Talk:Comparison of free software for audio

This article was nominated for deletion on December 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled discussion

Guaka's question: Can I use (copy/paste/edit) parts of your "Sound & MIDI Software For Linux" pages into the Wikipedia [0]?

Dave Phillips' answer Yes, you can use whatever parts you like. I do ask that you mention my site, but I see that you've already done so.

Guaka 11:20, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Guaka: when deleting stuff, please mention in the comment for the deletion that you moved it elsewhere. o/w it looks like vandalism. cheers, Waveguy 03:15, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

cat

there should be a free audio software category with all of these programs in it. note for future, since WP is really unresponsive today. - Omegatron 15:36, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are there any free audio software which record what is being produced to the speaker? -- Thorpe ^talk 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try AudacityOpenSebJ 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vkeybd

I think vkeybd is worth adding, but don't know which of the links suits best for it, and which of the page parts. [first link (from the Debian package 0.1.17-3)] [second link (from Google)] -- Aleksej S.

operating systems

for now on if you will, add what operating system the software will run on to avoid frustration (since most of them are for linux, and most readers are probably using Windows) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.38.83.189 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

merge

Shouldn't we merge this article with this one ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_audio_software

I agree, there is a lot of overlap. The problem is that Linux and Free audio software are not mutually inclusive, so which one should go? There already is "Category:Free audio software" so I suggest that this page be merged in, consolidated, and disolved. (Requestion 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You are completely right about the inclusive or not issue on linux and free software. And the argument of the already existing category convince me.

FYI, Category:Linux software was recently deleted because of it's blurry scope. If these two articles are merged, I suggest we use "free audio software" as the merged article to avoid that scope problem (and this article is better quality anyway). Gronky 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Not all Linux software fits into the Free software category. What do you propose to do with the OSS that is not by definition FS? Delete it? That would be vandalism. If one of these lists has to go then I suggest merging both the Free and Linux audio software lists into a new list called Unix audio software. Maybe it would be better to delete both of these lists and make it a category? (Requestion 16:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"The OSS that is not by definition FS"? There is no such audio software, so you've asked me what we should do with nothing, so I'll suggest we don't do anything with nothing. Agreed? And we'll proabably also agree that doing nothing with nothing does not count as vandalism. ("Open source" is the term of a free software marketing campaign which was launched in 1998.) And there's a category, here: Category:Free audio software Gronky 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose merging "Linux audio software" into "Free audio software", but I would oppose a merge in the opposite direction. Free audio software is a definable category of software that can be written about, so having an article about it is good. Linux audio software is a bad topic to write an article about because it's not defineable - would software that runs on WINE be included? What if the GNU/Linux version was poor quality and/or outdated compared to the Windows or MacOS versions? What if only half the functionality is available for the GNU/Linux version? What if the software works but is unuseable compared to the Windows version because the utility is in the plug-ins, not the software, and the plug-ins do not work on GNU/Linux? For those reasons, I think there should be an article on free audio software, and the only question is whether or not to get rid of the Linux audio software article (by merging it in here). Gronky 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article Free software: "while most open source software is also free software and vice-versa, this is not always the case." So by Wikipedia's own definition FS != OSS but they are subsets. Your comment about "definable category of software that can be written about" makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that the Free audio software article be deleted because the Category:Free audio software makes it completely redundant. (Requestion 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Neither FS or OSS is a subset of the other, you've made an incorrect assumption. They are two overlapping sets - there is FS that is not OSS, and there is OSS that is not FS, but, the overlap is 99.9% and the 0.1% of non-overlap is made up of unused, irrelevent software. This level of overlap is no accident. "OSS" was invented as a new name for "free software", so their definition just rewording the existing free software definition. So for all practical purposes, FS=OSS (and OSS is just a marketing campaign for the former. This article is useful because, unlike the category, it has short descriptions of each entry. Gronky 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that the Free audio software page is cleaner and higher quality than the List of Linux audio software. The Linux list also has a lot of external links and only half the entries have descriptions, it needs work. I still think that both the Free audio software list and the category are redundant. My opinion is that this sort of list is much better handled as a category. In light of the category maybe both the Free and the Linux audio list pages should be deleted? (Requestion 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe, I'm not sure. A counter argument is that since categories only contain software that WP has articles on. This article can also include and describe software which does (yet, or might never) have its own article. Gronky 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest personaly (after I've read your comments) that the Category:Free audio software should be kept as well as the Free audio software as they are "correlated" (like here : Category:Cultural movements). It's possible to include the softwares that are not included in the category in the article and it might be also intersting to include all this ambiguity (between OSS softwares and Free Softwares). Coltie 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this list and the Category:Free audio software are redundant is because they are "correlated." I don't think we need any more "ambiguity" since we have more of that on Wikipedia than we know what to do with. What we need is more clarity and less overlap. This merge issue with List of Linux audio software has put both software lists in a sort of limbo. I think this issue needs to be resolved soon for the good of both lists. My vote is still to merge this list into the Linux list because the category makes this list redundant. (Requestion 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just thought of an alternative compromise solution. Merge the List of Linux audio software into this list. Delete or change the Category:Free audio software to something like a Category:Unix audio software. That way we reduce the redundancy and we keep the same coverage. This is basically a flip of my previous suggestion with the same perceived benefits. What do you think? (Requestion 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I expect that "Unix blah software" will have the same problem that caused "Category:Linux software" to be deleted. It's just too big and the scope is too blurry. Just my 2c. Gronky 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Same problem, too big, and too blurry?" What!? The only reason Category:Linux software was deleted was because no one knew about it and you were the only person to vote Delete. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_20#Category:Linux_software. Gronky I called your bluff and you are busted. (Requestion 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

