[yrret]

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

Any experiences?

[Arny Krueger]

"yrret" wrote in message


So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

Not at all.

Any experiences?

In general all Win2k and WinXP programs run well under Win 7 in both 32 and
64 bit modes.

There are exceptions, but I see very few of them.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:09:49 -0500, "yrret" wrote:

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

Any experiences?


No. Maybe the odd one. Maybe you'll have to download some latest
versions. Maybe there won't be a driver for one piece of hardware
(scanners are particularly badly served in this respect, for some
reason.) But lots of people have moved from XP to W7 very
successfully.

If it's a desktop computer, have the best of both worlds. Install an
additional hard drive and install W7 alongside your existing XP as a
dual boot. I did this on my DAW. In fact, since everything was
installed on the W7 side, I have never needed to boot into XP. But it
was a good safety net.

[William Sommerwerck]

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

My understanding is that W7 is not fully backward-compatible. At least, not
the Home version. The Pro versions provide compatibility mode(s) that
increase the number of programs that can run under W7.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:56:51 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

My understanding is that W7 is not fully backward-compatible. At least, not
the Home version. The Pro versions provide compatibility mode(s) that
increase the number of programs that can run under W7.

The XP mode in W7 Pro is unfortunately aimed at business applications,
not media programs. You might get an old song database running, but
don't hope for it to help e.g. Wavelab 5 to behave itself in W7.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in message ...
So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be
useless?

My understanding is that W7 is not fully
backward-compatible. At least, not
the Home version. The Pro versions provide compatibility
mode(s) that increase the number of programs that can
run under W7.
See my other post. The compatibility modes you mention
are also available with Home;
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...lity-mode.html.
What is not available in Home is the XP Virtual Machine,
which Microsoft calls "Windows XP Mode." I have not had
to use it, but did experiment with it during the W7
release candidate. It made the hard disk unbootable

I have quite a bit of experience with XP virtual machines running under
Windows 7 in 64 bit mode. I have run both the XP virtual system that is
pre-packaged by Microsoft, and also a purpose-generated XP system that I
built myself. I've also migrated operational XP systems onto virtual
machines.

My experience is generally positive with some caveats. From a multimedia
standpoint, the one and only audio interface that is available is a
SoundBlaster-type card.

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2010, "yrret" wrote in rec.audio.pro:

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

No, of course not. What a silly thing to say.

Any experiences?

Yes, but which ones would be relevent to you?

Really, you're going to have to be far less vague if you want any kind
of useful answer.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 17/04/2010 15:44, Nil wrote:
On 17 Apr 2010, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

No, of course not. What a silly thing to say.

Any experiences?

Yes, but which ones would be relevent to you?

Really, you're going to have to be far less vague if you want any kind
of useful answer.

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run correctly undet Win7"?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

[Arkansan Raider]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
On 17/04/2010 15:44, Nil wrote:
On 17 Apr 2010, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

No, of course not. What a silly thing to say.

Any experiences?

Yes, but which ones would be relevent to you?

Really, you're going to have to be far less vague if you want any kind
of useful answer.

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run correctly undet Win7"?


Or even more specific, such as: "Will ProTools 8 run correctly under Win7?"

---Jeff

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2010, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote
in rec.audio.pro:

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run correctly undet
Win7"?

I'm currently testing every program ever written to see if they will
run under Win7. I'll be sure to get back to y'all ASAP with my
definitive conclusions, which will be carved in tiny but beautiful
characters on 10 stone tablets.

Don't upgrade until you hear from me.

[Richard Crowley]

"yrret" wrote ...
So... if I upgrade will all my WinXP programs be useless?

Any experiences?

The only glitch I have found is that Adobe Audition 1.0 runs in some kind
of "compatibility" mode that asks permission to "modify the screen" every
time you launch it (which is just a minor annoyance). Otherwise, it appears
to run just fine.

Except that recently I had to batch-convert a bunch of files and it wrote
the output files with some sort of security that made me waste almost
two hours going into each and every file and changing the security
settings so I could simply move them. That was REALLY annoying.

Yes, I am too cheap to pay for the upgrade to Adobe Audition.
Newer versions appear to have nothing I want or need. They keep
bringing out new versions simply to maintain a revenue stream of
upgrades as far as I can tell. Unless I have missed something here?

I got Reaper and it appears to be more whizzy (and dramatically
cheaper) than Audition. But it has a rather steep learning curve to
get proficient (which I haven't had time to do yet). There are some
things that Reaper appears to lack that I miss from Audition, but I
am assuming at this point that is due to my relative unfamiliarity
with Reaper.

