"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You've made my point. Vegas is primarily video editing software that
oh, by the way does multitrack audio. But, this is a discussion about
audio editors. Because SF lacks any abilities to do multitrack audio
recording and editing, Sony forces their clients to use an
application that primarily edits video, in order to work

Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant in
Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

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". No way are Vegas Audio and Audition Multitrack
THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.

As is Audition.

Case in point, compare
http://www.soniccontrol.com/images/p...egasaudio2.JPG

to http://www.adobe.com/products/auditi...dition_nph.pdf page 4.

Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called Cool
Edit a "Toy".

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=lK...s02.tsnz. net

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit "seriously"

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that I can't
reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply, but you've got a
far better track record for reasonable responses. For example in a number of
other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like they were peers.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do multitrack
recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day doing
what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave editing, and
on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for multitracking. Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no sense in
claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition is necessarily a
poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any relevant facts, there's no
sense in arguing that just because Audition has a powerful wave editor, it
can't multitrack as well as Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition roughly
matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas for
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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features in the
same program provides Audition with significant amounts of synergy. You can
record, play and edit the same file(s) in either view by just clicking.
Timing and positioning automatically transfer between the two views.
Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with Audition when
it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998, CEP had almost all of
the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio file editing power it has
today. At that time SF was far more limited in terms of functions, sample
rates and sample types that it could handle. SF still can't come within an
order of magnitude of Audition when it comes to sample rate support.
Looking through the feature list for the current release of SF, I see that
it was still playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and vice-versa)
but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do multitrack
recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day doing
what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave editing, and
on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for multitracking. Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no sense in
claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition is necessarily a
poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any relevant facts, there's no
sense in arguing that just because Audition has a powerful wave editor, it
can't multitrack as well as Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition roughly
matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas for
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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features in the
same program provides Audition with significant amounts of synergy. You can
record, play and edit the same file(s) in either view by just clicking.
Timing and positioning automatically transfer between the two views.
Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with Audition when
it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998, CEP had almost all of
the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio file editing power it has
today. At that time SF was far more limited in terms of functions, sample
rates and sample types that it could handle. SF still can't come within an
order of magnitude of Audition when it comes to sample rate support.
Looking through the feature list for the current release of SF, I see that
it was still playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and vice-versa)
but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do multitrack
recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day doing
what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave editing, and
on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for multitracking. Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no sense in
claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition is necessarily a
poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any relevant facts, there's no
sense in arguing that just because Audition has a powerful wave editor, it
can't multitrack as well as Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition roughly
matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas for
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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features in the
same program provides Audition with significant amounts of synergy. You can
record, play and edit the same file(s) in either view by just clicking.
Timing and positioning automatically transfer between the two views.
Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with Audition when
it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998, CEP had almost all of
the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio file editing power it has
today. At that time SF was far more limited in terms of functions, sample
rates and sample types that it could handle. SF still can't come within an
order of magnitude of Audition when it comes to sample rate support.
Looking through the feature list for the current release of SF, I see that
it was still playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and vice-versa)
but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do multitrack
recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day doing
what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave editing, and
on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for multitracking. Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no sense in
claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition is necessarily a
poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any relevant facts, there's no
sense in arguing that just because Audition has a powerful wave editor, it
can't multitrack as well as Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition roughly
matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas for
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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features in the
same program provides Audition with significant amounts of synergy. You can
record, play and edit the same file(s) in either view by just clicking.
Timing and positioning automatically transfer between the two views.
Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with Audition when
it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998, CEP had almost all of
the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio file editing power it has
today. At that time SF was far more limited in terms of functions, sample
rates and sample types that it could handle. SF still can't come within an
order of magnitude of Audition when it comes to sample rate support.
Looking through the feature list for the current release of SF, I see that
it was still playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and vice-versa)
but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

No, just no great ones.

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant
in Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

Vegas Audio no lnger exists since several version. How about 'totally
intuitive faster and ppowerful user interface'.

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". No way are Vegas Audio and
Audition Multitrack THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Well they are.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.
As is Audition.


Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called
Cool Edit a "Toy".

