SPS22 wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum
Analyzer It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording
and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or
Goldwave? (the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).


No comparison. SF. Goldwave is a toy in comparison, but a worthy toy.

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while SF & CE/Audition are
disk-based.

No, since "6" SF has been non-destructive (i.e. RAM-based).

Interesting.

SF 6 and later might be RAM-based, but that doesn't necessarily mean that
they are non-destructive in the slightly *different* way that
non-destructive is usually defined.

cwvalle said:

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins

That explains why Krooger hates it.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Wavelab appears to have be RAM-based while
SF & CE/Audition are disk-based.

No, since "6" SF has been non-destructive
(i.e. RAM-based).

SF 6 and later might be RAM-based, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that they are non-destructive in the
slightly *different* way that non-destructive is usually
defined.

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:30:10 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"SPS22" wrote in message
. com...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
.. .

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer
It is 2 track however, not multi track

I too like Sound Forge. Other's prefer Wavelab. He was specifically
talking
about "editing sound", as opposed to multitrack recording and mixing.


Opinions would help: Would folks here rather buy SoundForge or Goldwave?
(the
price of them are fairly similar, 70 & 40 respectively).




-surinder

last i looked sound forge was around 300 and another 200 if you want the
plugins
Carl

I like SoundForge as well. It's very powerful, so I'm only scratching
the surface as to what it can do, but I'm currently using it, along
with the noise reduction plug-in, to convert a bunch of vinyl albums
to .WAV files. It is pricey, but if you buy an older version, the
price drops substantially. I bought version 6.0 (I think 7.0 is
current), and the program only cost me about $200, with the noise
reduction plug-in.

Scott Gardner

Powell said:

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

The issue of "destructive" versus "nondestructive" has been one of
Krooger's bugbears for quite a while. What I'd like to know is why
it's an issue at all. For example, if the app you're using is set up
to change (overwrite) the input file but you want to preserve the
original, what's to stop you from making a backup copy before you
start your processing?

"George M. Middius" wrote

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

The issue of "destructive" versus "nondestructive" has
been one of Krooger's bugbears for quite a while. What
I'd like to know is why it's an issue at all.

One of the advantages is the huge time savings. With
nondestructive editing changes even on large files is
instantaneous. And in the case of effects plug-ins there
are in some cases almost an infinite number of variable
settings that can be made. This trial-and-error (applying
various settings) approach works best when you can apply
the effect and then listen to the original sound. The final
effect can be tweaked in very fine increments.

For example, if the app you're using is set up to change
(overwrite) the input file but you want to preserve the
original, what's to stop you from making a backup copy
before you start your processing?

If you're doing only linear editing this is an option. You
can save as you go along or create many back-up files
during the editing process. If you make a mistake you
can use your last backup and just re-do the missing edits.
Again the down side is the wait times to save files to the
hard drive and the large amount of hard drive space
consumed in the incremental file saving process. You
eliminate this process for the most part utilizing the
nondestructive approach.

"Powell" wrote in message

"George M. Middius" wrote

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

The issue of "destructive" versus "nondestructive" has
been one of Krooger's bugbears for quite a while.

Not at all.

What I'd like to know is why it's an issue at all.

Because it's quite clear you don't understand all the issues.

One of the advantages is the huge time savings. With
nondestructive editing changes even on large files is
instantaneous. And in the case of effects plug-ins there
are in some cases almost an infinite number of variable
settings that can be made. This trial-and-error (applying
various settings) approach works best when you can apply
the effect and then listen to the original sound. The final
effect can be tweaked in very fine increments.


Obviously, editors that have preview functions and multi-level undo
capabilities allow files to be tweaked in very fine increments.

For example, if the app you're using is set up to change
(overwrite) the input file but you want to preserve the
original, what's to stop you from making a backup copy
before you start your processing?

If either of you had any relevant empirical experience, you'd know the
answers. One answer is that most of the editing programs we've been talking
about function as if they made a backup copy of the file you are processing
when you start the editing session.

If you're doing only linear editing this is an option.

It doesn't really matter whether you're doing linear or nonlinear editing.
What matters is how the editing is implemented.

You can save as you go along or create many back-up files
during the editing process. If you make a mistake you
can use your last backup and just re-do the missing edits.

Many programs essentially do this for you automatically.

Again the down side is the wait times to save files to the
hard drive and the large amount of hard drive space
consumed in the incremental file saving process.

