Review of Audition 5.5

[mcp6453[_2_]]

Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5. If it
was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had stripped
some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?

I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined to
upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound Forge
Pro is a good alternative.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
(in article >):

> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5. If
it
> was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had stripped
> some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
> compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>
> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined to
> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound Forge
> Pro is a good alternative.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html

My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Trevor]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
al.NET...
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5.
>> If
> it
>> was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had
>> stripped
>> some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
>> compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>
>> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined
>> to
>> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound
>> Forge
>> Pro is a good alternative.
>
> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html


WOW, quite a list. Seems like a very good reason NOT to "upgrade".
(not that I use it myself)

Trevor.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 5/30/2011 10:47 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5. If
> it
>> was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had stripped
>> some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
>> compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>
>> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined to
>> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound Forge
>> Pro is a good alternative.
>
> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>
> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.

I had not seen that list before. It does appear to be time to move on. We long
surmised how long it would be before Adobe screwed up Cool Edit Pro. That time
seems to be upon us.

Other than ProTools, what's a good alternative? Sound Forge Pro? Two key
features I really need are the ability to zoom in to edit points quickly for
precise editing and hard limiting. Most of the files I record and edit are one
or two-track voice files.

Audacity is a great utility for free, but its zoom ability is somewhat clunky,
unless there are ways that I don't know about. The best little editor I ever
used was FastEdit, but the developers let it go after they did a lame port from
16 to 32 bit for XP.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> al.NET...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5.
>>> If
>> it
>>> was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had
>>> stripped
>>> some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it
>>> feature
>>> compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>>
>>> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined
>>> to
>>> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound
>>> Forge
>>> Pro is a good alternative.
>>
>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html

> WOW, quite a list. Seems like a very good reason NOT to "upgrade".
> (not that I use it myself)

Even though I stayed with Audition through release 3, I never bought into
the new UI and stuck with CEP 2.1.

The most recent round of deletions cut pretty close to the quick for me.

[Klay_Anderson]

On May 30, 8:47*am, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
> > Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5.. If
> it
> > was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had stripped
> > some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
> > compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>
> > I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined to
> > upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound Forge
> > Pro is a good alternative.
>
> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>
> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>

If the list of "Features Not Implemented" is accurate, Adobe has
gutted Audition and is a total deal-breaker for me to upgrade. I
await your review, Ty while I dust off my copy of Sound Forge.

Text "Klay" to 50500 for contact info

-.- .-.. .- -.-- / .- - / -.- .-.. .- -.-- / -.. --- - / -.-. --- --
Yours truly,

Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[Neil Gould]

mcp6453 wrote:
> On 5/30/2011 10:47 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition
>>> 5.5. If it was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said
>>> that 5.5 had stripped some functionality that was available in 3,
>>> presumably to make it feature compatible with the Mac version. Does
>>> anyone recall that review?
>>>
>>> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so
>>> inclined to upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two
>>> tracks. Maybe Sound Forge Pro is a good alternative.
>>
>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>>
>> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>
> I had not seen that list before. It does appear to be time to move
> on. We long surmised how long it would be before Adobe screwed up
> Cool Edit Pro. That time seems to be upon us.
>
Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better than CEP
2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need to "move
on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or ceased to meet
some production needs? If so, what are they?

--
best regards.

Neil

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 5/31/2011 10:16 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better than CEP
> 2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need to "move
> on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or ceased to meet
> some production needs? If so, what are they?

My understanding is that Audition, starting with Version 2, has some enhanced
functionality with regard to built-in effects. For example, the multiband
processor is supposed to be a good one, not that anyone here would use one of
those.

I'm using 1.5 and will continue to do so, until I use something else. :)

[Miner Gleason]

Klay_Anderson > wrote:

>On May 30, 8:47=A0am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>> > Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5=
>.. If
>> it
>> > was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had str=
>ipped
>> > some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it featu=
>re
>> > compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>
>> > I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so incline=
>d to
>> > upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound=
> Forge
>> > Pro is a good alternative.
>>
>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>>
>> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>
>If the list of "Features Not Implemented" is accurate, Adobe has
>gutted Audition and is a total deal-breaker for me to upgrade. I
>await your review, Ty while I dust off my copy of Sound Forge.
>
>Text "Klay" to 50500 for contact info
>
>-.- .-.. .- -.-- / .- - / -.- .-.. .- -.-- / -.. --- - / -.-. --- --
>Yours truly,
>
>Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

Yes, this looks like a deal-breaker as well for me. I'm quite happy with AA 3.0
right now and won't be upgrading. Reaper looks promising. I've played with it a little
and have heard good things from a colleague who's begun using it instead of AA.