No. I said in 'seemed like a toy in comparison". Overall design, look,
uase, and feel. I agree that it performs editing satisfactorally.

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit
"seriously"

No. I have an editing app that suits me fine. CE did nothing to inspire me
to change.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that
I can't reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply,
but you've got a far better track record for reasonable responses.
For example in a number of other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like
they were peers.

They are. I happen to think that my preference of SF and vegas suites me
better. If you prefer CE/Audition fine, but don't slam other products
because their feature and architecture set is different on a philsophical
basis (ie very intentionally *not* totally integrated).

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...

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

No, just no great ones.

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant
in Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

Vegas Audio no lnger exists since several version. How about 'totally
intuitive faster and ppowerful user interface'.

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". No way are Vegas Audio and
Audition Multitrack THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Well they are.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.
As is Audition.


Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called
Cool Edit a "Toy".

No. I said in 'seemed like a toy in comparison". Overall design, look,
uase, and feel. I agree that it performs editing satisfactorally.

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit
"seriously"

No. I have an editing app that suits me fine. CE did nothing to inspire me
to change.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that
I can't reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply,
but you've got a far better track record for reasonable responses.
For example in a number of other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like
they were peers.

They are. I happen to think that my preference of SF and vegas suites me
better. If you prefer CE/Audition fine, but don't slam other products
because their feature and architecture set is different on a philsophical
basis (ie very intentionally *not* totally integrated).

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...

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

No, just no great ones.

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant
in Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

Vegas Audio no lnger exists since several version. How about 'totally
intuitive faster and ppowerful user interface'.

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". No way are Vegas Audio and
Audition Multitrack THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Well they are.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.
As is Audition.


Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called
Cool Edit a "Toy".

No. I said in 'seemed like a toy in comparison". Overall design, look,
uase, and feel. I agree that it performs editing satisfactorally.

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit
"seriously"

No. I have an editing app that suits me fine. CE did nothing to inspire me
to change.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that
I can't reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply,
but you've got a far better track record for reasonable responses.
For example in a number of other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like
they were peers.

They are. I happen to think that my preference of SF and vegas suites me
better. If you prefer CE/Audition fine, but don't slam other products
because their feature and architecture set is different on a philsophical
basis (ie very intentionally *not* totally integrated).

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...

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

No, just no great ones.

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant
in Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

Vegas Audio no lnger exists since several version. How about 'totally
intuitive faster and ppowerful user interface'.

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". No way are Vegas Audio and
Audition Multitrack THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Well they are.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.
As is Audition.


Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called
Cool Edit a "Toy".

No. I said in 'seemed like a toy in comparison". Overall design, look,
uase, and feel. I agree that it performs editing satisfactorally.

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit
"seriously"

No. I have an editing app that suits me fine. CE did nothing to inspire me
to change.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that
I can't reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply,
but you've got a far better track record for reasonable responses.
For example in a number of other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like
they were peers.

They are. I happen to think that my preference of SF and vegas suites me
better. If you prefer CE/Audition fine, but don't slam other products
because their feature and architecture set is different on a philsophical
basis (ie very intentionally *not* totally integrated).

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...

geoff

"Arny Krueger"

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.

Maybe you should look at a more responsive audio appication ?!!

;-)

geoff

"Arny Krueger"

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.

Maybe you should look at a more responsive audio appication ?!!

;-)

geoff

"Arny Krueger"

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.

Maybe you should look at a more responsive audio appication ?!!

;-)

geoff

"Arny Krueger"

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.

Maybe you should look at a more responsive audio appication ?!!

;-)

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:


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. Sounds pretty
formal and interfacing to me.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear from
what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo products.


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:


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. Sounds pretty
formal and interfacing to me.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear from
what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo products.


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:


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. Sounds pretty
formal and interfacing to me.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear from
what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo products.


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:


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. Sounds pretty
formal and interfacing to me.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear from
what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo products.


geoff

"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. I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do
more experiments to be sure. I also don't know what sort of smoothing
between frequency bands they each use, if any.