Most programs that implement automatic undo don't save the whole file every
time you make a change. Instead, they only save the portion of the file that
you are changing.

You eliminate this process for the most part utilizing the
nondestructive approach.

The classic approach to nondestructive editing is the edit-list technique,
where a list of edit commands is built, and they are only actually applied
to the source file when a modified file is required. In practice, a modified
file is usually required at all times during the editing process, so that
the sonic effects of the editing can be auditioned. Implementation
complexity increases as command response time always seems to need to be
minimized.

It's fun watching the technically blind and empirically inexperienced
Middius lead the technically blind and empirically inexperienced Powell.

The audio editors that we've been discussing typically use the same file
management model as a word processor. The original file is not altered until
the changes are formally committed to at the end of the editing session. The
modified file can be saved under a different name. Many of them, like word
processors, also implement multi-level undo.

CoolEdit's operation in Edit View mode generally involves making no changes
to the source file until the session ends. The user then has the option of
saving a modified file under a the same or a different name. Since capacious
hard drives are relatively inexpensive, storing a few copies of the file(s)
being updated is very feasible.

During the session, portions of the file that are modified are copied to a
working file. When the file is auditioned during editing, modified and
unmodified portions of the file are strung together dynamically, so that the
operator has good audible feedback about the consequences of his actions. A
number of functions that are likely to be applied to large areas of the file
also have preview features. Multi-level undo is also implemented.

Cool Edit's operation in multitrack view mode is generally non-destructive.
Most editing operations make no actual changes to the file(s), but instead
are stored as parameter changes. These parameter changes are used to control
both playback for auditioning the changes and mixdown of the multitrack
master into a distributable file with the usual number(s) of channels.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"George M. Middius" wrote

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

The issue of "destructive" versus "nondestructive" has
been one of Krooger's bugbears for quite a while.

Not at all.

After reading your post I have no idea why you're
opposed to "nondestructive" editing technology that
Sonic Foundry/Sony programs utilize. Their programs
can be downloaded for evaluation. Perhaps you should
do some homework.


What I'd like to know is why it's an issue at all.

Because it's quite clear you don't understand all the issues.

What I see is support for your hand-maiden and justifications
for work-arounds which waste time and unnecessary hard
drive space.

I offered three Sonic Foundry/Sony alternatives from
$60 - $400. In addition consumers and professionals
have a host of other sound editing programs, loops,
DXplug-ins, training, etc to choose from. Adobe Audition
has meager offerings in comparison.

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ts/default.asp

Consumers have many needs... and what's better than
having choices, Arny?

snip quacking

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...
- Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal
makes the music worse, not better, for me.)

Yes, whenever I've tried to remove any high frequency noise in Goldwave it
causes side effects that are worse than the noise. I have not tried other
editors so I don't know if they are any better. But for low frequency noise
Goldwave works very well. I have a lot of recordings from stereo videotapes
with very annoying low frequency hums and noise where the music is quiet
with little bass. Goldwave usually removes it with no noticeable degradation
of the music.

David

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

"SPS22" wrote in message
m...

After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software
tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and
Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I
find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these
programs? Any other program that is recommended around here?

Thanks.
-Surinder

You didn't ask, but I like Sound Forge
I especially appreciate the wave form synthesis and Spectrum Analyzer

Here's a news flash Valle - CE/Audition also has wave form synthesis and a
spectrum analyzer. So they aren't valid reasons to prefer SF.

It is 2 track however, not multi track

CE/Audition is both 2 track and multi track.



128 x 2

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"George M. Middius" wrote

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
/ refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

The issue of "destructive" versus "nondestructive" has
been one of Krooger's bugbears for quite a while.

Not at all.

After reading your post I have no idea why you're
opposed to "nondestructive" editing technology that
Sonic Foundry/Sony programs utilize. Their programs
can be downloaded for evaluation. Perhaps you should
do some homework.

That's good because the opposition is a figment of your imagination, Powell.
For one thing Powell you obviously can't read, because I just described for
you the rich selection of nondestructive features of Audition/CE.

I have no problems with people who choose SF. Check the google record,
people such as Scott Gardner recently have discussed their experiences with
SF. They were treated as matters of fact. No attempt was made to ram
Audition down the throat. Powell, you're the guy who decided to turn a
friendly discussion of audio editors into a duel to the death.

