Audio Editor vs. DAW: What’s the Difference?

[[email protected]]

http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!

Jack

[geoff]

On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
> http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/
>
> JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!
>
> Jack
>

Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
Reaper with licence for personal use.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
> > http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/
> >
> > JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
> Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
> same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.
>
> There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
> differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
> be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.
>
> If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
> Reaper with licence for personal use.
>
> geoff

I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.

What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters. I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared of digital "sound"!!

Cordially,
Jack

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:23:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> > On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
> > > http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/
> > >
> > > JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!
> > >
> > > Jack
> > >
> >
> > Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
> > same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.
> >
> > There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
> > differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
> > be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.
> >
> > If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
> > Reaper with licence for personal use.
> >
> > geoff
>
> I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.
>
> What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters. I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared of digital "sound"!!
>
> Cordially,
> Jack

But, I have always been a fan of the non Pro software.
Even in a Photoshop usenet forum, I found a Damsel in distress. I guess her job was graphics at Rollsecure. She needed to make a animation from two photos (ASAP), and no one seemed to want to help her. I told her to contact me in e-mail. Maybe 45 minutes later, I sent her the Proof, she was happier than ever. What did I use? Photoshop? Nonsense, I used GIMP!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/shutterwork.gif

Jack

[geoff]

On 17/08/2017 11:22 AM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
>>> http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/
>>>
>>>
>>>
JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>
>> Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be
>> the same as that of people for whom these functions are a
>> specialty.
>>
>> There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
>> differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but
>> would be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.
>>
>> If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check
>> out Reaper with licence for personal use.
>>
>> geoff
>
> I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when
> I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records
> engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.

You can try others for free to see if the workflow is the same, better,
or worse for you. Sound 'quality' in itself not likely to be
significantly different, unless Goldwave has some inherent low-spec flaws.


> What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters.
> I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of
> DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared
> of digital "sound"!!

"Know one" ?!!!

The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in recording
side as well as in domestic players. And more recently bigger deeper
faster computer processors which allowed things to be done at higher
resolution and precision that earlier.

And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to equate
over-bright with clarity.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 11:22 AM, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
> >>> http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>
> >> Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be
> >> the same as that of people for whom these functions are a
> >> specialty.
> >>
> >> There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
> >> differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but
> >> would be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.
> >>
> >> If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check
> >> out Reaper with licence for personal use.
> >>
> >> geoff
> >
> > I see Reaper was used in the multi-tracks I gained. Thanks, but when
> > I can producer better sound quality than what the Columbia Records
> > engineers published, Goldwave is all I need.
>
> You can try others for free to see if the workflow is the same, better,
> or worse for you. Sound 'quality' in itself not likely to be
> significantly different, unless Goldwave has some inherent low-spec flaws..
>
>
> > What improved sound quality of CDs? Same claim better DA converters.
> > I claim, getting rid of those stinking Sony PCM machines (part of
> > DAW) that know one knew how to operate, because everyone was scared
> > of digital "sound"!!
>
> "Know one" ?!!!

You no that was a typo!!

>
> The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

That's funny, until I came here, no one or know one, new of these Sony Machines, two were very common in mastering CDs. Scott was told something by someone and had an unclear picture, even he didn't know. I thought this was "Pro" group? It was I who investigated the Sony "Hot" and not so "hot" audio from someone was was instrumental in the CD mastering business.

>
> What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in recording
> side as well as in domestic players. And more recently bigger deeper
> faster computer processors which allowed things to be done at higher
> resolution and precision that earlier.

'But CDs are still 16 bit.
>
> And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to equate
> over-bright with clarity.

-- I have yet to hear any thing like that on CD!
-- Like that Elton John CD I had, that made me return my very first CD player.
-- The master tapes are held in the UK, not USA, why the CD sounded more tape hiss than music!!

Let's move on!!

Jack
>
> geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/16/2017 8:50 PM, Geoff wrote:
> The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.

It depends on your definition of "DAW." Taken literally, a couple of
video cassette decks, a PCM converter, and a video editor slightly
customized for audio editing formed a digital audio workstation. But
there aren't many of us here who were around and working in audio at the
time, so it's easy to dismiss anything that came before software on a
general purpose computer as "not a DAW."


