Adobe Audition

[phwree]

Is it worth to spend $600 on Audition (2.0)? Or should I look for a cheaper, simpler program. (I trialled Audition, and liked it).

 

[warlock110]

Is it worth to spend $600 on Audition (2.0)? Or should I look for a cheaper, simpler program. (I trialled Audition, and liked it).

600 is alot for a DAW, those things go down in price fast, i would find a slightly outdated version that they have on clearance and buy instead.

 

[Agent47]

Well, what do you need to do? Do you need a multitrack DAW, or just a good stereo audio editor? Do you need a stereo audio editor for simple editing or full-whack mastering? Do you need effects or automation? What kind of material are you going to be working on?

 

[NTK88]

IMO bit torrent audition.
Otherwise if you dont want to do something illegal, purchase something cheaper. Audition is great, but worth no more than $300 IMO.

 

[danny.guitar]

I've always liked Audition (1.5) but in no way is it worth anywhere near $600. It doesn't even support MIDI/VSTi's. And no direct 24-bit recording, which isn't as big of a deal but it's a pretty basic feature you'd expect from any DAW, even more so, one for $600.

Try Reaper and see if you like it before spending a significant amount of cash on a DAW when it could be spent on something else.

http://www.reaper.fm

There's other programs like Cubase and Sonar also, which are more expensive but at least their price is warranted. But as far as I know, Reaper can do everything those other apps can do.

 

[Hi_Flyer]

+1 for Reaper. Audition is not even in the same league IMHO.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

And no direct 24-bit recording

It works just fine with my Audition 1.0 and the M-Audio Delta 44. If the recording has a 16 bit quantisation, there is probably a poor resampling going on. This happens when I set a different sample rate in the M-Audio control panel than that in Audition.

 

[phwree]

I'd basically just be working on up to 8 tracks, mixing them, adding effects, that kind of stuff.
I have tried reaper, and couldn't just fluke my way through it, so therefore didn't like it all that much I have a couple of mates that use Audition (i don't know whether it was 1.5 or 2.0) but they like it quite a bit.
It was $600 for 2.0, but only $300 for 1.5, so I might just keep looking around for a while, maybe get Audition 1.5, (then even upgrade) and see how it goes. Thanks guys

 

[pipelineaudio]

I'd basically just be working on up to 8 tracks, mixing them, adding effects, that kind of stuff.
I have tried reaper, and couldn't just fluke my way through it, so therefore didn't like it all that much

Should have clicked on the reaper chat room

 

[Mixxit12]

I like Audition. It was the first DAW I learned way back when it started out as Cool Edit 96 (it was free then). It's always seemed very straight forward in it's design, especially the 2-track editor. I could do without the multi-tracker.

For what it's worth, I'm finding Audition at several online stores for around $350. I think you're getting took for $600.

 

[Change of POETS]

I've always liked Audition (1.5) but in no way is it worth anywhere near $600. It doesn't even support MIDI/VSTi's. And no direct 24-bit recording, which isn't as big of a deal but it's a pretty basic feature you'd expect from any DAW, even more so, one for $600.

Try Reaper and see if you like it before spending a significant amount of cash on a DAW when it could be spent on something else.

http://www.reaper.fm

There's other programs like Cubase and Sonar also, which are more expensive but at least their price is warranted. But as far as I know, Reaper can do everything those other apps can do.

Danny, please don't spread misinformation.

Audition does support 24 bit 96K recording, I do it almost daily. Yes, it doesn't support MIDI or VSTi production. It's not a sequencer like Cubase or ProTools. It's not intended for that. It's a recording/mixing/mastering platform which supports VST and DirectX plugs from all major suppliers. Nothing more, nothing less.

And to the OP, I don't know where you're getting $600 from... I see it in many online stores for $350 or less. You can Ebay an older version (I still use 1.5 as I don't like 2.0 ) for under $100.

 

[oretez]

OP has Australia location . . . which I think explains the $600

 

[pipelineaudio]

Danny, please don't spread misinformation.

Audition does support 24 bit 96K recording, I do it almost daily.

He might have been referring to the driver model not seeing higher than 16 bit on many cards, though i think that issue is long passed, but I remember dealing with it.