Unlike you and Dormer Powell, I didn't try to assert that Audition was more
professional or less professional than SF. They are both tools that are used
by thousands of professionals. They duke it out in the marketplace. One may
or may not overwhelm the other.

What I'd like to know is why it's an issue at all.

Because it's quite clear you don't understand all the issues.

What I see is support for your hand-maiden and justifications
for work-arounds which waste time and unnecessary hard
drive space.

Tell me when you've got some empirical experience with all of the
alternatives to SF, Powell. Tell me when you've got some empirical
experience with any of the alternatives to SF, Powell.

I offered three Sonic Foundry/Sony alternatives from
$60 - $400. In addition consumers and professionals
have a host of other sound editing programs, loops,
DXplug-ins, training, etc to choose from. Adobe Audition
has meager offerings in comparison.

We perceive our needs and we choose tools to help us fulfill them.

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ts/default.asp

I see a lot of evidence that SF has been playing "catch up" by copying
features that Audition has had for a long time.

Consumers have many needs... and what's better than
having choices, Arny?

Nothing. I made my choice which is not the same as yours. In your
doctrinaire world Powell, that makes me wrong and "unprofessional". My only
claims about Audition are along the lines of: this is what it does, and it
works for me.

Reference:
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...?PID=668&Featu
reID=5785

Here are some long-term Audition/CE features that were just added to SF, I
wonder what I would have done without them say two years ago when CE had
them and SF didn't:

Clipped peak detection and marking
Vinyl RestorationT plug-in
White, pink, and brown noise generators
Waveform volume and pan envelopes
fade curves
Automatic file mixing and conversion

Why don't you tell us with your empirical experiences with Audition,
Powell...

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack recording and
production with SF? I've been do it for years with Audition/CE and I do it
all the time - was doing it today a few hours ago.

Since you seem to be such a true believer in high sample rates Powell, why
don't you explain how SF supports audio with sample rates 200 KHz which
Audition/CE has done for years.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"George M. Middius" wrote

"non-destructive is usually defined"... really? If you don't
understand what "non-destructive" means why not just
say so?

Destructive editing - editing changes result in permanently
changed (overwriting) data.

Nondestructive editing - when you use the copy, cut, and
paste functions your data is not changed. This is also
/ refered to as real-time proscessing. By turning off the
effects plug-in, for example, you can listen to your data
as it was origionally recorded.

The issue of "destructive" versus "nondestructive" has
been one of Krooger's bugbears for quite a while.

Not at all.

After reading your post I have no idea why you're
opposed to "nondestructive" editing technology that
Sonic Foundry/Sony programs utilize. Their programs
can be downloaded for evaluation. Perhaps you should
do some homework.

For one thing Powell you obviously can't read, because
I just described for you the rich selection of nondestructive
features of Audition/CE.

Actually you said "generally non-destructive."

I have no problems with people who choose SF.

And why should you? You lack emprical experiences
with SF 5, 6, 7 or Audition.

No attempt was made to ram Audition down the throat.
Powell, you're the guy who decided to turn a friendly
discussion of audio editors into a duel to the death.

Actually I responded to George’s question. You inserted
yourself and answered in your typical dehumanizing
fashion devoid of any meaningful answers.

I see a lot of evidence that SF has been playing "catch
up" by copying features that Audition has had for a long
time.

Hehehe... oh right, conspiracy theories.

BTW Powell, wanna tell me...

Why would I bother , mr. Narcissist?

"Powell" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Powell" wrote in message



After reading your post I have no idea why you're
opposed to "nondestructive" editing technology that
Sonic Foundry/Sony programs utilize. Their programs
can be downloaded for evaluation. Perhaps you should
do some homework.

For one thing Powell you obviously can't read, because
I just described for you the rich selection of nondestructive
features of Audition/CE.

Actually you said "generally non-destructive."

So what?

I have no problems with people who choose SF.

And why should you?

No reason other than the fact that you claimed I did. Thanks for destroying
your own line of attack, Powell.

You lack empirical experiences with SF 5, 6, 7 or Audition.

Horsefeathers. First, I have had empirical experience with SF. Since it
can't do multitracking and I multitrack extensively, it is irrelevant to
me.

Secondly, I do in fact own and use Audition.

No attempt was made to ram Audition down the throat.
Powell, you're the guy who decided to turn a friendly
discussion of audio editors into a duel to the death.

