Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
On 19 Aug 2017, Neil wrote in
rec.audio.pro: On 8/18/2017 6:16 PM, Nil wrote: I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi- track features bolted on. Audition is the continuation of Cool Edit _Pro_ after its acquisition by Adobe, and it was/is a multi-track recorder. I've used it with various multi-input cards (up to 32 simultaneous tracks) for decades. Yes, I know and I said as much. But Audition's multi-track features seem to me to be extremely clunky and hard to work with, at least in versions 1.2 through 3. Maybe later versions are easier. Maybe it just doesn't fit in with the way I think and work. Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: What’s the Difference?
On 19 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro:
For awhile, I used Reaper to record and mix everything and then master in Audition...I guess I was just more familiar with it. Then I got a new computer and didn't load Audition inti it, and have not used it since. I use Audition for surgical edits - fix a crackle here, fix a plosive there, small edits that would be difficult or impossible in Reaper itself. And I also use it to check my rendered file - the waveform display is more detailed, so I can better see if there are any overages, check the head and tail silences, etc. Audition is still always part of my process. What I love about reaper is, I know what I need to know....whenever anything else comes up...I simply go into Google and typw "reaper blah blah blah" and get instant info from multiple sources on what I am trying to do. Yeah, that's great. Lots of user resources and video tutorials. The PDF manual is also excellent and very complete. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
"Nil" wrote in message ... On 19 Aug 2017, jtees4 wrote in rec.audio.pro: For awhile, I used Reaper to record and mix everything and then master in Audition...I guess I was just more familiar with it. Then I got a new computer and didn't load Audition inti it, and have not used it since. I use Audition for surgical edits - fix a crackle here, fix a plosive there, small edits that would be difficult or impossible in Reaper itself. And I also use it to check my rendered file - the waveform display is more detailed, so I can better see if there are any overages, check the head and tail silences, etc. Audition is still always part of my process. What I love about reaper is, I know what I need to know....whenever anything else comes up...I simply go into Google and typw "reaper blah blah blah" and get instant info from multiple sources on what I am trying to do. Yeah, that's great. Lots of user resources and video tutorials. The PDF manual is also excellent and very complete. I bring that manual with me on vacations. Seriously. I'm amazed at the stuff I find after multiple readings. Poly --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
On 8/19/2017 1:22 PM, Nil wrote:
On 19 Aug 2017, Neil wrote in rec.audio.pro: On 8/18/2017 6:16 PM, Nil wrote: I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi- track features bolted on. Audition is the continuation of Cool Edit _Pro_ after its acquisition by Adobe, and it was/is a multi-track recorder. I've used it with various multi-input cards (up to 32 simultaneous tracks) for decades. Yes, I know and I said as much. But Audition's multi-track features seem to me to be extremely clunky and hard to work with, at least in versions 1.2 through 3. Maybe later versions are easier. Maybe it just doesn't fit in with the way I think and work. The best reason for the existence of multiple apps is that people think and do things in different ways. For example, I have no tolerance for DAWs that have a pseudo-hardware style of user interface with knobs, sliders, switches etc. So, working with waveforms and having precise parameter adjustments via input boxes and curve adjustments is a huge improvement over both traditional hardware and their software imitators. But, I can understand why some would find that kind of UI challenging. ;-) Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". -- best regards, Neil |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote:
Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. geoff |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
geoff wrote:
On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. I think he is pointing out that "Cool Edit" and "Cool Edit Pro" were not the same piece of software. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
On 8/19/2017 8:44 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. I think he is pointing out that "Cool Edit" and "Cool Edit Pro" were not the same piece of software. --scott Exactly. CEP was a multi-track DAW as compared to the 2ch/stereo audio editor that was CE. -- best regards, Neil |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
On 20/08/2017 12:55 PM, Neil wrote:
On 8/19/2017 8:44 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: geoffÂ* wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. I think he is pointing out that "Cool Edit" and "Cool Edit Pro" were not the same piece of software. --scott Exactly. CEP was a multi-track DAW as compared to the 2ch/stereo audio editor that was CE. Click. Would have been better to drop the Edit and make it Cool Track Pro, Cool Mix Pro, or something like that, as no longer 'just' an editor. geoff |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: What’s the Difference?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:26:06 +1200, geoff
wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. geoff Cool Edit most definitely did have a multitrack feature. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: What�s the Difference?
