Emmett Andrews
Forum Replies Created
-
Exactly. But I’ll say again…It serves no purpose. It’s the same algorithm. Believe me, I work in a $35 million facility with 130 audio professionals every day. Anyone who has given you the idea that working this way (compressing Audition’s compressed signal on the way in) is horribly mistaken about the way digital audio works. Can it be done? Sure. Is there a good reason to try to do it? Never.
Emmett
-
There’s absolutely no benefit to trying to work this way, whatsoever. Those who compress on the way in do it using outboard gear to get a specific sound that comes as a direct result of the hardware unit, ot to control dynamic range before the audio gets to the soundcard (converters, interface, etc.) Once it passes into the computer, any benefit would be lost. So the sound would not be any different from adding a compressor once it’s already recorded. And compressing on the way in is actually a lot less common than you’d think. These days, many, many engineers prefer to record everything completely dry so there’s a blank slate to work with inside the box. The benefits of outboard gear are, most importantly, a specific sound that software can’t create (i.e. an LA-2A) or to control dynamic range BEFORE the sound reaches the soundcard, in the analog domain. Once it reaches the soundcard and it’s in the digital domain, all processing should be done inside the program.
I hope that makes sense!
Emmett
-
You can monitor a compressed signal, but you can’t record the compressed output…And I can’t think of a reason you’d want to. Care to elaborate?
-
That should have read ‘dealing purely with AUDIO’. Because Audition is designed for audio and everything else is basically just added bells and whistles.
-
Cubase? Ha! I use Nuendo for a lot of things (the bigger, stronger brother to Cubase) and I caqan safely say that, for dealing purely with Audition, Audition blows the doors off both Cubase 5 and Nuendo 4. Now, of course Cubase wins for sequencing and anyone who would choose Audition for sequncing needs their head examined. But for purely audio, Audition wins. You still haven’t given me any specific flaws…You just tell me to look at the threads, which are mostly user error or driver incompatibility, neither of which is the fault of Adobe. So I’m still waiting to hear about these ‘flaws’.
Emmett
-
A) No. It’s not discontinued.
B) Audition development alternates with the CS programs. When they’re coming out, Audition is not.
C) Why would you say it’s a ‘crap app’? There is no basis for that statement. If you can provide any reason you think that, other than you lack the skills to properly operate the software, please share. Feel free to make comparisons to other DAWs, as I’m certified by Digidesign and I work very closely with MOTU, Ableton, Steinberg, Roland/Cakwalk and Sony. So I will gladly and fairly investigate any claim you make and, if valid, I’ll present it to Adobe.
Emmett
-
No. And they are rarely performed by a professional orchestra. Most are done with a sequencer and virtual instruments. Audition has basic sequencing functions, but it is not a full-featured sequencer. However, Audition supports ReWire, so you can run Reason though Audition and Reason can create what you want, if you invest in some good sound libraries.
However, of course, with the right hardware, Audition could certainly record a professional orchestra with stunning results.
Emmett
-
No…And if I told you, I’d have to kill you. You see, everyone working on Audition must sign an NDA, so you won’t hear anything about AA4 until it’s announced by Adobe, which is usually when it’s released.
Emmett
-
No worries…LCDs don’t put out the HF oscillation noise around 15kHz.
-
Short answer: No.
Qualified answer: When you can show me how to get complete eggs back out of a baked cake, I’ll show you how to get instruments from a mixed track.
Emmett