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 17/08/2017 2:34 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
> That's funny, until I came here, no one or know one, new of these
> Sony Machines, two were very common in mastering CDs. Scott was told
> something by someone and had an unclear picture, even he didn't know.
> I thought this was "Pro" group? It was I who investigated the Sony
> "Hot" and not so "hot" audio from someone was was instrumental in the
> CD mastering business.

I think pretty much everybody here knew what the PCM-1610 etc were.

>
>>
>> What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in
>> recording side as well as in domestic players. And more recently
>> bigger deeper faster computer processors which allowed things to be
>> done at higher resolution and precision that earlier.
>
> 'But CDs are still 16 bit.

Yes, and ?

>>
>> And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to
>> equate over-bright with clarity.
>
> -- I have yet to hear any thing like that on CD! -- Like that Elton
> John CD I had, that made me return my very first CD player. -- The
> master tapes are held in the UK, not USA, why the CD sounded more
> tape hiss than music!!
>
> Let's move on!!


Starting to get silly again. Over and out.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
>same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.

It looked pretty content-free. Sadly, there is no best software. The stuff
that I obsess over, like making sure I can get a bit-for-bit copy from input
and output, are not something the pop music people care about. The stuff the
pop music people care about, like added control functions for tracking to
click and being able to run multiple plugins in parallel, are not things that
I care about.

If it were not like this , there would be no need for multiple packages
out there.

>There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
>differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
>be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.

And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing applications
now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although there
are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.

>If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
>Reaper with licence for personal use.

Except that the DAW is more than just software.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 8/16/2017 8:50 PM, Geoff wrote:
>> The Sony PCM machines were nothing to do with DAWs at all.
>
>It depends on your definition of "DAW." Taken literally, a couple of
>video cassette decks, a PCM converter, and a video editor slightly
>customized for audio editing formed a digital audio workstation. But
>there aren't many of us here who were around and working in audio at the
>time, so it's easy to dismiss anything that came before software on a
>general purpose computer as "not a DAW."

I'd call that "not a DAW" because the whole idea of the DAW is that you
can work faster than realtime. Being able to load files into the computer
and edit on the screen totally changed the world in the eighties and nineties,
and totally changed the studio workflow.

I remember editing PCM F-1 tapes, and just doing basic sequencing was a
painful thing that took hours. When Sonic and Waves came along, you just
loaded it unattended (sadly that was still in realtime), made a few cuts
on the screen, and dumped it back (often also in realtime unfortunately).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/17/2017 8:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I'd call that "not a DAW" because the whole idea of the DAW is that you
> can work faster than realtime. Being able to load files into the computer
> and edit on the screen totally changed the world in the eighties and nineties,
> and totally changed the studio workflow.

I'm looking at the classical definition of "workstation" and not the
practical one. It's an Internet thing.

A workstation is an integration of things that make workflow easier or
possible. Time-saving is just a bonus. The PCM editors made it possible
to edit digital recordings while remaining digital. When I was recording
and mixing to PCM, I'd copy the digital recording to analog tape, cut
the tape to clean up starts and stops, combine pieces from alternate
takes, and put songs in sequence for the record. Then, after making a
safety copy (back to digital) I'd send the spliced tape off to be
mastered and pressed.

I never actually edited a project with the video editor system. The
first digital editing workstation I worked with was that Orban thing,
Audicy, I think was the name, of which Dick Pierce was a major designer.
The transfer from (and back to) PCM format was in real time, but the
editing process, once you got the hang of it (like with any modern DAW)
was faster than cutting and splicing tape. The Undo was the real time
saver - and a start down the road to spending too much time with
perfecting the project - making it easy to try edits that either didn't
work or didn't really improve things.

Just like a modern DAW.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:58:35 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/17/2017 8:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > I'd call that "not a DAW" because the whole idea of the DAW is that you
> > can work faster than realtime. Being able to load files into the computer
> > and edit on the screen totally changed the world in the eighties and nineties,
> > and totally changed the studio workflow.
>
> I'm looking at the classical definition of "workstation" and not the
> practical one. It's an Internet thing.

You forget Windows for Workstations? That was the past, but even today...
Windows 10 Pro for Workstations.