Actually I responded to George's question. You inserted
yourself and answered in your typical dehumanizing
fashion devoid of any meaningful answers.

Powell, while this is untrue, even if it were true it doesn't change the
fact that you turned this discussion into a duel to the death

I see a lot of evidence that SF has been playing "catch
up" by copying features that Audition has had for a long
time.

Hehehe... oh right, conspiracy theories.

What conspiracy? I made factual comments that were backed up with a direct
quote from the SF web site. SF lacked 24/96 support for years and years,
while CEPro has always been able to handle any format up to 32/999.

BTW Powell, wanna tell me...

Why would I bother , mr. Narcissist?

Prerequisite radical subjectivist personal attack noted.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

After reading your post I have no idea why you're
opposed to "nondestructive" editing technology that
Sonic Foundry/Sony programs utilize. Their programs
can be downloaded for evaluation. Perhaps you should
do some homework.

For one thing Powell you obviously can't read, because
I just described for you the rich selection of nondestructive
features of Audition/CE.

Actually you said "generally non-destructive."

So what?

Define specific attributes of "generally non-destructive"
including program and version, please?


I have no problems with people who choose SF.

And why should you?

No reason other than the fact that you claimed I did. Thanks for
destroying
your own line of attack, Powell.

You lack empirical experiences with SF 5, 6, 7 or Audition.

Horsefeathers. First, I have had empirical experience with SF.

Yes, I searched outside this new group and found
“Since it's going to cost me nothing to upgrade,
and I get to pick the one I like after I see Audition,
I'm sure I'll do it.” and “I got Audition because of
curiosity and because it cost me so little to play.”

It always comes down to the money, doesn’t it, Arny ?

In regards to your empirical claim of knowledgeable
use of Sound Forge/Sony you wrote “I have briefly
used a lite verison of SF, but really didn't see enough
of a difference to justify switching” and this “I don't
have a ton of experience with SF” and “the SF people
haven't sent me a copy of SF5 to to review, and I use
CoolEdit Pro.” Obviously no 5,6 or 7 experience.
The light version you refereed to was Sound Forge
XP 4.5 designed for W95. Your SF knowledge base
is really quite pathetic, mr. Know-it-all.

Given how cheap you are and your claim of
knowledgeable advice there is no reason for your
apathy other than narcissism. It costs you nothing
to download and evaluate the product (SF7). Do
some homework before you try to edify others.


Actually I responded to George's question. You inserted
yourself and answered in your typical dehumanizing
fashion devoid of any meaningful answers.

Powell, while this is untrue, even if it were true it
doesn't change the fact that you turned this discussion
into a duel to the death

"duel to the death"... oh please, you're not that important.


I see a lot of evidence that SF has been playing "catch
up" by copying features that Audition has had for a long
time.

Hehehe... oh right, conspiracy theories.

What conspiracy? I made factual comments that were
backed up with a direct quote from the SF web site. SF
lacked 24/96 support for years and years, while CEPro
has always been able to handle any format up to 32/999.

Well yes, what did you expect from Sound Forge XP 4.5
it was designed for W95. Please edify yourself.

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...FeatureID=5799


BTW Powell, wanna tell me...

Why would I bother , mr. Narcissist?

Prerequisite radical subjectivist personal attack noted.

Hehehe... I'm just looking out for your *lack* of
spiritual growth.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack recording and
production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed for that
purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and raving about SF.

I've been do it for years with Audition/CE and I do it
all the time - was doing it today a few hours ago.

For a professional solution consider ProTools, SX, SawPlus, Vegas,
Bias, Logic, Sonar, Samplitude...

...or Audition or several others.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and
raving about SF.

The original poster (SPS22) wrote: "Well, I am essentially
trying to convert cassettes to CD's". What benefit is there
for utilizing "12 track multitrack" for the user's two channel
application, Arny? Zero, none, nada, zip.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and
raving about SF.

The original poster (SPS22) wrote: "Well, I am essentially
trying to convert cassettes to CD's". What benefit is there
for utilizing "12 track multitrack" for the user's two channel
application, Arny? Zero, none, nada, zip.

Nice job Powell, of trying to avoid taking responsibility for your attempts
to move the discussion off of the original topic. Both CE/Audition and SF
would do a fine job of digitizing most cassettes, as would Audacity and
Goldwave.

