Adobe Audition

[danny.guitar]

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?

I have no idea. It's extremely lightweight. I'm a software developer myself but I have no idea how it handles so nicely even on slow computers.

 

[chessrock]

Audition doesn't just read files directly from disk. It loads them up in to Random Access. If you have an old computer that doesn't have the RAM juice, then you're fucked.

I'm a former radio production guy, so I kinda' grew up with the program - for better or worse. And I've always thought it to be extremely intuitive. It's great for windows people, because everything just kinda' drops, drags, rezises, etc. with lots of right-click options the way a typical Windows app works. I like it for that reason. You can also get very granual and microscopic in your edits.

That said, there are also things that drive me nuts about it, and I tend to work much more quickly on something like Sony Vegas ... but there are some important things that it can't do for me either. But for $300 bucks, I think it's safe to say there's nothing that can do as much or gives you as much as CEP / Adobe Audition this side of maybe N-Tracks.

.

 

[wiseguy]

+1 for Reaper. Amazing program at any price! But at $40 it is a steal!!!

 

[Lectric_Lab]

like said AA 2.0 is intuitive compared to some others, and I bought it for $300 in January 07' for first time, it's a great daw edit/mix for the bux.