this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
627 points (99.8% liked)

196

18195 readers
1636 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well, Reaper is more popular with musicians than Audacity, and it follows the Winrar business model

[–] umbraroze@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I'd argue that Audacity (audio recording/editing/processing suite) is a little different niche than Reaper (full-fledged DAW). If your use case is "I'm doing a podcast and I need to do an audio recording from multiple mics and mix them down", Audacity is good enough that there's no point in paying extra for a DAW. If you're a musician and you need to mess nondestructively with recordings and MIDI and filters, then you know you need to go bigger.

[–] kelargo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's paid unless you know how to compile it.

[–] kelargo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Easy enough to compile...

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Didn't know that. Fair enough for them.