BTW Powell, why not tell us about your vast empirical experiences with
digitizing cassettes. I've been doing them for years with CE.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and
raving about SF.

The original poster (SPS22) wrote: "Well, I am essentially
trying to convert cassettes to CD's". What benefit is there
for utilizing "12 track multitrack" for the user's two channel
application, Arny? Zero, none, nada, zip.

Both CE/Audition and SF would do a fine job of digitizing
most cassettes, as would Audacity and Goldwave.

You’re still trying to make a decision for the consumer.
Like your amps=amps mentality you believe that technical
specifications and cost are the sole determiners in the
selection process. You ignore many other deal
breakers/makers like the software suitability for the skill
level of the user. Personal preferences play a significant
role in the user's long term satisfaction. Each program
you name-dropped has its own unique menus and
intuitiveness.

The audiophile approach would be to try-before-you-
buy. You’re just trying to put your hat on everyone else's
head. So in answer to your statement “Both CE/Audition
and SF would do a fine job” I still reply, "How would you
know?"


BTW Powell, why not tell us about your vast empirical
experiences with digitizing cassettes. I've been doing
them for years with CE.

Quack, quack, quack...

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and
raving about SF.

The original poster (SPS22) wrote: "Well, I am essentially
trying to convert cassettes to CD's". What benefit is there
for utilizing "12 track multitrack" for the user's two channel
application, Arny? Zero, none, nada, zip.

Both CE/Audition and SF would do a fine job of digitizing
most cassettes, as would Audacity and Goldwave.

You're still trying to make a decision for the consumer.

How, by NOT ramming SF down his throat?

Like your amps=amps mentality you believe that technical
specifications and cost are the sole determiners in the
selection process.

Absolute nonsense.

You ignore many other deal
breakers/makers like the software suitability for the skill
level of the user.

A figment of your imagination, Powell.

BTW Powell, tell us about your empirical experiences with Goldwave and
Audacity.

Personal preferences play a significant
role in the user's long term satisfaction. Each program
you name-dropped has its own unique menus and
intuitiveness.

Right, and both Goldwave and Audacity are distributed for free. Goldwave is
freely distributed as mildly-limited shareware and Audacity is out-and-out
freeware.

The audiophile approach would be to try-before-you-
buy.

Entirely feasible with a number of the alternatives I listed.

You're just trying to put your hat on everyone else's
head.

How, by NOT shoving SF down people's throat?

So in answer to your statement "Both CE/Audition
and SF would do a fine job" I still reply, "How would you
know?"

Been there, done that.

BTW Powell, why not tell us about your vast empirical
experiences with digitizing cassettes. I've been doing
them for years with CE.

Quack, quack, quack...

This non-answer speaks for itself.

"The Artist" wrote in message


Put Audition and the several others at the bottom of the list to get a
true reflection of the pecking order in the market place for
multitrack production facilities.

Prove it.

"The Artist" says to Arny:.

It's not like you make an income from
audio production, after all.


Ouch!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


"The Artist" says to Arny:.

It's not like you make an income from
audio production, after all.

Ouch!!

Not at all. It simply shows how desperate Dormer is to be overbearing,
officious and insulting.

Dormer seems to be going over the top with his habit of being presumptuous.
He now fancies himself "The Artist". LOL!

If the posts on rec.audio.pro and the Adobe audition newsgroups are any
indication, there are a great many professionals who rely on CE/Audition.
One area where it seems to be heavily used is broadcasting. There's even a
whole newsgroup devoted to that one application of Audition. Adobe if
nothing else, knows who their market is!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


"The Artist" says to Arny:.

It's not like you make an income from
audio production, after all.

Ouch!!

Not at all. It simply shows how desperate Dormer is to be overbearing,
officious and insulting.

Dormer seems to be going over the top with his habit of being
presumptuous.
He now fancies himself "The Artist". LOL!


Beats "Arny the Internet Dork".




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and
raving about SF.

The original poster (SPS22) wrote: "Well, I am essentially
trying to convert cassettes to CD's". What benefit is there
for utilizing "12 track multitrack" for the user's two channel
application, Arny? Zero, none, nada, zip.

Both CE/Audition and SF would do a fine job of digitizing
most cassettes, as would Audacity and Goldwave.

You're still trying to make a decision for the consumer.

How, by NOT ramming SF down his throat?

I offered three links. You pretended to have relevant SF
experience which turned out to be old W95 (SF XP4.5)
software based... not relevant. Feeling embarrassed
you now get mad and abusive.

