Sound Forge 9

[Mike Rivers]

Any serious Sound Forge followers here?

I see that Version 9 is out. It's finally a multitrack DAW program
(probably different from Vegas-minus-video), so we can no longer say
"It's just a stereo program" (and my still-in-the-can article about
two-track editing programs is now obsolete). I'm not sure when it was
actually released, but I just saw some discussion about it on another
forum this morning, though no acutal experience yet.

It's not clear even that it's a free upgrade from Version 8, but I
just downloaded it out of curiosity. I might wait to hear a bit before
installing it since I'm not looking for a computer restoration project
right now.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 04:57:15 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>Any serious Sound Forge followers here?
>
>I see that Version 9 is out. It's finally a multitrack DAW program
>(probably different from Vegas-minus-video), so we can no longer say
>"It's just a stereo program" (and my still-in-the-can article about
>two-track editing programs is now obsolete). I'm not sure when it was
>actually released, but I just saw some discussion about it on another
>forum this morning, though no acutal experience yet.
>
>It's not clear even that it's a free upgrade from Version 8, but I
>just downloaded it out of curiosity. I might wait to hear a bit before
>installing it since I'm not looking for a computer restoration project
>right now.

Do you mean it's not clear WHETHER it's a free upgrade?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 8:31 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> Do you mean it's not clear WHETHER it's a free upgrade?

Yes. I probably don't need it at all, but I especially don't need it
if they want me to send them some money before it's fully functional.
You'd think that would be obvious on the web page, but to look at the
site, it appears that there never was a Sound Forge 8. But that's the
way software goes.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 06:04:35 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> Do you mean it's not clear WHETHER it's a free upgrade?
>
>Yes. I probably don't need it at all, but I especially don't need it
>if they want me to send them some money before it's fully functional.
>You'd think that would be obvious on the web page, but to look at the
>site, it appears that there never was a Sound Forge 8. But that's the
>way software goes.

It's not free. Do you have any particular reason to suppose it isn't
fully-functional?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 10:00 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> It's not free. Do you have any particular reason to suppose it isn't
> fully-functional?

Yeah - because it's not free. Obviously the program isn't free (though
there's apparently a demo version that can be downloaded) but
sometimes an upgrade is free. I didn't find anything that suggested
that this one was free or not. Since it's a major change, I suspected
not.

Anyway, I downloaded it and installed it. The installation took about
half an hour because it wanted a bunch of Microsoft crap that I didn't
already have installed on that machine. After it finished gulping up
what it wanted and installing it, it told me to reboot, and it still
hadn't installed Sound Forge 9. So I had to find where it extracted
the installation files, find setup.exe, and run that.

Finally it installed, and when I went to run it, it asked me for a
serial number. Of course I didn't have one. I tried my Version 8
serial number and it told me it wasn't valid. There was no option to
run it in a demo mode, so apparently the demo is a different file than
what my Version 8 found when I clicked on it's "check for updates."

Anyway, since I don't need it, I uninstalled it. That's the short
report.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 08:13:07 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> It's not free. Do you have any particular reason to suppose it isn't
>> fully-functional?
>
>Yeah - because it's not free. Obviously the program isn't free (though
>there's apparently a demo version that can be downloaded) but
>sometimes an upgrade is free. I didn't find anything that suggested
>that this one was free or not. Since it's a major change, I suspected
>not.
>
>Anyway, I downloaded it and installed it. The installation took about
>half an hour because it wanted a bunch of Microsoft crap that I didn't
>already have installed on that machine. After it finished gulping up
>what it wanted and installing it, it told me to reboot, and it still
>hadn't installed Sound Forge 9. So I had to find where it extracted
>the installation files, find setup.exe, and run that.
>
>Finally it installed, and when I went to run it, it asked me for a
>serial number. Of course I didn't have one. I tried my Version 8
>serial number and it told me it wasn't valid. There was no option to
>run it in a demo mode, so apparently the demo is a different file than
>what my Version 8 found when I clicked on it's "check for updates."
>
>Anyway, since I don't need it, I uninstalled it. That's the short
>report.


Ah. You went to the Updates page. There's a lot of updates there,
for a lot of programs. No point in downloading an update to a program
you don't own, and you don't own SoundForge 9. So the 9.0a upate
wasn't much use to you.