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2010, "Richard Crowley" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

The only glitch I have found is that Adobe Audition 1.0 runs in
some kind of "compatibility" mode that asks permission to "modify
the screen" every time you launch it (which is just a minor
annoyance). Otherwise, it appears to run just fine.

I bet that's the same reaction that Vista has, just looks a little
different. Audition isn't compatible with Vista's (and 7's I suppose)
gee-whizzy Aero interface, so Aero shuts off while the program runs.

I got Reaper and it appears to be more whizzy (and dramatically
cheaper) than Audition. But it has a rather steep learning curve
to get proficient (which I haven't had time to do yet). There are
some things that Reaper appears to lack that I miss from Audition,
but I am assuming at this point that is due to my relative
unfamiliarity with Reaper.

Audition is more of a detailed stereo file editor, with some multi-
track features grafted on. Reaper is a real multi-track DAW, but it
doesn't have the fine editing features that Audition has. They're not
really equivalent, and I think I need both.

[Richard Crowley]

"Nil" wrote...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
The only glitch I have found is that Adobe Audition 1.0 runs in
some kind of "compatibility" mode that asks permission to "modify
the screen" every time you launch it (which is just a minor
annoyance). Otherwise, it appears to run just fine.

I bet that's the same reaction that Vista has, just looks a little
different. Audition isn't compatible with Vista's (and 7's I suppose)
gee-whizzy Aero interface, so Aero shuts off while the program runs.

Hmmmm. I thought I had shut off the whizzy "Aero" UI. I prefer to get
my entertainment from more conventional sources. Operating system
UIs don't constitute "entertainment" for me. Perhaps I'm just an old
fuddy-duddy codger.

I got Reaper and it appears to be more whizzy (and dramatically
cheaper) than Audition. But it has a rather steep learning curve
to get proficient (which I haven't had time to do yet). There are
some things that Reaper appears to lack that I miss from Audition,
but I am assuming at this point that is due to my relative
unfamiliarity with Reaper.

Audition is more of a detailed stereo file editor, with some multi-
track features grafted on. Reaper is a real multi-track DAW, but it
doesn't have the fine editing features that Audition has. They're not
really equivalent, and I think I need both.

Then maybe I'll just have to keep both of them around. I wonder if
my old copy of CoolEdit (which became Audition) runs on Win7? :-)

[Wayne R.]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:23:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote (with clarity & insight):

My experience is generally positive with some caveats. From a multimedia
standpoint, the one and only audio interface that is available is a
SoundBlaster-type card.

Is it "*Via a virtual setup,* the one and only audio interface that is
available is a SoundBlaster-type card"? Or another meaning?

[Preben Friis]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run correctly undet Win7"?

99.62 %

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 17/04/2010 18:14, Nil wrote:
On 17 Apr 2010, Dirk Bruere at wrote
in rec.audio.pro:

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run correctly undet
Win7"?

I'm currently testing every program ever written to see if they will
run under Win7. I'll be sure to get back to y'all ASAP with my
definitive conclusions, which will be carved in tiny but beautiful
characters on 10 stone tablets.

Don't upgrade until you hear from me.

You don't need to test every one personally.
Statistics + data mining = your friend.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

[John Williamson]

Wayne R. wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:23:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote (with clarity & insight):

My experience is generally positive with some caveats. From a multimedia
standpoint, the one and only audio interface that is available is a
SoundBlaster-type card.

Is it "*Via a virtual setup,* the one and only audio interface that is
available is a SoundBlaster-type card"? Or another meaning?

I've not run it under anything other than XP, but Microsoft Virtual PC
2004 and 2007 only offer a "Soundblaster compatible" card as a sound
output option, no matter what is really intalled.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Preben Friis wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run correctly undet Win7"?

99.62 %

Just be aware that Murphy's law of program compatibility will ensure
that *your* program is *always* one of the 0.38% that don't.

(Only joking...)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Nil" wrote...
Audition is more of a detailed stereo file editor, with some multi-
track features grafted on. Reaper is a real multi-track DAW, but it
doesn't have the fine editing features that Audition has. They're not
really equivalent, and I think I need both.

Then maybe I'll just have to keep both of them around. I wonder if
my old copy of CoolEdit (which became Audition) runs on Win7? :-)

If it's Cooledit 96, no. It won't even run under XP. Cooledit Pro SE, as
supplied with an old soundcard I've got laying round, works on XP, but
I've not tried it on Vista. Cooledit 2000, I've not got a copy of, so I
can't try it on anything.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wayne R." wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:23:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote (with clarity & insight):

My experience is generally positive with some caveats.
From a multimedia standpoint, the one and only audio
interface that is available is a SoundBlaster-type card.