Check out Sonic Foundry/Sony products:

Sound Forge Studio 6.0 - $70
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=718

CD Architech 5.0 - $240
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=780

Sound Forge 7.0 - $400 "The industry standard is still the industry
standard." - Recording Magazine
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=668

snip quacking

Personal preferences play a significant
role in the user's long term satisfaction. Each program
you name-dropped has its own unique menus and
intuitiveness.

Right, and both Goldwave and Audacity are distributed
for free. Goldwave is freely distributed as mildly-limited
shareware and Audacity is out-and-out freeware.

It always comes down to the money for you, Arny. Why
are you always assuming everyone else has the same
financial limitations you have?

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

So, from my viewpoint, SF and Vega are each half a product.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and
raving about SF.

The original poster (SPS22) wrote: "Well, I am essentially
trying to convert cassettes to CD's". What benefit is there
for utilizing "12 track multitrack" for the user's two channel
application, Arny? Zero, none, nada, zip.

Both CE/Audition and SF would do a fine job of digitizing
most cassettes, as would Audacity and Goldwave.

You're still trying to make a decision for the consumer.

How, by NOT ramming SF down his throat?

I offered three links. You pretended to have relevant SF
experience which turned out to be old W95 (SF XP4.5)
software based... not relevant. Feeling embarrassed
you now get mad and abusive.

What you don't seem to understand Powell is that I'm not in the business of
collecting audio editors in the same sense that I collect sound cards. I've
got a good tool that does the jobs at hand and more. If I had tried to do
what I was doing with CEP when SF 4.5 was the latest-greatest SF, it would
have been a disaster.

Now, some years later it looks like SF has largely caught up with CEP except
when it comes to multitracking. I've been doing multitracking before Vegas
was even available. CEP/Audition does a good job with multitracking while
SF is still a big fat zero for multitracking, and no doubt never will be
anything but a big fat zero for multitracking.

And, it's as if you haven't been abusive all along, Mr. "quack, quack".

Check out Sonic Foundry/Sony products:

Sound Forge Studio 6.0 - $70
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=718

CD Architech 5.0 - $240
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=780

Sound Forge 7.0 - $400 "The industry standard is still the industry
standard." - Recording Magazine
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=668

you forgot:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=810

"starting at $799".

The way I see it, an investment of $1440 gets me two integrated products and
a disconnected product that just might come close to doing what I'm doing
today with a well-integrated copy of Audition that I already have.

What a deal!


snip quacking

Notice additional abuse from Powell.

Personal preferences play a significant
role in the user's long term satisfaction. Each program
you name-dropped has its own unique menus and
intuitiveness.

Right, and both Goldwave and Audacity are distributed
for free. Goldwave is freely distributed as mildly-limited
shareware and Audacity is out-and-out freeware.

It always comes down to the money for you, Arny.

Except it isn't that way when the rubber hits the road. I'm simply trying to
encourage people who don't have the sort of confidence that I have, to spend
money on audio products, that they can investigate these products without
getting out their metaphorical wallets.

Why are you always assuming everyone else has the same
financial limitations you have?

Which financial limitations would those be, Powell? You claim they exist, so
you must have the relevant details. Here's your chance to stop looking like
a posturing fool - list out my financial limitations in dollars and cents.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:36:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What you don't seem to understand Powell is that I'm not in the business of
collecting audio editors in the same sense that I collect sound cards. I've
got a good tool that does the jobs at hand and more. If I had tried to do
what I was doing with CEP when SF 4.5 was the latest-greatest SF, it would
have been a disaster.

Now, some years later it looks like SF has largely caught up with CEP except
when it comes to multitracking. I've been doing multitracking before Vegas
was even available. CEP/Audition does a good job with multitracking while
SF is still a big fat zero for multitracking, and no doubt never will be
anything but a big fat zero for multitracking.

Here's a good example of Arnold not taking personal responsibility for
what he's written.

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack recording and
production with SF?

Wanna tell us how to do it with MS Word ?

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:
"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack recording
and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed for that
purpose. They have Vegas for that.

You know that, I know that, but Powell keeps ranting and raving about
SF.

Me too - it works and thinks like I do . And you keep raving about Cool
Audition.

