Question:
Lets say a cut the head and tail off a clip. some time later, I want to extend the head or tail to expose more of the available audio.
HOW?
I cant find any way to extend the in or out point to expose more of the audio file.
Thank you
Andy
You go back to the high quality, uncompressed WAV copy you made of the full, original work and recut it.
If you cut the work and never closed Audacity, you can use Edit > UNDO to bring the deleted work back.
If you closed Audacity with no backup, that’s the end of the world. Audacity, even Audacity Projects do not save UNDO.
Koz
Wow. That seems to be quite the shortcoming. So, “essentially” Audacity is a destructive editor? !!!
I thought we did away with destructive editing back in the Ye 'Olde days of RAZOR BLADES AND TAPE.
I suppose this also explains the snaps and pops at cuts if I don’t carefully find the zero crossing.
Thanks for your reply.
Andy
Audacity is a destructive editor? !!!
Correct.
if I don’t carefully find the zero crossing.
You can use very rapid cross-fades and stop worrying about the cut points. The cut points may not work anyway if you have wide field stereo. You’ll never get both Left and Right to cut silent. There’s some discussion about making Zero Crossing the default. If you want cut point damage, you have to go looking for it.
Isn’t there a way to auto-find zero crossing? Which Audacity version do you have?
Koz
I have the latest version, but unsure where that setting is.
The point is moot however, I will not be using Audacity any further due to these editorial shortcomings as I need a non-destructive editor.
Nevertheless, thank you for your comments and feedback.
Thanks!
Andy
Edit > Find Zero Crossing.
Post back what you ended up using.
Koz
Adobe Audition, as it was a part of my CS6 and never used it, so I didn’t even realize it was there LOL. Probably going to stick with this as it meets my immediate needs.
Also have now ProTools First — free, though the 3 session limitation and inability to import/export sessions to other PT systems makes that less useful. The fact that any mix down you export always starts at 0, (I.e. You can’t export just a selection, as you can in regular ProTools) is such a joke I don’t see using PTF much.
I’m going to try out Wavepad and Soundtrack later this week.
But I expect Audition will be the main DAW for me at the moment.
Andy
Not at all. “Destructive” editing, or the more complimentary term “Sample Editing” is an essential tool in all modern sound studios. Many “real-time” DAW applications include a “sample editor”, although some studios prefer to use separate dedicated applications, such as ProTools for “real-time” and SoundForge for destructive sample editing. I’m on Linux and I use Ardour for real-time and Audacity for sample editing. Both types of tool have their pros and cons, strength and weaknesses, abilities and limitations.
When I was on Windows (many years ago), I used Cool Edit Pro (which later became Adobe Audition), which I liked very much for its elegant switching between real-time and sample edit modes.
I was being a little snarky. Yes, I get sample editing, a useful tool in certain specific situations. Not so much though as the only tool in a DAW.
Audacity has some good features. But limiting all editing to essentially “sample editing” cripples the program.
Audacity would be useable IF you could drag out head and tail handles, even if internal region edits were still sample based, as you could checkerboard A/B tracks when you needed to be non-destructive or work on cross fades, etc.
However, disallowing even the dragging out of a head or tail handle makes the program less than useful for a production environment.
I haven’t looked at the development path, but I am assuming there was a reason for this that is baked in at a low level. That said, I’m not sure what Audacity offers in other areas, as for editorial it’s quite weak.
I did see a declicker and denoiser, and I’ll try those features out when I start digitizing my vinyl collection…
Audacity has never claimed to be a “DAW”. Audacity is a multi-track audio editor and recorder.
It’s not uncommon for people to confuse it with a real-time DAW because its capabilities go far past those of most audio editors (in particular due to it being a multi-track application). The distinction between DAW and “sample editor” is blurred, but the distinction between “real-time processing” and “direct processing” remains an important consideration in the choice of tool for the job.
No. It does mean that Audacity is the wrong tool for some jobs, but its ability to directly edit samples is absolutely essential for some jobs. For a lot of jobs you can use either a real-time DAW or a sample editor equally effectively.
One of the main benefits that I find in using Audacity in a professional environment, is for doing small jobs. In many cases I can launch Audacity, perform the editing / processing and export the result faster than it takes to start up ProTools and load the audio file.
If Audacity is not the right tool for the job, my advice is “don’t use it - use the right tool”.
The major reason I use Audacity, is because it is a destructive editor.
I never do any editing in a DAW. Non-destructive editing doesn’t work for a lot of things, like sample editing.
I saw that this thread was really old, so I thought I’d check back in if this is still a limitation of the software? I have to agree with the original person that posted here and really don’t understand why the Admin was arguring with him about this… I come from the video editing side of things (Avid, Premier, FCP) and was testing this software out to see if I could use it for editing a podcast. The idea that if by accident I trim something out, I have to completely re-import the file and attempt to drop it back into place, is absolutely insane. Like the original person, I feel like this is a show stopper for me… Hopefully this has been addressed by now though…?
Thanks!
Nothing has changed in this respect over those three years - Audacity remains (and is extremely likely to remain) a destructive sample editor and it is not a DAW.
If a destructive editor suits your production workflow needs then Audacity may well suit you - and you can’t argue with the price
However, if you need a full-blown non-destructive DAW then you would need to find (an probably pay for) one.
This project is run and maintained by a tiny team of part-time volunteers, we are not a large corporation with a big team of developers and QA folk. To create a DAW from Audacity would require a team much, much larger than we have now - or are ever likely to have in the future.
WC
It depends how far back in the editing you
a) made the mistake
b) are prepared to lose edits after the mistake
Provided you haven’t closed Audacity you can always use the Undo command or the History functionality to wind back to just before you made the mistake,
Alternatively you could keep your edits and then also open up a copy of the original to fine the bit you accidentally trimmed out and drop it back ion at the appropriate place in your edited project. That assumes that you follow good practice and keep a copy of the original - better practice is to use Save Lossless copy of Project at key editing stages - so then you can always revert back to one of those, rather than go back and start all over.
WC
I appreciate the feedback. I oversee a development team as well and can understand the concern over scope and budget. I don’t think either of us in this thread were really looking for the tool to become a full blow DAW. It’s actually already very well equipped though. It was just the one feature of being able to extend a cut we were hoping was possible.
But either way, I appreciate your prompt replies and the edit undo could definitely work if the edit we want to make is noticed right away. Just not if it’s desired after the fact, maybe while we’re playing down the sequence.
Thanks!
I don’t think it’s really a matter of “scope and budget”, but rather a matter of the type of tool it is.
Comparing a real-time DAW with a sample editor is like comparing Photo Shop with Microsoft Word. Even though both may end up with output from the printer, they are different types of app with different design goals.