Audition 3's better than all the other Syntrillium/Adobe programs

[dobro]

I'm tired of seeing that tired old Audition 1.5 versus Cool Edit thread continually getting bumped up to the top of the heap by yet another dumb vote, so I'm going to start a better poll. I think Audition 3 is the best of the lot so far - it does everything the others do and more. Yeah, it's slightly temperamental in a couple of not-so-important ways, but I can live with it I think. It's the program I've been wanting them to come up with for a long time. There's still more I'd like from them, but for the time being, its' easily the best so far for me.

 

[lpdeluxe]

So far it's a tie.

I started with CEP 1.2a, and upgraded each time until now. I tried really hard to like 2.0, but I kept finding "improvements" than interfered with my work, most notably the change in .ses format which made in impossible for me to trade tracks with my non-upgraded colleagues.

The ASIO is good on paper, but I get by fine without it, and remembering the peculiarities of 2.0 each time I want to set up a session is annoying (my computer also went through a period where I had to reload the ASIO drivers every time I started 2.0, which didn't help).

Almost all of what I do is no more than 3 tracks at a time (M/S). When I want to record a band I pull out the Korg D888, which goes very easily to gigs. When I get it home I import the tracks into Audition, and use the editing features from there. Since I don't do work for hire any more, I can pretty much set things up for my own convenience.

I guess if I were more up-to-date myself, I'd go for 3.0, but for now 1.5 is more intuitive, and doesn't have the quirks of 2.0 or 3.0.

 

[dobro]

3.0 is the first version since Cool Edit 1.2 that has reliably overdubbed tracks without queer lags in the new track's starting point. Reallyworrying stuff. 3.0 doesn't do that. The ASIO capability keeps latency to a minimum. I'm starting to really appreciate the 'record to file' feature - when you learn how easy it is to ditch all the tracks you don't want in a session, it has tons of advantages, the main one being the fact you don't have to wait for the program to process a recorded track when you click stop, and the other one being you can move tracks around in multitrack view and rename them very, very easily.

 

[lpdeluxe]

I might take another look. The cumbersome file saving with 2.0 was another turnoff. I had maybe five songs with a few overdubs I was working on with my band, and I decided to make a data CD of the tracks. Whew. 33GB! I immediately started deleting all tracks that had been superseded, but it still loaded up my hard drives 'way beyond sense, AND added another step in the process.

It helps that it's $99US. I seem to remember that 2.0 was a little higher. I might try it in a month or two.

 

[superspit]

I've been upgrading since about 1996 (or whenever Cool Edit was actually just an editor!)..but the buck stops here at AA 1.5....(Been to 2.0 and trialled 3)..'ses' files can far cough.
Getting the song down with consistant quality/results, both easily and intuitively is all that appeals to me...the latter can become a little pretentious and un-useful....IN MY OWN OPINION.

 

[ikon]

3.0 is the first version since Cool Edit 1.2 that has reliably overdubbed tracks without queer lags in the new track's starting point. Reallyworrying stuff. 3.0 doesn't do that. The ASIO capability keeps latency to a minimum. I'm starting to really appreciate the 'record to file' feature - when you learn how easy it is to ditch all the tracks you don't want in a session, it has tons of advantages, the main one being the fact you don't have to wait for the program to process a recorded track when you click stop, and the other one being you can move tracks around in multitrack view and rename them very, very easily.

what is the best way to ditch al these unwanted files?

 

[dobro]

what is the best way to ditch al these unwanted files?

There are two ways, one of which I haven't tried, but which looks okay.

1 Zenpicker's developed a little utility which zaps unwanted files:

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=257022

I haven't tried it but it looks like it works.

2 Audition 3 saves EVERY track and tracklet and minisnippet in a folder called 'filename_Recorded'. So what I do is save every session in a higher-level folder that I name with the song's name, for instance: "Sunshine". So, the "Sunshine" folder contains the Audition _Recorded folder.

Then I record. Audition's automatically saving everything in the _Recorded folder. When I'm finished recording, I name the tracks I want to keep in Multitrack. (Right click on the track, and name the track in Track Options.) Then when I save the session, Audition asks me where I want to save the newly-named tracks. I don't save them in the _Recorded folder; I save them in the higher-level folder that I created. Then I close the session, and go into Windows Explorer and simply delete the _Recorded folder from the session. Simple. Easy.

 

[ikon]

There are two ways, one of which I haven't tried, but which looks okay.

1 Zenpicker's developed a little utility which zaps unwanted files:

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=257022

I haven't tried it but it looks like it works.

2 Audition 3 saves EVERY track and tracklet and minisnippet in a folder called 'filename_Recorded'. So what I do is save every session in a higher-level folder that I name with the song's name, for instance: "Sunshine". So, the "Sunshine" folder contains the Audition _Recorded folder.

