"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.

No, the way it is with me is that if you demand proof that 2=2 you
gotta do the math yourself.

More senseless posturing.

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

"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



why on earth would you do that anyway
there are real alternatives to recording on a computer
that work a hell of a lot better

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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.

Don't tell me you are actually making a profit on them!




----== 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 =---

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"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.

Yes you did, or were the words "I already have it and know how to use
it effectively." tacked on arbitrarily?

blah blah blah snipped

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.

Lack of comprehension about products in question noted..

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.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Vegas is the
integration of two high end products - "Vegas Audio" and "Vegas
Video".

I was simply trying to justify your claim that they are aimed at such
different markets, rarely the twain shall meet.

If we're really comparing Vegas Audio with Audition, then your claim that
they are aimed
at such different markets, rarely the twain shall meet can be simply
dismissed on the grounds that it is ludicrous.

"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.

No, the way it is with me is that if you demand proof that 2=2 you
gotta do the math yourself.

More senseless posturing.

More empty words from the liars liar.

I guess you've run out of postures, Dormer.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

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 ARE a robot!

You are obviously running out of steam, Dormer. Asking you for facts always
seems to do that to you.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

.

I'm done with you for today, please continue arguing with yourself :-)

No guts, no glory.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Que ?

Check out the list you deleted.

I'm just wondering which product you are referring to as discontinued.


geoff

The Artist wrote:


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 -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in realtime is about the most valuable
and practical way of gainig experience !

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:


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

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do multitrack
recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean that other
apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day doing what your 'do
all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .


geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much better
in my experience). It also does video, as least as well as other premiere
video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app ? . No. Video is
just not in it's feature set.

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a bit of
multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the name 'Video' off
it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio multitracking environment, and one
of the best.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.


geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

The Artist wrote:


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 -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the most
valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp. One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Que ?

Check out the list you deleted.

I'm just wondering which product you are referring to as discontinued.

Check my post - I said "disconnected".

I was referring to the tight interfacing between Audition's Edit View (which
is similar to SF) and its Multitrack View (similar to Vegas Audio). I doubt
that two different programs are going to work together as closely as these
two components of the same program.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant in
Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a bit
of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the name
'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio multitracking
environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was describing
was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the two was like
comparing "chalk and cheese". No way are Vegas Audio and Audition Multitrack
THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.

As is Audition.

Case in point, compare
http://www.soniccontrol.com/images/p...egasaudio2.JPG

to http://www.adobe.com/products/auditi...dition_nph.pdf page 4.

Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called Cool
Edit a "Toy".

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=lK...s02.tsnz. net

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit "seriously"

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that I can't
reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply, but you've got a
far better track record for reasonable responses. For example in a number of
other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like they were peers.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


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

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do multitrack
recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day doing
what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave editing, and
on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for multitracking. Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no sense in
claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition is necessarily a
poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any relevant facts, there's no
sense in arguing that just because Audition has a powerful wave editor, it
can't multitrack as well as Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition roughly
matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas for
multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or formal
interfacing between the two different products, it appears to me that having
both functions in the same program is a significant plus.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features in the
same program provides Audition with significant amounts of synergy. You can
record, play and edit the same file(s) in either view by just clicking.
Timing and positioning automatically transfer between the two views.
Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with Audition when
it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998, CEP had almost all of
the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio file editing power it has
today. At that time SF was far more limited in terms of functions, sample
rates and sample types that it could handle. SF still can't come within an
order of magnitude of Audition when it comes to sample rate support.
Looking through the feature list for the current release of SF, I see that
it was still playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and vice-versa)
but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Vegas does multitrack recording at least as well as CE/Audition (much
better in my experience).

You must have had some bad experiences with Audition!

No, just no great ones.

It also does video, as least as well as
other premiere video apps. So does this mean CE/Aud is a 'loser' app
? . No. Video is just not in it's feature set.

Well, now you're "getting it". BTW, I can't see anything significant
in Vegas Audio that Audition doesn't also do well. What do you see?

Vegas Audio no lnger exists since several version. How about 'totally
intuitive faster and ppowerful user interface'.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese". No way are Vegas Audio and
Audition Multitrack THAT different when it comes to editing audio.

Well they are.

Just like SF is one of the best audio editors.
As is Audition.


Geoff, in the past you've lined up with Dormer's posturing and called
Cool Edit a "Toy".

No. I said in 'seemed like a toy in comparison". Overall design, look,
uase, and feel. I agree that it performs editing satisfactorally.

