Audition 2.0 at last (?)

Nice news. I've been wondering for quite a while but didn't feel like creating a thread just for the purpose of asking hehe. I'm really curious to be honest though since I didn't upgrade to 1.5 earlier. It was interesting but not enough stuff that really made it "necessary" for me to make me upgrade actually.

Recordable parameter automation interests me alot. I do have it in Sonar but I always missed that in CEP/AA. The multiband compressor is also nice plus more video support, ASIO etc. And I would now get the other things I missed out on by not upgrading last time

But will the live inputs allow for DSP processing with effects? Hopefully.

I guess I assumed that's what they meant by that: real-time effects monitoring. What else would it mean? Now that there's ASIO, I can't imagine what would stop AA from being able to do what damn near EVERY other software can already do.

Chris

Hell's Bells - seems to have all the things people have been asking for.  Even scrubbing, which I thought was long dead .

Man, this is pretty much what I thought when I saw this list, too! My god, a spectral LASSO? Scrubbing? Recordable automation? Input monitoring?

I wonder how the mastering rack works...just a chainer for the edit view or more? And what the heck can a Spectral Pan and Phase display look like and how do they work?

The date says the 17th. I wonder when if that's the announce date or if we'll actually be able to buy it then? Can beta testers spill the beans now?? Tell all! (If you can)

Bill

Man, this sounds like they are finally going to try going head-to-head with Pro Tools and Sonar!

How, without Midi??

I hope AA just keeps getting better and better at what it does as an audio editor.

I'll wait till AA has 64-bit audio resolution processing.  
I wonder if AA resampling is better than Soundforge one    and also is it faster in resampling! I doubt it.  

Hey don't get defensive it's just an opinion.  

Er, what do you mean by "I'll wait"?  Does that mean you don't use audition NOW?  If not, why are you here?  And what's wrong with 32 bit resolution?  It's already WAY more than any other part of the chain (including your ears) can resolve.  Anyone claiming "64 bit audio resolution" is using pure marketing baloney, and even if it's true you're paying for it in processing time & hard drive space - for no benefit.

I've never compared AA with SF resampling, but Cool Edit has been LONG known to have resampling algorithms among the best.

I'm not offended.  Experience has shown your opinions for what they are.

Jesse's absolutely right. There is no need at all for 64 bit audio resolution, in fact I'd rather do without it if it needs more processing power which it's bound to do. And BTW, 64 bit processor support is entirely different from 64 bit audio resolution.

And AFAIK, tests, including one I've done myself, indicate that AA's resampling algorithm is as good as you'll find anywhere.

No I don't use Audition. I use Cool Edit and SF.
Anyway why is it so hard in implementing 64-bit? SF has it. (so does OZONE plug-in) and SF appears to be fast. I think this has to do with the way they both process. SF has Real-time nondestructive editing,
which I think wouldn't be pratical in Multi-track. (correct me if I'm wrong)
I also have a feeling that SF takes advantage of SSE3 or something to improve performance. (again correct me if I'm wrong)

It has always been my opinion that SF had better resampling but this is a subjective topic so I respect anyone's opinion (although I don't agree).

I didn't say don't get offended I said don't get defensive, there's a difference you know.  

SF has Real-time nondestructive editing,
which I think wouldn't be pratical in Multi-track. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Er... you're wrong.  I can't think when I last did a destructive edit.  I realise that there are hordes of people doing superb editing in Edit view - you have to see the speed with which radio people edit speech - but for me it seems short of finesse compared with the more considered and tailored individually-crossfaded edits possible in multitrack view.

I wonder if AA resampling is better than Soundforge one    and also is it faster in resampling! I doubt it.  

Hey don't get defensive it's just an opinion.  

 
To me, Audition's SRC was always better than Sound Forge.  But, I can'r slag off SF's SRC either.  You just have to use the best one for the job at hand.

Jester700 Posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does that mean you don't use audition NOW? If not, why are you here?  

Easy gunner.........  there are quite a few of us that DON'T use Audition.  Personally, I didn't find the changes in Audition worth swapping for.  Sure, there were things that CEP didn't have, but most had no appeal to me in my work.  FWIW, the few "features" that I was interested in, didn't work as smoothly as I was hoping for in the beginning.  I am watching this thread intently though, because I recently purchased new computers and now would probably be a good time to "get onboard" with the newest release.  I'll gladly wait for all the "paying customers" to put it through the ropes (the real beta-testers) and then make a decision.  I hope it's all it's hyped up to be!!!

 

Here is a page of SRC comparisons.  Audition shows as one of the good ones; Wavelab as one of the worst (it's being replaced in the next release, due later this month).  Soundforge is not bad.

Paul

Jester700 Posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does that mean you don't use audition NOW? If not, why are you here?  

Easy gunner.........  there are quite a few of us that DON'T use Audition.  
 

Actually, I meant "the whole CEP family" and wrongly translated his "I'll wait" into "I'll wait to get the program", not considering "I'll wait to upgrade".  That "bad" was all me (sorry, Tef).  Tef seems to just push my buttons; I have NO idea why...

Tef seems to just push my buttons; I have NO idea why...

Don't worry about it.... we understand.