--
best regards,
Miner Gleason
Cat's Away Studio

[Rick Ruskin]

On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:22:54 -0500, "Miner Gleason"
<em-eye-en-eee-are-at-catsawaystudio-dot.com> wrote:

>
>Klay_Anderson > wrote:
>
>>On May 30, 8:47=A0am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5=
>>.. If
>>> it
>>> > was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had str=
>>ipped
>>> > some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it featu=
>>re
>>> > compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>>
>>> > I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so incline=
>>d to
>>> > upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound=
>> Forge
>>> > Pro is a good alternative.
>>>
>>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>>>
>>> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ty Ford
>>>
>>
>>If the list of "Features Not Implemented" is accurate, Adobe has
>>gutted Audition and is a total deal-breaker for me to upgrade. I
>>await your review, Ty while I dust off my copy of Sound Forge.
>>
>>Text "Klay" to 50500 for contact info
>>
>>-.- .-.. .- -.-- / .- - / -.- .-.. .- -.-- / -.. --- - / -.-. --- --
>>Yours truly,
>>
>>Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.
>
>Yes, this looks like a deal-breaker as well for me. I'm quite happy with AA 3.0
>right now and won't be upgrading. Reaper looks promising. I've played with it a little
>and have heard good things from a colleague who's begun using it instead of AA.


Being a firm believer in "yesterday's technology today," I made the
decision long ago not to upgrade unless the new version was a major
improvement. Since I use my DAW a recorder/editor and do almost no
processing in the box, Audition 1.5 is all will probably ever need.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[Carey Carlan]

Rick Ruskin > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:22:54 -0500, "Miner Gleason"
> <em-eye-en-eee-are-at-catsawaystudio-dot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Klay_Anderson > wrote:
>>
>>>On May 30, 8:47=A0am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of
>>>> > Audition 5.5=
>>>.. If
>>>> it
>>>> > was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5
>>>> > had str=
>>>ipped
>>>> > some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it
>>>> > featu=
>>>re
>>>> > compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>>>
>>>> > I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so
>>>> > incline=
>>>d to
>>>> > upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe
>>>> > Sound=
>>> Forge
>>>> > Pro is a good alternative.
>>>>
>>>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>>>>
>>>> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ty Ford
>>>>
>>>
>>>If the list of "Features Not Implemented" is accurate, Adobe has
>>>gutted Audition and is a total deal-breaker for me to upgrade. I
>>>await your review, Ty while I dust off my copy of Sound Forge.
>>>
>>>Text "Klay" to 50500 for contact info
>>>
>>>-.- .-.. .- -.-- / .- - / -.- .-.. .- -.-- / -.. --- - / -.-. --- --
>>>Yours truly,
>>>
>>>Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.
>>
>>Yes, this looks like a deal-breaker as well for me. I'm quite happy
>>with AA 3.0 right now and won't be upgrading. Reaper looks promising.
>> I've played with it a little and have heard good things from a
>>colleague who's begun using it instead of AA.
>
>
> Being a firm believer in "yesterday's technology today," I made the
> decision long ago not to upgrade unless the new version was a major
> improvement. Since I use my DAW a recorder/editor and do almost no
> processing in the box, Audition 1.5 is all will probably ever need.

I own both Audition 1.5 and 3.0. I use 1.5.

Also, I have been working extensively with the Mac beta-test copy in audio
for video. I frequently have to ship back to Windows to do some process
missing in the Mac version.

For example, you can't do a simple level change in single track mode. The
volume control no longer has a numeric entry, just a curve to manipulate.
Repeatable levels changes are impossible. Who could imagine a software
package that wouldn't let you reduce level by 50% (or 6 dB, your choice of
settings) over 3 seconds?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

mcp6453 wrote:

> On 5/31/2011 10:16 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better than
>> CEP
>> 2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need
>> to "move on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or
>> ceased to meet some production needs? If so, what are they?
>
> My understanding is that Audition, starting with Version 2, has some
> enhanced functionality with regard to built-in effects. For example,
> the multiband processor is supposed to be a good one, not that anyone
> here would use one of those.