Jack


>
> A workstation is an integration of things that make workflow easier or
> possible. Time-saving is just a bonus. The PCM editors made it possible
> to edit digital recordings while remaining digital. When I was recording
> and mixing to PCM, I'd copy the digital recording to analog tape, cut
> the tape to clean up starts and stops, combine pieces from alternate
> takes, and put songs in sequence for the record. Then, after making a
> safety copy (back to digital) I'd send the spliced tape off to be
> mastered and pressed.
>
> I never actually edited a project with the video editor system. The
> first digital editing workstation I worked with was that Orban thing,
> Audicy, I think was the name, of which Dick Pierce was a major designer.
> The transfer from (and back to) PCM format was in real time, but the
> editing process, once you got the hang of it (like with any modern DAW)
> was faster than cutting and splicing tape. The Undo was the real time
> saver - and a start down the road to spending too much time with
> perfecting the project - making it easy to try edits that either didn't
> work or didn't really improve things.
>
> Just like a modern DAW.
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:50:38 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 2:34 PM, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:50:12 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
> > That's funny, until I came here, no one or know one, new of these
> > Sony Machines, two were very common in mastering CDs. Scott was told
> > something by someone and had an unclear picture, even he didn't know.
> > I thought this was "Pro" group? It was I who investigated the Sony
> > "Hot" and not so "hot" audio from someone was was instrumental in the
> > CD mastering business.
>
> I think pretty much everybody here knew what the PCM-1610 etc were.
>
> >
> >>
> >> What improved quality of CDs ? Better AD and DA conversion, in
> >> recording side as well as in domestic players. And more recently
> >> bigger deeper faster computer processors which allowed things to be
> >> done at higher resolution and precision that earlier.
> >
> > 'But CDs are still 16 bit.
>
> Yes, and ?
>
> >>
> >> And then there was musical 'taste', which in one period seem to
> >> equate over-bright with clarity.
> >
> > -- I have yet to hear any thing like that on CD! -- Like that Elton
> > John CD I had, that made me return my very first CD player. -- The
> > master tapes are held in the UK, not USA, why the CD sounded more
> > tape hiss than music!!
> >
> > Let's move on!!
>
>
> Starting to get silly again. Over and out.
>
> geoff

What I'm saying is, one person starts naming, then like a heard of mindless cattle, all follow along!!

How many time have I I been told - the group must approve of song mixes!!??
Not true, but, one after the other rattle the same story.

Same with DAW, when electronic hardware was necessary, a DAW name would be appropriate. But you rid of hardware, have software, but it's still a DAW?

Really?

Jack

[geoff]

On 18/08/2017 12:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:

>
> And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing applications
> now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
> using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although there
> are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.

Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as a
DAW.

>
>> If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
>> Reaper with licence for personal use.
>
> Except that the DAW is more than just software.
> --scott

Yeah, but the hardware side is (shoot me) easier than the software.
You just pick whatever you want, need or can afford.

geoff

[jtees4]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:07:09 +1200, geoff >
wrote:

>On 17/08/2017 3:58 AM, wrote:
>> http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/multimedia/best-audio-editing-software/
>>
>> JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
>Bit of a fluffy article. Their definition of 'best' might not be the
>same as that of people for whom these functions are a specialty.
>
>There is a degree of cross-over between the two, but also distinct
>differences in function and purpose. Some apps could do both, but would
>be IMO 'cluttered'. Essentially they got that bit right.
>
>If you want a fully-fledged DAW for less that their $100, check out
>Reaper with licence for personal use.
>
>geoff

AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool edit
pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

[Trevor]

On 18/08/2017 6:02 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 18/08/2017 12:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>> And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing
>> applications
>> now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
>> using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although
>> there
>> are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.
>
> Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as a
> DAW.

Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days. Vegas
does support MIDI controllers though which is something else of course.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
> go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.

When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
virtual instruments?

It's true that not too many use MIDI synthesizers as sound sources in
music these days, but many still have a MIDI keyboard and/or drum
controller to record MIDI tracks live. MIDI is definitely alive and well.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 18/08/2017 6:02 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 18/08/2017 12:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> geoff > wrote:
>>> And now we are coming to an era when some of the video editing
>>> applications
>>> now have sufficiently good sound editing functions that there are people
>>> using them for just sound work. And it's not just Fairlight, although
>>> there
>>> are still plenty of Fairlight devotees.
>>
>> Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as a
>> DAW.
>
>Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
>go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days. Vegas
>does support MIDI controllers though which is something else of course.

