Are software like pro tools or adobe audition mainly for complex sounds(for film)?

[skaros23]

I'm talking about any kind of software for sound in general. I was just wondering if these kinds of software are best used when you are going to make sound for a film more complex and different. As opposed to basic every day sounds that don't need layers if other sounds to work.

This question might not make sense but thought I should ask anyway.

[Chief Technician]

Pro Tools, at its core, is a recording, editing, and mixing application; a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW). Companies have made synthesis plug-ins for it. If you are looking for the Pro Tools of synthesis, check out Symbolic Sound's Kyma

[audiobob]

Originally Posted by skaros23

As opposed to basic every day sounds that don't need layers if other sounds to work.

Audacity has only 1 (or 2) tracks and it's free. Maybe that's the simplicity you're looking for?

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Chief Technician

Pro Tools, at its core, is a recording, editing, and mixing application; a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW).

This raises a question: given what PT does is there still a need for programs like Steinberg Wavelab or Adobe Audition? I know they are dedicated waveform editors/mastering/cd burning software but except for cd burning can't the rest of those functions be done in PT just as well? Nothing against purpose-built tools, just curious before I spend the money on either.

I ask because I have upcoming possibilities for needing to do extensive audio editing that doesn't include recording like I'd do in PT. Archival restoration - that sort of stuff. PT or purpose-built?

[Chief Technician]

Originally Posted by musicman691

Archival restoration - that sort of stuff. PT or purpose-built?

Audition might include iZotope Rx. If so, I would have a hard time arguing for the value of Pro Tools in your usage case.