Show HN: Audiomass – a free, open-source multitrack audio editor for the web
130 points
9 hours ago
| 14 comments
| audiomass.co
| HN
sam1r
4 minutes ago
[-]
Significant props for accepting .flac files out of the bat. Incredible work.
reply
JKCalhoun
1 hour ago
[-]
So want something like this but where the tracks are in the cloud.

I want to "check out" someone's drum loop and add a guitar riff. Check it into a branch.

Someone else checks out the drum+guitar, adds a bass line. Checks in.

"Jamming" with other people is one of the most fun things. To the degree that you can "get close" on the web…

RiffHub, anyone?

reply
16bitvoid
13 minutes ago
[-]
Bandlab Studio, maybe? Never used it, but might be what you're looking for. There's a web version and a mobile app.

https://www.bandlab.com/creation-features

reply
someguyiguess
27 minutes ago
[-]
Yes. I’ve wanted something like this for a while. I’ve always wondered why there isn’t version control for DAWs. So many times I’ve spent hours editing a track and accidentally saved it without specifying a unique file name. Only to open it later and wish I could go back to before the changes that fucked it up.
reply
sporkl
1 hour ago
[-]
I think that's what Soloist[1] is trying to do (unaffiliated, but I've met the founder)

[1]: https://www.soloistapp.com/

reply
someguyiguess
29 minutes ago
[-]
That doesn’t look similar at all. That looks like an app for making loops on your phone.
reply
serious_angel
2 hours ago
[-]

    It seems like the inspiration went from Audacity, and with great changes to the design and feel of calmness and solidity!  
    I've tried loading a file with XM format, yet the current state of the import logic stated "Unsupported". Is there any chance you'll support the format?  

    For example, the following artwork is radiating charmingly in VLC:  
    - https://cable.ayra.ch/modplayer/mods/!Others/DYNAMITE_-_Winamp_5.0RC8_crk.xm

    And, thank you! very much for the experiments, effort, miracles... art you do...
reply
pantelisk
2 hours ago
[-]
Thank you :) I 'll look into it, I am a little cautious of bloating up the filesize (right now it's at 98kb of js and 10kb of css), but if I can make something work efficiently I 'll give it a go.

On an unrelated note, I'm a little surprised there is no good open source web audio tracker (like Renoise but for the web) out there yet...

reply
dspillett
1 hour ago
[-]
For that much functionality 98kb is hardly bloated at all by modern standards, impressively slight in fact, it could probably cope with some more.

Unless part of your fun is keeping it so very trim, of course!

reply
pantelisk
46 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, it's part of the fun. Original version was 65kb (with just the single editor mode and all the filters, mp3/wav export etc). But then having to add flac codec, tempo estimators and finally the multitrack mode, made it closer to 100.

When I started developing I was a little frustrated with how bloated the web felt back then so I took that direction, it's much better today though and it's no longer an issue, but I still find it fun to impose these constraints and try to work within or around them (there's this fascinating concept of constrained creativity)

reply
jamwise
14 minutes ago
[-]
I appreciate the attention to efficiency and avoiding bloat. As a frequent audacity user I'm thinking I might end up using this for a lot of simpler tasks.

That said the web offers such great techniques to maintain this. Passive loading of plugins for example could keep things snappy and light and load things when you need them.

If you want the perspective of a prospective long term user: I'd be very comfortable using your app even at tens of megabytes. You could probably keep your initial load pretty light but pull in larger modules as needed. There are certain effects and audio layering I often use in Audacity that would keep me there, but your modern interface and browser access are huge selling points. If your vision includes moving to a bigger editor I guarantee you you'll find a huge base who wouldn't even notice megabytes of code.

reply
sgallant
2 hours ago
[-]
This is great. I need to do audio work this coming week and was dreading Audacity.
reply
timc3
1 hour ago
[-]
Try Ocenaudio - I’ve used pretty much every audio editor free and paid for and this is my go to for a free editor.

I also cannot understand why anyone would recommend Audacity.

reply
hootz
5 minutes ago
[-]
Ocenaudio is closed source, that may be one of the reasons someone might recommend Audacity over it.
reply
Kaliboy
1 hour ago
[-]
Have you tried Ardour? It's like a superset of Audacity.
reply
throawayonthe
2 hours ago
[-]
when have you last tried audacity? it's been getting friendlier
reply
amelius
2 hours ago
[-]
How much work would it be to compile Audacity for the web?

(I'm a bit behind on web technologies nowadays)

reply
patwie
1 hour ago
[-]
Has been done https://wavacity.com/
reply
Forgeties79
1 hour ago
[-]
Agreed but it’s still not a proper DAW and suffers from those limitations. It gets very rickety when you go beyond a basic stereo mix.
reply
algoth1
2 hours ago
[-]
Getting the 2002 Cool Edit Pro 2.0 vibes!
reply
vandyswa
1 hour ago
[-]
What's a waveform box and how does one select it?
reply
pantelisk
1 hour ago
[-]
It's the audio track in a channel. A channel is the horizontal strip, a waveform box is a piece of audio somewhere across that strip. You can double click on one to enter single editor mode, or single click to make it active (once it's active you can drag it around, apply effects to it, move it on a different channel etc etc).

Sorry still working on improving the UX :)

EDIT: There's a short video here - https://x.com/pkalogiros/status/2053492761350046032

reply
ZeWaka
1 hour ago
[-]
Not sure why you remove the tooltips from deactivated buttons
reply
genericacct
2 hours ago
[-]
Very nice. One feature id like to see is import of stem bundles as produced by various tools like suno or stemsplitter
reply
ugh123
2 hours ago
[-]
Is there midi support and vst support? I know that's asking for a lot =)
reply
m0nit0r
2 hours ago
[-]
Looks promisimg. Must try the next days.
reply
argimenes
2 hours ago
[-]
Makes me think of Quatermass ...
reply
HuzaifaYasin
8 hours ago
[-]
How can we add more tracks. is there a limit?
reply
pantelisk
8 hours ago
[-]
There is a little [ + ] button next to CHANNELS in the sidebar, it has no limit but right now so add as many as you like :)

It's using dom to render the multitrack waveform boxes currently so I would assume after a certain point it might start to slow down a bit. In the future might switch it all to be webgpu based to avoid such limits.

reply
macwhisperer
6 hours ago
[-]
this is cool thanks for making it!
reply
yesbut
2 hours ago
[-]
what is the theoretical file size / project size limit? what happens when the browser crashes?
reply
pantelisk
1 hour ago
[-]
I usually use it to edit audio tracks quickly up to 10 minutes long, though I have received nice emails from people who have used for 1hr+ podcasts successfully (though certain heavy operations wouldn't be very fun to use).

For multitrack sessions, there is the ability to export to a .amss file that contains all the settings, markers, tracks etc. For single track edit... it would just crash right now. There is already a feature for caching audio tracks in indexeddb (it's under >File), but honestly it's not a web api I have found to be super reliable. I don't blame the browser developers, because I 'm sure if it was more reliable certain websites would put it to use storing gigabytes of trackers on the user's machine :). For this reason, I haven't made it auto-save the session automatically yet, trying to be a good citizen on the user's computer, maybe that will change in the future if there's a strong need for it.

Also, right now there is no backend, once it loads there are no more requests made to the server, so it's bound to frontend limitations. This is by design, I want it to be an app that respects users, doesn't upload or leak information, no ads, etc, even if it means getting a small hit in functionality in other areas.

I think of it like photopea/pixlr are to photoshop. Quick and easy to use, get you at 90% of the way. If somebody wants to do a serious operation, then by all means go for a paid desktop pro-daw solution :)

edit: reason

reply