Then I record. Audition's automatically saving everything in the _Recorded folder. When I'm finished recording, I name the tracks I want to keep in Multitrack. (Right click on the track, and name the track in Track Options.) Then when I save the session, Audition asks me where I want to save the newly-named tracks. I don't save them in the _Recorded folder; I save them in the higher-level folder that I created. Then I close the session, and go into Windows Explorer and simply delete the _Recorded folder from the session. Simple. Easy.

i will try your way...not that the utility wont work but i just feel it good practice to leanr the long way so im not stuck if the short way goes wrong lol

 

[lpdeluxe]

Ive used 1Zenpicker's utility with 2.0; his new one works with 3.0. The difficulty with he previous version was that it had to be opened each time you wanted files cleaned up...but it worked fine.

 

[mrT]

I've been using 3.0 for a little bit now and have to say it is pretty good. There are many new features that I really love like the new mix window w/ master fader and VST's.

I still am using Audition 1.5 for tracking. To me it is the best designed DAW for tracking that I have EVER found or used. Now that is of course if you use hardware monitoring like me... It's not that great if you like to software monitor.

But I have been mixing exclusively on 3.0 lately and I love it. Great improvements for mixing and VST handling.

 

[lpdeluxe]

I've been using 3.0 for a little bit now and have to say it is pretty good. There are many new features that I really love like the new mix window w/ master fader and VST's.

I still am using Audition 1.5 for tracking. To me it is the best designed DAW for tracking that I have EVER found or used. Now that is of course if you use hardware monitoring like me... It's not that great if you like to software monitor.

But I have been mixing exclusively on 3.0 lately and I love it. Great improvements for mixing and VST handling.

I'm getting closer to upgrading. Like you, I have hardware monitoring so the ASIO isn't that big a deal. It sounds as though 3.0 is smoothing some issues out.

 

[dobro]

Five people have said that a previous version of Audition is better than 3.0, but nobody's talked much about WHY they think that.

C'mon, ante up. If 1.5 or 2.0 are better, why do you think they're better.

 

[superspit]

Five people have said that a previous version of Audition is better than 3.0, but nobody's talked much about WHY they think that.

C'mon, ante up. If 1.5 or 2.0 are better, why do you think they're better.

Hi Dobro....
Long time no speak....anyways....

I guess there is no 'right or wrong' software, just whatever suits you!

But..............

AA3 seemed more cluttered to me, with fuctions that I am either too gutless to use or simply aren't required, by me, the producer of my music.
Not withstanding any possible 'stability improvements', or file handling that 'might' be better (on paper), I simply have no use for that or any other 'overly complex' or possible pretentious platform, possibly like an AA 3.0. (I don't mean 'pretentious' in a nasty way, just that some things can be mildly over-done or simply unnecessary).
Oh...all of my stuff goes thru a desk, and back again, so AA1.5/cep2.1 is pretty much perfect for me.....just a stable/simple interfaced multi-track....for a simple muso!!
Rock-On!
Spit.

 

[lpdeluxe]

Five people have said that a previous version of Audition is better than 3.0, but nobody's talked much about WHY they think that.

C'mon, ante up. If 1.5 or 2.0 are better, why do you think they're better.

You're right -- I talk about what I DON'T like about 2.0, but not what I LIKE about 1.5 (the

best combination of features, for me).

1. It works with my Mackie Control Universal. Having been through a Red Rover and a Tascam USB428, I got spoiled not having to mouse click on everything.

The Mackie is built like a tank, readily repairable (that's not a contradiction: in setting up my new studio following a divorce and a move, I managed to drop mine on its top surface and break a motorized fader) and has as many features as I need.

2. It's leaner and meaner. I don't need endless features in my recording software. Specifically, I don't need MIDI (other than to communicate with the MCU), I don't need VST or VSTi, or (as mentioned previously) ASIO. My studio has more hardware than many, I'd guess: the computer is hooked up to two digital mixers via fiberoptics, and I use a couple of preamps to capture signal.

I don't do sequencers, or synths. I'll hook up a drum machine sometimes, since I don't have a room big enough to record drums.

3. Files are smaller. I quite happily recorded for a couple of years with two 40GB drives in the box. That proved to be inadequate when I went to 2.0. The difference in the saving protocol meant that I was suddenly filling up my drive at a great rate with files I didn't want saved. OK, I gave in and put a 400GB audio drive in.

4. Familiarity. As noted above, I started with 1.2a, and at the time I was a total digital illiterate. I still remember the =aha!= when I realized that .wav files could be manipulated just like .txt files, using the same commands. It was the turning point when I stopped thinking of CEP as being a tape recorder with a clumsy interface and started thinking of it as computer software.

I did a tremendous amount of recording, and editing, and mixing in the years 2000-whenever I got 2.0, and I'm comfortable not only with what I can do, but also with predicting what I'll be able to do that I haven't tried before. I'm reaching the age when learning new techniques is slower than before, and there are too many workflow changes in 2.0.

Even though I devoted a year to mastering the new way of doing things, I never stopped longing for the old way (this includes changes in the method of configuring and saving sessions, changes in I/O routing procedures, and changes in the mixdown process).

Too many new features seemed to have been designed for video synch, or guys with an M-Audio input box attached to the computer, or other considerations that didn't have anything to do with me.

