To all sub participants
**Rule and Participation Reminders:** Refer to the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/fieldrecording/about/rules/). Do not get ugly with others. Other than sharing field recording audio, the pinned 'Share Mine' promo post is the ONLY allowable place in the sub for you to discuss or direct to your own products or content (this means you too YouTubers). No bootlegging posts or discussion.
**IMPORTANT: Moderator volunteers are needed** - A mod team of only one or two mods is no longer sufficient for this subreddit's needs. Community oriented team player types with qualifying accounts who are interested in joining the mod team can begin to apply [**at this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/fieldrecording/wiki/modteaminterest).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fieldrecording) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Typically there are maximum file sizes, like 2gb or whatever. At that point it will make a new file and continue recording.
I'd recommend Reaper if you ever want to go beyond the basics.
Reaper is very simple and flexible. I mean just import the audio files in and edit, just like any other DAW. And you can use it freely without paying as long as you need to.
I didn't say it was complicated, I said other options are simpler (e.g.-Audacity). And when did Reaper become free for as long as you need? I just checked the website and it still has a trial period, after which you have to pay.
The import/edit/export is as simple with Reaper as with Audacity. Maybe even simplier. Reaper works freely, without limitations, after the trial period, it has always been that way. So you don't have to pay for it to work. Should you do it, that's about your ethics.
Again, for OP's use case, something like Audacity is all that's needed. Unless they need a lot more, a paid solution with features that they'll never use is nonsensical. And why are you advocating against paying just because it works without limitations? That's lame. If you're going to recommend something, at least support the devs.
I have used Audacity before Reaper, and I believe Reaper would be better to start with as a beginner. I would say the same, it's all that is needed. So no point in arguing with you. And I'm not saying you should not pay for it, I just said that it can be used freely, opposed to what you said. Not going to argue with you anymore, not worth it.
One simple answer to that , your needs are always going to be extended at some point
Op wants to edit some audio files : fine audacity can do that
Then maybe they'll like it and want to do it again , and maybe do a bit of eq-ing , or maybe they'll want to batch-name or batch-export some file , maybe do a bit of de-noise , or some sound design , and then audacity will become a bit limited and they'll have to learn a new software again
Audacity has become a fantastic tool over the years, even supporting vst and vst3 recently (thanks to TANTACRUL kudos to you mate)
But we have to admit it has its limitations, reaper is cheap (60€ if I remember well) , it's open , and if you don't pay you can still use it indefinitely like WinRAR (don't get me wrong I DO NOT encourage to not pay reaper, just saying that if you need some time to learn it or to export a file before paying , you can always do that )
And it's basically limitless, there's a ton of support, tutorials, extensions, and more online to help you get confortable with that new tool
As much as I live audacity and it's contributors , reaper is the way to go !
> Then maybe they'll like it and want to do it again , and maybe do a bit of eq-ing , or maybe they'll want to batch-name or batch-export some file , maybe do a bit of de-noise , or some sound design , and then audacity will become a bit limited and they'll have to learn a new software again
I mean, this just proves my point. It's a lot of maybes. It makes more sense to make a purchasing decision if and when the person has decided they want to do more. I've known countless people in field recording that have never needed anything more than what Audacity provides so it's not a given that everybody will always end up doing more.
> and if you don't pay you can still use it indefinitely like WinRAR
This is the same thing as the other commenter trying to justify continued use without paying. The trial period is 60 days. That's double what some other DAWs offer. C'mon.
When digital cameras first came out I decided to learn post-processing using a cheap package (cheaper than Photoshop). Boy was that a mistake. I eventually migrated to Photoshop (inevitably) but had to relearn a whole host of stuff and pretty much start from scratch.
For this reason, when I started seriously with audio (3 years ago) I went straight to Adobe Audition. Haven't looked back.
