It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.

Mike

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.


Download the upgrade from
http://store.adobe.com/store/product...uditionUpgrade

for the princely sum of $129.

1.5 was costly enough. After such a long wait you'd think they would provide
an upgrade for a better, more fair, price.

--
Pray for success please. :-)
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.


Download the upgrade from
http://store.adobe.com/store/product...uditionUpgrade

for the princely sum of $129.

Jim wrote:
1.5 was costly enough. After such a long wait you'd think they would provide
an upgrade for a better, more fair, price.


Go to their site, check how much has been changed/added, and ask
yourself if it is fair to complain about 130 bucks.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...

It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web
site.

Download the upgrade from

http://store.adobe.com/store/product...uditionUpgrade

for the princely sum of $129.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

1.5 was costly enough. After such a long wait you'd think they would
provide an upgrade for a better, more fair, price.

Pray for success please. :-)
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm

I find the price to be fair, as I never bought into Adobe 1.5. ;-)

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".

Arny Krueger wrote:


I find the price to be fair, as I never bought into Adobe 1.5. ;-)

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".


To borrow a line from "The Jerk", "It's not the money... it's the
stuuuuuf!!"

In this context, "stuuuuuf" is ACTIVATION, and the fact that if I want
to use it, I've got to change the operating systems in two perfectly
operating Win2K machines to XPP/XPH-SP4.

Ching! NO SALE



TM

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:

Jim wrote:


1.5 was costly enough. After such a long wait you'd think they would provide
an upgrade for a better, more fair, price.




Go to their site, check how much has been changed/added, and ask
yourself if it is fair to complain about 130 bucks.



Worth $50? Yes.
Worth $130? No.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:45:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.


Download the upgrade from
http://store.adobe.com/store/product...uditionUpgrade

for the princely sum of $129.


Oops, looks like I'm too late to upgrade from Cool Edit 2000...

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:45:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web
site.


Download the upgrade from
http://store.adobe.com/store/product...uditionUpgrade

for the princely sum of $129.


Oops, looks like I'm too late to upgrade from Cool Edit 2000...


Way late. The upgrade package requires 2 serial numbers, one from a copy of
Audition 1.0 or 1.5, and one that is supplied with the 2.0 upgrade package.

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.

Mike

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode. They mention BWF timecode
support in their literature but there is no information about whether that
is strictly monophonic support or if you can bring in the polyphonic files
which are so much easier to handle.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

Charles Tomaras wrote:

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode.

What the heck is that? New stuff to learn every day.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.

Mike

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode. They mention BWF timecode
support in their literature but there is no information about whether that
is strictly monophonic support or if you can bring in the polyphonic files
which are so much easier to handle.

OK, I have an operational copy of Audition 2.0 running on the computer I'm
typing this on. How do I test your files?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:20:01 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:


"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web site.

Mike

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode. They mention BWF timecode
support in their literature but there is no information about whether that
is strictly monophonic support or if you can bring in the polyphonic files
which are so much easier to handle.

OK, I have an operational copy of Audition 2.0 running on the computer I'm
typing this on. How do I test your files?

Test em' ?

What is he talking about?

If this is an ignorant question please forgive me and explain.
I can be taught

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web
site.

Mike

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode. They mention BWF timecode
support in their literature but there is no information about whether
that is strictly monophonic support or if you can bring in the polyphonic
files which are so much easier to handle.

OK, I have an operational copy of Audition 2.0 running on the computer I'm
typing this on. How do I test your files?


Just uploaded a couple of test files for you. You should get a link at your
hotpop address. Email me a different address if that's non operative. For
that matter if anyone else wants a couple of files to try out let me know.

"Sammy Lukowski" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:20:01 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:


"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web
site.

Mike

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode. They mention BWF timecode
support in their literature but there is no information about whether
that
is strictly monophonic support or if you can bring in the polyphonic
files
which are so much easier to handle.

OK, I have an operational copy of Audition 2.0 running on the computer
I'm
typing this on. How do I test your files?

Test em' ?

What is he talking about?

