Discussion in 'Digital Audio & Recording' started by pizzagreezi, Dec 19, 2004.
SoundForge or AcidPro
acidpro is very very good
Cool Edit Professional v2.0.
Cool Edit And SoundForge!
protools is a good one. but for composition, i swear by finale
Work for me! :thumbsup:
SoundForge or Adobe Audition (former ly Cool Edit Pro)
Sound Forge: using CPU time 100%, even when you just playback the song. Otherwise, very clean interface and powerful editor.
Audition: pretty light on CPU usage. Interface a bit messy. Just as powerful an editor as SF. Much cheaper in price.
I must say that about four years ago I spent quite a bit of time pottering between Wavelab and Sound Forge, comparing both until I found the one I liked the most.
I must admit that Sound Forge was the early contender for winner. It was more comprehensive, had far more little nick-nacks, stuff like the batch convertor was a god send for my job, and it just felt a little more professional and mature than Wavelab.
To spite myself though I did seem to keep returning to Wavelab. Despite everything, my throughput of work was always faster for some reason. It didn't have a lot of menu items for example of stuff you would use once in a blue moon. The master section is a wonderful tool, really helpful. And the seemless integration of VST effects was cool too, espcially as I also used to use Cubase. Would not go back to Sound Forge now if you paid me.
Acid Pro, ain't really a sound editor, is it? It's technically a loop based sequencer, and a wonderful little program, and very, very help for me in my job as a theatrical sound designer when designing sound scapes. I work off version three, version four added VST instrument support that kep crashing on me, and I recently removed a demo off Sonys Acid 5.0 as it crashed and seem to take up an unfeasible amount of processing power for what it did. I once ran a piece with over 400 seperate sound effects in Acid 1.0 on a 400MHz, I doubt if Acid 5.0 could have done it on my computer which runs 1t 2.1GHz!
And why on earth are people still touting Cool Edit Pro? I mean, it's basic, looks naff (I'm sorry - I firmly believe a good work environment is important to good work output, especially when you spend as much time editing as I have) and does not deserve the title pro, like ever. Oh, it is cheap I guess....
Off the soapbox dear.....
I use it because it landed in my lap for free from a favoring client one day, and because its favorites lists controlled by custom keyboard shortcuts speed my SF2 creation process dramatically. Brief example: I select Edit Sample from Vienna, ctrl+alt+c, ctrl+shift+n, ctrl+s, and alt+f4 to complete the optimisation of twenty samples in four minutes in a 16.8-bit IEEE float / true 96 KHz environment. It does the job, and as such I would not have it any other way.
Maybe because it's the best audio editor around. Applying EQ or FX is not editing.
You see, a lot of people are using the term 'edit' incorrectly. Editing is all about cutting things up, moving them around and sticking them back together. To do this, CEP (or Adobe Audition, as it now is) is one of the slickest applications around.
Yes, it will also do a lot of other things and it's true there are probably better applications around for doing those (it's multitrack features, particularly at the mixdown stage, are sadly lacking in my opinion) - but where plain editing is concerned, it's the bees knees.
I was splicing multitrack tapes making dance remixes in 1981 I'll have you know! I do know what editing is!
(Krisco walks off into sunset muttering heavily to himself........)
But I do question your definition of an editor as purely an aural cut and paste machine. Notepad cuts and pastes words and very little else, and it's handy for tiny bits and bobs, but no-one would call it a word processor. Word is a far better application in handiling day to day real work.
Similarly, real editing work does involve eq-ing or processing or whatever on a constant basis, and therefore demands a real application. On the other hand, if you do the sort of work that only involves cutting and pasting can I have an application form please? Because my job involves eq-ing, panning, topping-and-tailing and application of effects to U]everything[/U], and that's just for starters!
I do agree with you though, yes Cool Edit is great for the basics. But if you want basics on the cheap wouldn't you reckon Audicity is a far better prospect? Having said that it is a good two years since I've spent any time on Cool Edit. Just so I ain't talking completely through my hat, I'm now gonna download the latest demo and come back and give you my honest opinion, including any humble pie eating necessary, in the next day or two. Can't say any fairer, can I?
Maybe you do, but many people don't. After over forty years in the game, I think I'm a little more qualified than most to make this sort of statement.
Actually, the correct definition of Notepad is a "Text Editior" - so I don't think you chose a very good example there .
Originally, one would 'edit' material - using a razor blade and splicing block - directly on the machine and there was no way it was even possible to add any post-processing at that stage. I can recall, even the first digital tape machines were edited in this fashion. Electronic editing came after that.
There, we will have to agree to disagree - editing is exactly as I described it. That's not to say you might want to do all the other things, but they're not editing.
'Edit' is just one of many terms which has been hi-jacked by people who know little or nothing about the process and then used in the wrong context. 'Producer' is another one - everyone is a b****y 'producer' these days, although most can barely spell the word and certainly don't understand what it really involves.
Audio engineering is full of jargon (as is any profession) - jargon which has strictly defined meaning, fully understood by those who learned the business (and its language) properly.
Now, people throw these words around with gay abandon (because it makes it look as though they know what they are talking about - although they rarely do) and newcomers pick up on it and continue to use and abuse the terms, often by adding yet another interpretation of their own. The net result is those that do know the correct useage rarely understand the question, no wonder they have a problem in formulating a suitable answer!
No indeed - we await your personal verdict.
I may be wrong about the statement, since I have only been working with this notion of sample compiling for a couple years, but I thought that definition works more appropriately with the term 'mixing.'
I use Sonar and wavelab.
Wavelab or nowadays on the fly within SX2
i use SoundForge as well (for wav, mp3, ogg, etc.)
i use Cakewalk for midi
has anyone used garageband before? ive just got a copy and it seems really user friendly, much more so than protools or cubase!
Very much so. Some would say you downgraded, but I say otherwise. Syntrillium's Cool Edit had been bought by Adobe and renamed to Audition last year. Because CEP is incompatible with Windows 2000, I was forced to go with the flow and install a copy of Adobe Audition, and rediscovered that, in their usual fasion, Adobe bloated and restricted many aspects of a once greater application. I envy that you can still use it.
Separate names with a comma.