But in the past you've also said that you never tried Cool Edit
"seriously"

No. I have an editing app that suits me fine. CE did nothing to inspire me
to change.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ez...s02.tsnz. net

I think you owe us happy Cool Edit users an explanation. I know that
I can't reasonably expect Dormer to provide a lucid, cogent reply,
but you've got a far better track record for reasonable responses.
For example in a number of other posts you treated Vegas and CEP like
they were peers.

They are. I happen to think that my preference of SF and vegas suites me
better. If you prefer CE/Audition fine, but don't slam other products
because their feature and architecture set is different on a philsophical
basis (ie very intentionally *not* totally integrated).

Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to delve into Google and the web to
bolster my point of view. I have other things to do...

geoff

"Arny Krueger"

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Maybe you should look at a more responsive audio appication ?!!

;-)

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:


multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or formal
interfacing between the two different products, it appears to me that
having both functions in the same program is a significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line to
directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or any editor
of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo suite. Sounds pretty
formal and interfacing to me.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear from
what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo products.


geoff

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

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the most
valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp. One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along. Goldwave
doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured out how to convert
Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings. They each seem to have a
different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave seems to be about twice as
sensitive. I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do
more experiments to be sure. I also don't know what sort of smoothing
between frequency bands they each use, if any.

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to take
effect.

David

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or formal
interfacing between the two different products, it appears to me that
having both functions in the same program is a significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line to
directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or any
editor of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo suite.

In Audition, when you click on a file in a view, you don't open the file in
the other view and you don't open a copy. You aren't restricted to clicking
on events, either, The file is already open in the other view and you go to
the same place in the file that you clicked in the current view.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you click into
the other view. If you change the working copy of a file in edit view, it's
instantly changed in multitrack view because it's the same file. The inverse
isn't true, because editing in the multitrack view is non-destructive so
there are no consequences to the file in edit view.

The non-destructive tools in multitrack view work the same as the tools that
you use in edit view because it's all the same program. When you do a
mixdown in multitrack view, the cue, track and index marks from the
multitrack view show up in the mixdown file. You can add or delete marks at
this point, as needed, prior to burning.

Sounds pretty formal and interfacing to me.

It's almost no interface at all, as compared to the tight interfacing in
Audition.

I have tried both (in CE days) and made my choice. It's pretty clear
from what you say that you've never seriously investigated the SoSoFo
products.

I had SF 4.5 + CD Architect. While the editing commands were similar to CEP
as far as they went, at the time SF was woefully backward compared to CEP.
It lacked a lot of effects that I needed. As I said before its major
weaknesses at the time included no support for sample rates 48 KHz, and no
support for 16 bits. That's been fixed in SF but it took years and years.
I had work on the table with 24 bits 96 KHz and higher sampling and
multitracking. SF had no multitrack support at all, and never will. SF
still can't handle files sampled 192 KHz while Audition tops out at 10
MHz.

OK, CE is like a Swiss Army knife, but all the cutting blades are very
sharp, and the rest of the tools work as well as many stand-alone
equivalents. Indeed some Audition features like the dithering tools.
arguably work better than most special-purpose programs.

Audition recently added whole category of functionality that I didn't see in
the SF blurbs at all, related to sampling and looping. This was the means by
which CE subsumed the MIDI features of sequencing programs like Cakewalk.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

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 -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the most
valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp.

I wouldn't think Winamp is the ideal choice of software for this sort
of thing.

Oh come on now, what's "ideal"? I'm quite sure that being the posturmatic
troll that you are Dormer, you'll change the rules until you can declare
yourself the winner.

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Do they really? Perhaps in your world.

OK, so my world moves at a higher clock speed than yours, Dormer. I can live
with that!

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a
bit of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the name
'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio multitracking
environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

How about ProTools vs Audition?

You have my permission to write and post a detailed comparison at your
earliest convenience.

"The Artist" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

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

No. What everybody is saying is that SoundForge doesn't do
multitrack recording, just like MS Word doesn't.

If your app does all three, or two, great - but that doesn't mean
that other apps that don't pretend or want or aspire to one day
doing what your 'do all' apps does, are somehow 'less good' .

On the one hand Audition is roughly comparable to SF for wave
editing, and on the other it is also roughly comparable to Vegas for
multitracking.

Seriously now. I would say that in all these discussions, not one
person has suggested that Audition/Cool Edit Pro is not a good
quality, accurate, bang-for-the-buck product. However, I find it
ludicrous that you perpetuate the idea that the product is "roughly
comparable" to Vegas. In my opinion, and having used both programs
(CEP, not Audition) in a working environment, I would say that is true
in only a very superficial sense.

Given your behavior in the discussions of cue lists, I have zero faith in
your understanding of the word "superficial" Dormer.

Why don't you provide some detailed comparisons, similar to the ones I just
posted about interfacing between the track editing and multitrack editing
functions of CE/Audition.