Though I also remember it had some astronomical high sample rate even before y2k I think the dropdown showed 512khz? And PT tries to imply they brought us HD first lol. CEP was ahead of the game in so many ways, and is still by far IMO the absolute leader in forensics and scientific functions. Luckily it integrates well with reaper, only a right click away (or doubleclick).

CEP is what started my Impulse capturing craze

 

[BushmasterM4]

Dude you need to head over to Mackie web site and download Tracktion demo and give it a try. Very easy to use and is not a pc resource hog.

 

[danny.guitar]

Danny, please don't spread misinformation.

Audition does support 24 bit 96K recording, I do it almost daily. Yes, it doesn't support MIDI or VSTi production. It's not a sequencer like Cubase or ProTools. It's not intended for that. It's a recording/mixing/mastering platform which supports VST and DirectX plugs from all major suppliers. Nothing more, nothing less.

And to the OP, I don't know where you're getting $600 from... I see it in many online stores for $350 or less. You can Ebay an older version (I still use 1.5 as I don't like 2.0 ) for under $100.

Misinformation? By that, do you mean how in the recording options you have a choice between 16 bit and 32 bit float? And by how if you choose 32 bit it uses more CPU than is necessary? And how even in the file properties window, it says 24-bit, the file was recorded in 32 bit?

Ok...I'll try not to.

Oh, and who mentioned 96KHz?

 

[Llarion]

Well, I love Audition 2.0. I tried Reaper, couldn't grok the interface for some reason. For the way my warped brain is wired; Audition was by far the most intuitive of everything I've tried. The track level effects rack is wonderful... Especially great with dual display...

 

[danny.guitar]

I love Audition too for what it is. Nothing is easier to use, and it comes with great built-in effects along with a lot of scientific shit like filters.

But if you want MIDI, then Reaper takes the cake in my opinion, on being the easiest to use and extremely flexible. When I first started using it, I didn't like it and was really confused by the interface and all the menus and options. But once you get the hang of it, it's a wonder how it ever confused you in the first place.

Anyway, when using Adobe Audition, there was no 24-bit option. It was 16 bit or 32 bit float. On both my 2496 and SoundBlaster. Maybe it works with other hardware. But for a commercial product, it should be able to record 24-bit regardless of the hardware (assuming, of course, the hardware is 24-bit capable).

 

[Change of POETS]

Misinformation? By that, do you mean how in the recording options you have a choice between 16 bit and 32 bit float? And by how if you choose 32 bit it uses more CPU than is necessary? And how even in the file properties window, it says 24-bit, the file was recorded in 32 bit?

Ok...I'll try not to.

Oh, and who mentioned 96KHz?

Thanks to the person who neg repped me but was too cowardly to leave their name.

Yes, Danny was spreading misinformation.

Danny, I didn't mean to offend you, but you are correct in this post. A 32-bit Floating Point file is effectively a 24-bit file with an exponent. It uses 8/24 or 33% more file space than 24 bit files. 32 bit floating point has a 24 bit mantissa, for many audio operations that are close to digital full scale, there really isn't too much difference in precision between 24 bit fixed point and 32 bit floating point. It's virtually the same thing, as the differences are so minor.

Yes, your CPU will run higher since it is doing more work than a 16 bit recording, but I don't have any problems with it, and my machine is over 4 years old.

I simply mentioned the 96K as a correlation to the 24 bit. Most people who record in 24 bit also record at 96K as opposed to 44.1.

Also, to the jackass who neg repped me... get your facts straight before dishing out your "penance". Danny is a very smart person, and has helped me indirectly many times. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, just giving you the truth on this situation.

 

[danny.guitar]

No hard feelings here. But when you have a computer that's about 5-6 years old, using 32-bit float (or 24-bit with an exponent), it takes up more and more CPU as you add tracks, and effects. CPU that is unnecessary. So I was forced to use 16-bit.

In Reaper, however, I can record in 24 with plenty of effects and not have to freeze a bunch of tracks.

I guess if your computer is capable of that then it's not a big deal at all.

 

[Change of POETS]

That's interesting that Reaper doesn't tax your CPU like Audition does. I wonder why?

Audition uses far less CPU power than Nuendo or Cubase on my system. I wonder what's different about Reaper that allows it to use even less processing power yet record at 24bit depth?