AS Gronky pointed out, the term "unix" bring the same problem. I just got the idea that we could add in brackets the operating system that each programs support. Then, "Free audio software" might be the terms that could contain linux softs, free softs which are non-OSS,...Coltie 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 2 months have passed now, and still nothing have been merge. Is it time to did it? Many arguements arn't bad, but I think we should go on... Anyone against merging to Category:Free audio software and an article of the same name?

NB: How can I know that I can go on merging while following the law of wikipedia? Coltie 09:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something should be done but I don't understand what you are proposing. Could you please restate what you would like to merge and/or delete? I'll be acceptable to most anything as long as it is fair and balanced. (Requestion 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My suggestion, without any other arguments: keep or create a category "free audio software" and an article related with the same name (like Category:Cultural movements ) to englobe all software and then add for example in brackets to which operating system the soft is related ( like Ardour (Linux and MacOS, GPL,...)Coltie 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are no answers for about a month... What do we do or what do I do now? No answer doesn't mean at all the agreement of the majority...Coltie 13:37, 2 Mai 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it as it - FOSS doesn't have to mean Linux - if we can just add the OS's it should be fine.

Links

It would be good if there were links to the company's websites for every mention of the software. -- Jac_roe 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tries to avoid this because it's such a temptation for spammers. Gronky 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WavePad

I hope I didn't just mess up there by removing WavePad. I think I did. I saw "This article is about free software as used in the sociopolitical free software movement; for non-free software distributed without charge, see freeware." at the top of the page, but.. then I just noticed it also says "Free audio software is free software (and usually open source software) for use by sound engineers, audio producers, and those involved in sound recording and reproduction." That seems to be a bit conflicting. It should be clarified. Which is it, free as in the free software movement free, or freeware (AND "usually open source software")? --AshyRaccoon ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MadTracker, Reaper?

I wonder whether MadTracker and Reaper can be added to the list. MadTracker is a freeware tracker software. Reaper is an unexpiring shareware. --kosu ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:11, 26 Nov 2007 (IST)

Licence Information =

If someone updated one of the tables with the softwares license (e.g. GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT), I would understand why this page would vary in comparison to the linux audio software page. At the moment, it's taking a long time to open each and view the licence for the piece of audio software.