On 20/08/2017 16:41, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:26:06 +1200, geoff wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. geoff Cool Edit most definitely did have a multitrack feature. The version (Cool Edit 96) I had and which is still lurking on a CD somewhere, could record and process stereo. The upgrade to Cool Edit Pro gave the opportunity to record and edit multiple stereo tracks, but effects could only be applied in the stereo "edit" window, not the multitrack one, which was limited to automating levels and balance. Cool Ed -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: What?s the Difference?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:52:51 +0100, John Williamson
wrote: On 20/08/2017 16:41, Rick Ruskin wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:26:06 +1200, geoff wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. geoff Cool Edit most definitely did have a multitrack feature. The version (Cool Edit 96) I had and which is still lurking on a CD somewhere, could record and process stereo. The upgrade to Cool Edit Pro gave the opportunity to record and edit multiple stereo tracks, but effects could only be applied in the stereo "edit" window, not the multitrack one, which was limited to automating levels and balance. Cool Ed I was thinking about CEP. The effects limitation was never a problem for me since I brought all tracks back throug an analog console and did all processing & there. I still work that way most of the time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: What?s the Difference?
On 8/20/2017 12:28 PM, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:52:51 +0100, John Williamson wrote: On 20/08/2017 16:41, Rick Ruskin wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:26:06 +1200, geoff wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. geoff Cool Edit most definitely did have a multitrack feature. The version (Cool Edit 96) I had and which is still lurking on a CD somewhere, could record and process stereo. The upgrade to Cool Edit Pro gave the opportunity to record and edit multiple stereo tracks, but effects could only be applied in the stereo "edit" window, not the multitrack one, which was limited to automating levels and balance. Cool Ed I was thinking about CEP. The effects limitation was never a problem for me since I brought all tracks back throug an analog console and did all processing & there. I still work that way most of the time. You _can_ apply EQ, compression, reverb and all of the other effects in the multi-track window of CEP and Audition, but they're applied to individual tracks instead of as a master control. I prefer that way of working anyway, and only make master-level changes to the final mix and/or mastering of the project. -- best regards, Neil |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: What�s the Difference?
On 21/08/2017 3:52 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2017 16:41, Rick Ruskin wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:26:06 +1200, geoff wrote: On 20/08/2017 6:12 AM, Neil wrote: Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Which is why I differentiated between them by underlining "Pro". That's not the difference between 'pro' and 'not'. It's just different things, like a truck and a van. geoff Cool Edit most definitely did have a multitrack feature. The version (Cool Edit 96) I had and which is still lurking on a CD somewhere, could record and process stereo. The upgrade to Cool Edit Pro gave the opportunity to record and edit multiple stereo tracks, but effects could only be applied in the stereo "edit" window, not the multitrack one, which was limited to automating levels and balance. Cool Ed Jeepers that still doesn't half sound 'limited'. geoff |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Editor vs. DAW: Whats the Difference?
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 12:22:38 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 19 Aug 2017, Neil wrote in rec.audio.pro: On 8/18/2017 6:16 PM, Nil wrote: I don't really compare it to Audition or Cool Edit, though. Those two programs are really single audio file editors with some clunky multi- track features bolted on. Audition is the continuation of Cool Edit _Pro_ after its acquisition by Adobe, and it was/is a multi-track recorder. I've used it with various multi-input cards (up to 32 simultaneous tracks) for decades. Yes, I know and I said as much. But Audition's multi-track features seem to me to be extremely clunky and hard to work with, at least in versions 1.2 through 3. Maybe later versions are easier. Maybe it just doesn't fit in with the way I think and work. Cool Edit was a single-file editor only, no multi-track features. Cool Edit Pro, however, had multi-track features. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Best Audio Editor | Pro Audio | |||
Looking for a good audio editor | Tech | |||
Audio Editor Pro | Pro Audio | |||
Want WAV editor allows cutting without changing remaining audio | Tech | |||
Looking for simple WinXP audio editor | Pro Audio |