There's a demo version of SoundForge 9 on the Trials & Demos page.
That's what you needed. I'll be interested to hear what you think of
it.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 11:29 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> Ah. You went to the Updates page. There's a lot of updates there,
> for a lot of programs.

I guess it's not a very smart update page, since I got there from
SF8's "check for updates" function. At least I was smart enough to
know that Vegas wasn't an update to Sound Forge.

> There's a demo version of SoundForge 9 on the Trials & Demos page.
> That's what you needed. I'll be interested to hear what you think of
> it.

I eventually saw that, but I'm not going to bother with it at least
until I can figure out what's wrong with the demo. It's a lot of stuff
to download and install if it beeps every 30 seconds or doesn't let me
record something useful. I want to know the limitations of the demo
before I spend any more time with SF9. And I doubt I'd buy it anyway
since I'm perfectly happy with my present recording software.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 09:14:26 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>On Apr 10, 11:29 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
>wrote:
>
>> Ah. You went to the Updates page. There's a lot of updates there,
>> for a lot of programs.
>
>I guess it's not a very smart update page, since I got there from
>SF8's "check for updates" function. At least I was smart enough to
>know that Vegas wasn't an update to Sound Forge.

It doesn't try to be smart. It just lists available updates for all
Sony's media programs. YOU have to be smart enough to know what
programs you own. There are updates for SoundForge 4, 6, 7 and 8 just
above the one for SoundForge 9.


>> There's a demo version of SoundForge 9 on the Trials & Demos page.
>> That's what you needed. I'll be interested to hear what you think of
>> it.
>
>I eventually saw that, but I'm not going to bother with it at least
>until I can figure out what's wrong with the demo. It's a lot of stuff
>to download and install if it beeps every 30 seconds or doesn't let me
>record something useful. I want to know the limitations of the demo
>before I spend any more time with SF9. And I doubt I'd buy it anyway
>since I'm perfectly happy with my present recording software.

"Limited time fully functioning demo" it says.

I guess, if nothing else, this can be taken as a terrible warning to
Mike Rivers, professional manual writer. Some users just WON'T read
simple instructions :-) Now, what grade glasspaper do I use to clean
the heads on this here Ampex?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 1:00 pm, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> "Limited time fully functioning demo" it says.

I'll take your word for it. I may have been looking right at it and
didn't see it. However, since apparently SF9 just came out, it's a
little discouraging to see that there's an upgrade for it already.

> I guess, if nothing else, this can be taken as a terrible warning to
> Mike Rivers, professional manual writer. Some users just WON'T read
> simple instructions :-)

I read 'em if I find 'em. However I can tell you that I didn't
download the manual for Sound Forge 9. If I can't figure out how to
make it work without the manual (given that I have a little knowledge
of SF8) then it gets a bad review. <g> If I think I might want to dig
deeper into it, THEN I'll download the manual.

> Now, what grade glasspaper do I use to clean
> the heads on this here Ampex?

I wouldn't use anything finer than 200. You need something pretty
coarse to not clog up with that sticky shed goo.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 12:12:07 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> "Limited time fully functioning demo" it says.
>
>I'll take your word for it. I may have been looking right at it and
>didn't see it.

You were, if you found your way to the Demo download page :-)

> However, since apparently SF9 just came out, it's a
>little discouraging to see that there's an upgrade for it already.

Or highly encouraging, if you look at it from a less jaded angle.


>
>> I guess, if nothing else, this can be taken as a terrible warning to
>> Mike Rivers, professional manual writer. Some users just WON'T read
>> simple instructions :-)
>
>I read 'em if I find 'em. However I can tell you that I didn't
>download the manual for Sound Forge 9. If I can't figure out how to
>make it work without the manual (given that I have a little knowledge
>of SF8) then it gets a bad review. <g> If I think I might want to dig
>deeper into it, THEN I'll download the manual.

Oh, PLEASE don't take any more software reviewing gigs Mike! It's
like asking me to review ballet. I don't have the background and I
don't like it, so I'm just going to carp all the time.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 04:57:15 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>Any serious Sound Forge followers here?
>
>I see that Version 9 is out. It's finally a multitrack DAW program

Having inspected Sony's web site more thoroughly, SF9 seems to be
Multichannel rather than Multitrack. A very salient distinction.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> >I'll take your word for it. I may have been looking right at it and
> >didn't see it.
>
> You were, if you found your way to the Demo download page :-)

I refuse to reconstruct anything I think I saw on the web. It changes
so fast. But you're right, I eventually found a page that said
"Download free trial" - but it wasn't the page I got to when I clicked
on the Check for Upgrades from SF8. Anyway, I did get the demo and got
it installed. What a pain in the butt! I don't do this sort of thing
very often and I didn't realize how much installation depends on
Internet connectivity. I was installing this on a computer that I have
to go out of my way to connect to the Internet, so it wasn't.

I had to fill out a registration form which I could then either submit
on line from the program or (bless their hearts) or save as an HTML
file, take to another computer that's connected to the net, click on
the file name, and it sends it in. Then I had to open my e-mail to get
the license code that's a gazillion digits, go back to Sound Forge,
and enter the registration before the program starts. Whew! But as
long as I was at the connected computer I thought I'd be a good sport
and download the manual.

I hooked up the Onyx mixer so I could have multiple inputs, started up
the program, and was pleasantly surprised that it recognized the Onyx
ASIO driver. So I opened a new project and it showed me two tracks. It
recorded. It played back. But SF8 does that. So I poked around and
figured out how to create an 8-track project which it insisted on
thinking was 7.1 surround. But there are 14 channels available from
the Onyx, and no matter where I looked (including the manual) I
couldn't figure out how to tell a track "I want you to take your input
from Onyx 5" or whatever.

I was expecting there to be some place on the track where I could
designate its source, but no dice. There's a matrix of sorts, but it
doesn't make much sense. I was trying to get the main mix going to a
pair of tracks, and couldn't figure out how to do that. Nor could I
figure out how to get more than 8 tracks in the recording window.
Maybe that's the limit. It says "Multichannel Recording" all over the
place, but it never says how many is "multi."

It's still not an object-oriented editor. The editing seems to be
exactly like SF8, and it still doesn't know how to do a crossfade when
you paste two chunks of audio together. There's nothing that looks
like a mixer - levels and pans are controlled only by envelopes. I
know some people like that, but some don't.

Upgrade price from a previous version of Sound Forge is $149.95. I
suppose there are some who will find the multi-channel workspace
useful, but I'll stick with my antique version of Sequoia if I want to
record more than stereo tracks.

> Oh, PLEASE don't take any more software reviewing gigs Mike! It's
> like asking me to review ballet. I don't have the background and I
> don't like it, so I'm just going to carp all the time.

OK, I promise I won't review Sound Forge 9. You'll just have to
download it yourself. I don't really review software, though I did
write one article about some programs, including Sound Forge 8.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 5:05 pm, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> Having inspected Sony's web site more thoroughly, SF9 seems to be
> Multichannel rather than Multitrack. A very salient distinction.

That's probably why what I call 8 tracks it calls 7.1 Surround. I
guess we'll just have to wait for a 16-channel surround format to be
invented (and supported) before it'll become a 16-track recorder. I
forgot to mention that it doesn't even appear to have record-ready
buttons for the individual tracks (OK, channels) - it's all at once. A
very specialized program, for sure.

[Ron Capik]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> < ...snip... >
>
> Upgrade price from a previous version of Sound Forge is $149.95. I
> suppose there are some who will find the multi-channel workspace
> useful, but I'll stick with my antique version of Sequoia if I want to
> record more than stereo tracks.
>

I got a notice today for a limited time $99 upgrade.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 14:32:31 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> Having inspected Sony's web site more thoroughly, SF9 seems to be
>> Multichannel rather than Multitrack. A very salient distinction.
>
>That's probably why what I call 8 tracks it calls 7.1 Surround. I


That's the point. I don't think it's 8-track at all. It's one-track,
but it's a multichannel track.



>guess we'll just have to wait for a 16-channel surround format to be
>invented (and supported) before it'll become a 16-track recorder. I
>forgot to mention that it doesn't even appear to have record-ready
>buttons for the individual tracks (OK, channels) - it's all at once. A
>very specialized program, for sure.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 14:29:11 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>The editing seems to be
>exactly like SF8, and it still doesn't know how to do a crossfade when
>you paste two chunks of audio together.

How do you mean? There's Paste Special, or CTRL-Drag. Both paste a
chunk onto the end of another chunk with an automatic crossfade.

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Any serious Sound Forge followers here?
>
> I see that Version 9 is out. It's finally a multitrack DAW program
> (probably different from Vegas-minus-video), so we can no longer say
> "It's just a stereo program" (and my still-in-the-can article about
> two-track editing programs is now obsolete).


No, it's not a DAW. Is still 'just' and editor (and not a non-linear
editor), but can record and edit more than 2 channels at a time. It does
NOT facilitate mixing and effecting in the same manner as a DAW. You
article still will work, just modify the term 'stereo'.

I'm not sure when it was
> actually released, but I just saw some discussion about it on another
> forum this morning, though no acutal experience yet.
>
> It's not clear even that it's a free upgrade from Version 8, but I
> just downloaded it out of curiosity. I might wait to hear a bit before
> installing it since I'm not looking for a computer restoration project
> right now.

Not free upgrade, but if you are registered you should have got a $99
upgrade offer until the end of this month.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 7:05 pm, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> How do you mean? There's Paste Special, or CTRL-Drag. Both paste a
> chunk onto the end of another chunk with an automatic crossfade.

Didn't we go through this before? It does what it calls a crossfade,
but that's not what I call a crossfade. Believe me on this.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 6:59 pm, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> That's the point. I don't think it's 8-track at all. It's one-track,
> but it's a multichannel track.

That's one way of looking at it. I see that it supports multichannel
files too, something for which I think I have no use, at least not
yet. But it shows that when you have certain expectations about a
program, you can think you know what it is and does, and be wrong when
it's something else.

This is no longer Sonic Foundry even though most of the same group of
engineers is still working on the program. It's Sony, and Sony is into
multimedia entertainment, which means multichannel sound. A clever
plaything, legitimately useful to a few.

[Laurence Payne]

On 10 Apr 2007 19:04:12 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> How do you mean? There's Paste Special, or CTRL-Drag. Both paste a
>> chunk onto the end of another chunk with an automatic crossfade.
>
>Didn't we go through this before? It does what it calls a crossfade,
>but that's not what I call a crossfade. Believe me on this.

Remind me? It looks and sounds like a crossfade to me. Are you
objecting to the procedure or to the result?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 11, 3:38 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> >Didn't we go through this before? It does what it calls a crossfade,
> >but that's not what I call a crossfade. Believe me on this.

> Remind me? It looks and sounds like a crossfade to me. Are you
> objecting to the procedure or to the result?

Both. What I'm wanting to do is a crossfade over a few cycles, not mix
two songs. I went through this with SF Tech Support (for what that's
worth) and on the Sound Forge forum and the only way to do a seamless
edit is quite complicated, not something that you'd want to deal with
if you're making a hundred edits in a project.

If the (magazine) editor didn't cut out my explanation and
illustration to shorten the article, it'll be in the April issue of
Pro Audio Review. In the meantime, think about what happens when you
make a diagonally cut splice between two pieces of recording tape.
Over the space of 1/4" or so (the length of the splice - about 16
milliseconds at 15 ips), the sound on one piece of tape fades out
while the other fades in.

In Fast Edit, for instance, when you stick two chunks of audio
together (adjacent) it automatically extends the ends (one ending, one
beginning) by 10 ms or whatever you set the crossfade default to be
and crossfades over that 10 ms region. In Wavelab, ProTools, and
probably Nuendo, any time you overlap two chunks of audio, there's a
crossfade over the overlapped area. Often it's as short as a few
cycles.

While it's possible to do this in Sound Forge, it requires several
steps and the process isn't easy to remember.

[Peter A. Stoll[_2_]]

"Geoff" > wrote in
:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> Any serious Sound Forge followers here?
>
> Not free upgrade, but if you are registered you should have got a $99
> upgrade offer until the end of this month.
>

Sound Forge 6 has been my primary editing environment for about the last
four years, and an earlier version ever since I quit using SAW Classic. My
recording is nearly all two-channel small ensemble live music, so getting
beyond stereo is a negligible current benefit--though on a new purchase it
would be good to future-proof this way. Vista compatibility is probably
another bit of future-proofing.

For me the SF interface makes it easy to do what I want to do. In
particular, unlike Mike, I quite like the cross-fade implementation--I drag
the new snip into place over the end of the previous material, with an easy
visualization of what I've done, and trivial undo if a quick listening
check on the result says I flubbed it. Most of my cross-fades are of scale
one to four seconds, going from the end sound tailoff of one piece, to hall
ambience, to the breath intake of singers on the next piece (two separate
cross-fades there, three if the pieces are not from the same night and I
want to make the switch in hall ambience gradual). It seems my use and
need differs from Mike's, as does my satisfaction with this implementation.