If this is an ignorant question please forgive me and explain.
I can be taught

We are talking about trying to import BWF Polyphonic files with SMPTE
Timecode metadata information into the new Audition 2.0 which now features
BWF support.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Charles Tomaras wrote:

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode.

What the heck is that? New stuff to learn every day.

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publi...user_guide.php

The Broadcast Wave file format has become the defacto standard for
non-linear SMPTE timecoded field audio acquisition in the film and video
world. Files can be monophonic or can be polyphonic and contain a number of
channels of audio. This format is supported by Deva, HHB, Sound Devices,
Tascam, Fostex and a number of other manufactures on their newest field
recorders. These machines have replaced the Timecode Nagra's and Timecode
DAT machines in their applications. Avid, Protools, Sony Vegas and many
other applications have varying degrees of direct support.

Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".

How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Michael Putrino" wrote in message
...
It appears that it has been released. You can see it on Adobe's web
site.

Mike

If anyone has upgraded I'd love to know if 2.0 supports the import of
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode. They mention BWF timecode
support in their literature but there is no information about whether
that is strictly monophonic support or if you can bring in the
polyphonic files which are so much easier to handle.

OK, I have an operational copy of Audition 2.0 running on the computer
I'm typing this on. How do I test your files?


Just uploaded a couple of test files for you. You should get a link at
your hotpop address. Email me a different address if that's non operative.
For that matter if anyone else wants a couple of files to try out let me
know.

Bounced back to me Arne. Send me a valid email address and I'll give it to
you. My address as shown in these posts is valid.

Charles Tomaras wrote:

POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode.
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publi...user_guide.php

That's more than I needed to know about broadcast wave files for the
moment, but interesting reading none the less. I guess you're talking
about the R111-2004 extension? It never occurred to me that the
mentioned recorders didn't record surround as discrete channels, but
used a multichannel (which I think is a better term than "polyphonic")
format.

It certainly isn't very common yet. I suspect that Audition doesn't
know about them, but I guess that's a good quesiton. People who use
that format gotta edit them somehow.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".

How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?

A given copy of a program can only be activated once. If you want to
activate it again, you have to call up the vendor and plead for mercy.
That's how activation works with XP.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...


Just uploaded a couple of test files for you. You should get a link at
your hotpop address. Email me a different address if that's non operative.
For that matter if anyone else wants a couple of files to try out let me
know.

My proper email address is
arnyk at
comcast dot net.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".

How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?

A given copy of a program can only be activated once. If you want to
activate it again, you have to call up the vendor and plead for mercy.
That's how activation works with XP.

More than once, but not ad infinitum.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".

How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?

Actually, I don't know Adobe's policy, but it very well could if you
frequently move from one computer to another. The Audition 1.5 license
permits you to remove the product from one computer and install it on
another, and in fact to install it on 2 computers simultaneously for use by
the same person at different times. I have no idea how they will combine
this with an activation system.

"mc" wrote in message
...

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".

How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?

Actually, I don't know Adobe's policy, but it very well could if you
frequently move from one computer to another. The Audition 1.5 license
permits you to remove the product from one computer and install it on
another, and in fact to install it on 2 computers simultaneously for use
by the same person at different times. I have no idea how they will
combine this with an activation system.

http://www.adobe.com/activation/faq.html

"The activation process supports installation on two machines. "

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

Charles Tomaras wrote:

POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode.
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publi...user_guide.php

That's more than I needed to know about broadcast wave files for the
moment, but interesting reading none the less. I guess you're talking
about the R111-2004 extension? It never occurred to me that the
mentioned recorders didn't record surround as discrete channels, but
used a multichannel (which I think is a better term than "polyphonic")
format.

It certainly isn't very common yet. I suspect that Audition doesn't
know about them, but I guess that's a good quesiton. People who use
that format gotta edit them somehow.

