Audacity Reviews

Great for beginners and quick tasks

about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful 3 Helpful Report as spam

I've used Audacity for a long long time, everything from editing early music attempts, to podcasts, to interview audio. It's definitely not the most powerful software in the world, but for the price of free, it does plenty.

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful 1 Helpful Report as spam

While I use it regularly, the UI is lacking (if not outdated). Effect selection is tedious.
It gets the job done in the end, but it could do with an upgrade.

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful 1 Helpful Report as spam

Great program for something that is free, although I did have a hard time trying to do what I wanted to and found it just a bit too complicated for my taste.

reply

The 2nd best audio program I know!

about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful 1 Helpful Report as spam

Audacity is one of the best sound editors for beginners and is still great for advanced music makers.

It's much cheaper than other programs and has tons of effects to play around in.

Waveform editing couldn't get any better!

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

Killer feature for me: easy-to-use interface.

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

Very powerful program, overall. I highly recommend it.

Not my favorite audio program of all time, but since I switched to Linux, it's the one I primarily use now. It also worked well in Windows when I still used it.

The user interface frustrated me at first, but it's perfectly fine by me now that I've gotten used to it.

I would have given it 5 stars, but the automatic pop and click removal tool for transferring records to digital is nearly worthless, and that feature is important to me. Cickrepair is the best tool that I've used for that purpose, and works well in Linux and Windows, as long as you are running Java or OpenJDK. Goldwave is also a great audio program and it's pop/click tool works almost as well, but is a Windows based program.

Audacity being free and open source software is an added bonus.

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

These days, the only thing Audacity has going for it is that its open source. Its a shame I haven't found an open source competitor to really step up to the plate.

The interface is clunky and clashes with most modern OS theming designs (I personally think Audacity's design fits best in MacOS Tiger from 2005 https://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/21000/21255/audacity-16.jpg )

Some other complaints: No smart snapping, you have to eyeball pretty much everything. Uses an ancient version of ffmpeg on Windows, which I understand why you have to download, but they have you download from a very sketchy looking website.

And some compliments: It has a lot of good effects that I am happy are in audacity, overall it has a good set of features.
Also stable. I haven't had it crash on me yet.

So I am rating this two stars because I'm using a dark GTK and KDE theme, which means my text is white, but the settings in audacity are also white. I can't see the text. I also can't see some other options because... like I said theming is bad. There is no simple fix besides switching to a theme that uses black text.
I will be using Ocenaudio.

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

It's the best sound editor, which can throw down a challenge to Adobe Audition.

reply
about Audacity · · Report as spam

Because it's free and is as comparable as adobe audition

reply
about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

It's the best sound editing software, and it's FOSS.

reply

Good for what I need

about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

I've used Audacity for a number of years now, the only drawback for me is that when you're recording an LP you have to export the tracks as individual files, then use a seperate CD burning program to reconstruct the album with the original running order. Otherwise it's a good basic recording program.

reply

Reliable Program

about Audacity and GarageBand · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

I use a Mac for audio editing and in my honest opinion I'd rather use Audacity.

GarageBand works well but I find it cumbersome and a bit harder to locate the features I need.

reply

Audacity gets the job done

about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

I can't afford (nor do I need) a Digital Audio Workstation and Virtual Studio Technology. For the relatively simple things I do, Audacity (and Fission, for simple editing of audio already in digital format) get the job done. Sure, Audacity's interface could be better, but I'm not one to criticize a freeware project which produces a useful, relatively bug-free product. I now do some work for non-profits, where dollars are always in short supply, so it's nice to have a piece of free software that can help me get those jobs done at no cost.

reply

Waveform display sucks, noisy exported files

about Audacity · · Helpful Not helpful Report as spam

Audacity's waveform display sucks. The colors are ugly and when you zoom in to view individual samples, the intersample waves are linear interpolated, not sinc interpolated as the wave is actually shaped.

Also doesn't let you zoom in vertically to see low-level noise. You can only zoom in vertically to "±0.05".

Clipping samples are not displayed by default, leading to lots of distorted recordings from people who don't know any better. Displaying clipped samples as red lines should be enabled by default.

It adds dither to recordings when you export them, even if you're exporting from a 16-bit track to a 16-bit file. All this does is make your recordings noisier for no benefit. If you export a 16-bit track, it should just dump the data directly to the 16-bit file. There's no "conversion" necessary and no dithering should be applied.

reply