Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
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 |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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 |
#382
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#383
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#384
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#385
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#386
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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! |
#387
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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! |
#388
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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! |
#389
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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! |
#390
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sound analyse software | Pro Audio | |||
[OT] Sound measure software with equivalent sound level meter? | Pro Audio | |||
Sound vs. Audio | Pro Audio | |||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC | General | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |