"David White" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the most
valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp. One has to be a
little patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the
effects of adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do more
experiments to be sure.

These sorts of effects are most quickly and accurately measured using
multitones.

I also don't know what sort of smoothing between frequency bands they
each use, if any.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or
formal interfacing between the two different products, it appears
to me that having both functions in the same program is a
significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line
to directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or
any editor of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo
suite.

In Audition, when you click on a file in a view, you don't open the
file in the other view and you don't open a copy. You aren't
restricted to clicking on events, either, The file is already open
in the other view and you go to the same place in the file that you
clicked in the current view.

Can you float the window or open multiple copies?

Nope. Never ever saw the need for such a thing. But it might be useful.
However it could be confusing and/or difficult to implement because
multitrack view is non-destructive but dependent on the virtual working copy
of the file, while edit view is destructive to the virtual working copy of
the file.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you
click into the other view.

Wow.

It's a feature that has considerable use in multitrack editing.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or
formal interfacing between the two different products, it appears
to me that having both functions in the same program is a
significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line
to directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or
any editor of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo
suite.

In Audition, when you click on a file in a view, you don't open the
file in the other view and you don't open a copy. You aren't
restricted to clicking on events, either, The file is already open
in the other view and you go to the same place in the file that you
clicked in the current view.

Can you float the window or open multiple copies?

Nope. Never ever saw the need for such a thing. But it might be useful.
However it could be confusing and/or difficult to implement because
multitrack view is non-destructive but dependent on the virtual working copy
of the file, while edit view is destructive to the virtual working copy of
the file.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you
click into the other view.

Wow.

It's a feature that has considerable use in multitrack editing.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or
formal interfacing between the two different products, it appears
to me that having both functions in the same program is a
significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line
to directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or
any editor of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo
suite.

In Audition, when you click on a file in a view, you don't open the
file in the other view and you don't open a copy. You aren't
restricted to clicking on events, either, The file is already open
in the other view and you go to the same place in the file that you
clicked in the current view.

Can you float the window or open multiple copies?

Nope. Never ever saw the need for such a thing. But it might be useful.
However it could be confusing and/or difficult to implement because
multitrack view is non-destructive but dependent on the virtual working copy
of the file, while edit view is destructive to the virtual working copy of
the file.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you
click into the other view.

Wow.

It's a feature that has considerable use in multitrack editing.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or
formal interfacing between the two different products, it appears
to me that having both functions in the same program is a
significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line
to directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or
any editor of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo
suite.

In Audition, when you click on a file in a view, you don't open the
file in the other view and you don't open a copy. You aren't
restricted to clicking on events, either, The file is already open
in the other view and you go to the same place in the file that you
clicked in the current view.

Can you float the window or open multiple copies?

Nope. Never ever saw the need for such a thing. But it might be useful.
However it could be confusing and/or difficult to implement because
multitrack view is non-destructive but dependent on the virtual working copy
of the file, while edit view is destructive to the virtual working copy of
the file.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you
click into the other view.

Wow.

It's a feature that has considerable use in multitrack editing.

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

It comes with practice. Here are some practical things you can do
to optimize your signal and "learn" your ears : Watch your signal
in a real time FFT application -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the
most valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp.

I wouldn't think Winamp is the ideal choice of software for this
sort of thing.

Oh come on now, what's "ideal"?

God, I don't know. How about a turd in a plastic tube?

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Do they really? Perhaps in your world.

OK, so my world moves at a higher clock speed than yours, Dormer. I
can live with that!

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

I know of several examples. Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it
in hardware digital equalizers as well.

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

It comes with practice. Here are some practical things you can do
to optimize your signal and "learn" your ears : Watch your signal
in a real time FFT application -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the
most valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp.

I wouldn't think Winamp is the ideal choice of software for this
sort of thing.

Oh come on now, what's "ideal"?

God, I don't know. How about a turd in a plastic tube?

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Do they really? Perhaps in your world.

OK, so my world moves at a higher clock speed than yours, Dormer. I
can live with that!

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

I know of several examples. Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it
in hardware digital equalizers as well.

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

It comes with practice. Here are some practical things you can do
to optimize your signal and "learn" your ears : Watch your signal
in a real time FFT application -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the
most valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp.

I wouldn't think Winamp is the ideal choice of software for this
sort of thing.