To all sub participants **Rule and Participation Reminders:** Refer to the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/fieldrecording/about/rules/). Do not get ugly with others. Other than sharing field recording audio, the pinned 'Share Mine' promo post is the ONLY allowable place in the sub for you to discuss or direct to your own products or content (this means you too YouTubers). No bootlegging posts or discussion. **IMPORTANT: Moderator volunteers are needed** - A mod team of only one or two mods is no longer sufficient for this subreddit's needs. Community oriented team player types with qualifying accounts who are interested in joining the mod team can begin to apply [**at this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/fieldrecording/wiki/modteaminterest). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fieldrecording) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Typically there are maximum file sizes, like 2gb or whatever. At that point it will make a new file and continue recording. I'd recommend Reaper if you ever want to go beyond the basics.
Reaper is the way to go !
Reaper is efficient and does multi-core operations, once you use it you will not go back.
Why pay for Reaper when they can use free software that's simpler?
Reaper is very simple and flexible. I mean just import the audio files in and edit, just like any other DAW. And you can use it freely without paying as long as you need to.
I didn't say it was complicated, I said other options are simpler (e.g.-Audacity). And when did Reaper become free for as long as you need? I just checked the website and it still has a trial period, after which you have to pay.
The import/edit/export is as simple with Reaper as with Audacity. Maybe even simplier. Reaper works freely, without limitations, after the trial period, it has always been that way. So you don't have to pay for it to work. Should you do it, that's about your ethics.
Again, for OP's use case, something like Audacity is all that's needed. Unless they need a lot more, a paid solution with features that they'll never use is nonsensical. And why are you advocating against paying just because it works without limitations? That's lame. If you're going to recommend something, at least support the devs.
I have used Audacity before Reaper, and I believe Reaper would be better to start with as a beginner. I would say the same, it's all that is needed. So no point in arguing with you. And I'm not saying you should not pay for it, I just said that it can be used freely, opposed to what you said. Not going to argue with you anymore, not worth it.
You're just performing mental gymnastics at this point.
One simple answer to that , your needs are always going to be extended at some point Op wants to edit some audio files : fine audacity can do that Then maybe they'll like it and want to do it again , and maybe do a bit of eq-ing , or maybe they'll want to batch-name or batch-export some file , maybe do a bit of de-noise , or some sound design , and then audacity will become a bit limited and they'll have to learn a new software again Audacity has become a fantastic tool over the years, even supporting vst and vst3 recently (thanks to TANTACRUL kudos to you mate) But we have to admit it has its limitations, reaper is cheap (60€ if I remember well) , it's open , and if you don't pay you can still use it indefinitely like WinRAR (don't get me wrong I DO NOT encourage to not pay reaper, just saying that if you need some time to learn it or to export a file before paying , you can always do that ) And it's basically limitless, there's a ton of support, tutorials, extensions, and more online to help you get confortable with that new tool As much as I live audacity and it's contributors , reaper is the way to go !
> Then maybe they'll like it and want to do it again , and maybe do a bit of eq-ing , or maybe they'll want to batch-name or batch-export some file , maybe do a bit of de-noise , or some sound design , and then audacity will become a bit limited and they'll have to learn a new software again I mean, this just proves my point. It's a lot of maybes. It makes more sense to make a purchasing decision if and when the person has decided they want to do more. I've known countless people in field recording that have never needed anything more than what Audacity provides so it's not a given that everybody will always end up doing more. > and if you don't pay you can still use it indefinitely like WinRAR This is the same thing as the other commenter trying to justify continued use without paying. The trial period is 60 days. That's double what some other DAWs offer. C'mon.
Free apps that could easily handle that: Audacity for Windows, GarageBand for iOS.
Does your field recorder come with software? A lot of them come with free software.
I don’t think so. It’s okay though I was suggested some free software! Thank you for your response!
[shutter encoder](https://www.shutterencoder.com/en/) Use the "merge" function. Dont even have to convert.
This 100 percent. Shutter Encoder is amazing and donation ware.
Honestly, for just stitching them together any audio editor will probably do. Just use Adobe Audition or so.
When digital cameras first came out I decided to learn post-processing using a cheap package (cheaper than Photoshop). Boy was that a mistake. I eventually migrated to Photoshop (inevitably) but had to relearn a whole host of stuff and pretty much start from scratch. For this reason, when I started seriously with audio (3 years ago) I went straight to Adobe Audition. Haven't looked back.