Audacity 2.0 Released(audacity.sourceforge.net)
audacity.sourceforge.net
Audacity 2.0 Released
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about/news?id=2012-03-13/2.0-release
65 comments
It sure has been a long time, hasn't it? Audacity 2.0 has been in development since 2005 (in form of the "unstable" 1.3.x series)!
haberman and I first met when I started contributing to Audacity more than a decade ago. Later he helped me apply for a job at Amazon.com and we became teammates. Since then we've drifted away from Audacity development, both left Amazon to work in startups, and haberman is now at Google while I ended up at Mozilla, but we are still good friends and keep in touch -- and also debate technical minutia on HN. :)
Audacity has always been short on developers for a project with such a large userbase, so development has often been slow. But the contributor community was one of the friendliest I've been involved in, thanks in large part to the great stewardship of Audacity's creator Dominic Mazzoni. If you use Audacity, please consider checking out the code and fixing a bug or two!
haberman and I first met when I started contributing to Audacity more than a decade ago. Later he helped me apply for a job at Amazon.com and we became teammates. Since then we've drifted away from Audacity development, both left Amazon to work in startups, and haberman is now at Google while I ended up at Mozilla, but we are still good friends and keep in touch -- and also debate technical minutia on HN. :)
Audacity has always been short on developers for a project with such a large userbase, so development has often been slow. But the contributor community was one of the friendliest I've been involved in, thanks in large part to the great stewardship of Audacity's creator Dominic Mazzoni. If you use Audacity, please consider checking out the code and fixing a bug or two!
Yep! Not to mention Dominic also helped me get the jobs at both Amazon and Google. Working on Audacity in college and meeting all these people was such a great experience and opened up so many doors. One time I even picked up Monty of Ogg Vorbis fame from the airport to go to an Audacity Hackathon.
Audacity is AWESOME!!! It's perfect for removing background hissing on cheap mics.
For any of you who have a lot of hissing or humming coming from your mic when you record podcasts or demo videos for your startups. Audacity can take it out in just a few clicks using its noise removal filter. Just remember, whenever you start recording an audio track, wait 5 seconds before you start talking, and then use those 5 seconds of hissing to build a profile using the noise removal. And apply that to the whole track. My brother and I were blown away at how well it took all the hissing out. I recorded on a $9 Walmart mike and it sounded like studio quality work. Crisp, clean voice, pure hiss-less silence between sentences.
Thank you and all of its developers. Audacity is a perfect example of easy to use, easy to learn, open source software.
For any of you who have a lot of hissing or humming coming from your mic when you record podcasts or demo videos for your startups. Audacity can take it out in just a few clicks using its noise removal filter. Just remember, whenever you start recording an audio track, wait 5 seconds before you start talking, and then use those 5 seconds of hissing to build a profile using the noise removal. And apply that to the whole track. My brother and I were blown away at how well it took all the hissing out. I recorded on a $9 Walmart mike and it sounded like studio quality work. Crisp, clean voice, pure hiss-less silence between sentences.
Thank you and all of its developers. Audacity is a perfect example of easy to use, easy to learn, open source software.
Totally. I use it for all my podcasts. I'd advise more time if you can spare it though (10-15s seems ideal). And it works great on aircon/consistent bg noise too.
I love this app, that it's free and easy to use for the hospital radio station I help run. So thanks to all those involved.
Is there anyone with some design chops who can't help them out though?
Is there anyone with some design chops who can't help them out though?
I use Audacity all the time: with customers' permission, I will record short bits of our Skype calls if I think that later I might want to refer back to directions, requirements, etc. This saves needless note taking.
Great app!
Great app!
Sorry, but I haven't used Audacity in a while ... how exactly do you record Skype calls with it? Is there some sort of integration with the app or your sound card?
This isn't what he's doing, but if you use an audio routing system like jackd on Linux or Soundflower on Mac OS X, you can capture audio output from one application (flash youtube videos, Skype, iTunes, etc.), mix it with your system input, route the superposition of both signals to Audacity, and record everything into the same stream. You can also use audio routing to mix a conversation into the input of an icecast server. That way you can stream a live Skype conversation mixed with music and sound effects into an Internet radio show while also recording and monitoring it.
http://jackaudio.org/
http://cycling74.com/products/soundflower/
http://jackaudio.org/
http://cycling74.com/products/soundflower/
OS X: Audio Hijack (USD 32) http://www.rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/buy.php
Or SoundFlower for OSX:
http://code.google.com/p/soundflower/
http://code.google.com/p/soundflower/
I listen through Skype calls with my laptop's speakers, and just hit the record button for potentially useful dialog. So, no integration with the app or sound card. BTW, for this to be useful, I try to record as little dialog as possible so in cases where I want to check something, I don't have a lot of material to listen to and sort out.
