Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"SPS22" wrote Any other program that is recommended around here? Check out Sonic Foundry/Sony products: Sound Forge Studio 6.0 - $70 http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=718 CD Architech 5.0 - $240 http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=780 Sound Forge 7.0 - $400 "The industry standard is still the industry standard." - Recording Magazine http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=668 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF. One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A either. Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization that favored WL for less-experienced users. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based. This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the Steinberg line for multitracking. Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase + Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition. But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF. One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A either. Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization that favored WL for less-experienced users. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based. This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the Steinberg line for multitracking. Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase + Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition. But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF. One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A either. Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization that favored WL for less-experienced users. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based. This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the Steinberg line for multitracking. Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase + Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition. But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF. One could easily prefer SF's versions, so it ain't a reason to prefer CE/A either. Agreed. While both products have these features, significant details of their implementations might vary. For example, in former discussions there were some ease-of-use differences in the implementation of normalization that favored WL for less-experienced users. We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. I believe that possibly Wavelab has the edge on SF in functionality. Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are disk-based. This gives WL a speed advantage for small files. Regrettably it appears that WL is merely a stereo product, and you have to look elsewhere in the Steinberg line for multitracking. Looking at Steinberg's line of products, it seems that it would take Cubase + Nuendo + Wavelab to compare to Audition. But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? Tell you what Powell, I'll answer this question when you show reasonable progress on answering the questions that I asked you a few days ago about your empirical experiences. Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions that you've recently demanded answers of from others. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? Tell you what Powell, I'll answer this question when you show reasonable progress on answering the questions that I asked you a few days ago about your empirical experiences. Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions that you've recently demanded answers of from others. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? Tell you what Powell, I'll answer this question when you show reasonable progress on answering the questions that I asked you a few days ago about your empirical experiences. Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions that you've recently demanded answers of from others. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote But I prefer SF's user interface and way of working. During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? Tell you what Powell, I'll answer this question when you show reasonable progress on answering the questions that I asked you a few days ago about your empirical experiences. Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions that you've recently demanded answers of from others. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:59:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions In English please. Either that, or provide a Krooglish translation... Thank you for your cooperation. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:59:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions In English please. Either that, or provide a Krooglish translation... Thank you for your cooperation. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:59:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions In English please. Either that, or provide a Krooglish translation... Thank you for your cooperation. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:59:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Ironically, this list of questions that you continue to slough is based on questions In English please. Either that, or provide a Krooglish translation... Thank you for your cooperation. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? snip quacking I’m always interested in learning something new, Arny . |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? snip quacking I’m always interested in learning something new, Arny . |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? snip quacking I’m always interested in learning something new, Arny . |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote "Arny Krueger" wrote During my brief experience with SF, I was struck by how similar the programs were for the features that both implemented. Which version of Sound Forge are you referring to (empirical experience)? snip quacking I’m always interested in learning something new, Arny . |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level surinder |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level surinder |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level surinder |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level surinder |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing. Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively). -surinder |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing. Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively). -surinder |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing. Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively). -surinder |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing. Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave? (the price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively). -surinder |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"SPS22" wrote in message
m "Arny Krueger" wrote in message Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rhythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level Other than the hiss removal, the two low end products you've mentioned seem like they would do the job you need done. Those of us who use CoolEdit Pro - Audition don't have much need for add-ins because these products have a number of built-in hiss removal features. Bear in mind that it is difficult or impossible to remove a great deal of hiss without adversely affecting sound quality, no matter what hardware and software is at your disposal. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"SPS22" wrote in message
m "Arny Krueger" wrote in message Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rhythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level Other than the hiss removal, the two low end products you've mentioned seem like they would do the job you need done. Those of us who use CoolEdit Pro - Audition don't have much need for add-ins because these products have a number of built-in hiss removal features. Bear in mind that it is difficult or impossible to remove a great deal of hiss without adversely affecting sound quality, no matter what hardware and software is at your disposal. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"SPS22" wrote in message
m "Arny Krueger" wrote in message Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rhythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level Other than the hiss removal, the two low end products you've mentioned seem like they would do the job you need done. Those of us who use CoolEdit Pro - Audition don't have much need for add-ins because these products have a number of built-in hiss removal features. Bear in mind that it is difficult or impossible to remove a great deal of hiss without adversely affecting sound quality, no matter what hardware and software is at your disposal. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"SPS22" wrote in message
m "Arny Krueger" wrote in message Any example of what can be done in CoolEdit, that is not doable in Goldwave or Audacity? I'm not a Goldwave or Audacity expert, but how about you tell me how to do something with either or both that is easy and obvious in CE? Well, I am essentially trying to convert cassettes to CD's. So I think I need the following: - Record from source - Small edits like * removal of some portion of song * removal of some portion of song but not disturb the cycle of the rhythm (Audacity seems more helpful than Goldwave for this) - Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal makes the music worse, not better, for me.) - Normalize volume of many .wav files to one level Other than the hiss removal, the two low end products you've mentioned seem like they would do the job you need done. Those of us who use CoolEdit Pro - Audition don't have much need for add-ins because these products have a number of built-in hiss removal features. Bear in mind that it is difficult or impossible to remove a great deal of hiss without adversely affecting sound quality, no matter what hardware and software is at your disposal. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"=(8888)=" wrote in message
news "Arny Krueger" emitted : We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. Sound Forge is more commonly used (preferred) in professional audio circles, but don't let that bother you. Opinion stated as fact. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"=(8888)=" wrote in message
news "Arny Krueger" emitted : We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. Sound Forge is more commonly used (preferred) in professional audio circles, but don't let that bother you. Opinion stated as fact. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"=(8888)=" wrote in message
news "Arny Krueger" emitted : We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. Sound Forge is more commonly used (preferred) in professional audio circles, but don't let that bother you. Opinion stated as fact. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"=(8888)=" wrote in message
news "Arny Krueger" emitted : We don't all have to fawn over the same application. Agreed. However, it's not always all about fawning. It's also about having a job to do and whether a product has the necessary features. I sort of stumbled into CE some years ago, and just it kept meeting my needs. CE was an early implementer of 24 & 32 bits, and still offers unsurpassed support for far higher sample rates. I believe that SF 5, which followed CEP by a year or more, was the first SF to support 24/96. I have briefly used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough of a difference to justify switching. There appears to have been a period of a year or more when CE supported far more data formats and higher sample rates than SF. OTOH, SF has long appeared to have an integrated CD burning feature that Adobe has not yet made available in Audition, after a promising beta release from Syntrillium in CE2. Sound Forge is more commonly used (preferred) in professional audio circles, but don't let that bother you. Opinion stated as fact. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
|
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 |