing is very powerful and useful (at the cost of more processing power since effects are generally applied in realtime (although I'd expect there are also programs which offer "preview rendering" where a separate sound file is created when effects are applied, but if you adjust the settings it can just replace the second sound file by reapplying the new effect sequence to the original waveform.))
Does that all make sense? Some guy (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I use Audacity and that sounds reasonable, but we still need reliable refs to put in critiques. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
limiations need major overhaul. Lots of opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Near the top this article says the most recent stable release is version yadda yadda. While I'm sure that was true at some point, I wonder is it wise to put any kind of most recent version information in an article like this. Wouldn't that require someone to monitor the software releases and jump onto Wikipedia every time a new one is published? With FOSS, that could be very often! Maintenance nightmare? Is there any Wikipedia policy on that? Black Jam Block (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup that is what is done an pretty much all software articles - there are lots of editors watching the articles and using the software and who update the info box when a new version is available. It makes Wikipedia more useful and more up to date. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yikes. Well, okay, if that's how it's done. I have the latest Beta of Audacity 1.3.5-beta. So the stable would be 1.3.4, I guess. I'll let it stand for now until someone who knows for sure decides to update. Thanks for the education. Black Jam Block (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you check the website you will see that 1.2.6 is the current stable version and 1.3.7 is the current beta, so the article is up to date. The little Gnomes are doing their job! - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of digital audio edition softwares
where does wikipedia policy state that non-open-source freeware cannot be mentioned in articles? johnywhy—Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
You can add properly sourced text that mentions competitors, if the source cited indicates those are competitors. You cannot add your own opinions and then put external links to other products in the text as per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Your text was removed because it was unsourced opinion and the links were removed because they were inserted in the text and contributed nothing to the understanding of the subject of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I dont suppose the name could be a pun on TiMidity++? I'm betting that's the source of the name, but of course it cant be proven one way or another unless the creator shows up. —Soap— 14:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I always thought it was a play on "audio", but we'd need a ref either way to include an origin of the name. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I emailed one of the developers a while back and she didn't think there was a connection. But then, she didn't know where the name came from either. So I'm still not convinced that it's *not* a pun but don't have any evidence that it is either. ☮Soap☮ 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well if we find a reference that explains it we can certainly add it! - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I cant see list more than 10. program in that link http://sourceforge.net/top/ . How can I access to Audacity's rank for prove that placement of the Audacity in the list? Vlyalcin (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)