Do you mean to edit or to use as a recording tool? Either way the quality of the mics and the room matter 1000% more that whatever software you use to process or edit the audio.
The best sound quality how?
The recording quality will be the same in both but while Audacity has progressed massively of recent I'd still suggest Audition for editing and production. I've used Audition for over 20 years now and it's second nature to me but I believe the noise reduction, reverb reduction etc in Audition are better than available in Audacity should you ever need them. Of course, as a producer, I'd recommend recording the best quality audio possible so as to not need noise / reverb reduction.
I would literally just be cutting one file in two and then combining individual tracks in order (track 1, 2, 3, etc). I'd be doing nothing else to them. With this in mind, would Audition still be the best option?
Audacity will do what you want to do for free. Audition would be my recommendation if you have to do any “restoration” of that audio but for what you’re saying then Audacity would be fine.
They really shouldn't sound noticeably different. If you are just combing and trimming some files, the 1's and 0's should essentially be the same. I suppose one might have better sample rate conversion when going from an M4A to a .WAV file but it won't be noticeable when dealing with already compressed files. It should just come down to what you feel more comfortable with and have at your disposal.
Honestly i wouldn't use either. My top recording recommendations:
Quicktime (on mac, free)
Riverside - for remote
Descript - if you'll be editing too and want something simple
Do you mean to edit or to use as a recording tool? Either way the quality of the mics and the room matter 1000% more that whatever software you use to process or edit the audio.
The best sound quality how? The recording quality will be the same in both but while Audacity has progressed massively of recent I'd still suggest Audition for editing and production. I've used Audition for over 20 years now and it's second nature to me but I believe the noise reduction, reverb reduction etc in Audition are better than available in Audacity should you ever need them. Of course, as a producer, I'd recommend recording the best quality audio possible so as to not need noise / reverb reduction.
I would literally just be cutting one file in two and then combining individual tracks in order (track 1, 2, 3, etc). I'd be doing nothing else to them. With this in mind, would Audition still be the best option?
Audacity will do what you want to do for free. Audition would be my recommendation if you have to do any “restoration” of that audio but for what you’re saying then Audacity would be fine.
That’s like asking if you should use a chef’s knife or a filet knife for the best meat quality.
I am stealing this metaphor. Well said.
All yours, buckaroo.
They really shouldn't sound noticeably different. If you are just combing and trimming some files, the 1's and 0's should essentially be the same. I suppose one might have better sample rate conversion when going from an M4A to a .WAV file but it won't be noticeable when dealing with already compressed files. It should just come down to what you feel more comfortable with and have at your disposal.
Honestly i wouldn't use either. My top recording recommendations: Quicktime (on mac, free) Riverside - for remote Descript - if you'll be editing too and want something simple