Oh come on now, what's "ideal"?

God, I don't know. How about a turd in a plastic tube?

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Do they really? Perhaps in your world.

OK, so my world moves at a higher clock speed than yours, Dormer. I
can live with that!

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

I know of several examples. Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it
in hardware digital equalizers as well.

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

It comes with practice. Here are some practical things you can do
to optimize your signal and "learn" your ears : Watch your signal
in a real time FFT application -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the
most valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp.

I wouldn't think Winamp is the ideal choice of software for this
sort of thing.

Oh come on now, what's "ideal"?

God, I don't know. How about a turd in a plastic tube?

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Do they really? Perhaps in your world.

OK, so my world moves at a higher clock speed than yours, Dormer. I
can live with that!

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

I know of several examples. Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it
in hardware digital equalizers as well.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a
bit of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the
name 'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio
multitracking environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

How about ProTools vs Audition?

You have my permission to write and post a detailed comparison at
your earliest convenience.

Thanks!

I'm asking your opinion as to whether you think ProTools is roughly
comparable to Audition, in the same way you think Vegas is roughly
comparable to Audition.

I' ve only studied Pro Tools in a very cursory fashion. I recognize a lot
that seems to be pretty familiar. It seems to have more flash, bells, and
whistles but much of the same functionality.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a
bit of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the
name 'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio
multitracking environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

How about ProTools vs Audition?

You have my permission to write and post a detailed comparison at
your earliest convenience.

Thanks!

I'm asking your opinion as to whether you think ProTools is roughly
comparable to Audition, in the same way you think Vegas is roughly
comparable to Audition.

I' ve only studied Pro Tools in a very cursory fashion. I recognize a lot
that seems to be pretty familiar. It seems to have more flash, bells, and
whistles but much of the same functionality.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a
bit of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the
name 'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio
multitracking environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

How about ProTools vs Audition?

You have my permission to write and post a detailed comparison at
your earliest convenience.

Thanks!

I'm asking your opinion as to whether you think ProTools is roughly
comparable to Audition, in the same way you think Vegas is roughly
comparable to Audition.

I' ve only studied Pro Tools in a very cursory fashion. I recognize a lot
that seems to be pretty familiar. It seems to have more flash, bells, and
whistles but much of the same functionality.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a
bit of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the
name 'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio
multitracking environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

How about ProTools vs Audition?

You have my permission to write and post a detailed comparison at
your earliest convenience.

Thanks!

I'm asking your opinion as to whether you think ProTools is roughly
comparable to Audition, in the same way you think Vegas is roughly
comparable to Audition.

I' ve only studied Pro Tools in a very cursory fashion. I recognize a lot
that seems to be pretty familiar. It seems to have more flash, bells, and
whistles but much of the same functionality.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a
band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the
range allowed.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because
they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.

David

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a
band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the
range allowed.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because
they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.

David

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a
band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the
range allowed.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because
they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.

David

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a
band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the
range allowed.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because
they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to
take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the
latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

Bull****.

Try some other software, David.

Well, the Winamp delay doesn't cause much of a problem. I have to listen for
a few seconds at least anyway to guess what change to make next.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to
take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the
latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

Bull****.

Try some other software, David.

Well, the Winamp delay doesn't cause much of a problem. I have to listen for
a few seconds at least anyway to guess what change to make next.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to
take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the
latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

Bull****.

Try some other software, David.

Well, the Winamp delay doesn't cause much of a problem. I have to listen for
a few seconds at least anyway to guess what change to make next.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to
take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the
latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

Bull****.

Try some other software, David.

Well, the Winamp delay doesn't cause much of a problem. I have to listen for
a few seconds at least anyway to guess what change to make next.

David

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:


Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to delve into Google and the web to
bolster my point of view. I have other things to do...


Unlike Arny, you must have a real job.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:


Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to delve into Google and the web to
bolster my point of view. I have other things to do...


Unlike Arny, you must have a real job.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:


Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to delve into Google and the web to
bolster my point of view. I have other things to do...


Unlike Arny, you must have a real job.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:


Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to delve into Google and the web to
bolster my point of view. I have other things to do...


Unlike Arny, you must have a real job.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audition recently added whole category of functionality that I didn't
see in the SF blurbs at all, related to sampling and looping. This
was the means by which CE subsumed the MIDI features of sequencing
programs like Cakewalk.