It is very good and works well as a plug-in to 1.5.

> I'm using 1.5 and will continue to do so, until I use something else.
> :)

I like 3, except for the activation folly.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Miner Gleason wrote:

> Yes, this looks like a deal-breaker as well for me. I'm quite happy
> with AA 3.0

No "open append" for simple automatic file combining, no scientific filters
....

> right now and won't be upgrading. Reaper looks promising. I've
> played with it a little and have heard good things from a colleague
> who's begun using it instead of AA.

It appears that they have let the team who wrecked their support board move
on after that successful communications disaster to wreck the software.

Was there some kind of x-grade offer to vegas?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 31 May 2011 01:18:29 -0400, Trevor wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> al.NET...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:56:43 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5.
>>> If
>> it
>>> was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had
>>> stripped
>>> some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
>>> compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>>>
>>> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined
>>> to
>>> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound
>>> Forge
>>> Pro is a good alternative.
>>
>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>
>
> WOW, quite a list. Seems like a very good reason NOT to "upgrade".
> (not that I use it myself)
>
> Trevor.

And today, 5.5 won't play when I hit the button. The screen says play, but
the cursor ain't movin'. Anyone ever see this?

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[John Williamson]

Les Cargill wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:

>> Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better than CEP
>> 2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need to
>> "move
>> on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or ceased to meet
>> some production needs? If so, what are they?
>>
>
>
> Geez, I still use '96. 2000 loaded far too slowly.
>
Is it working on XP? My copy worked up to ME, but won't install on XP,
and I can't be bothered to set up a virtual machine for it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>> Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better than CEP
>>> 2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need
>>> to "move
>>> on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or ceased to
>>> meet
>>> some production needs? If so, what are they?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Geez, I still use '96. 2000 loaded far too slowly.
>>
> Is it working on XP? My copy worked up to ME, but won't install on XP,
> and I can't be bothered to set up a virtual machine for it.
>

Eh? '96 still works au natural* on Win7. It's a full 32 bit app.

*no VM needed.

--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>>> Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better than
>>>> CEP
>>>> 2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need
>>>> to "move
>>>> on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or ceased to
>>>> meet
>>>> some production needs? If so, what are they?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Geez, I still use '96. 2000 loaded far too slowly.
>>>
>> Is it working on XP? My copy worked up to ME, but won't install on XP,
>> and I can't be bothered to set up a virtual machine for it.
>>
>
> Eh? '96 still works au natural* on Win7. It's a full 32 bit app.
>
> *no VM needed.
>
I'll see if I can dig out the install file. ISTR there were definitely
problems with it on XP, though, which I couldn't fix easily. I've heard,
though, that 7 can be more compatible than XP sometimes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>> Eh? '96 still works au natural* on Win7. It's a full 32 bit app.
>>>
>>> *no VM needed.
>>>
>> I'll see if I can dig out the install file. ISTR there were definitely
>> problems with it on XP, though, which I couldn't fix easily. I've heard,
>> though, that 7 can be more compatible than XP sometimes.
>>
>
> Win7 is *less* compatible. For proggies that need something other than
> full-blood 32 bit operation, you need a 32 bit mode VM in what M$ now
> calls "XP mode".
>
> I've run it completely without problems on both on pretty much a daily
> basis since 2005 on XP and the last couple months on Win7.
>
The backup drive is about 400 miles and three or four days away. I've
got Cool Edit Pro SE running on XP, but Cool Edit 96 won't play, from
what I remember. Even Windows 98 or 95 compatibility modes wouldn't let
it work.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Even though I have Audition, I never considered it to be better
>>>>> than CEP
>>>>> 2.1, which is what I still use today. So, what is driving this need
>>>>> to "move
>>>>> on"... has Cool Edit Pro ceased to work on your system, or ceased to
>>>>> meet
>>>>> some production needs? If so, what are they?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geez, I still use '96. 2000 loaded far too slowly.
>>>>
>>> Is it working on XP? My copy worked up to ME, but won't install on XP,
>>> and I can't be bothered to set up a virtual machine for it.
>>>
>>
>> Eh? '96 still works au natural* on Win7. It's a full 32 bit app.
>>
>> *no VM needed.
>>
> I'll see if I can dig out the install file. ISTR there were definitely
> problems with it on XP, though, which I couldn't fix easily. I've heard,
> though, that 7 can be more compatible than XP sometimes.
>

Win7 is *less* compatible. For proggies that need something other than
full-blood 32 bit operation, you need a 32 bit mode VM in what M$ now
calls "XP mode".