I'm perfectly happy to give Sony $99 of revenue by May 31 if there is
important improvement going from 6 to 9. So far my reading of the feature
lists leaves me not ready to commit. But I'd value any guidance from happy
SF users on improvements they think valuable from 6 to 9.

[Edi Zubovic]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:27:16 -0500, "Peter A. Stoll"
> wrote:
------------------8<----------------------------------------

>Sound Forge 6 has been my primary editing environment for about the last
>four years, and an earlier version ever since I quit using SAW Classic. My
>recording is nearly all two-channel small ensemble live music, so getting
>beyond stereo is a negligible current benefit--though on a new purchase it
>would be good to future-proof this way. Vista compatibility is probably
>another bit of future-proofing.
>
>For me the SF interface makes it easy to do what I want to do. In
>particular, unlike Mike, I quite like the cross-fade implementation--I drag
>the new snip into place over the end of the previous material, with an easy
>visualization of what I've done, and trivial undo if a quick listening
>check on the result says I flubbed it. Most of my cross-fades are of scale
>one to four seconds, going from the end sound tailoff of one piece, to hall
>ambience, to the breath intake of singers on the next piece (two separate
>cross-fades there, three if the pieces are not from the same night and I
>want to make the switch in hall ambience gradual). It seems my use and
>need differs from Mike's, as does my satisfaction with this implementation.
>
>I'm perfectly happy to give Sony $99 of revenue by May 31 if there is
>important improvement going from 6 to 9. So far my reading of the feature
>lists leaves me not ready to commit. But I'd value any guidance from happy
>SF users on improvements they think valuable from 6 to 9.

-- I am also using Sound Forge 6 and am happy with. Its smaller code
allows quick opening in Windows XP, it opens much quicker compared to
SF8. SF8 does have some additional features, average metering in
addition to peak metering, scrubbing, use of VST plug ins (but these
can be used with "wrapper" plug-ins in SF6 as well) and some other
features I forgot; crossfading maybe. Sound Forge 9 will have Noise
Reduction set bundled for the price; this is a good thing for those
using such tools. Also, the CD Architect is now (as I understand)
bundled with.
Under Winows XP, I noticed that recording with Sound Forge 6 does
occupy the processor 100% while SF8 does not; I guess this is due to
16-bit code parts (DOS-based) which have now to be supported by
emulated DOS functions. Other functions work well. But man, is the
software of today bloated...

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Peter A. Stoll]

Frank Vuotto > wrote in
:

> Soundforge didn't become 'non-linear' until 7 ( I think ). Any time
> saved loading is more than spent 10 times over the first time you trim
> some off the start of a file.
>
Actually the change to what I think you mean by non-linear editing was
already in 6. The difference it made in editing from my previous version
(maybe 3 or 4?) was immense. Suddenly no simple edit cost any wait time at
all (though the save when one exited suddenly took far longer). The only
things I wait for enough to notice are actual processing on lengthy
selections, and the final file save.

That change is an example of the sort of real enabling improvement to my
personal work flow for which I'd happily pay $99. (though it is not why I
purchased SF6--my new computer was WinXP, and my older version of SF was
not XP compatible)

[Frank Vuotto]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:09:32 +0200, Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem
> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:27:16 -0500, "Peter A. Stoll"
> wrote:
>------------------8<----------------------------------------

>-- I am also using Sound Forge 6 and am happy with. Its smaller code
>allows quick opening in Windows XP, it opens much quicker compared to
>SF8. SF8 does have some additional features, average metering in
>addition to peak metering, scrubbing, use of VST plug ins (but these
>can be used with "wrapper" plug-ins in SF6 as well) and some other
>features I forgot; crossfading maybe. Sound Forge 9 will have Noise
>Reduction set bundled for the price; this is a good thing for those
>using such tools. Also, the CD Architect is now (as I understand)
>bundled with.
>Under Winows XP, I noticed that recording with Sound Forge 6 does
>occupy the processor 100% while SF8 does not; I guess this is due to
>16-bit code parts (DOS-based) which have now to be supported by
>emulated DOS functions. Other functions work well. But man, is the
>software of today bloated...
>
Soundforge didn't become 'non-linear' until 7 ( I think ). Any time
saved loading is more than spent 10 times over the first time you trim
some off the start of a file.