HA HA AH - Just tried to find Audition on the Abode website. Know where it
is ? Try looking under Digital Video" !

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audition recently added whole category of functionality that I didn't
see in the SF blurbs at all, related to sampling and looping. This
was the means by which CE subsumed the MIDI features of sequencing
programs like Cakewalk.


HA HA AH - Just tried to find Audition on the Abode website. Know where it
is ? Try looking under Digital Video" !

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audition recently added whole category of functionality that I didn't
see in the SF blurbs at all, related to sampling and looping. This
was the means by which CE subsumed the MIDI features of sequencing
programs like Cakewalk.


HA HA AH - Just tried to find Audition on the Abode website. Know where it
is ? Try looking under Digital Video" !

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audition recently added whole category of functionality that I didn't
see in the SF blurbs at all, related to sampling and looping. This
was the means by which CE subsumed the MIDI features of sequencing
programs like Cakewalk.


HA HA AH - Just tried to find Audition on the Abode website. Know where it
is ? Try looking under Digital Video" !

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit that the
user has to interact with....


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit that the
user has to interact with....


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit that the
user has to interact with....


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit that the
user has to interact with....


geoff

The Artist wrote:


What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

Thats 'Near-Real-time'

geoff

The Artist wrote:


What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

Thats 'Near-Real-time'

geoff

The Artist wrote:


What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

Thats 'Near-Real-time'

geoff

The Artist wrote:


What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

Thats 'Near-Real-time'

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit
that the user has to interact with....

As a general rule, no UI in a competitive commercial product is THAT bad.
For example in the old days there was a lot of ranting and raving about the
UIs in MS Word and WordPerfect. On balance, they were both effective and
eventually they evolved to being almost indistinguishable from each other,
except to advanced users.

At this point we know quite well what the basic canonical functions and
features of an audio editor are. AFAIK none of the competitive products fail
to provide them. They form the backbone of the process of getting the job
done. Once you learn one of them, your learning curve for the next one is
considerably foreshortened, unless you are really inflexible. Some people
are really inflexible and go through life defeating themselves this way.

Contemplating the project I did last week, I strongly suspect that if
CE/Audition ceased to exist I could complete it with several of the
competitive products in only a little more time the first time, and
probably in about the same amount of time after a few go-arounds. Even true
given the near-total lack of integration we now know exists in some
competitive suites such as SF+Vegas. I'd just figure out some
circumventions.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit
that the user has to interact with....

As a general rule, no UI in a competitive commercial product is THAT bad.
For example in the old days there was a lot of ranting and raving about the
UIs in MS Word and WordPerfect. On balance, they were both effective and
eventually they evolved to being almost indistinguishable from each other,
except to advanced users.

At this point we know quite well what the basic canonical functions and
features of an audio editor are. AFAIK none of the competitive products fail
to provide them. They form the backbone of the process of getting the job
done. Once you learn one of them, your learning curve for the next one is
considerably foreshortened, unless you are really inflexible. Some people
are really inflexible and go through life defeating themselves this way.

Contemplating the project I did last week, I strongly suspect that if
CE/Audition ceased to exist I could complete it with several of the
competitive products in only a little more time the first time, and
probably in about the same amount of time after a few go-arounds. Even true
given the near-total lack of integration we now know exists in some
competitive suites such as SF+Vegas. I'd just figure out some
circumventions.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit
that the user has to interact with....

As a general rule, no UI in a competitive commercial product is THAT bad.
For example in the old days there was a lot of ranting and raving about the
UIs in MS Word and WordPerfect. On balance, they were both effective and
eventually they evolved to being almost indistinguishable from each other,
except to advanced users.

At this point we know quite well what the basic canonical functions and
features of an audio editor are. AFAIK none of the competitive products fail
to provide them. They form the backbone of the process of getting the job
done. Once you learn one of them, your learning curve for the next one is
considerably foreshortened, unless you are really inflexible. Some people
are really inflexible and go through life defeating themselves this way.

Contemplating the project I did last week, I strongly suspect that if
CE/Audition ceased to exist I could complete it with several of the
competitive products in only a little more time the first time, and
probably in about the same amount of time after a few go-arounds. Even true
given the near-total lack of integration we now know exists in some
competitive suites such as SF+Vegas. I'd just figure out some
circumventions.