::fibreculture:: WebCT, Open Source and Beyond

[Julian Knowles]

On 10/08/2005, at 7:04 PM, Tama Leaver wrote:

> Today I presented the students with a choice: we could either dedicate
> our lab time to learning a semi-professional audio editing tool which
> is already installed on the lab computers which students have access
> to 8am-10pm daily (and which requires a paid license to use elswhere)
> or use Audacity (an exceptionally good open source, multi-OS audio
> editor).

It's funny how people's experiences are so totally different!! For me, 
Audacity was the application which made me completely abandon the idea 
of solely using FOSS in any sort of serious production teaching 
situation.  I found it to be lacking in almost every respect and 
'exceptionally bad'.  I wrote quite a detailed critique of it on a 
colleague's blog which resulted in some direct interaction with the 
developers. My main gripes were;  the interface is very poor, all 
editing is destructive, it just can't cope with more than 2 tracks, it 
crashes frequently (under OS X), none of the effects run in real time 
(and the guis are not implemented),  and there is no way of performing 
simple editing functions like defining a region or slipping audio clips 
around in the timeline - surely one of the most basic requirements of 
any audio editing tool? And.... somewhat curiously, it stores its files 
in a proprietary format.... (hmmm what was i saying about FOSS 
sometimes being more closed?)

I think i made the comparison that it felt like an open source version 
of SoundEdit16 circa 1993 (the comparison in many respects is quite 
accurate), only it crashes a lot and doesn't have dog ears for a 
cursor! I feel like a crank... and I don't want to stop you from 
singing its praises if it is working for you but honestly, I can't 
endorse this application for production/creative work!!

> Without exception, the students chose Audacity and when
> asked why they all gave the same reason: they can use Audacity on
> their own computers now, and in the future, to do whatever they want
> and have skills which are useful (without extra cost) for their own
> media production elsehwere/when.

My students were the opposite.. they found it like pushing the 
proverbial uphill. They ended up abandoning it and using cracks of 
commercial software on their home computers (some of these students had 
lost their work several times through no fault of their own). Actually, 
most of the students I teach use cracks obtained from P2P networks for 
their media production needs and are therefore less interested in 
'legally free' but often quite crippled freeware. Whilst I don't 
support this position (as I've previously stated my comfort in paying 
for software that works), the reality is that they have very 
sophisticated production tools in their homes at no cost. This has been 
the case since the mid 90s when P2P/filesharing really took off. My 
experience is that students do not feel ethically obliged to pay for 
the software they use. P2P culture has, in many respects, weakened the 
notion that software is something that you might pay for n the same way 
that mp3 trading has weakened the idea that you pay for recordings of 
music that you like to listen to. That said, a small, but noticeable 
number of people buy licenses if they become serious users of an 
application.

Here is a copy of my critique of audacity, which I think was originally 
posted to microsound. I feel like I'm negative posting this, but it is 
an honest assessment, I think. I tried to be positive about things 
where possible...  By the way, just in case you think i am a complete 
crank, there are FOSS apps I use and actually like!!!


>  From: Julian Knowles
>  Date: Mon Jan 3, 2005 5:31:40 PM Australia/Sydney
>
>  After this morning's email reading, I was genuinely enthused to do 
> the  rounds of the open source community in a renewed search for an 
> audio editor/production environment which could at least be a viable  
> substitute at the low end for teaching purposes. I seriously want to  
> find one.
>
>  I downloaded 'Audacity', because open source geek friends keep 
> telling  me that it's 'great'.. It is platform agnostic, open-source, 
> free, and  supports VST plugins.... Sounds good so far.. I then spent 
> the last 2  hours mucking around with it.
>
> Man... what a disappointment. It has about the same level of  
> functionality as SoundEdit 16 on a Mac from the early to mid nineties, 
>  albeit with proper undo. Here are some of its limitations
>
>  1) No real-time FX.... only file based processing with a 2-3 second  
> preview. GUIs for VST plugins also not working at present, resulting  
> in very non-intuitive parameter lists and generic faders.
>
>  2) No 'region' capturing, or clip based editing... you have to chop  
> into the waveform and do copy/pastes to make a simple loop.. no way of 
>  slipping clips around in a track - you can only slip the whole track  
> in time.... very SoundEdit 16, very primitive, unusable.
>
>  3) Every time you import a new audio file, Audacity creates a new  
> track. This is annoying. There is no 'audio clips bin' like most  
> basic editors and no dragging and dropping of clips into the timeline  
> from a 'library', which is a fairly basic requirement for any sort of  
> editing.
>
>  4) You can cut and paste selected audio from one track to another, 
> but  when you paste, Audacity automatically butts the copied audio up  
> against the previous and you are not able to paste at a point beyond  
> the end of the previous audio, nor slip the pasted audio in the  
> timeline after you have pasted it. The only way of creating a gap  
> between the previous audio and the audio you wish to paste is to  
> 'generate silence' from a menu before pasting. Once you have done  
> this, you still can't easily vary the silence gap or slip the position 
>  of the pasted audio. To shorten the gap (bring the pasted clip 
> earlier  in the session) you have to select some silence and 'delete' 
> it....  then the pasted clip slips back closer to the previous.... You 
> can't  do proper editing this way and you will end up tearing your 
> hair out  fairly swiftly!!
>
>  5) There is no such thing as a cross-fade edit in a track. This makes 
>  cutting and pasting audio between tracks unworkable. To achieve  
> cross-fades (even small ones) you need to use two tracks and write  
> volume automation on the outgoing and incoming audio. I cannot see how 
>  you are able to do any real editing in this kind of environment. Even 
>  simple 2 track editing becomes difficult.
>
>  6) No video clip import/sync
>
>  7) No midi file editing or playback, or support for VST instruments
>
>  8) A frustratingly clunky volume automation editor, where you can't  
> nail the break points properly without zooming in to micro level.
>
>  9) No decent navigation keyboard shortcuts, like for example jumping  
> to the beginning or end of a selection when zoomed in, or parking the  
> cursor at the end of a clip etc... or selecting from a point to the  
> beginning or end of a clip. The basic editing necessities aren't there 
>  - you need basic keyboard shortcuts for navigation and selection... 
> if  you are expected to shift click, drag and zoom everything, you 
> will go  completely crazy in a short space of time.
>
>  There are a couple of good things, such as support for 96khz/32bit,  
> capacity to have files of different sample rates in a session, mp3 and 
>  ogg vorbis export, 'batch like' processing for exports and an undo  
> history list - but that's about it.
>
>  Some may say... well what can you expect for a free, open-source 
> tool?  Well, fair enough, the price is right and the politics are too, 
> but  the truth of the matter is that I would find this tool almost  
> impossible to deploy into even a beginner's lab, as it lacks the  
> simple features which allow people to grasp some of the basic 
> principles of non-linear audio editing and production. Herein lies the 
>  frustration of the exercise, I think. It is difficult to generate  
> enthusiasm for open-source tools if the experience is a really  
> frustrating one. As for me, I would rather use the lite version of  
> Bias Peak over this for simple 2 track editing tasks, and i really  
> hate Peak. I might use it for some ogg vorbis or mp3 exports.. but  
> that would be it.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8294 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.myspinach.org/pipermail/fibreculture/attachments/20050810/9b2de20e/attachment.bin