Is it "*Via a virtual setup,* the one and only audio
interface that is available is a SoundBlaster-type card"?

Yes. The Microsoft virtual machine has a very limited number of options for
each device type - pretty much exactly one. Network cards may be an
exception - two options?

Every virtual machine can run record and playback on the stereo channels of
a virtual SoundBlaster 16. I've tested them casually and they work.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Wayne R." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:23:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote (with clarity & insight):

My experience is generally positive with some caveats. From a multimedia
standpoint, the one and only audio
interface that is available is a SoundBlaster-type card.

Is it "*Via a virtual setup,* the one and only audio
interface that is available is a SoundBlaster-type
card"? Or another meaning?

Soundblaster is the only audio card emulated to the
virtual machine. The video card is likewise a very simple
emulation.

Ditto for the hard drive controller, network card, etc., etc. The virtual
machine's XP system has a working Device Manager, and all the facts are
there.

[Arny Krueger]

"Preben Friis" wrote in message

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message ...

Like, "what % of programs written for XP will run
correctly undet Win7"?

99.62 %

IME, that is a pretty close estimate.

Of course you may need to be a little flexible about what you think
constitutes "running".

[Arny Krueger]

"Nil" wrote in message


Audition is more of a detailed stereo file editor, with
some multi- track features grafted on.

Obviously, you haven't tried to do any serious projects wtih the MT features
of Audition and learned how to use it. Its MT features are very complete
and powerful.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


Then maybe I'll just have to keep both of them around. I
wonder if my old copy of CoolEdit (which became Audition) runs on
Win7? :-)

CoolEdit Pro 2.1 works fine under Win7, even on a 64 bit machine.

[Nil]

On 18 Apr 2010, "Arny Krueger" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Obviously, you haven't tried to do any serious projects wtih the
MT features of Audition and learned how to use it. Its MT
features are very complete and powerful.

No need to take it personally. I didn't say they didn't work, I said
they were grafted on, which they were. Cool Edit started out as a
stereo editor, and it's multitrack features were primitive and clunky
in their earliest incarnations. Maybe that's changed in more recent
versions, but I find multitracking in Audition 1.5 to be painful.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

The only glitch I have found is that Adobe Audition 1.0 runs in some
kind of "compatibility" mode that asks permission to "modify the
screen" every time you launch it (which is just a minor annoyance).

Strange .... are you running it as administrator?

Otherwise, it appears to run just fine.

Except that recently I had to batch-convert a bunch of files and it
wrote the output files with some sort of security that made me waste
almost two hours going into each and every file and changing the security
settings so I could simply move them.

You need to take ownership to that box, disable simple file sharing and
simple folder view and set sensible permissions and inheritance at drive
root or first folder level (recommended, also recommended to share at that
level rather than at drive root. The dumbification rampage causes more
support hours than explaining it how it is (... what AM I doing, that is a
trade secret!)

That was REALLY annoying.

Yes, I am too cheap to pay for the upgrade to Adobe Audition.
Newer versions appear to have nothing I want or need.

You bet yer car seat it has. A1.0 has the same problem as CE has, it is
slower on NTFS than on FAT32, if you insist to use it, then keep temp and
work folders on FAT32.

They keep
bringing out new versions simply to maintain a revenue stream of
upgrades as far as I can tell. Unless I have missed something here?

You have, go to 1.5 if you can. With 2.0 and - especially with 3.0 - there
are new issues, this is not the forum, hopefully I'll be betatesting on 4.0.

I got Reaper and it appears to be more whizzy (and dramatically
cheaper) than Audition. But it has a rather steep learning curve to
get proficient (which I haven't had time to do yet). There are some
things that Reaper appears to lack that I miss from Audition, but I
am assuming at this point that is due to my relative unfamiliarity
with Reaper.

I do new stuff in A3 because what I do in A3 sounds better than what I do in
A1.5, I'd use A1.5 over A1.0 or CE2k for the same reason. It my personal
opinion you should upgrade. You DO need to keep the old version available,
there is no backwards compatibility for multitrack projecsts. Also I think
they changed the script language to make it less humanly readable ... it is
very unfortunate that they went and broke their forum ...

Some of this may fit the pcdaw list better, but I'll leave that to your
discretion.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

John Williamson wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Nil" wrote...

Audition is more of a detailed stereo file editor, with some multi-
track features grafted on. Reaper is a real multi-track DAW, but it
doesn't have the fine editing features that Audition has. They're
not really equivalent, and I think I need both.

