| Author |
 Topic  |
Plasticman
Posts: 119
|
 Posted - Sat Jul 05, 2003 5:58 pm |
|
|
I was at the SF forums a while back and I asked if the noise reduction in SF 6 is better than the one in CEP 2.1, and they said that it is. Now I want to ask people that have used CEP 2.1 the same question. Is it better?
_________________
Death By Stereo!!
|
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 05, 2003 6:19 pm |
|
|
What on earth would they know about it? CEP's NR is demonstrably better than SoundForgery's. And better supported...
_________________
|
|
|
|
Plasticman
Posts: 119
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:21 pm |
|
|
It's hard to single out the fans from those that speak honestly. I would really like to know so whether or not to install NR 2.0 from SF. I love Cool Edit but have never used Sound Forge's noise reduction.
_________________
Death By Stereo!!
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:11 am |
|
|
If you ask questions of comparison in a product specific forum, it's almost inevitable that many of the answers will show bias, especiaññy from those who don't have the other application. Since I have both applications - and use them regularly - I'd like to think that I can take a slightly more balanced view.
Personally, I think the CEP NR algorithm is streets ahead of the SF one and, if that is the only thing you would like to use from the SF suite, then it's not worth the additional cost.
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
| Posted - Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:21 am |
|
|
| Plasticman wrote: | | It's hard to single out the fans from those that speak honestly. I would really like to know so whether or not to install NR 2.0 from SF. I love Cool Edit but have never used Sound Forge's noise reduction. |
Obviously Graeme's right - but I have tried SF's NR in demo form, and I don't think that it's anywhere near as good as CEP's. And just how much do you have to pay for their inferior product?
_________________
|
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:01 am |
|
|
I've used it as well. Graeme and SteveG are both correct in... it doesn't hold a candle to CEP. 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
Emmett
Location: USA
Posts: 59
|
| Posted - Sun Jul 06, 2003 12:10 pm |
|
|
I will give you the most unbiased opinion that you will find on a message board like this. The quality of the NR in Soundforge is similar to CEP 1.2. I don't know a damn thing about algorithms or anything like that, but I can tell you that if you simply use your ears, you will not find better NR than that found in CEP 2.1. It is very very very good.
_________________
Emmett
KPNT, St. Louis, MO
|
|
|
|
Plasticman
Posts: 119
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 2:32 pm |
|
|
Sorry guys, I made an error. I should've said Hiss Reduction. Most of the responses I got in the other forum seems pretty biased so I needed a response with an actual reason to why it is. Thank you very much for the input.
I was able to go over to a friend's place and test Sound Forge 6 and CE2 to see the difference. CE's hiss reduction is also better.
Why is Sound Forge such a popular program amongst audiophiles if CE is clearly better?
_________________
Death By Stereo!!
|
|
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 2:43 pm |
|
|
I'd have to say the answer is Advertising.
Lots of it. They're highly visible in all kinds of trade rags and obviously, elsewhere too.
I have a registered copy of the old (version 4) CD Architect. At the time, it was one of the best tools to get Red Book CD's out the door in a hurry. Since I pruchased it, so long ago, I can't seem to convince them to quit sending me their junk mail (snail-mail, that is). Color glossy flyers come at least once a month. What an irritating waste of resources! :S
Best... -Jon
_________________
|
|
|
|
bonnder
Posts: 215
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 2:43 pm |
|
|
| Plasticman wrote: | | Why is Sound Forge such a popular program amongst audiophiles if CE is clearly better? |
Because it has a cooler name??;)
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:05 pm |
|
|
| Plasticman wrote: | | Why is Sound Forge such a popular program amongst audiophiles if CE is clearly better? |
Audiophiles? What are they doing with it? Aren't they the ones who are only concerned with the 'correct' reproduction of recorded sound using as much hokus-pokus as they can muster?  (No, please don't answer this question...)
Seriously, it's as much to do with promoting your product as anything. SF promotes itself very much as 'professional', and always has. Syntrillium has preferred to let their product speak for itself, but a lot of people still get swayed by hype. And, it has to be said, SF has been around for a while.