5. Backwards compatibility. I have friends running CEP 2.0 or 2.1, and we trade .ses files back and forth. You can't do that with AA 2.0: the .ses format has changed, and you must convert older .ses files to the newer form in 2.0, and it doesn't seem to be possible to convert the other direction.

I have been recording lectures at the local Unitarian Church for distribution to members who couldn't attend, and their computer has CEP on it. The material is recorded onto their computer, then I load the evening's file into a USB drive and carry it home, edit it for length/intelligibility/noise reduction etc, and then copy the edited audio to the computer so someone at the church can play it back in CEP or burn additional CDs. Using AA 2.0 would interfere with that.

CEP is great for the church, by the way, since it is so user-friendly that the recording can be set up each evening before the lecture by someone with very little knowledge of the software.

Then, there's my OWN huge collection of multitrack recordings done in CEP. I see no point in converting all of them into the latest format. They're fine as they are.

Taking it all around, I'll stay with AA 1.5 for now. There's no compelling reason to change, and most of the new features are unnecessary for me.

 

[lpdeluxe]

Part II

Some things I like specifically about 1.5, as opposed to the same feature in 2.0 (yeah, I know this thread is about 3.0, but the real GLOBAL change from legacy Cool Edit Pro to Audition was 2.0):

1. File saving. Like everyone else, I've been caught short in failing to save something properly in 1.5, but the change in 2.0 is intrusive and cumbersome (to me). As noted, hard drives fill up much faster in 2.0/3.0.

2. The ability to replace a signal with silence without shortening the file. There are times when I want to delete the audio content of a track. With 1.5, I can simply highlight the section I want to silence, go to Effects/Silence, and it's gone. Trying to do the same thing in 2.0 leads to a shortening of the file, so when I return to Multitrack View things are out of synch after the edit point (yeah, I know, this is probably User Error, but there it is).

3. AA 1.5 has some of the most useful presets I've found. Specifically, there is a "vocal presence" studio reverb preset that works. I recorded some material with a friend who is quite picky about the way his voice sounds on recordings (right, so who isn't?) and he loved the sound after I processed it with that preset.

We later did some more recording when I was trying to adapt to 2.0, which does not have the same presets. I tried to duplicate the settings from 1.5, but the singer was never satisfied...until we re-recorded using 1.5 and that preset reverb. Bingo. Happy singer.

So, isn't it better to really understand how to use reverb to achieve this? No doubt -- but I tried that, and it didn't work. The preset did.

By the way, some of the compressor presets are equally useful, but I seem to be better at tweaking those.

4. Default settings in 1.5 are default, dammit, until you tell it otherwise. With 2.0/3.0, there seems to be a software culture of "gotcha!": "hahaha, you thought it would save the settings you left it at last time, and =hahaha= we've made you go through the entire configuration to restore everything the way you thought it would be when you came back, and =hahahahahahah= we HID the directions for saving the default in the manual where you'll never find it!"

OK, I'm exaggerating, but getting a recording going under 2.0 is more akin to ritual cleansing prior to jumping into the volcano than it is to quickly and efficiently preparing to record.

I already mentioned having to reload the ASIO drivers every time I wanted to use 2.0 -- I'm willing to believe that's not a problem with AA, but it sure does slow things down, especially when I can use the native drivers in 1.5, recording multiple tracks, with no latency problems.

 

[ikon]

Five people have said that a previous version of Audition is better than 3.0, but nobody's talked much about WHY they think that.

C'mon, ante up. If 1.5 or 2.0 are better, why do you think they're better.

i love 3.....i think its so much better for hundreds of reasons...i find somethin new i like about this upgrade everytime i play with it

 

[superspit]

i love 3.....i think its so much better for hundreds of reasons...i find somethin new i like about this upgrade everytime i play with it

Hi....just out of curiosity, and because I'm bored shitless and can't be fucked doing music (or anything) right now.........did people "evolve" to 3.0 (?), or start with 3.0?

I'm just wondering if those who 'evolve' are the ones who like it more/less than the people who go straight to it...(?)...

ok...ok....I'm really bored!!!!

 

[ruined]

My cool edit affair started with Cool Edit 96, and promptly ended with Audition 2.0. Too much hassle. Why, oh why can't AA 1.5 do ASIO?

But I have a new love now. Her name starts with an R...

 

[superspit]

My cool edit affair started with Cool Edit 96, and promptly ended with Audition 2.0. Too much hassle. Why, oh why can't AA 1.5 do ASIO?

But I have a new love now. Her name starts with an R...

R?..................reaper?
Is that as pretty and easy as AA1.5/CEP2.1?

 

[ikon]

ive evolved basically since cool edit the og version...i just tried the demos out then upgraded if i liked it....i honestly took awhile to get used to audition 2 but my friend has it and when i was at his home studio i messed with it and had him show me some the things i didnt like and why i would like them better....i upgraded to 3 strait from 1.5 and only thing i was confused about really was the busses but found rather quickly i was just makin it confusing myself and it was really simple lol