I've run it completely without problems on both on pretty much a daily
basis since 2005 on XP and the last couple months on Win7.

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

> And today, 5.5 won't play when I hit the button. The screen says
> play, but the cursor ain't movin'. Anyone ever see this?

Yeah, A3 does that if it can't find usable audio hardware - such as if I
forget to disable rdp-audio in rdp. A1.5 just uses rdp-audio if that is what
it can get, but they replaced that player with one that doesn't know about
rdp. Mostly only as issue in case I want to use headphones on the client
laptop.

> Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Charles Tomaras]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> For those that like having pre-configured effects, AA may be attractive.
> Others, like myself, prefer basic tools that can be used to create the
> processing modes that we want. CEP 2.1 has a very good set of those basic
> tools, making such things as creating multiband processors a fairly
> trivial
> task. Audition 1.x took a step back from those capabilities, and it
> appears
> that Adobe is continuing to march in the direction of pre-fab
> implemenations. Not my cup of tea.

No reason for any of that stuff on a DAW these days because my home theater
amp and my car deck both have programs built in for EQ, dynamic compression
and a wide variety of reverbs. My favorite is Rock Concert but sometimes I
use Jazz Club with the night dynamics setting.

[Phil W]

Charles Tomaras:
> Neil Gould:
>> For those that like having pre-configured effects, AA may be
>> attractive. Others, like myself, prefer basic tools that can be used
>> to create the processing modes that we want. CEP 2.1 has a very good
>> set of those basic tools, making such things as creating multiband
>> processors a fairly trivial task. Audition 1.x took a step back from
>> those capabilities, and it
>> appears
>> that Adobe is continuing to march in the direction of pre-fab
>> implemenations. Not my cup of tea.
>
> No reason for any of that stuff on a DAW these days because my home
> theater amp and my car deck both have programs built in for EQ,
> dynamic compression and a wide variety of reverbs.

That´s fine, as long as you´re listening through a device with such
capabilities. But still, there are occasions, where the car
radio/receiver/hi-fi stereo amp does not have such features and it should
still sound "good"... ;-) So, I do see a need for such features in a DAW
program.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Phil W" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No reason for any of that stuff on a DAW these days because my home
>> theater amp and my car deck both have programs built in for EQ,
>> dynamic compression and a wide variety of reverbs.
>
> That´s fine, as long as you´re listening through a device with such
> capabilities. But still, there are occasions, where the car
> radio/receiver/hi-fi stereo amp does not have such features and it should
> still sound "good"... ;-) So, I do see a need for such features in a DAW
> program.

I wouldn't even consider buying or renting a car that didn't include at
least "Jazz Club" and "Cathedral" settings. Mine even has something called
"flat," whatever the heck that is. I turned it on flat and can't hear a
difference at all! Maybe it's for driving on long, even stretches of
highway?

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:45:12 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> And today, 5.5 won't play when I hit the button. The screen says
>> play, but the cursor ain't movin'. Anyone ever see this?
>
> Yeah, A3 does that if it can't find usable audio hardware - such as if I
> forget to disable rdp-audio in rdp. A1.5 just uses rdp-audio if that is what
> it can get, but they replaced that player with one that doesn't know about
> rdp. Mostly only as issue in case I want to use headphones on the client
> laptop.
>
>> Ty Ford
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks Peter,

Trashing preferences woke it back up on my Mac, for now...

Regards,

Ty




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 5/31/2011 12:22 PM, Miner Gleason wrote:
>
> Yes, this looks like a deal-breaker as well for me. I'm quite happy with AA 3.0
> right now and won't be upgrading. Reaper looks promising. I've played with it a little
> and have heard good things from a colleague who's begun using it instead of AA.

I've played with Reaper. Every time I hit the stop button after recording, it
asks me whether I want to save or delete the file. Is there a way around that?
It's quite annoying.

[Nil]

On 06 Jun 2011, mcp6453 > wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> I've played with Reaper. Every time I hit the stop button after
> recording, it asks me whether I want to save or delete the file.
> Is there a way around that? It's quite annoying.

Options | Preferences | Recording | Prompt to save/delete/rename new
files on stop.

You should take a few minutes looking through the options. Reaper is
very customizable.

