Ardour vs. Audacity?

AG Schnozz agschnozz at
Fri Jan 4 17:59:28 GMT 2008

Hello, first post here, but a long-time audio engineer.

A friend of mine just got me started with Ardour. Honestly, I haven't
found anything not to like about it yet (except for a couple
non-standard edit aspects). It is very powerful and as far as I can
tell, it is as complete as I could expect in a computer-based unit
costing less than a new vehicle.

Rosegarden is also new to me, but I've been using midi-sequencers for
years, so the learning curve is pretty normal.

Audacity?  Well, I'll have to admit that I've been using Audacity on
Windows machines for a couple of years now and it is more often than
not my primary axe.  There is so much that I do which is the
modern-day equivelent of a 2-track reel-to-reel. Audacity is
extremely fast to use.  The recordings are up to an hour long and I
can whack the beginning, end, yank out some coughs, correct a few
'plosifs, normalize and save as an MP3 in no time. It's my computer
equivelent of the razer-blade and splice-tape.

I wouldn't use Audacity in a multi-track environment not because it
won't do it, but because it isn't the best at it and I have better
tools available. For example, I have the Yamaha AW4416.

Programs like Rosegarden are catching up to the dedicated MTEs
(Multi-track editors), but I have found that in almost every case,
the software has an operational bias towards the MIDI environment and
audio is an add-on.  It's not that these programs can't do
everything, but that there are nuances which can bug you once in a
while.  For example, I would lean towards Ardour over Rosegarden when
doing audio for video. Voice-over work, foley, etc., just work easier
in an environment like Ardour. But if Rosegarden was my primary tool,
I'm sure it would work just fine too.

Ken Norton

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.

More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list