But Syntrillium did initially have one other big hurdle to overcome - since CE started out life as shareware, it was perceived by many as not being suitable for professional use - although where the idea came from that anything you don't have to pay for must be crap is a mystery to me. I mean, is Exact Audio Copy crap? I don't think so. Is Pegasus Mail crap? No, it's one of the best mail handlers around regardless of what you might be suckered into paying. And it's free.
I mean, ask yourself. What was it that swayed you towards SF in the first place?
As for the future, it remains to be seen what, if anything, Sony can do with SF. Sony has a piss-poor reputation in the 'professional' S/W game - they build great H/W, but their own S/W sucks so much that they've had to withdraw at least one 'professional' product because of this.
And you may have gathered by now that as far as I'm concerned, the word 'professional' appears to have been hijacked by something rather less so. You have to get just a little suspicious when the word gets plastered all over the advertising, don't you?
Biassed I may be, but CEP2.1 as an integrated application at half of the cost of SF almost unarguably knocks SF into a c*cked hat*. And it's the increase of popularity of CEP that has certainly caused that part of SF's hard times that they haven't caused for themselves, I think.
*Forum doesn't like the word C O C K ...
_________________
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:16 pm |
|
|
Look at it this way - if SF is so great, why do you think Adobe bought CEP? It's not like they couldn't have afforded SF, if they really wanted it.
Somebody at Adobe certainly did their homework. People can say all they like about the Adobe deal. but they can't be faulted for picking the wrong product to buy into - like the idea or not.
|
|
Emmett
Location: USA
Posts: 59
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 8:21 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | although where the idea came from that anything you don't have to pay for must be crap is a mystery to me." |
I think I can answer this. I have seen it on this board a number of times. "You get what you pay for." I don't believe that and I never have, but those that do, believe that SF must be better and ProTools must be WAAAAAAYYYY better.
_________________
Emmett
KPNT, St. Louis, MO
|
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:11 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have seen it on this board a number of times. "You get what you pay for." |
Your right.... that does get posted regularly. However, it is usually in the context of buying quality kit.
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
DeluXMan
Location: Canada
Posts: 330
|
| Posted - Tue Jul 08, 2003 3:25 pm |
|
|
I agree, it's the materials and labor that makes the what you pay for rule work. So what about the C1 microphone?! :D
With software there is only incentive, and continual developement and upgrading, and support to pay for.  I DLed my copy and manuals and used no materials or labor to do so. [except for some excellent tech assistance].
|
|
Ben
Posts: 63
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:38 am |
|
|
I use CEP NR a lot these days, but I can't compare because I know too lil of SF NR.
I can remember that SF had lower their prices of some products [like the FX plugins and Acoustic Mirror] a few years ago.
That of Acoustic Mirror shocked me, because the price reduced from $200 to $50.
How come ...?
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:59 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | because the price reduced from $200 to $50.
How come ...? |
Because "dusty" packages of software taking up shelf space doesn't help to recoup production costs! 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
Rod
Location: USA
Posts: 294
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
I prefer CEP 2.1 noise AND hiss reduction for the most natural and powerful noise reduction. Sound Forge has a bunch of stupid adjustments that just don't help but confuse you more (like bias, and attack time). CEP's spectral decay rate makes sense, and all the other adjustments also make sense (in both HISS & NOISE reduction). The professional world will soon know how great it is when backed by the powerful Adobe Systems, and put into all the stores. Rod
|
|
MusicConductor
Location: USA
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 10:57 pm |
|
|
| SteveG wrote: | | I mean, is Exact Audio Copy crap? I don't think so. Is Pegasus Mail crap? No, it's one of the best mail handlers around regardless of what you might be suckered into paying. And it's free. |
Other superb product that's free: Windows Media 9. Monkey's Audio lossless compression (if you don't mind the processing overhead). Snitz forums (I see no reason to resist the urge to make this another one of those threads  ).
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
SF 6 Noise Reduction; Is It Better?