Then maybe I'll just have to keep both of them around. I wonder if
my old copy of CoolEdit (which became Audition) runs on Win7? :-)

If it's Cooledit 96, no. It won't even run under XP. Cooledit Pro SE,
as supplied with an old soundcard I've got laying round, works on XP,
but I've not tried it on Vista. Cooledit 2000, I've not got a copy
of, so I can't try it on anything.

CE2k - except for the file speed - works great on w2k and on xp.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Nil" wrote in message

On 18 Apr 2010, "Arny Krueger" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Obviously, you haven't tried to do any serious projects
wtih the MT features of Audition and learned how to use
it. Its MT features are very complete and powerful.

No need to take it personally. I didn't say they didn't
work, I said they were grafted on, which they were.

That's where you are wrong. The MT side of CEP is almost completely
independent of the stereo mode, which is properly called "Edit View" (EV).

There was no grafting - there was the addition of a nearly completely
independent operational mode with far greater size and complexity than EV.
About the only thing that is shared between the two modes are the files
being edited. Even the basic editing of files is accomplished by two
diametrically opposed means.

EV is a destructive editor, and MT is a non-destructive editor. How
different can two products be?

In Audition 2.0, the MT side of CEP was again re-archtected. Audition 1.5
was CEP 2.1 with a few minor changes.

Cool Edit started out as a stereo editor,

Right in the early 1990s, and it continues with many enhancments as EV.

and it's multitrack features were primitive and clunky in their earliest
incarnations.

That would be an opinion you get to hold by yourself. Probabably something
you discerned based on running CEP SE, which was give-away-ware. It was a
very stripped-back version of CEP. CEP SE's purpose in life was to show
that the multitrack audio interfaces of the day, such as the origional
Layla, were functional and to induce people to spring for the full version
of CEP if they were serious about MT recording.

Been there, done that.

Many people find the second re-architecting of CEP to have a clunky UI.
Definately not primitive, but still clunkly.

Maybe that's changed in more recent
versions, but I find multitracking in Audition 1.5 to be
painful.

Audition 1.5 was released in 2004, was superceeded by Audition 2.0 in 2006.
The current version is 3.0 from ca. 2008. You are many days late and a few
dollars short.

Care to inform yourself about currently available software?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Edit

[Nil]

On 18 Apr 2010, "Arny Krueger" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

There was no grafting - there was the addition of a nearly
completely independent operational mode with far greater size and
complexity than EV.

I call that "grafted on".

Audition 1.5 was released in 2004, was superceeded by Audition
2.0 in 2006. The current version is 3.0 from ca. 2008. You are
many days late and a few dollars short.

Care to inform yourself about currently available software?

No. I'm fine just the way it is. My old version of Audition works great
for what I need it to do, and I have no interest in upgrading it at
this time.

What, do you get a kickback from Sony whenever you defend against a
discouraging word?

[Quentin Meek]

Originally Posted by Richard Crowley

"Nil" wrote...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
The only glitch I have found is that Adobe Audition 1.0 runs in
some kind of "compatibility" mode that asks permission to "modify
the screen" every time you launch it (which is just a minor
annoyance). Otherwise, it appears to run just fine.

I bet that's the same reaction that Vista has, just looks a little
different. Audition isn't compatible with Vista's (and 7's I suppose)
gee-whizzy Aero interface, so Aero shuts off while the program runs.

Hmmmm. I thought I had shut off the whizzy "Aero" UI. I prefer to get
my entertainment from more conventional sources. Operating system
UIs don't constitute "entertainment" for me. Perhaps I'm just an old
fuddy-duddy codger.

I got Reaper and it appears to be more whizzy (and dramatically
cheaper) than Audition. But it has a rather steep learning curve
to get proficient (which I haven't had time to do yet). There are
some things that Reaper appears to lack that I miss from Audition,
but I am assuming at this point that is due to my relative
unfamiliarity with Reaper.

Audition is more of a detailed stereo file editor, with some multi-
track features grafted on. Reaper is a real multi-track DAW, but it
doesn't have the fine editing features that Audition has. They're not
really equivalent, and I think I need both.

Then maybe I'll just have to keep both of them around. I wonder if
my old copy of CoolEdit (which became Audition) runs on Win7? :-)

Auditon 3.0 is a real leap ahead from Auditon 1.0 and Cool Edit. The perception that it is only a great stereo editior (which is is) is incorrect. AA 3.0 is a great multi-track recording/mixing machine. Full featured mixer and automation and VST support. The one issue that I have with AA 3.0 is that the Midi support is a bit weak.

