Cool Edit Chronology

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:GvCdncvlg9z5MGffRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> Just to clear up any confusion that may have been caused by misinformation
> information

?????????????????????????????

Your mouth is foaming again.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Margaret von B." <margaretvonb@satx.rr.com> wrote in
message news:NByKe.130094$0f.117983@tornado.texas.rr.com

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:GvCdncvlg9z5MGffRVn-tA@comcast.com...

>> Just to clear up any confusion that may have been caused
>> by misinformation information

> ?????????????????????????????

Typos seem to really throw you for a loop Maggie, that is
unless they are made by another *normal* like say Art.

> Your mouth is foaming again.

No, my mouth is merely watering from delicious thoughts
about how Atkinson is going to extricate himself from his
latest major goof-up. It's really pretty strange when an
audio magazine editor says so many things wrong about a
signficant product like Audition/CE. What makes it even
stranger is the fact that he owns the product. It could make
one wonder who actually writes the reviews that appear under
his name, no?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1123769947.089638.218750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Just to clear up any confusion that may have been caused
>> by misinformation information posted here by a
>> high-ranking representative of Stereophile Magazine:
>
> Mr. Kruger is coyly referring to me :-)
>
>> http://news.harmony-central.com/Ne [...] t-Pro.html
>> On September 5, 1997 Cool Edit Pro 1.0 was announced
>> Features included 64-track mixing - Multitrack view.
>
> Mr. Krueger is correct, Cool Edit pro included a
> multitrack module from v1. And this module is a rendering
> DAW, ie, it doesn't change the original data files.

Nice to see you for once change your story when faced with
overwhelming evidence, John

> However, to clear
> up confusion, this doesn't affect my correct comment about
> CEP being a "destructive" DAW in its 2-channel mode, which
> it is.

Straw man.

> Mr Krueger appears to be taking my use of the word
> "destructive" as being perjorative.

Mr. Atkinson seems to is demonstrating his penchant for mind
reading.

>It isn't. All it
> means is that at the end of the session, it rewrites the
> original data files with the changes that have taken
> place.

That's how Audition/CEP's Edit View works.

> Ts is in contrast to a rendering or EDL-based
> DAW, which stores a separate file of
> the operations required to be performed on the data and
> "renders" those operation every time the files are used
> without changing them.

That's how Audition CEP's Multitrack View works.


> Each kind of DAW has its uses, and I use both kinds as
> necessary. For example, I find the multitrack crossfade
> tool in CEP (now Adobe Audition) way too slow to be
> efficient for editing multitrack classical recordings.

Probably something to do with that Pentium what was it unh
166 that you seemed to be enamoured with.

> For that I use Sonic Studio Classic, which still, in my
> opinion, has the best crossfade tool of any DAW program.

Tell me John how crossfades would be used in a recording
where the goal is the most realistic and accurate
reproduction of a live event (i.e., the true meaning of High
Fidelity)

> But for multitrack non-classical editing and mixing, CEP
> is fast, versatile, and preserves the original sound
> quality.

Never found a situation where Audition/CEP had a problem
with a certain genre of music.

> I fail to undertsand why any of these opinions should be
> regarded as controversial.

It wasn't your opinions John, it was your out-and-out
misrepresentation of Audition/CEP's Multitrack editing
feature as being a late-life plug-in add-on. Apparently you
really don't have a lot of experience with the full-blown
product, particularly the Adobe versions.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:
> I am simply reporting my experience having tried AA.

Just to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, I use Adobe Audition 1.0
(didn't need the extra functionality offered by v1.5 and thought
the upgrade price for registered users of v1.0 a little steep)
running on a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM -- I know, could
always use more RAM), with just under a terabyte of external Firewire
drive space.

However, most of my tracking these days is done with the Metric
Halo beta record program running on an 867MHz TiBook, accessing
the same Firewire storage. Some flakiness with drives make me feel
that for the next paying gig, I am going to invest in a Wiebetech
FW Raid array.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile