How About This For Accuracy!

Here's something else I've noticed about AA2. look at the screen-shot and see how off the cursor is from the 55 min mark on just a few zoom-ups! AA1.5 never did this, even with higher zoom-ups.

Since your divisions are 1ms, perhaps there is some question about how AA is rounding numbers.  You'd think that would be displaying .001 by that point.

Since your divisions are 1ms, perhaps there is some question about how AA is rounding numbers.  You'd think that would be displaying .001 by that point.

A quick check here suggests it is not rounding off to the nearest millisec, instead it is truncating. This is a programming issue, probably involving integer arithmetic.

If it was a deliberate programming decision, speed may have been a factor.

I imagine this is as designed.  Display and calculation are not the same, and in this case I think that what is shown is what most people would expect (i.e. a change of the last digit as the cursor crosses the division mark) - it's how I would have done it.

Paul

I imagine this is as designed.  Display and calculation are not the same, and in this case I think that what is shown is what most people would expect (i.e. a change of the last digit as the cursor crosses the division mark) - it's how I would have done it.

Paul

Sorry mate, the image I posted shows an inaccurate marker. It is not what people expect, and as I said above, AA1.5 does not have this inaccuracy  

Sorry mate, the image I posted shows an inaccurate marker.

How do you figure that?
The divisions on the timeline are .001
The cursor is somewhere between 55:00.000 and 55:00.001 - the only issue I see is where is the cursor's movement does it make the switch.  If the counter is truncating rather than rounding, the display and the marker are showing the same thing ...

UNLESS you typed 55:00.000 into the SELECTION BEGIN box and that's where the cursor landed.  Then I'd agree - there's a problem.  My brief tests with typing in numbers put them at the nearest sample - which is as good as you can expect.

I prefer my age truncated!

In this display case it's not a matter of right or wrong, merely a choice.  The choice in Audition has changed, and is now the one I would have chosen.

Paul

 My brief tests with typing in numbers put them at the nearest sample - which is as good as you can expect.

My brief tests indicate that Karl is absolutely correct - you can snap to the midpoint between samples, and that's where the cursor/marker will sit, regardless of what the time says.

Oh, and this behaviour in 1.5 is identical.... If you turn off all of the other snapping options, then sample snapping is what you get - numbers don't come into it.

I don't pretend to fully understand the explanations. I see what I see, and I expect to see a marker that is dead on, nothing will change my mind about that.

I don't pretend to fully understand the explanations. I see what I see, and I expect to see a marker that is dead on, nothing will change my mind about that.

Then you will be disappointed. If the markers were exactly on the time spots you so desperately desire, they couldn't possibly be accurate!

It's very simple. The smallest unit of time available is the sample - and unless you are going to sample at a rate that is an exact multiple of decimal time, then the two time scales are incompatible. You don't exactly need to be a mathematical genius to realise that 100 divided by 44.1 isn't exactly going to fulfil that criterion (in the slightest!)...  

I don't pretend to fully understand the explanations. I see what I see, and I expect to see a marker that is dead on, nothing will change my mind about that.

That's a bit like saying you want your car to be exactly where the digital odometer says it is.

How can you get from mile 100.0 to mile 100.1 without being between those two points?  What do you expect your odometer to display when you are at 100.02?

How can your digital clock be perfectly accurate?  I'm afraid time still passes between ticks of the display.

I'm afraid time still passes between ticks of the display.

An existential proclamation for the digital age.  Which leads to the question: how fast does time move?

Time moves at the speed of time, just as light moves at the speed of light, duh....

how fast does time move?

 Time does not move, it has no speed.  Time only slips away.
 

I think that Heisenberg would have the last laugh here! (Mind you, I can't be sure when or where...)