[chris-]

On May 30, 8:56*pm, mcp6453 > wrote:
> Somewhere recently I read a not-so-complimentary review of Audition 5.5. If it
> was in rec.audio.pro, I can't find it. The review said that 5.5 had stripped
> some functionality that was available in 3, presumably to make it feature
> compatible with the Mac version. Does anyone recall that review?
>
> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined to
> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound Forge
> Pro is a good alternative.

Good to know, I think I'll stay with 1.5 :)

thanks

Chris
http://music-product-reports.com

[DeepThrob]

> I'm still using 1.5. While I almost upgraded to 3.0, I'm not so inclined to
> upgrade (?) to 5.5. Almost all of my editing is two tracks. Maybe Sound Forge
> Pro is a good alternative.

Sound Forge is the all-time champ at zooming ...

Frank /~
@/

[Carey Carlan]

Does anyone know if owning 3.0 gives you an "upgrade" discount on CS5.5? I
can't find the pertinent information anywhere on the Adobe website.

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:54:34 -0400, Carey Carlan wrote
(in article >):

> Does anyone know if owning 3.0 gives you an "upgrade" discount on CS5.5? I
> can't find the pertinent information anywhere on the Adobe website.

Yes, $99.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Carey Carlan]

Ty Ford > wrote in
al.NET:

> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:54:34 -0400, Carey Carlan wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Does anyone know if owning 3.0 gives you an "upgrade" discount on
>> CS5.5? I can't find the pertinent information anywhere on the Adobe
>> website.
>
> Yes, $99.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford

Thanks, Ty, That answered the question I asked, but not the question I
intended, but after more research I found that owning any version of
Audition gives you no credit toward upgrade to Adobe Creative Suite CS5.5.

Don't need an upgrade for Audition. I was looking to buy the whole AV
suite.

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article T>,
says...
>

> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>
> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>
I can't wait to read it, but it sure looks like they gutted the program. Was there ever a
version 4?

[Carey Carlan]

Jason Warren > wrote in
:

> In article T>,
> says...
>>
>
>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>>
>> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>>
> I can't wait to read it, but it sure looks like they gutted the
> program. Was there ever a version 4?

No. The 5.5 designation applies to the fact that it is part of Creative
Suite version 5.5.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:25:14 -0400, Jason Warren wrote
(in article >):

> In article T>,
>
> says...
>>
>
>> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
>>
>> My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
>>
> I can't wait to read it, but it sure looks like they gutted the program. Was
> there ever a
> version 4?

What I was sent was 4.0, but they bumped it to 5.5 during.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article T>,
> says...
> >
>
> > http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
> >
> > My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
> >
> I can't wait to read it, but it sure looks like they gutted the program. Was there ever a
> version 4?

I found an Adobe forum with a lot of information about choices Adobe made regarding
features to keep/improve and features to toss. All is not lost - apparently to meet the
CS5.5 release date the developers had to perform triage, but it sounds as if some of the
deleted features will re-appear in the future if people pester Adobe. For instance, one
commenter emphasized the usefulness of the Scientific Filters as laboratory "test
equipment." Clearly he's a customer who's not in Adobe's target customer group. An Adobe
engineer states that they'd rewritten all the code to bring it up to date with changes to
the operating systems and hardware.

Jason

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > In article T>,
> > says...
> > >
> >
> > > http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html
> > >
> > > My review will appear shortly in Pro Audio review.
> > >
> > I can't wait to read it, but it sure looks like they gutted the program. Was there ever a
> > version 4?
>
> I found an Adobe forum with a lot of information about choices Adobe made regarding
> features to keep/improve and features to toss. All is not lost - apparently to meet the
> CS5.5 release date the developers had to perform triage, but it sounds as if some of the
> deleted features will re-appear in the future if people pester Adobe. For instance, one
> commenter emphasized the usefulness of the Scientific Filters as laboratory "test
> equipment." Clearly he's a customer who's not in Adobe's target customer group. An Adobe
> engineer states that they'd rewritten all the code to bring it up to date with changes to
> the operating systems and hardware.
>
> Jason

I forgot to include the reference to the forum. It is:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/838570?tstart=0

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Jason Warren wrote:

> I found an Adobe forum with a lot of information about choices Adobe
> made regarding features to keep/improve and features to toss. All is
> not lost - apparently to meet the CS5.5 release date the developers
> had to perform triage,

Break what wasn't?