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

David

"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. I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do
more experiments to be sure. I also don't know what sort of smoothing
between frequency bands they each use, if any.

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

David

"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. I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do
more experiments to be sure. I also don't know what sort of smoothing
between frequency bands they each use, if any.

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

David

"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. I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do
more experiments to be sure. I also don't know what sort of smoothing
between frequency bands they each use, if any.

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

David

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you click into
the other view. If you change the working copy of a file in edit view, it's
instantly changed in multitrack view because it's the same file. The inverse
isn't true, because editing in the multitrack view is non-destructive so
there are no consequences to the file in edit view.

The non-destructive tools in multitrack view work the same as the tools that
you use in edit view because it's all the same program. When you do a
mixdown in multitrack view, the cue, track and index marks from the
multitrack view show up in the mixdown file. You can add or delete marks at
this point, as needed, prior to burning.

Sounds pretty formal and interfacing to me.

It's almost no interface at all, as compared to the tight interfacing in
Audition.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear
from what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo
products.

I had SF 4.5 + CD Architect. While the editing commands were similar to CEP
as far as they went, at the time SF was woefully backward compared to CEP.
It lacked a lot of effects that I needed. As I said before its major
weaknesses at the time included no support for sample rates 48 KHz, and no
support for 16 bits. That's been fixed in SF but it took years and years.
I had work on the table with 24 bits 96 KHz and higher sampling and
multitracking. SF had no multitrack support at all, and never will. SF
still can't handle files sampled 192 KHz while Audition tops out at 10
MHz.

OK, CE is like a Swiss Army knife, but all the cutting blades are very
sharp, and the rest of the tools work as well as many stand-alone
equivalents. Indeed some Audition features like the dithering tools.
arguably work better than most special-purpose programs.

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.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you click into
the other view. If you change the working copy of a file in edit view, it's
instantly changed in multitrack view because it's the same file. The inverse
isn't true, because editing in the multitrack view is non-destructive so
there are no consequences to the file in edit view.

The non-destructive tools in multitrack view work the same as the tools that
you use in edit view because it's all the same program. When you do a
mixdown in multitrack view, the cue, track and index marks from the
multitrack view show up in the mixdown file. You can add or delete marks at
this point, as needed, prior to burning.

Sounds pretty formal and interfacing to me.

It's almost no interface at all, as compared to the tight interfacing in
Audition.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear
from what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo
products.

I had SF 4.5 + CD Architect. While the editing commands were similar to CEP
as far as they went, at the time SF was woefully backward compared to CEP.
It lacked a lot of effects that I needed. As I said before its major
weaknesses at the time included no support for sample rates 48 KHz, and no
support for 16 bits. That's been fixed in SF but it took years and years.
I had work on the table with 24 bits 96 KHz and higher sampling and
multitracking. SF had no multitrack support at all, and never will. SF
still can't handle files sampled 192 KHz while Audition tops out at 10
MHz.

OK, CE is like a Swiss Army knife, but all the cutting blades are very
sharp, and the rest of the tools work as well as many stand-alone
equivalents. Indeed some Audition features like the dithering tools.
arguably work better than most special-purpose programs.

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.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you click into
the other view. If you change the working copy of a file in edit view, it's
instantly changed in multitrack view because it's the same file. The inverse
isn't true, because editing in the multitrack view is non-destructive so
there are no consequences to the file in edit view.

The non-destructive tools in multitrack view work the same as the tools that
you use in edit view because it's all the same program. When you do a
mixdown in multitrack view, the cue, track and index marks from the
multitrack view show up in the mixdown file. You can add or delete marks at
this point, as needed, prior to burning.

Sounds pretty formal and interfacing to me.

It's almost no interface at all, as compared to the tight interfacing in
Audition.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear
from what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo
products.

I had SF 4.5 + CD Architect. While the editing commands were similar to CEP
as far as they went, at the time SF was woefully backward compared to CEP.
It lacked a lot of effects that I needed. As I said before its major
weaknesses at the time included no support for sample rates 48 KHz, and no
support for 16 bits. That's been fixed in SF but it took years and years.
I had work on the table with 24 bits 96 KHz and higher sampling and
multitracking. SF had no multitrack support at all, and never will. SF
still can't handle files sampled 192 KHz while Audition tops out at 10
MHz.

