Recording multi-takes on one track in Audacity?

On Jul 1, 12:30 pm, Doc <[email protected]> wrote:
> I decided to fool around with Audacity just for grins, but so far
> haven't devined how to record multiple takes on the same track. Every
> time I hit the record button it generates a new track.
>
> I appreciate all input.

The idea of "multi-track" is to have more than one track. You can't
have "and" retain multiple takes on the same track. If you record arm
the track that you just recorded it will record over what you just
made or record after what you just made, depending on where your start
point is. If you don't want to hear any of the previous tracks you can
mute those track. The whole idea behind multi-tracks is to give you
the option of choosing which track or which part of a track you want
to keep and use. You can always select the track you don't want and
hit delete.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:30 pm, Doc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I decided to fool around with Audacity just for grins, but so far
>> haven't devined how to record multiple takes on the same track. Every
>> time I hit the record button it generates a new track.
>>
>> I appreciate all input.
>
> The idea of "multi-track" is to have more than one track. You can't
> have "and" retain multiple takes on the same track. If you record arm
> the track that you just recorded it will record over what you just
> made or record after what you just made,

If that is the case, then Audacity is even lamer than I imagined. Try
REAPER instead.

geoff

On Jul 1, 5:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> The idea of "multi-track" is to have more than one track. You can't
> have "and" retain multiple takes on the same track.


I worded it badly. What I mean is be able to *continue* recording or
record additional material on a given track. For example record up to :
30 on a track. Then stop. Then record from :31 on.

Or even do punch-in's on a given track.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT), Doc <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> The idea of "multi-track" is to have more than one track. You can't
>> have "and" retain multiple takes on the same track.
>
>
>I worded it badly. What I mean is be able to *continue* recording or
>record additional material on a given track. For example record up to :
>30 on a track. Then stop. Then record from :31 on.
>
>Or even do punch-in's on a given track.

If Audacity won't do this easily, use another track. Don't worry
about punching in accurately - this is an obsolete technique on
digital systems.

On Jul 1, 6:45 pm, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> If Audacity won't do this easily, use another track.  Don't worry
> about punching in accurately - this is an obsolete technique on
> digital systems.


It's a matter of curiosity as to how to do it on Audacity. I've got
other software.

Doc wrote:

> It's a matter of curiosity as to how to do it on Audacity. I've got
> other software.

You can't continue a track in Audacity, you have to start a new one. But
if you start a new track at the time you ended the original track, you
can mix them together and they'll join seamlessly. There's no need to
fuss with alignment, it will just work.

Try it. Count to five on one track, then play it back while recording a
second track where you start counting from six to ten after you hear
"five" from the first track. Then do a Quick Mix.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

"Mike Rivers" <[email protected]> wrote...

> Doc wrote:

> > It's a matter of curiosity as to how to do it on Audacity.

> You can't continue a track in Audacity, you have to start a new one.

If you're not kidding, now I know why it's called "audacity".....


auˇdacˇiˇty Pronunciation [aw-das-i-tee] – noun, plural: -ties.
1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard
for conventional thought.




DM

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:t2Gak.317$4a3.229@trnddc04...
>
> "Mike Rivers" <[email protected]> wrote...
>
>> Doc wrote:
>
>> > It's a matter of curiosity as to how to do it on Audacity.
>
>> You can't continue a track in Audacity, you have to start a new one.
>
> If you're not kidding, now I know why it's called "audacity".....
>
>
> auˇdacˇiˇty Pronunciation [aw-das-i-tee] - noun, plural: -ties.
> 1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard
> for conventional thought.
>
>
>
>
> DM

I have only used just started to use Audacity and have less than an hours
experience with it. I have only used Sound Recorder previously.

The programming Audacity uses may be different to other commercial products,
but it is a sensible one It is a very powerful and versatile..

If you click on the end of a track you place a marker there. If you press
record again it starts a new "track" aligned with the end of the previous
one. You therefore have the advantage of being able to work with each clip
separately. When happy and you want them joined click the menu item "Quick
Mix".

Or just press pause at the end of each section, then record to append the
next.

you can have multiple copies of Audacity running at once appending, cutting,
copying and pasting data between them.

What little I have seen so far I like and admire.

David F. Cox

"David F. Cox" <[email protected]> wrote in message...

> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
> news:t2Gak.317$4a3.229@trnddc04...

> > "Mike Rivers" <[email protected]> wrote...

> >> Doc wrote:

> >> > It's a matter of curiosity as to how to do it on Audacity.

> >> You can't continue a track in Audacity, you have to start a new one.

> > If you're not kidding, now I know why it's called "audacity".....
> >
> > auˇdacˇiˇty Pronunciation [aw-das-i-tee] - noun, plural: -ties.
> > 1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard
> > for conventional thought.


> If you click on the end of a track you place a marker there. If you press
> record again it starts a new "track" aligned with the end of the previous
> one.


Then I misunderstood.

My interpretation of that, was that it would cease recording on "track one"
and move all recording to "track two". So, you're saying that you *are* on
the same "track"... but in subsequent space.... which makes more sense.

DM

On Jul 2, 2:06 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm>
wrote:

> Then I misunderstood.
>
> My interpretation of that, was that it would cease recording on "track one"
> and move all recording to "track two".  So, you're saying that you *are* on
> the same "track"... but in subsequent space.... which makes more sense.


No, you were right the first time. I've played with it more and what
he means is once you stop recording on a given track, you can start
the *next* track aligned with the end of the previous track. Or at any
other place for that matter, but once you hit stop, you can't record
additional material on that track. The only way is as someone else
pointed out, hit pause.

Overall, the functionality is largely unlike what I'm used to in
Cakewalk. There are other things that fly in the face of what I've
seen of typical functionality. For example, you can't simply highlight
a section and hit the delete button, the rest of the track jumps to
fill in the gap, you have to use the silence transform instead to
leave the track intact time-wise.

From what I've seen so far you can't create presets with effects and
plugins, some of them remember the last setting, some you can use it
once and then have to start over the next time. I looked at the
graphic EQ that's bundled with it and it has a very crude drag bar
with no way to precisely calibrate what you're doing, and again no
save preset function. Apparently it doesn't support any GUI's of
presets, everything is slider bars.

It also seems to have issues with my Audigy Platinum EX. If I use the
Audigy as the Output device, it goes haywire. I have to use the
microsoft sound mapper or my M-Audio 2496 for output.

Maybe someone can show me where I'm wrong but my assessment so far is
that it might be better than nothing for someone who's on a budget,
but I don't see where it's any kind of a serious production tool. For
all the hype I'd heard about it, I thought there would be more
substance to it. For well under a hundred bucks you can have an older
version of Cakewalk off Ebay that will provide far more functionality,
midi etc., as will I imagine some of these budget products you see at
Office Depot, Best Buy, etc.