Comments are invited from those who have extensive experience of both
programs...

Which obviously does not include you Dormer, because you really have nothing
germane to say.

Given
that computer software is nearly infinitely extensible, there's no
sense in claiming that just because CE does multitracking, Audition
is necessarily a poorer wave editor than SF. Similarly, absent any
relevant facts, there's no sense in arguing that just because
Audition has a powerful wave editor, it can't multitrack as well as
Vegas.

Absent any compelling arguments or facts, it seems like Audition
roughly matches SF for wave editing and also roughly matches Vegas
for multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or
formal interfacing between the two different products, it appears to
me that having both functions in the same program is a significant
plus.

Putting both a powerful wave editor and powerful multitrack features
in the same program provides Audition with significant amounts of
synergy. You can record, play and edit the same file(s) in either
view by just clicking. Timing and positioning automatically transfer
between the two views. Terminology, nomenclature and tools transfer
between the views.

SF has arguably spent the last 4-5 years playing catch-up with
Audition when it comes to wave editing. For example, Back in 1998,
CEP had almost all of the powerful 32 bit, 10 MHz sample rate audio
file editing power it has today. At that time SF was far more
limited in terms of functions, sample rates and sample types that it
could handle. SF still can't come within an order of magnitude of
Audition when it comes to sample rate support. Looking through the
feature list for the current release of SF, I see that it was still
playing catch-up with CEP some 4-5 years later.

On balance, SF has a few features that Audition now lacks, (and
vice-versa) but none of them appear to be significant deal-breakers.

I don't think it's primarily about feature sets (getting from point A
to point B) it's as much about productivity and ease of use (the ride)

What productivity features does Audition/CE lack? it's got shortcut keys,
macros, and scripting. Nothing seems to be missing, and nothing superfluous
is present, either.

My gripe with the Cool Edit products has generally been the interface.

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than its UI,
what might it be?

CE's various controls and functions look a lot like real world hardware,
right down to the black face. However, as appropriate, CE includes UI
elements, primarily graphic displays, that you don't find on most hardware.
It just makes the UI richer and more, uhhh intuitive to work with.

Even with familiarity, it doesn't feel like second-nature, unlike some
other comparable products. This particularly relates to waveform
manipulation, but also the visual presentation (GUI) and other quirks.

Everybody with a brain knows that "intuitive" often translates "I already
know how to use it". People who lack insight see the product they know best
as being intuitive, and downgrade comparable products that are a little
different.

"David White" wrote in message

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

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the most
valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp. One has to be a
little patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the
effects of adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I suspect that the Winamp dB values are wrong, but I'd need to do more
experiments to be sure.

These sorts of effects are most quickly and accurately measured using
multitones.

I also don't know what sort of smoothing between frequency bands they
each use, if any.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

multitracking. Seeing no claims from Sony about any synergy or
formal interfacing between the two different products, it appears
to me that having both functions in the same program is a
significant plus.

How about simple right-click support on any event on the time-line
to directly open, or alternatively open a copy, in SoundForge (or
any editor of your choice, even Audition), as in the whole SoSoFo
suite.

In Audition, when you click on a file in a view, you don't open the
file in the other view and you don't open a copy. You aren't
restricted to clicking on events, either, The file is already open
in the other view and you go to the same place in the file that you
clicked in the current view.

Can you float the window or open multiple copies?

Nope. Never ever saw the need for such a thing. But it might be useful.
However it could be confusing and/or difficult to implement because
multitrack view is non-destructive but dependent on the virtual working copy
of the file, while edit view is destructive to the virtual working copy of
the file.

If you mark a region in one view, that region is marked when you
click into the other view.

Wow.

It's a feature that has considerable use in multitrack editing.

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

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 -

Also previewing while tweaking he EQ in real-time is about the
most valuable and practical way of gaining experience !

This can be done with software as basic as Winamp.

I wouldn't think Winamp is the ideal choice of software for this
sort of thing.

Oh come on now, what's "ideal"?

God, I don't know. How about a turd in a plastic tube?

One has to be a little
patient with software-based real-time eqs, in that the effects of
adjustments take a few seconds to take hold.

Do they really? Perhaps in your world.

OK, so my world moves at a higher clock speed than yours, Dormer. I
can live with that!

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

I know of several examples. Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it
in hardware digital equalizers as well.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

You are totally wrong suggesting that Vegas is a video app with a
bit of multitrack audio tacked on. Hell, they even dropped the
name 'Video' off it's title. It is a FULL-FUNCTION audio
multitracking environment, and one of the best.

I was distracted by Dormer's claim that the Vegas product he was
describing was incomparable to Audition. He said that comparing the
two was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

How about ProTools vs Audition?