[Richard Crowley]

"Quentin Meek" wrote ...
Auditon 3.0 is a real leap ahead from Auditon 1.0 and Cool Edit. The
perception that it is only a great stereo editior (which is is) is
incorrect. AA 3.0 is a great multi-track recording/mixing machine. Full
featured mixer and automation and VST support. The one issue that I have
with AA 3.0 is that the Midi support is a bit weak.

But it doesn't sound like ANY of the additional features beyone AA 1.0
are anything that *I* use. So it still comes back to why would I want or
need to upgrade?

[Steve King]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
| "Quentin Meek" wrote ...
| Auditon 3.0 is a real leap ahead from Auditon 1.0 and Cool Edit. The
| perception that it is only a great stereo editior (which is is) is
| incorrect. AA 3.0 is a great multi-track recording/mixing machine. Full
| featured mixer and automation and VST support. The one issue that I have
| with AA 3.0 is that the Midi support is a bit weak.
|
| But it doesn't sound like ANY of the additional features beyone AA 1.0
| are anything that *I* use. So it still comes back to why would I want or
| need to upgrade?

The spectral view features are much improved in 3.0 allowing more precise
deleting of desired parts of the frequency spectrum. I did n't use this at
first-still relied on eq to take out mouth noises, sibilance, wheezes, etc.
Now I find that I can process a track for these issues much faster using the
spectral view tools. I agree that 90% of what I do I can do in Audition
1.5, which is on my laptop.

Steve King

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve King" wrote
in message
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Quentin Meek" wrote ...
Auditon 3.0 is a real leap ahead from Auditon 1.0 and
Cool Edit. The perception that it is only a great
stereo editior (which is is) is incorrect. AA 3.0 is a
great multi-track recording/mixing machine. Full
featured mixer and automation and VST support. The one
issue that I have with AA 3.0 is that the Midi support
is a bit weak.

But it doesn't sound like ANY of the additional features
beyone AA 1.0 are anything that *I* use. So it still
comes back to why would I want or need to upgrade?

The spectral view features are much improved in 3.0
allowing more precise deleting of desired parts of the
frequency spectrum.

Never felt the need of it while recording or multitracking live or studio
music.

Seems like a feature that is primarily of interest to people transcribing
noisy archival recordings. I'm not knocking it, it just doesn't seem that
useful for what I do.

I did n't use this at first-still
relied on eq to take out mouth noises, sibilance,
wheezes, etc.

Experienced recordists have been doing this for decades with traditional
forms of static and dynamic equalization.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The spectral view features are much improved in 3.0
allowing more precise deleting of desired parts of the
frequency spectrum.

It IS uniquly useful for spotting clicks and minor recorded noises.

Never felt the need of it while recording or multitracking live or
studio music.

Ah, you must be recording noisy events. Small stray noises are a pestilence
when recording certain other musical genres.

Seems like a feature that is primarily of interest to people
transcribing noisy archival recordings. I'm not knocking it, it just
doesn't seem that useful for what I do.

It is good for spotting the presence of continuous tones, such may come from
lighting.

I did n't use this at first-still
relied on eq to take out mouth noises, sibilance,
wheezes, etc.

Experienced recordists have been doing this for decades with
traditional forms of static and dynamic equalization.

Yes, it is "only" an alternative view and interface for the FFT display and
equalizer, the latter in my understanding has the nice property of NOT
altering phase, which - for filtering - is good. One does however need to
know what the FFT display can be expected to display since it only has the
property of displaying white noise as linear.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k
Arny Krueger wrote:

The spectral view features are much improved in 3.0
allowing more precise deleting of desired parts of the
frequency spectrum.

It IS uniquly useful for spotting clicks and minor
recorded noises.

Never felt the need of it while recording or
multitracking live or studio music.

Ah, you must be recording noisy events.

Or, they are really pretty quiet.

Small stray noises are a pestilence when recording certain other
musical genres.

Ears and normal spectral analysis seem to be very effective for those
purposes.

Seems like a feature that is primarily of interest to
people transcribing noisy archival recordings. I'm not
knocking it, it just doesn't seem that useful for what I
do.

It is good for spotting the presence of continuous tones,
such may come from lighting.

Ears and normal spectral analysis seem to be very effective for those
purposes.

I did n't use this at first-still
relied on eq to take out mouth noises, sibilance,
wheezes, etc.

Experienced recordists have been doing this for decades
with traditional forms of static and dynamic
equalization.

Yes, it is "only" an alternative view and interface for
the FFT display and equalizer, the latter in my
understanding has the nice property of NOT altering
phase, which - for filtering - is good.

Yes, that's my point.

One does however
need to know what the FFT display can be expected to
display since it only has the property of displaying
white noise as linear.

And that is supposed to be some kind of flaw?