I'd argue that outside of midi/sequencing support (where Audition is just terrible), it's just as good at anything else when it comes to recording and mixing multi-track audio. It's all preference at that point. There is a decent amount of software these days that is more than capable of turning out a high-quality product as long as the person operating it knows a few things and isn't deaf. I'd also argue Auditions spectral tools are better than almost anything else.
Yes, if you have decent hardware going in. An 8 channel mixer going into a soundcard seems like it would be useful only for mono or stereo two-track, rather than actual 8 track multi-track. You could record into the software one track at a time and built a multi-track performance that way, but you really wouldn't be able to record a band or even use multiple mics on an acoustic guitar (and run them to individual tracks). The software itself is decent, but it's still something that most people get as entry-level software... I'm not dissing it because of that, as I have it myself, but I also wouldn't be criticizing someone for using Audacity either. As a side note, you're 100 percent correct about the person operating it knowing a few things. That is absolutely the key, no matter what software they're using. The opposite is also true. I've seen a lot of people who didn't really know much, and they all seemed to be using similar programs and achieving horrible results using the basic default settings on all the effects and functions.
PCs generally are not as stable as Macs for pro-level production...
Ehhhh. I think this is mostly bullshit at this point. Old silly arguments die hard, I guess. Nobody is using Windows 95 any more. The endless Mac vs. PC debate is not worth the time. Use what you want. Results are all that matters.
Probably so. I guess it depends what you're running. I'm not a Mac fan either but if I ran Pro Tools, I would probably go with a Mac as I've seen Windows encounter too many errors on even recent operating systems, and I'm not too sure the bugs have been worked out of the new one yet. I agree, it's all about results. We each have our own preferences at how we can most effectively and efficiently reach those results, as you said.
Audition has a lot of other nice features as well, but I don't really use them as I prefer doing more detailed work using other software.
And that's a preference. At the end of the day, many many programs can open various audio files/formats, and let you edit them, analyze them, mix them together, and/or apply various effects.
Yes, you're right. Audacity serves its purpose in that respect. My point was it's not a whole lot lower on the totem pole than Audition in terms of its target audience (consumer vs. pro), but someone who knows what they're doing could get "pro" results from either one. But someone who knew what they were doing would probably have a broader range of options available if needed as well, in order to make a more educated choice. All in all, I can agree with your points. My point was that Audacity works fine for looking at a track's volume level, and it offers a lot of the basic functions that Audition offers.