Just an idea which would make things easier for people ... not sure if it's a good idea though!

--J05HYYY (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started doing it ... realized it was a good idea but haven't got time to do the rest so there is a job which needs finishing. --J05HYYY (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MilkyTracker

Added MilkyTracker to the list of trackers. Gyzome (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ardour

Claims to be 'free', but is really just crippleware, with fascistic locks on the GPL'd source code and a developer nagging for "Software Developer's Dole". It doesn't deserve to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.156.195 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) hai guys.............i used the audio editor fleximusic wave editor is so simple.......just try it as me............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steevei1000 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

include:

FreeRIP? Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seq24 links here, but is not on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.171.60 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add more software

There are lots of software that are not included (such as the ones that appear in LibreMusicProduction), it may be a good idea to add them in order to have a complete list of FOSS. Should I get some permission in order to do this? Thanks. Lightmachete (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there software that helps to categorize my collection? I have lots of music on my pc. Sometimes tracks have their number as a prefix, other times not. So there's duplication of tracks.

What's out there to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCF5:E060:28F8:15DC:ABEE:9CFD (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Plague: Malware Attacks on Audio Freeware Utilities

This may be a bit off topic, but I don't know where to turn. It's a funeral.

I've been using simple Audio Freeware recording utilities since the 1990s, mostly those that "record what your sound card is playing," from the popular freeware download sites such as Cnet. Typically they may have simple editing abilities such as volume and fade-in/out, and output recordings in several possible common formats and compression levels. A favorite was called something like: "Sound Recorder for Free," but recently has seemingly been passed around from one "developer" or distributor to another. (I also use many other small freeware utilities.)

After a computer crash and a several year break, I now find it impossible to find one of the above that does not trigger my (Avast) anti-virus, usually a "PUP" of the redirect, spyware, or adware variety. I surmise that the spam&Co industry folks have found purchasing and infecting freeware to be cost effective. (My work-around is using the full-blown but distracting Audacity freeware.)

If others also find this to be true and troublesome, it seems this should be in the article. I (GASP!) have no idea how this should be worded.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1005:EB11:5070:EE3C (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

You are confusing freeware and Free Software. They are completely different. This article lists free software for audio (Audacity is free software, too, not freeware). While free software could technically contain viruses or spyware, it is highly unlikely. There may be three common explanations. First, antivirus software is notorious for false alarms (and harmless free software is often its innocent victim). Second, you may be downloading free software from infamous websites that have been known to add adware/spyware etc. to free software packages (which do not contain any adware or spyware by themselves). So just do not download re-packaged or rebranded software from scam websites (for free software, this mean you should download it from their own original websites, or just use the package manager from your operating system if you're using a system like Linux). And third, you may indeed be confusing free software with freeware. Yes, many "freeware" programs are actually adware, crippleware, spyware or malware. But that's what you get when you insist on using obscure proprietary software (like many dubious freeware programs). Anyway, I don't think anything like this should be in the article.—J. M. (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Room EQ Wizard

Would someone please take the time to include Room EQ Wizard, https://www.roomeqwizard.com/ in the audio analysis section. JCH (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)JHymen[reply]

@JHymen: This article is a comparison of free software for audio. Room EQ Wizard is not free software. It is proprietary software (see the EULA), so it cannot be included in the list. Besides, it does not have its own article, which means it cannot be included in other lists either, as stand-alone lists on Wikipedia generally only include notable items that have their own article.—J. M. (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler title?

Why not just call it Comparison of free audio software? In reference works like WP, usually "less is more". :?) – AndyFielding (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a bit like Comparison of software for free audio. I think "free software" is a precise technical term that should be as undivided as possible to make it unambiguous. Alternatively, many people could also read "free audio software" as "audio software for free". In fact, that's the way many people interpret it anyway and keep adding proprietary freeware to various free software lists on Wikipedia. That's why I would even say more is more—Comparison of free and open-source software for audio would make it clearer, even though people could still read it as "software that's either available for free or is open-source".—J. M. (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]