Vegas is one of the ones I was specifically thinking of.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
>> go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.
>
>When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
>virtual instruments?

I have never in my life used a virtual instrument.

Although once I used a lexan piano.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 18/08/2017 5:04 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 18/08/2017 6:02 AM, geoff wrote:

>> Vegas always has. No MIDI though, so I guess stretching to describe as
>> a DAW.
>
> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
> go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days. Vegas
> does support MIDI controllers though which is something else of course.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
>


Must dust off my Mackie control. (Everythiing currently in storage).

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/08/2017 10:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and
>> I'd go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.
>
> When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
> virtual instruments?
>
> It's true that not too many use MIDI synthesizers as sound sources in
> music these days, but many still have a MIDI keyboard and/or drum
> controller to record MIDI tracks live. MIDI is definitely alive and well.
>
>
>


For virtual instruments pretty much all I've used is Garritan
(orchestral stuff), that came with Acid (which seems sadly in limbo).

Maybe new owners Magix might reinvigourate Acid, but the last version
still works just fine.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/18/2017 7:43 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I have never in my life used a virtual instrument.

I've never actually used a virtual instrument in a recording, but I had
a lot of fun reviewing Modo Bass.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>I'm looking at the classical definition of "workstation" and not the
>practical one. It's an Internet thing.

People never called it a workstation before, it was just an editing suite
or a tape machine. When people started calling integrated computer editing
systems "workstations" is when the name came about.

>A workstation is an integration of things that make workflow easier or
>possible. Time-saving is just a bonus. The PCM editors made it possible
>to edit digital recordings while remaining digital. When I was recording
>and mixing to PCM, I'd copy the digital recording to analog tape, cut
>the tape to clean up starts and stops, combine pieces from alternate
>takes, and put songs in sequence for the record. Then, after making a
>safety copy (back to digital) I'd send the spliced tape off to be
>mastered and pressed.

I would do similar things much of the time. When CD-R came along in the
early nineties I had a Studer CD-R machine rigged up with remote control for
track and index advance so that I could dub a tape to CD-R without any E32s
and send it straight to the pressing plant.

>I never actually edited a project with the video editor system. The
>first digital editing workstation I worked with was that Orban thing,
>Audicy, I think was the name, of which Dick Pierce was a major designer.
>The transfer from (and back to) PCM format was in real time, but the
>editing process, once you got the hang of it (like with any modern DAW)
>was faster than cutting and splicing tape. The Undo was the real time
>saver - and a start down the road to spending too much time with
>perfecting the project - making it easy to try edits that either didn't
>work or didn't really improve things.

The video editing system was horrible. It was like linear video editing,
which is something I could never understand anyone finding tolerable. You
could sequence tracks, but forget trying to do fine work. I never used it
enough to get good at it, but then again I worked with people who used it
daily for a couple years and never got good at it.

The Audicy was a revolution, being one of the first systems I'd call a
"workstation."

>Just like a modern DAW.

Except with decent scrubbing with a knob on the keyboard that actually had
good response without a lot of lag, something I sorely miss on modern DAWs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/18/2017 10:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The Audicy was a revolution, being one of the first systems I'd call a
> "workstation."
> Except with decent scrubbing with a knob on the keyboard that actually had
> good response without a lot of lag, something I sorely miss on modern DAWs.

I remember the argument that Bob Lentini, developer of the SAW (Software
Audio Workshop) program made for not needing scrubbing because you could
see where you wanted to edit. I never agreed with him, and eventually he
added it to the program's features. Gotta hand it to him, though. It
came closer than the other programs of the day to offer everything you
needed in one place, and ran and worked faster than most.

And it's still around today.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:43:05 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
> >> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
> >> go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.
> >
> >When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
> >virtual instruments?
>
> I have never in my life used a virtual instrument.


Same here!!!

Yeah, now DAW (Reaper) is a music composer (and video) editor. Nothing to do with digital sound!! Reaper will die, headed in the same direction as WinAmp.