You have my permission to write and post a detailed comparison at
your earliest convenience.

Thanks!

I'm asking your opinion as to whether you think ProTools is roughly
comparable to Audition, in the same way you think Vegas is roughly
comparable to Audition.

I' ve only studied Pro Tools in a very cursory fashion. I recognize a lot
that seems to be pretty familiar. It seems to have more flash, bells, and
whistles but much of the same functionality.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given
graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct.

I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a
band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the
range allowed.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader
bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because
they
affect a wider range of frequencies.

Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.

David

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

I have noticed that Winamp takes a couple of seconds for changes to
take
effect.

True for all similar realtime frequency-shaping tools because of the
latency
that is inherent in filters what work over the full audio band.

Bull****.

Try some other software, David.

Well, the Winamp delay doesn't cause much of a problem. I have to listen for
a few seconds at least anyway to guess what change to make next.

David

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


Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to delve into Google and the web to
bolster my point of view. I have other things to do...


Unlike Arny, you must have a real job.




----== 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 =---

PD said:

That's why Arny packed in his job, so he could be the longest and
loudest particiapnt of RAO!

"Packed in his job" -- yeah, that's the ticket.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audition recently added whole category of functionality that I didn't
see in the SF blurbs at all, related to sampling and looping. This
was the means by which CE subsumed the MIDI features of sequencing
programs like Cakewalk.


HA HA AH - Just tried to find Audition on the Abode website. Know where it
is ? Try looking under Digital Video" !

geoff

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit that the
user has to interact with....


geoff

The Artist wrote:


What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take
hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

Thats 'Near-Real-time'

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than
its UI, what might it be?

How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit
that the user has to interact with....

As a general rule, no UI in a competitive commercial product is THAT bad.
For example in the old days there was a lot of ranting and raving about the
UIs in MS Word and WordPerfect. On balance, they were both effective and
eventually they evolved to being almost indistinguishable from each other,
except to advanced users.

At this point we know quite well what the basic canonical functions and
features of an audio editor are. AFAIK none of the competitive products fail
to provide them. They form the backbone of the process of getting the job
done. Once you learn one of them, your learning curve for the next one is
considerably foreshortened, unless you are really inflexible. Some people
are really inflexible and go through life defeating themselves this way.

Contemplating the project I did last week, I strongly suspect that if
CE/Audition ceased to exist I could complete it with several of the
competitive products in only a little more time the first time, and
probably in about the same amount of time after a few go-arounds. Even true
given the near-total lack of integration we now know exists in some
competitive suites such as SF+Vegas. I'd just figure out some
circumventions.

"The Artist" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to
take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing.

I know of several examples.

Name some.

Given that they are in very common software like
Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've
seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well.

I don't use Winamp.

Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use.

All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response.

The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about
not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with.

In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous
response).

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

If I wanted a delay line...

If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm
talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay
line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the
filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of
course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well.

Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are
chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given
outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal
levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have
delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase
characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can
be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies,
while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest
frequencies.

Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped
delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not
going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you
want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample
size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes
become audible.

Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and
IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who
don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the
most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either
have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are
relatively insensitive.

"David White" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"David White" wrote in message
Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along.
Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured
out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings.

They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave
seems to be about twice as sensitive.

If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have
slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A
given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales
are correct.

I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you
increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB,
regardless of the range allowed.

Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic
controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what
they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly
representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale.

The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7).
Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being
equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies.

Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive.

I think we're on the same page, here.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already
admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

You mean like talking about current versions of SF?

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

You mean like talking about current versions of SF?

I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and cited
online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the controls of
an audio product without actually experiencing them. Given that the topic
was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can download for free and run as
they will...

I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment on other
people's comments and cited online documents unless you have personal
experience with the topic.

Of course that means that none of us including Weil won't be able to
comment on the war in Iraq without going there. We won't be able to comment
on the primaries without being in every state while they are going on. This
might have its moments!

LOL!

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Please see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with.

You mean like talking about current versions of SF?

I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and cited
online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the controls of
an audio product without actually experiencing them. Given that the topic
was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can download for free and run as
they will...

I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment on other
people's comments and cited online documents unless you have personal
experience with the topic.

No, that's what *you* said. So this is actually "The Krueger Political
Correctness Doctrine - v.2004.

Of course that means that none of us including Weil won't be able to
comment on the war in Iraq without going there. We won't be able to comment
on the primaries without being in every state while they are going on. This
might have its moments!

Thanks for showing the falacy of your original statement - "Please
see former comments about not commenting about something you
already admitted that you have no relevant experience with".

Thank you for correcting yourself, Arnold. We appreciate it.