OK, CE is like a Swiss Army knife, but all the cutting blades are very
sharp, and the rest of the tools work as well as many stand-alone
equivalents. Indeed some Audition features like the dithering tools.
arguably work better than most special-purpose programs.

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.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you click into
the other view. If you change the working copy of a file in edit view, it's
instantly changed in multitrack view because it's the same file. The inverse
isn't true, because editing in the multitrack view is non-destructive so
there are no consequences to the file in edit view.

The non-destructive tools in multitrack view work the same as the tools that
you use in edit view because it's all the same program. When you do a
mixdown in multitrack view, the cue, track and index marks from the
multitrack view show up in the mixdown file. You can add or delete marks at
this point, as needed, prior to burning.

Sounds pretty formal and interfacing to me.

It's almost no interface at all, as compared to the tight interfacing in
Audition.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear
from what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo
products.

I had SF 4.5 + CD Architect. While the editing commands were similar to CEP
as far as they went, at the time SF was woefully backward compared to CEP.
It lacked a lot of effects that I needed. As I said before its major
weaknesses at the time included no support for sample rates 48 KHz, and no
support for 16 bits. That's been fixed in SF but it took years and years.
I had work on the table with 24 bits 96 KHz and higher sampling and
multitracking. SF had no multitrack support at all, and never will. SF
still can't handle files sampled 192 KHz while Audition tops out at 10
MHz.

OK, CE is like a Swiss Army knife, but all the cutting blades are very
sharp, and the rest of the tools work as well as many stand-alone
equivalents. Indeed some Audition features like the dithering tools.
arguably work better than most special-purpose programs.

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.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"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"? I'm quite sure that being the posturmatic
troll that you are Dormer, you'll change the rules until you can declare
yourself the winner.

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!

"The Artist" wrote in message

"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"? I'm quite sure that being the posturmatic
troll that you are Dormer, you'll change the rules until you can declare
yourself the winner.

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!

"The Artist" wrote in message

"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"? I'm quite sure that being the posturmatic
troll that you are Dormer, you'll change the rules until you can declare
yourself the winner.

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!

"The Artist" wrote in message

"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"? I'm quite sure that being the posturmatic
troll that you are Dormer, you'll change the rules until you can declare
yourself the winner.

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!

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"The Artist" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do
multitrack recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day
doing what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave
editing, and on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for
multitracking.

Seriously now. I would say that in all these discussions, not one
person has suggested that Audition/Cool Edit Pro is not a good
quality, accurate, bang-for-the-buck product. However, I find it
ludicrous that you perpetuate the idea that the product is "roughly
comparable" to Vegas. In my opinion, and having used both programs
(CEP, not Audition) in a working environment, I would say that is true
in only a very superficial sense.

Given your behavior in the discussions of cue lists, I have zero faith in
your understanding of the word "superficial" Dormer.

Why don't you provide some detailed comparisons, similar to the ones I just
posted about interfacing between the track editing and multitrack editing
functions of CE/Audition.

Comments are invited from those who have extensive experience of both
programs...

Which obviously does not include you Dormer, because you really have nothing
germane to say.

Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no
sense in claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition
is necessarily a poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any
relevant facts, there's no sense in arguing that just because
Audition has a powerful wave editor, it can't multitrack as well as
Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition
roughly matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas
for 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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features
in the same program provides Audition with significant amounts of
synergy. You can record, play and edit the same file(s) in either
view by just clicking. Timing and positioning automatically transfer
between the two views. Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer
between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with
Audition when it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998,
CEP had almost all of the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio
file editing power it has today. At that time SF was far more
limited in terms of functions, sample rates and sample types that it
could handle. SF still can't come within an order of magnitude of
Audition when it comes to sample rate support. Looking through the
feature list for the current release of SF, I see that it was still
playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and
vice-versa) but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

I don't think it's primarily about feature sets (getting from point A
to point B) it's as much about productivity and ease of use (the ride)

What productivity features does Audition/CE lack? it's got shortcut keys,
macros, and scripting. Nothing seems to be missing, and nothing superfluous
is present, either.

My gripe with the Cool Edit products has generally been the interface.

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

CE's various controls and functions look a lot like real world hardware,
right down to the black face. However, as appropriate, CE includes UI
elements, primarily graphic displays, that you don't find on most hardware.
It just makes the UI richer and more, uhhh intuitive to work with.

Even with familiarity, it doesn't feel like second-nature, unlike some
other comparable products. This particularly relates to waveform
manipulation, but also the visual presentation (GUI) and other quirks.

Everybody with a brain knows that "intuitive" often translates "I already
know how to use it". People who lack insight see the product they know best
as being intuitive, and downgrade comparable products that are a little
different.

"The Artist" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do
multitrack recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day
doing what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave
editing, and on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for
multitracking.

Seriously now. I would say that in all these discussions, not one
person has suggested that Audition/Cool Edit Pro is not a good
quality, accurate, bang-for-the-buck product. However, I find it
ludicrous that you perpetuate the idea that the product is "roughly
comparable" to Vegas. In my opinion, and having used both programs
(CEP, not Audition) in a working environment, I would say that is true
in only a very superficial sense.

Given your behavior in the discussions of cue lists, I have zero faith in
your understanding of the word "superficial" Dormer.

Why don't you provide some detailed comparisons, similar to the ones I just
posted about interfacing between the track editing and multitrack editing
functions of CE/Audition.

Comments are invited from those who have extensive experience of both
programs...

Which obviously does not include you Dormer, because you really have nothing
germane to say.

Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no
sense in claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition
is necessarily a poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any
relevant facts, there's no sense in arguing that just because
Audition has a powerful wave editor, it can't multitrack as well as
Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition
roughly matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas
for 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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features
in the same program provides Audition with significant amounts of
synergy. You can record, play and edit the same file(s) in either
view by just clicking. Timing and positioning automatically transfer
between the two views. Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer
between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with
Audition when it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998,
CEP had almost all of the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio
file editing power it has today. At that time SF was far more
limited in terms of functions, sample rates and sample types that it
could handle. SF still can't come within an order of magnitude of
Audition when it comes to sample rate support. Looking through the
feature list for the current release of SF, I see that it was still
playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and
vice-versa) but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

I don't think it's primarily about feature sets (getting from point A
to point B) it's as much about productivity and ease of use (the ride)

What productivity features does Audition/CE lack? it's got shortcut keys,
macros, and scripting. Nothing seems to be missing, and nothing superfluous
is present, either.

My gripe with the Cool Edit products has generally been the interface.

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

CE's various controls and functions look a lot like real world hardware,
right down to the black face. However, as appropriate, CE includes UI
elements, primarily graphic displays, that you don't find on most hardware.
It just makes the UI richer and more, uhhh intuitive to work with.

Even with familiarity, it doesn't feel like second-nature, unlike some
other comparable products. This particularly relates to waveform
manipulation, but also the visual presentation (GUI) and other quirks.

Everybody with a brain knows that "intuitive" often translates "I already
know how to use it". People who lack insight see the product they know best
as being intuitive, and downgrade comparable products that are a little
different.

"The Artist" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do
multitrack recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day
doing what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave
editing, and on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for
multitracking.

Seriously now. I would say that in all these discussions, not one
person has suggested that Audition/Cool Edit Pro is not a good
quality, accurate, bang-for-the-buck product. However, I find it
ludicrous that you perpetuate the idea that the product is "roughly
comparable" to Vegas. In my opinion, and having used both programs
(CEP, not Audition) in a working environment, I would say that is true
in only a very superficial sense.

Given your behavior in the discussions of cue lists, I have zero faith in
your understanding of the word "superficial" Dormer.

Why don't you provide some detailed comparisons, similar to the ones I just
posted about interfacing between the track editing and multitrack editing
functions of CE/Audition.

Comments are invited from those who have extensive experience of both
programs...

Which obviously does not include you Dormer, because you really have nothing
germane to say.

Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no
sense in claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition
is necessarily a poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any
relevant facts, there's no sense in arguing that just because
Audition has a powerful wave editor, it can't multitrack as well as
Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition
roughly matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas
for 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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features
in the same program provides Audition with significant amounts of
synergy. You can record, play and edit the same file(s) in either
view by just clicking. Timing and positioning automatically transfer
between the two views. Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer
between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with
Audition when it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998,
CEP had almost all of the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio
file editing power it has today. At that time SF was far more
limited in terms of functions, sample rates and sample types that it
could handle. SF still can't come within an order of magnitude of
Audition when it comes to sample rate support. Looking through the
feature list for the current release of SF, I see that it was still
playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and
vice-versa) but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

I don't think it's primarily about feature sets (getting from point A
to point B) it's as much about productivity and ease of use (the ride)

What productivity features does Audition/CE lack? it's got shortcut keys,
macros, and scripting. Nothing seems to be missing, and nothing superfluous
is present, either.

My gripe with the Cool Edit products has generally been the interface.

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

CE's various controls and functions look a lot like real world hardware,
right down to the black face. However, as appropriate, CE includes UI
elements, primarily graphic displays, that you don't find on most hardware.
It just makes the UI richer and more, uhhh intuitive to work with.

Even with familiarity, it doesn't feel like second-nature, unlike some
other comparable products. This particularly relates to waveform
manipulation, but also the visual presentation (GUI) and other quirks.

Everybody with a brain knows that "intuitive" often translates "I already
know how to use it". People who lack insight see the product they know best
as being intuitive, and downgrade comparable products that are a little
different.

"The Artist" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing
multitracking?

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do
multitrack recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day
doing what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave
editing, and on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for
multitracking.

Seriously now. I would say that in all these discussions, not one
person has suggested that Audition/Cool Edit Pro is not a good
quality, accurate, bang-for-the-buck product. However, I find it
ludicrous that you perpetuate the idea that the product is "roughly
comparable" to Vegas. In my opinion, and having used both programs
(CEP, not Audition) in a working environment, I would say that is true
in only a very superficial sense.

Given your behavior in the discussions of cue lists, I have zero faith in
your understanding of the word "superficial" Dormer.

Why don't you provide some detailed comparisons, similar to the ones I just
posted about interfacing between the track editing and multitrack editing
functions of CE/Audition.

Comments are invited from those who have extensive experience of both
programs...

Which obviously does not include you Dormer, because you really have nothing
germane to say.

Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no
sense in claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition
is necessarily a poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any
relevant facts, there's no sense in arguing that just because
Audition has a powerful wave editor, it can't multitrack as well as
Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition
roughly matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas
for 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.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features
in the same program provides Audition with significant amounts of
synergy. You can record, play and edit the same file(s) in either
view by just clicking. Timing and positioning automatically transfer
between the two views. Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer
between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with
Audition when it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998,
CEP had almost all of the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio
file editing power it has today. At that time SF was far more
limited in terms of functions, sample rates and sample types that it
could handle. SF still can't come within an order of magnitude of
Audition when it comes to sample rate support. Looking through the
feature list for the current release of SF, I see that it was still
playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and
vice-versa) but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

I don't think it's primarily about feature sets (getting from point A
to point B) it's as much about productivity and ease of use (the ride)

What productivity features does Audition/CE lack? it's got shortcut keys,
macros, and scripting. Nothing seems to be missing, and nothing superfluous
is present, either.

My gripe with the Cool Edit products has generally been the interface.

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

CE's various controls and functions look a lot like real world hardware,
right down to the black face. However, as appropriate, CE includes UI
elements, primarily graphic displays, that you don't find on most hardware.
It just makes the UI richer and more, uhhh intuitive to work with.

Even with familiarity, it doesn't feel like second-nature, unlike some
other comparable products. This particularly relates to waveform
manipulation, but also the visual presentation (GUI) and other quirks.

Everybody with a brain knows that "intuitive" often translates "I already
know how to use it". People who lack insight see the product they know best
as being intuitive, and downgrade comparable products that are a little
different.

"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.

"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.

"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.