How To Enable “Stereo Mix” in Windows [Vista+] (to Record Audio)
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/39532/how-to-enable-stereo-mi...
I payed for Pamela long ago; now the free version records 15 minutes. (Don't know if I can still recommend them though, now tying in TrialPay for some reason.) http://www.pamela.biz/en/products/
I payed for Pamela long ago; now the free version records 15 minutes. (Don't know if I can still recommend them though, now tying in TrialPay for some reason.) http://www.pamela.biz/en/products/
Take a look at CallGraph. I rapidly ditched Pamela, seemed spammy and overpriced.
Most soundcards will have a virtual input that records the output. Audacity can record from any input your soundcard provides.
records system input
Correct me if I'm wrong but it can only record your input, not the other side of the conversation - if you change the setting to record from stereo then the person you're talking to on Skype just hears themselves echoing back.
My personal use for audacity other than randomly playing around with audio stuff was to clean up a CD of a radio recording from a decade ago, that over time had picked up scratches and noise, and managed to do a pretty awesome job overall.
My personal use for audacity other than randomly playing around with audio stuff was to clean up a CD of a radio recording from a decade ago, that over time had picked up scratches and noise, and managed to do a pretty awesome job overall.
On Windows my sound drivers include something called stereo mix. You can record this through audacity to get their side of the conversation. To record yourself as well you need to set your mic to playback through your speakers, but then you hear yourself speaking.
There may be a better way, but that's what I've always done if I needed to record on Skype.
There may be a better way, but that's what I've always done if I needed to record on Skype.
Maybe audacity's changed since I tried it, used to be that by chosing stereo in audacity your skype input was automatically set to stereo too.
It probably depends on your sound card, and whether it can record from more than one source at a time. Many older sound cards only had a single stereo input, but it's not uncommon for newish motherboard-integrated HD Audio chipsets to support recording from multiple sources.
If you (still) use an emu10kn-based card (such as the SB Live), the kX project drivers allow custom routing, mixing, and alteration of inputs and outputs via the card's built-in DSP chip.
If you (still) use an emu10kn-based card (such as the SB Live), the kX project drivers allow custom routing, mixing, and alteration of inputs and outputs via the card's built-in DSP chip.
Thank you so much for pointing out this feature, I was just looking for software for doing this exact thing the other day!
Summary of release notes:
* Many effects significantly improved, especially Equalization, Noise Removal and Normalize. Vocal Remover now included plus GVerb on Windows and Mac. VAMP analysis plug-ins now supported.
* Improved label tracks with Sync-Lock Tracks feature in the Tracks Menu. Multiple clips per track. Tracks and selections can be fully manipulated using the keyboard. Many more keyboard shortcuts.
* New Device Toolbar to manage inputs and outputs. Timer Record feature. New Mixer Board view with per-track VU meters.
* Automatic Crash Recovery in the event of abnormal program termination.
* Fast "On-Demand" import of WAV/AIFF files if read directly from source. FLAC now fully supported. Added support for optional FFmpeg library for import/export of AC3/M4A/WMA and import of audio from video files.
This hardly seems to justify a leap from 1.3. That and the fact that selection and playback still work in the most counter-intuitive way imaginable.
* Many effects significantly improved, especially Equalization, Noise Removal and Normalize. Vocal Remover now included plus GVerb on Windows and Mac. VAMP analysis plug-ins now supported.
* Improved label tracks with Sync-Lock Tracks feature in the Tracks Menu. Multiple clips per track. Tracks and selections can be fully manipulated using the keyboard. Many more keyboard shortcuts.
* New Device Toolbar to manage inputs and outputs. Timer Record feature. New Mixer Board view with per-track VU meters.
* Automatic Crash Recovery in the event of abnormal program termination.
* Fast "On-Demand" import of WAV/AIFF files if read directly from source. FLAC now fully supported. Added support for optional FFmpeg library for import/export of AC3/M4A/WMA and import of audio from video files.
This hardly seems to justify a leap from 1.3. That and the fact that selection and playback still work in the most counter-intuitive way imaginable.
> This hardly seems to justify a leap from 1.3.
Audacity uses even/odd version numbering for stable/unstable release branches, like the Linux kernel once did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Odd-number...
So when Audacity 1.0 was released, new feature development moved to the 1.1 branch, while the 1.0 branch received only bug fixes. When the 1.1 branch was considered "finished" it became the new stable version 1.2.0, and the 1.0 branch was abandoned. Then new feature development moved to the 1.3 branch, which has now been released as the new stable version Audacity 2.0.
If I remember right, many of the major changes between the 1.1/1.2 series and the 1.3/2.0 series were under the hood, such as support for new versions of Portaudio and wxWidgets (which added compatibility for newer hardware and operating systems), improvements to the file format, and enhancements to the importers.
Audacity uses even/odd version numbering for stable/unstable release branches, like the Linux kernel once did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Odd-number...