Jack
>
> Although once I used a lexan piano.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

wrote in message
...

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:43:05 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
> >On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
> >> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
> >> go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.
> >
> >When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
> >virtual instruments?
>
> I have never in my life used a virtual instrument.


Same here!!!

Yeah, now DAW (Reaper) is a music composer (and video) editor. Nothing to do
with digital sound!! Reaper will die, headed in the same direction as
WinAmp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't think so. Reaper is here to stay. It's a great program with little
fluff and all the customization anyone would need. At a price that's low
and no limitations on the demo with the exception of a nag screen for a few
seconds.
Winamp kicked the Llama's ass....so does Reaper.

Poly


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:00:51 PM UTC-4, polymod wrote:
> wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:43:05 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article >, Mike Rivers >
> > wrote:
> > >On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
> > >> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and I'd
> > >> go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.
> > >
> > >When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
> > >virtual instruments?
> >
> > I have never in my life used a virtual instrument.
>
>
> Same here!!!
>
> Yeah, now DAW (Reaper) is a music composer (and video) editor. Nothing to do
> with digital sound!! Reaper will die, headed in the same direction as
> WinAmp.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Don't think so. Reaper is here to stay. It's a great program with little
> fluff and all the customization anyone would need. At a price that's low
> and no limitations on the demo with the exception of a nag screen for a few
> seconds.
> Winamp kicked the Llama's ass....so does Reaper.

You guys must redefine your DAW then, if a music composer are now DAW!
Didn't have them back with electronic gear.

"Reaper is NOT free, and it says that very clearly on the Cockos website. It says that very clearly in the program itself. It's $60 (or $225 if you're using it in a high-volume enough studio)"

$225!!

5 Second wait?!

Jack


>
> Poly
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[PStamler]

Please do not feed the Troll. He has descended to frothing gibberish.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:16:36 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
> Please do not feed the Troll. He has descended to frothing gibberish.

Start your OWN Subject, leave mine alone!

Thank you!

Jack

>
> Peace,
> Paul

[Nil[_2_]]

On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 > wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
> edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.

Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
not to love??

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. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
audio editing.

[geoff]

On 19/08/2017 10:16 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
>> edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.
>
> Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
> features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
> not to love??
>
> 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. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
> recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
> audio editing.
>


REAPER's intuitive layout and workflow reputedly inspired by Vegas. I
still use Vegas for straight audio (or audio/video) projects. And Acid
or REAPER for those that require MIDI input/output or virtual
instruments. Not to mention SF of course.


geoff

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:09:41 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 19/08/2017 10:16 AM, Nil wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> >
> >> AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
> >> edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.
> >
> > Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
> > features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
> > not to love??
> >
> > 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. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
> > recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
> > audio editing.
> >
>
>
> REAPER's intuitive layout and workflow reputedly inspired by Vegas. I
> still use Vegas for straight audio (or audio/video) projects. And Acid
> or REAPER for those that require MIDI input/output or virtual
> instruments. Not to mention SF of course.
>
>
> geoff

NCH Software:

"Save around 50% off the normal price if you buy online on or before the end of August 2017".

They sound desperate.

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
> > AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
> > edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.
>
> Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
> features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
> not to love??
>
> 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. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
> recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
> audio editing.

As I know, most people in usenet have hacked copies, nothing legitimate.

Jack

[Nil[_2_]]

On 18 Aug 2017, geoff > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> REAPER's intuitive layout and workflow reputedly inspired by
> Vegas. I still use Vegas for straight audio (or audio/video)
> projects. And Acid or REAPER for those that require MIDI
> input/output or virtual instruments. Not to mention SF of course.

I used Cakewalk and Sonar for many years, since it was a DOS MIDI-only
program. I leared to use it, but everything always seemed more of a
hassle than it should be. I started checking out Reaper soon after it
was released. I used it occasionally for a few years (thanks to their
indefinite trial period) but for some reason it just didn't work for
me. I could never seem to find the function or feature I was looking
for. But I kept dabbling for the longest time until one day suddenly
all the pins fell into place and the lock opened. Now I find it very
easy to use, certainly FAR easier than Sonar. I guess I kept expecting
to see the inconveniences of Sonar and was confused when I didn't. Free
of those incumberances, it all made for a much more sensible and
efficient workflow. If I have a criticism of Reaper it's that it has
too many advanced features exposed, and it took me a while to find the
common options among the many choices. "With great power goes great
responsibility".