Well..it's only common on feature films and reality television! You'd
think with Adobe's Premier tie-ins that they would be on top of what is
happening in the industry. I'm not really talking about surround but about
isolated dialog tracks with one or two booms and a number of radio mics. If
you encounter BWF Poly files and need to separate them out there is a great
FREE utility from Fostex called BWF Manager that you can download at
http://www.fostexdvd.net/ Comes in both Windows and Mac versions and will
handle poly files up to 8 tracks. One of the other recording programs using
BWF files that is making huge in roads in the reality and feature world is
called Metacorder which you can see at
http://www.gallery.co.uk/metacorder/intro.html Unfortunately there is
NOTHING on the Windows side of the world that does what this does and I was
hoping that Audition might be configurable enough to work in a similar
fashion but that is wishful thinking on my part. I may end up having to buy
a Mac one of these days just to run the software.

From a file maintenance perspective if you are recording a days worth of
shooting on a film set with three or four channels of dialog you might have
100 or more takes during the day. If you are recording monophonic files for
each track you end up with 400 or more separate files to deal with and
transfer as each time you roll and cut you end up with a separate file with
a separate timecode stamp in it's metadata.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".
How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?

A given copy of a program can only be activated once. If you want to
activate it again, you have to call up the vendor and plead for mercy.
That's how activation works with XP.

Does that mean that I can't replace/upgrade my mobo underneath an
installed software system or replace my system disk with one having
contents cloned from a prior one?


Thanks,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote:

Does that mean that I can't replace/upgrade my mobo underneath an
installed software system or replace my system disk with one having
contents cloned from a prior one?


No, it just means you can't install it again. When it phones home it
will find that it has also been registered and will abort.

*Most* software with activation gives you three automatic approvals
before you have to go beg for mercy though, so it's not as bad as some
people are saying (unless Adobe is different).

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
POLYPHONIC broadcast wave files with timecode.

Well..it's only common on feature films and reality television!

Whew! I thought I had missed something important. g Since I rarely go
to the movies and never watch reality television, I doubt that I'd be
exposed to their production techniques. Never hurts to know about
what's coming along, though. In a year or so, you'll probably see them
downloadable to an iPod that has a "create your own remix" menu on it.

You'd think with Adobe's Premier tie-ins that they would be on top of what is
happening in the industry. I'm not really talking about surround but about
isolated dialog tracks with one or two booms and a number of radio mics.

Yeah, you'd think so, but is Premier used by the folks who edit feature
films? I'd expect Avid (and probably ProTools) to handle this file
format. I don't follow this corner of the industry, but I always put
Premier in the category of programs that independent producers of
corporate and government training films that people do on their
desktop. Perhaps they have higher goals, but are they getting there?
(A simple "yes" or "no" will do, if you have a sense for this - I don't
want to read a web page)

If you encounter BWF Poly files and need to separate them out there is a great
FREE utility from Fostex called BWF Manager that you can download at
http://www.fostexdvd.net/ Comes in both Windows and Mac versions and will
handle poly files up to 8 tracks.

I suppose that's the way to handle them, then. I'm not surprised that
Fostex is on top of this. There must be someone there who really wants
to get their foot further into the door of the film industry. They've
always been a small player among the people who are doing serious work
on a tight budget.

I remember seeing a thread about Metacorder here just a week or two
ago. I took a quick look at it, saw that it was both Mac only and fine
tuned for film work and moved along. Good that there's some hope for
the "sound card on a laptop" that I'm sure people without a Deva budget
have been wanting.

From a file maintenance perspective if you are recording a days worth of
shooting on a film set with three or four channels of dialog you might have
100 or more takes during the day. If you are recording monophonic files for
each track you end up with 400 or more separate files to deal with and
transfer as each time you roll and cut you end up with a separate file with
a separate timecode stamp in it's metadata.

It's just as bad in the music studio, only there you're often working
with 24 or more tracks and 200 punch-ins (or as many words there are in
the song) on the vocal track. While it's certainly possible to move a
project from one program to another, and the BWF time stamp that's
supported by most DAW programs today makes it possible to put
humpty-dumpty together again, if you haven't completely documented your
session, you won't know which are the non-keepers. The usual solution
is simply to "render" the tracks so you have one file per track that
contains everything as you last heard it. At least that's a good
starter. Then if someone thinks that the 8th punch on the 2nd line of
the 3rd verse was better than the one that's currently on the track,
you can go hunting through the pile for the right file to paste in. But
at that point it's kind of like finding a little bit of tape on the
floor that you cut out last week.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

However there is one big change:

The dreaded word is "Activation".
How does it work? Does it hobble legit users in any way?