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

Now, some years later it looks like SF has largely caught up with CEP
except when it comes to multitracking. I've been doing multitracking
before Vegas was even available. CEP/Audition does a good job with
multitracking while SF is still a big fat zero for multitracking,

You don't get it, do you. Sound Forge will never do multitracking. They
don't want it to do multitrac=king. Some users don't want there stereo
audio editor to be a swiss army knife.

The way I see it, an investment of $1440 gets me two integrated
products and a disconnected product

Que ?


geoff

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"David White" emitted :

- Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal
makes the music worse, not better, for me.)

Yes, whenever I've tried to remove any high frequency noise in Goldwave
it
causes side effects that are worse than the noise.

Are you able to take/use a noiseprint?

Yes. What I've always done is select the appropriate part of the wave to use
as the noise sample and copy it to the clipboard, and then select the Use
Clipboard option in the noise reduction dialog.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"David White" emitted :

- Good hiss removal (Audacity & Goldwave hiss removal
makes the music worse, not better, for me.)

Yes, whenever I've tried to remove any high frequency noise in
Goldwave it
causes side effects that are worse than the noise.

Are you able to take/use a noiseprint?

Yes. What I've always done is select the appropriate part of the wave to
use
as the noise sample and copy it to the clipboard, and then select the Use
Clipboard option in the noise reduction dialog.

Oh well :-( You may find judicious tweaking of parametric EQ provides
a better compromise.. depends on the material.

Maybe. The trouble I have with equalizers is that I find they are all hit
and miss. I've got no feel when I listen to something what equalization
settings will improve it. It's just trial and error.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

BTW Powell, wanna tell me how to do 12 track multitrack
recording and production with SF?

Why ask such a stupid question? It was never designed
for that purpose. They have Vegas for that.

So, from my viewpoint, SF and Vega are each half a product.

No, they are two distinct products.

Ya think?

That's the point.

Now, some years later it looks like SF has largely caught up with
CEP except

Bleugh!! :-(

Now that's a factual, informative comment.

when it comes to multitracking. I've been doing multitracking before
Vegas was even available. CEP/Audition does a good job with
multitracking while SF is still a big fat zero for multitracking,
and no doubt never will be anything but a big fat zero for
multitracking.

Thanks (once again) for demonstrating how little you know about the
subject.

So what are you saying, that I'm wrong about SF not doing multitracking?

And, it's as if you haven't been abusive all along, Mr. "quack,
quack".

Check out Sonic Foundry/Sony products:

Sound Forge Studio 6.0 - $70
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=718

CD Architech 5.0 - $240
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=780

Sound Forge 7.0 - $400 "The industry standard is still the industry
standard." - Recording Magazine
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=668

you forgot:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ct.asp?PID=810

"starting at $799".

The way I see it, an investment of $1440 gets me two integrated
products and a disconnected product that just might come close to
doing what I'm doing today with a well-integrated copy of Audition
that I already have.

What a deal!

Professionals choose the right tool for the job, then worry about
funding it.

Been there, done that.

If Vegas is a suitable solution, why are you even
mentioning Audition in the same breath?


Because Audition is an even better solution for me. I already have it and
know how to use it effectively.

Chalk and cheese, man.

Posturing and lack of factual justification noted.

Vegas is a ProTools level-product, that's the market it's cutting into.

Good for it.

Audition is not even in the same solar system, let alone planetary orbit.

Posturing and lack of factual justification noted.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Now, some years later it looks like SF has largely caught up with CEP
except when it comes to multitracking. I've been doing multitracking
before Vegas was even available. CEP/Audition does a good job with
multitracking while SF is still a big fat zero for multitracking,

You don't get it, do you.

Really?

Sound Forge will never do multitracking.

That's what I said, isn't it?

They don't want it to do multitrac=king.

Of course not. They can sell the faithful another product.

Some users don't want there
stereo audio editor to be a swiss army knife.

You mean Audition is inferior because it does too much, too well?

The way I see it, an investment of $1440 gets me two integrated
products and a disconnected product

Que ?

Check out the list you deleted.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Put Audition and the several others at the bottom of the list to
get a true reflection of the pecking order in the market place for
multitrack production facilities.

Prove it.

I may put you straight when you talk ****, but I'm not about to
regurgitate years of experience to "prove" what I'm saying. Do your
own homework.

In short, you were just posturing and have no support for your claims.
That's how it always is with you, Dormer.