> but it sounds as if some of the deleted
> features will re-appear in the future if people pester Adobe.

How should I, i subscribe to their fora, but no traffic arrives via mail as
it should.

> For
> instance, one commenter emphasized the usefulness of the Scientific
> Filters as laboratory "test equipment." Clearly he's a customer who's
> not in Adobe's target customer group.

Must have been an audio engineer knowing what kind of high-pass filter that
sounds well.

> An Adobe engineer states that
> they'd rewritten all the code to bring it up to date with changes to
> the operating systems and hardware.

Must have been a sales clerk speaking up. Changes from windows xp to windows
7 do not in my profesional opinion as sound engineer and as certified it
professional necessitate any change of actual functionality.

> Jason

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> Jason Warren wrote:

>> An Adobe engineer states that
>> they'd rewritten all the code to bring it up to date with changes to
>> the operating systems and hardware.

> Must have been a sales clerk speaking up. Changes from windows xp to
> windows 7 do not in my profesional opinion as sound engineer and as
> certified it professional necessitate any change of actual
> functionality.

Ah, yes, one thing: proper support of multi-processing and proper
multithreading with detachment. THAT is nice. Also a mentioning that the
missing stuff may reappear in A6 and that it is missing because rewriting
took longer than expected. Makes sense, but also makes it make sense to pass
and wait since missing stuff breaks my usage. The statement above
nevertheless stands since the requirements to meet for multiprocessing
support are unchanged since NT4.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

>> Jason
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Jason Warren > wrote:

>An Adobe
>engineer states that they'd rewritten all the code to bring it up to date with changes to
>the operating systems and hardware.


It was said here that this version runs on a Mac too.
Now THAT would require a lot of radical rewriting (and would have new bugs
also).

This is not an upgrade I would recommend for PC users.

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Also a mentioning that the missing stuff may reappear in A6 and that it is
> missing because rewriting took longer than expected. Makes sense, but also
> makes it make sense to pass and wait since missing stuff breaks my usage.

It's not compulsory to "upgrade" (downgrade in this case) AND you save money
not doing so.

Trevor.

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article >, says...
>
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>

> > Must have been a sales clerk speaking up. Changes from windows xp to
> > windows 7 do not in my profesional opinion as sound engineer and as
> > certified it professional necessitate any change of actual
> > functionality.

I agree. They apparently ran out of time.
>
> Ah, yes, one thing: proper support of multi-processing and proper
> multithreading with detachment. THAT is nice. Also a mentioning that the
> missing stuff may reappear in A6 and that it is missing because rewriting
> took longer than expected. Makes sense, but also makes it make sense to pass
> and wait since missing stuff breaks my usage.

Agreed, too. I installed the trial version for a look. The changes to the interface are
substantial and maybe are ok... Being able to see both the amplitude v time and the
spectral display simultaneously is handy. Both views have their uses. One change I
noticed immediately: loading very large .wav files is dramatically faster. These require
a format change from int to 32-bit fp. What took almost a minute in V3 now loads in about
10 seconds. Applying operations to the whole file also runs much faster on my dual-core
XP system.

Reading between the lines in the forum makes me think I know just where the engineers
stand. I managed rewrites of some legacy IBM code and some that arrived via acquisitions.
You reach a point where the old code is just so convoluted and has suffered so many
patches that rewriting it is all that makes sense. That approach *always* upsets
schedule-driven managers, but they come around a year later when the bug reports fall
off.

Jason

[James Perrett[_3_]]

On Jun 17, 2:25*pm, Jason Warren > wrote:

> Reading between the lines in the forum makes me think I know just where the engineers
> stand. I managed rewrites of some legacy IBM code and some that arrived via acquisitions.
> You reach a point where the old code is just so convoluted and has suffered so many
> patches that rewriting it is all that makes sense. That approach *always* upsets
> schedule-driven managers, but they come around a year later when the bug reports fall
> off.
>
> Jason

The thing is, they claimed to have completely rewritten the code for
version 2 as well so the code isn't actually that old and should have
been able to cope with multiple processors which were common when
version 2 came out. Version 2 was also a disaster and it prompted me
to move over to Reaper for multi-track work. Reaper and Audition 1.5
make a formidable combination although I'm thinking of replacing
Audition with Izotope RX as I mainly use Audition for its restoration
tools.

James.