So when Audacity 1.0 was released, new feature development moved to the 1.1 branch, while the 1.0 branch received only bug fixes. When the 1.1 branch was considered "finished" it became the new stable version 1.2.0, and the 1.0 branch was abandoned. Then new feature development moved to the 1.3 branch, which has now been released as the new stable version Audacity 2.0.
If I remember right, many of the major changes between the 1.1/1.2 series and the 1.3/2.0 series were under the hood, such as support for new versions of Portaudio and wxWidgets (which added compatibility for newer hardware and operating systems), improvements to the file format, and enhancements to the importers.
Why not release it as 1.4?
Since there's no "right" answer for version numbers, it's hard to answer questions like this. If the developers feel that 2.0 is a good number for their new release, then who are we to argue with them? (And why should we care in the first place about what number appears in an about box somewhere..?)
It's been eight years since Audacity 1.2 was released (and at least six years since 1.3 development began), and the code has seen pretty major changes in that time even though they happened gradually and not all are obvious from looking at the UI. I think it's fair to call 2.0 a major upgrade from 1.0 and 1.2.
Or to look at it another way: If you haven't changed the major version number after ten years of development, then you'll probably never change it. And if you're never going to change that number, it's redundant and you might as well drop it. (This is roughly what the Linux kernel did when it switched from 2.6.x.y to 3.x.y after fifteen years of 2.x releases.)
It's been eight years since Audacity 1.2 was released (and at least six years since 1.3 development began), and the code has seen pretty major changes in that time even though they happened gradually and not all are obvious from looking at the UI. I think it's fair to call 2.0 a major upgrade from 1.0 and 1.2.
Or to look at it another way: If you haven't changed the major version number after ten years of development, then you'll probably never change it. And if you're never going to change that number, it's redundant and you might as well drop it. (This is roughly what the Linux kernel did when it switched from 2.6.x.y to 3.x.y after fifteen years of 2.x releases.)
I love audacity, it started me and my bro off on our music recording road. My bro recently produced his album with it!
"Shaky Horse"
http://declandoherty.bandcamp.com/
Whenever I have used audacity to do simple audio edits I feel like I am using an elephant gun for a fly swatter. For some reason I never feel the same way when I use gimp to do the equivalent minor image modification.
Really? I find the opposite; gimp has a two minute load time and an interface that expects you to study it. Audacity opens up and gives you big obvious buttons for the simple things - if anything it looks too simple, as if all you can do is basic cutting and splicing.
Exactly. I use Paint.NET for most of my work with images; GIMP is used as a last resort, if PDN is missing a feature I really need at that moment.
it works great but some visual polish wouldn't hurt...
Agreed. I was really hoping that with 2.0, there would be at least some attempt at refining the interface.
Compare the interface to Reaper (The Cockos team has three main contributors, right?), Cubase or Vegas, or if you want to get shiny, Propellerheads or Line6.
A fresh coat of paint goes a long way.
Compare the interface to Reaper (The Cockos team has three main contributors, right?), Cubase or Vegas, or if you want to get shiny, Propellerheads or Line6.
A fresh coat of paint goes a long way.
Sorry to be snarky; but, compare $0 (Audacity) to $225 (reaper), $500 (cubase), $600 (vegas), $130 (Propellerheads).
Having bought and upgraded Vegas & Cubase, and evaluated Reaper (which is $0 for cripple-free evaluation & $60 for a non-commercial license) I am fully aware of the cost. Winamp (made by one of the guys behind Reaper) was free, even before AOL bought Nullsoft, and still managed to look better than every other MP3 player out there.
There are people who have offered their services, presumably free of charge. I think Audacity would be a lot more inviting if more effort was put into the look and usability of the interface. Need money? Come up with a plan and a Kickstarter page.
I'm not saying it should be a DAW. I'm just saying it should look like something that was released in 2012, rather than something that was released in 1998.
There are people who have offered their services, presumably free of charge. I think Audacity would be a lot more inviting if more effort was put into the look and usability of the interface. Need money? Come up with a plan and a Kickstarter page.
I'm not saying it should be a DAW. I'm just saying it should look like something that was released in 2012, rather than something that was released in 1998.
Audacity doesn't attempt to be a fully-featured DAW. It does what it does, and it does it nicely. Not sure you can compare it to the others with a straight face. If you're recording a podcast, I'm sure it's fine.
Reaper's license only costs $225 for full commercial use exceeding $20,000 in revenue. Otherwise it's $65 for the exact same software. Not a bad deal at all.
Reaper's license only costs $225 for full commercial use exceeding $20,000 in revenue. Otherwise it's $65 for the exact same software. Not a bad deal at all.
149 for fl studio seems low in comparison but is a worthwhile alternative
It looks better than this at least:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GWheE4Gkw
i tried offering my help, mostly for web and icon work, but the developers never responded. i'm sure i'm not the first.