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

[Charles Tomaras]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Any serious Sound Forge followers here?
>
> I see that Version 9 is out. It's finally a multitrack DAW program
> (probably different from Vegas-minus-video), so we can no longer say
> "It's just a stereo program" (and my still-in-the-can article about
> two-track editing programs is now obsolete). I'm not sure when it was
> actually released, but I just saw some discussion about it on another
> forum this morning, though no acutal experience yet.
>
> It's not clear even that it's a free upgrade from Version 8, but I
> just downloaded it out of curiosity. I might wait to hear a bit before
> installing it since I'm not looking for a computer restoration project
> right now.


Upgrade price is $149 list but Sony has sent out emails to registered users
of version 8 for a $99 upgrade through May 31st.

Many new features but unfortunately for location sound people it does not
display timecode information from BWF files nor will it allow one to
save/render to BWF. The Sony user forum has lots of early feedback,
comments, complaints and suggestions. Here's a direct link that should get
you to the appropriate forum.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowTopics.asp?ForumID=3

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 12, 12:09 pm, "Peter A. Stoll" >
wrote:

> Actually the change to what I think you mean by non-linear editing was
> already in 6.

A non-linear editor is one where you can jump around at random in a
project and you don't have to wind tape from one reel to another in
order to get to the area where you want to work.

> The difference it made in editing from my previous version
> (maybe 3 or 4?) was immense. Suddenly no simple edit cost any wait time at
> all (though the save when one exited suddenly took far longer). The only
> things I wait for enough to notice are actual processing on lengthy
> selections, and the final file save.

What you might be talking about is non-destructive editing where the
file isn't changed until you really want to change it, and all edits
are done by constructing a playlist that says what portion of which
file to play at what time. The actual file is never changed unless you
want to do that, or unless you export the "as played" track to a new
file. In a non-destructive editor, the audio files are saved as you
record, and only the playlist, which is small and contains no audio,
only instructions, is what gets saved when you save after an editing
session. Hence the quick save.

[Geoff]

Edi Zubovic wrote:
> -- I am also using Sound Forge 6 and am happy with. Its smaller code
> allows quick opening in Windows XP, it opens much quicker compared to
> SF8. SF8 does have some additional features, average metering in
> addition to peak metering, scrubbing, use of VST plug ins (but these
> can be used with "wrapper" plug-ins in SF6 as well) and some other
> features I forgot; crossfading maybe.

So all this is worth flagging in favour of opening a few seconds faster ?!!!

>Sound Forge 9 will have Noise
> Reduction set bundled for the price; this is a good thing for those
> using such tools. Also, the CD Architect is now (as I understand)
> bundled with.
> Under Winows XP, I noticed that recording with Sound Forge 6 does
> occupy the processor 100% while SF8 does not; I guess this is due to
> 16-bit code parts (DOS-based) which have now to be supported by
> emulated DOS functions. Other functions work well. But man, is the
> software of today bloated...

No.

geoff

[Peter A. Stoll]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in
oups.com:

> What you might be talking about is non-destructive editing where the
> file isn't changed until you really want to change it, and all edits
> are done by constructing a playlist that says what portion of which
> file to play at what time. The actual file is never changed unless you
> want to do that, or unless you export the "as played" track to a new
> file. In a non-destructive editor, the audio files are saved as you
> record, and only the playlist, which is small and contains no audio,
> only instructions, is what gets saved when you save after an editing
> session. Hence the quick save.

What the newer Sound Forge versions (6-on, or thereabouts) is approximately
this:

1. the file opened is preserved untouched until program exit.
2. changes which alter detailed sound on portions of, or all of, the sound
file are captured in temporary sound files
3. editing changes such as "delete from nnn to mmm" are captured as pointer
lists, again in a temporary place. More pointers keep track of which temp
files have replaced which portions of the original (and each other)
4. on program exit (or "save file") the pointers, temp files, and original
file are parsed to produce a complete new file in the as-edited state.

Hence the final save can take wildly varying amounts of time, depending on
the sort of changes made in a session.

It works, nicely, in my work flow. Wonderful compared to the bad old days
of waiting for a slow disk to copy half the file if one deleted five
seconds of audience indiscretion in an interval between pieces.