It's not perfect, of course. Its MIDI editing features are still a
little buggy/unpredictable, but they're usable and improving all the
time. They recently added notation features, which are pretty decent. I
think that, being the "new" kid on the block, the Reaper author had the
advantage of seeing all the mistakes that had been made before him,
plus judging from his excellent Winamp, I think the guy just has a
natural good sense of how to impliment functionality for the user. I
also guess that, being the sole or primary author, the guy has been
able to see his sensible design through from concept to market. Better
than Sonar's (and probably most other long-in-the-tooth software's)
design-by-committee approach.

[geoff]

On 19/08/2017 12:52 PM, wrote:

>
> As I know, most people in usenet have hacked copies, nothing legitimate.
>
> Jack
>

In *your* natural circles, sure. Less likely here.

groff

[Trevor]

On 18/08/2017 8:20 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/18/2017 1:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Not really. Many people have never used MIDI in their projects, and
>> I'd go so far as to say most (as in more than 50%) don't these days.
>
> When you use a virtual instrument, you're using MIDI. Who doesn't use
> virtual instruments?
> It's true that not too many use MIDI synthesizers as sound sources in
> music these days, but many still have a MIDI keyboard and/or drum
> controller to record MIDI tracks live. MIDI is definitely alive and well.

Yes I guess it is in many genres like dance, hip hop etc. Most of the
musicians I work with however have pretty much stopped using MIDI many
years ago. I may well be wrong about percentages who still do now though
I will admit.

Trevor.

[Neil[_9_]]

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.

--
best regards,

Neil

[jtees4]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:16:22 -0400, Nil
> wrote:

>On 17 Aug 2017, jtees4 > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> AGREED! Reaper is GREAT....I switched from a Adobe Audition (cool
>> edit pro) a few years back and have never regretted it.
>
>Reaper is my choice, too - it's very logically laid out, has very deep
>features, is very customizable and extensible, and sounds great. What's
>not to love??
>
>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. Reaper is first and foremost a multi-track
>recorder. I still use my old version of Audition for surgical-type
>audio editing.

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. 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.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 8/18/2017 10:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The Audicy was a revolution, being one of the first systems I'd call a
>> "workstation."
>> Except with decent scrubbing with a knob on the keyboard that actually had
>> good response without a lot of lag, something I sorely miss on modern DAWs.
>
>I remember the argument that Bob Lentini, developer of the SAW (Software
>Audio Workshop) program made for not needing scrubbing because you could
>see where you wanted to edit. I never agreed with him, and eventually he
>added it to the program's features. Gotta hand it to him, though. It
>came closer than the other programs of the day to offer everything you
>needed in one place, and ran and worked faster than most.

A lot of people made that argument, and a lot of people continue to make
that argument.

>And it's still around today.

And many of the other editing systems out there have equivalent functions.
ProTools has scrubbing from the keyboard, and while you can program a
control knob to send the scrubbing commands, the latency is kind of annoying.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/19/2017 10:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ProTools has scrubbing from the keyboard, and while you can program a
> control knob to send the scrubbing commands, the latency is kind of annoying.

The combination of the Mackie hard disk recorder and the big remote
control had a great scrub, very responsive and very good resolution. And
combine the recorder with the d8b digital console and you have a pretty
nice workstation. I never really warmed up to the d8b when I was working
with Mackie, but compared to digital consoles today, for studio use,
it's way ahead of modern digital consoles - functionally speaking - like
the PreSonus "Studio"Live.

New ones sound better and have more bells, whistles, and outputs, but
they're really designed for live sound applications and lack some things
that are important for a studio console. The excuse for not providing
things like metering on all of the channels all the time is that you can
get those on your monitor via your DAW. But that's another piece, and
another place to look at.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Nil[_2_]]

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.

[Nil[_2_]]

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.

[polymod]

"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

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Rick Ruskin]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[Rick Ruskin]

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

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[James Price[_5_]]

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.