Sometimes it's hard to accept an offer for help even if you know you need it because you are thinking of the amount of work required to accept that help (ie re-skinning). I tend to get bogged down and overloaded myself like that sometimes to my own detriment.
Maybe if you keep trying, or even look at the code and see if you can make a patch file with a few new buttons - that would result in some progress. It would be great because audacity could use some UI love.
Maybe if you keep trying, or even look at the code and see if you can make a patch file with a few new buttons - that would result in some progress. It would be great because audacity could use some UI love.
Audacity is a great free tool in the arsenal of a budding musician and transcriber. You can slow down tracks without changing pitch to try to understand what notes are being played.
Coupled with Reaper, also free if you're a big cheapo, somewhat analogously to the WinRar model, you get so much great functionality for so little.
Coupled with Reaper, also free if you're a big cheapo, somewhat analogously to the WinRar model, you get so much great functionality for so little.
I love Audacity. The only thing I'd like to see changed is labelling/splits. It is a pain in the ass to the point that I usually just cut the start and end off save that and then undo.
To all my Mac users out there: What are you using to record Skype calls? Anyone know if Audacity 2 will allow Mac users to record system audio?
Audacity plus Soundflower will do the trick.
http://cycling74.com/products/soundflower/
http://cycling74.com/products/soundflower/
SoundFlower is a little buggy on Lion still.
Rogue Amoeba's Audio Hijack Pro works for that.
I couldn't get audio hijack pro to actually do that.
no, wait. I could, but...
it's a pain to have to boot it up before a skype call - some earlier version would not record unless skype was loaded after AHP, for example.
I broke down and spent the whole $20 on ecamm's call recorded for skype plugin. http://www.ecamm.com/mac/callrecorder/
It works. Exceedingly well. Each side of the conversation gets recorded in to a separate channel. You can set the quality. It does video, and you can get each side of the video out as a separate vid file too.
And it's always on. I have it set to record automatically, but it'll throw it away if it's < 5 seconds. A little popup comes up with a red off button so I can stop recording on the boring calls, but by default, I'm recording.
I record most of my calls to customer service departments this way. "This call may be recorded for quality purposes" I take as them giving me permission to record the conversation, so I do.
no, wait. I could, but...
it's a pain to have to boot it up before a skype call - some earlier version would not record unless skype was loaded after AHP, for example.
I broke down and spent the whole $20 on ecamm's call recorded for skype plugin. http://www.ecamm.com/mac/callrecorder/
It works. Exceedingly well. Each side of the conversation gets recorded in to a separate channel. You can set the quality. It does video, and you can get each side of the video out as a separate vid file too.
And it's always on. I have it set to record automatically, but it'll throw it away if it's < 5 seconds. A little popup comes up with a red off button so I can stop recording on the boring calls, but by default, I'm recording.
I record most of my calls to customer service departments this way. "This call may be recorded for quality purposes" I take as them giving me permission to record the conversation, so I do.
WireTap Studio. I got it with one of those MacHeist or whatever bundles a few years back.
Love it whenever one of these great free apps get major updates. Been using Audacity on and off for years.
> The Audacity Team is elated to announce the release of Audacity 2.0 for Windows, Mac, GNU/Linux, ...
Seems weird it's specifically GNU/Linux they support, yet they can't be dependent on GNU userland or GNU libc if they support Mac.
Seems weird it's specifically GNU/Linux they support, yet they can't be dependent on GNU userland or GNU libc if they support Mac.
A lot of people use "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" interchangeably to refer to the origins of the OS and not just the software that is being used. Pretty sure if you ask RMS he thinks that all distributions of Linux should be called "GNU/Linux".
Also, not sure what that has to do with them having a version of their software that runs on OS X. They could easily use libraries that aren't glibc for the Mac version.
Also, not sure what that has to do with them having a version of their software that runs on OS X. They could easily use libraries that aren't glibc for the Mac version.
RMS would say its weird that you think there is anything other than GNU/Linux...
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
True, but then again I can not see it running on a kernel alone.
So maybe on a Linux Platform they are dependent on the GNU toolchain.
So maybe on a Linux Platform they are dependent on the GNU toolchain.
I use Audacity to record live radio shows, DJ mixes, edit sounds for games and even for the odd bits of quick and dirty sample manipulation for music production. For the price it's a really great piece of software. :)
Audacity is sweet - now if they would just get someone on board to cleanup the UI - maybe some new buttons?
Porting from wxWidgets to Qt would probably solve that along the way.
OH CRAP, IT HAS REAL-TIME EFFECT PREVIEWS haha no just kidding
I'm always amazed and proud at how widely I see Audacity being used. Most recently I spent the 5 weeks as a juror on a criminal trial, and I saw Audacity installed on the prosecutor's computer.