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"David White" emitted :
Maybe. The trouble I have with equalizers is that I find they are all hit
and miss. I've got no feel when I listen to something what equalization
settings will improve it. It's just trial and error.

It comes with practice. Here are some practical things you can do to
optimize your signal and "learn" your ears : Watch your signal in a
real time FFT application - identify where in the frequency spectrum
the noise is and what sort of range it covers, any accompanying
continuous interference signals. Translate these numbers to your EQ
and Q, using wideband centered on the noise; narrowband on the
signals. Play with the gain cut, switching between preview and
non-preview mode to get a feel of what's happening. If you've got
multiband parametric EQ you can do this per band, and combine your
results to build up a smoother shape which will integrate more
harmoniously than using multiple individual EQ's. HF shelving is worth
trying to cut noise - start at 20Khz and work backward, playing with
gain and contour shape. [The above is like building your own custom
noiseprint, but gives you greater control of the results.] Other
options include de-essing, gates, and if you're working from ie. tape
with numerous FR anomalies something like Freefilter may provide a
quick fix at getting things sounding more normal.

Okay, thanks.

David

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Some users don't want there
stereo audio editor to be a swiss army knife.

You mean Audition is inferior because it does too much, too well?

Jack of all trades... master of none.

Just more meaningless posturing.

"The Artist" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :


If Vegas is a suitable solution, why are you even
mentioning Audition in the same breath?

Because Audition is an even better solution for me. I already have
it and know how to use it effectively.

Far from a normal criteria for "better solution".

I didn't mention any specific criteria. But Dormer, I'll bet that the voices
in your head heard me stating one.

What you are
effectively saying is you are prepared to settle for second best
because it's cheap and doesn't require any mental effort on your part.

Not at all. You've provided no evidence proving that Audition is second
best.

An analogy might be getting from point A to point B - any working
vehicle will get you there, however some vehicles are more suitable or
will give a better ride than others.

You've provided no evidence proving that Audition is second best.

Regardless, you didn't even grasp the point - if Vegas is a viable
solution to a problem then Audition is not, and visa-versa.

That very bogus logic. If Vegas is a viable solution that proves zilch about
whether or not Audition is viable, and vice-versa. Both products can be
viable.

Their capabilities lie in such different areas and they are aimed at such
different markets, rarely the twain shall meet.

You've made my point. Vegas is primarily video editing software that oh, by
the way does multitrack audio. But, this is a discussion about audio
editors. Because SF lacks any abilities to do multitrack audio recording and
editing, Sony forces their clients to use an application that primarily
edits video, in order to work with multitrack audio.

Do your homework, winkie.

Been there, done that.

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

"The Artist" says to Arny:.

It's not like you make an income from
audio production, after all.

Ouch!!

Not at all.

Yustabe has you bang-to-rights.

Not at all.

You like to think you are involved in
the "audio business", but it's common knowledge that your income is
derived from the "PC business".

Ludicrous claims by Dormer that he can accurately read minds noted.

The funny thing about that is, if you
actually invested the same amount of time and energy into doing
something about it that you spend acting like a complete tool, you
would probably find there is a job of some sort out there.

Stop contradicting yourself Dormer. You already admitted that I have a PC
business.

It simply shows how desperate Dormer is to be overbearing,
officious and insulting.

No desperation at all. With a pompous prick like you, such things come
naturally.

And calling yourself "The Artist" isn't pompous, Dormer?

Dormer seems to be going over the top with his habit of being
presumptuous. He now fancies himself "The Artist". LOL!

What's more presumptuous, that I use that nym or that you question it?

That you picked the name and decided to wear it, Dormer.

If the posts on rec.audio.pro and the Adobe audition newsgroups are
any indication, there are a great many professionals who rely on
CE/Audition. One area where it seems to be heavily used is
broadcasting.

Yeah, I bet they really rave on about the 12-track recording
capability. LOL!

Just goes to show how miniscule your attention span is, Dormer. You were
claiming that Audition is not used by professionals, just amateurs. I point
out a group of professionals that make heavy use of the product, and you go
ballistic into about the fact that is also does multitracking.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Some users don't want there
stereo audio editor to be a swiss army knife.

You mean Audition is inferior because it does too much, too well?

Jack of all trades... master of none.

Just more meaningless posturing.

You think a swiss army knife is better than specialized knives and
tools? D'oh!

Irrelevant. Anybody with a brain knows that "swiss army knife" was just a
metaphor.