A given copy of a program can only be activated once.

Correction, in the case of Audition 2.0, that would be twice.

I f you want to activate it again, you have to call up the vendor and
plead for mercy. That's how activation works with XP.

Does that mean that I can't replace/upgrade my mobo underneath an
installed software system or replace my system disk with one having
contents cloned from a prior one?

Depends on how sensitive the activation-related software features are. In
the case of Windows XP, the software is very sensitive. It detects
motherboard changes, as a rule. Then you get to talk to someone from India
or the Philippines or whatever if you want your machine to keep booting.
Just tell them that your old machine crashed. You get a new activation code
and that is that. You're only out about 15 minutes.

The irony is that the anti-pirating value of this XP *feature* is actually
zilch. If you build 10 identical computers and install and activate XP on
one of those systems, and then Ghost-copy that XP system to the other 9
identical hard drives, all 10 computers will be properly activated and boot
and run indefinitely.

The irony is that the anti-pirating value of this XP *feature* is actually
zilch. If you build 10 identical computers and install and activate XP on
one of those systems, and then Ghost-copy that XP system to the other 9
identical hard drives, all 10 computers will be properly activated and
boot and run indefinitely.

Which of course is exactly what the pirate would do who builds and sells
cheap PCs without properly licensing the OS. Hmmm...

Are you sure about that? I thought it checked MAC addresses (thus causing
great annoyance to people who change network cards) and CPU serial numbers
(unless the CPU serial number is disabled by Intel's utility).

"mc" wrote in message
...

The irony is that the anti-pirating value of this XP *feature* is
actually
zilch. If you build 10 identical computers and install and activate XP on
one of those systems, and then Ghost-copy that XP system to the other 9
identical hard drives, all 10 computers will be properly activated and
boot and run indefinitely.

Which of course is exactly what the pirate would do who builds and sells
cheap PCs without properly licensing the OS. Hmmm...

Exactly.

Are you sure about that?

Very sure. I've seen it happen. For legitimate builders of PCs there's
another production step where the licensing information from other copies of
XP are typed in to differentiate the machines.

I thought it checked MAC addresses (thus causing great annoyance to people
who change network cards)

Nope, and probably for the reasons stated. Besides, a lot of network
adapters have "soft" mac addresses.

and CPU serial numbers (unless the CPU serial number is disabled by
Intel's utility).

As you point out, its easy enough to turn off the CPU serial number
reporting facility. It's often turned off by default.

"mc" wrote in message
...

The irony is that the anti-pirating value of this XP *feature* is
actually
zilch. If you build 10 identical computers and install and activate XP on
one of those systems, and then Ghost-copy that XP system to the other 9
identical hard drives, all 10 computers will be properly activated and
boot and run indefinitely.

Which of course is exactly what the pirate would do who builds and sells
cheap PCs without properly licensing the OS. Hmmm...

Are you sure about that? I thought it checked MAC addresses (thus causing
great annoyance to people who change network cards) and CPU serial numbers
(unless the CPU serial number is disabled by Intel's utility).


You're mostly right. I went through this a year or two ago due to some major
hardware upgrades to my PC. XP does use MAC addresses to build a hash number
unique to your box. However, XP assigns a number value to your
"hash-building" cards and parts. If you are only changing low-level
components (network card, e.g.), you won't "trip" the reauthorization
switch. Of course, I don't know if this has changed in the years since, but
that's how it worked for me during a conversation with MS Tech Support on a
related subject.

dave

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:59:25 -0500, "mc"
wrote:


The irony is that the anti-pirating value of this XP *feature* is actually
zilch. If you build 10 identical computers and install and activate XP on
one of those systems, and then Ghost-copy that XP system to the other 9
identical hard drives, all 10 computers will be properly activated and
boot and run indefinitely.

Which of course is exactly what the pirate would do who builds and sells
cheap PCs without properly licensing the OS. Hmmm...

Maybe. Or he'll pick up the activation key generator (which will be
along very soon after the program is released) and fake a phone-in
activation.