"Up to 3 times faster"?

I'll drop Vegas like a hot rock if AA records as reliably (nary a dropped sample) - Samp does not record as well as Vegas - I get an occational recording error, so Vegas is still here.

Well, it's very early days yet, but so far the direct to disk recording seems to work very well indeed--I've been trying out up to 16 tracks at a time via my DM1000/Dakota/Montana ADAT setup and have been very impressed.

It may take some time before I automatically head for the save command after a take, but...

Bob

It may take some time before I automatically head for the save command after a take, but...

That comment is confusing.  If  AA2.0 is Direct to Disk, you don't need to use the "Save" command after a take ... right??

Or did you mean "It may take some time before I [stop] automatically head[ing] for the save command after a take, but..."?

So far I don't see anything happening 3x faster, but this is DEFINITELY a "YMMV" situation!  It will vary!

Definitely "YMMV", but....

If I factor in the time it would take to save 16 x 8 minute tracks (as I've been playing with today) from temp files as opposed to "direct to track" recording"....the speed gain is way in excess of 3 times!.

Bob

Applying effects in Edit view are faster.  Processing time of almost all effects have improved.  Some are 20% to 50% faster.  A few effects are 300% (3 times) faster.  One of the effects (I'm not in front of my work machine to look up the specific effect) showed 1000% improvement (10 times faster).    The one that I remember is auto click pop  which was 3 times faster on my machine.  So generally, most effects (when applied destructively in edit view) are faster.

These improvements are because of SSE support and we also did Intel and pentium optimizations.  

The same effects may not be any faster in real time situation in MT view.  This is because of latancy support - we have to process smaller chuncks of data (but lots of them) which will slow down the effects somewhat.

Hehe! Now you see, that's what happens when you don't put it through the PR mill...

More info for the FAQ!  (Thank you Nariman, that was genuinely helpful!)

will second (or third or fourth) . . . that I found the response . . . I appreciated the candor (as far as it went) . . .  though it did less to answer anything than parse market speak '3 times faster' (which can also be achieved if you convert everything to 8 files) with parameters than can be queried

and actually I'm not merely kavetching, 'cause I wish there were a way to encourage this type of response from Audition

within the next couple of weeks I'll probably upgrade (partially because the marque editing features from 1.5 will actually be useful for me) . . . though this is more of an artifact of brand loyalty to CE then enthusiasm for AA2.x

i don't doubt that it's betterer, prettier, glittierer, fasterer; more progressive then sliced white bread in 1930 . . . coming to this cold in '06 AA2.x should be a contenter for any serious audio wonk . . .  but very little of what I read during the past couple of days (here, adobe forum & marketing claptrap, etc) has done much to encourage me to upgrade . . . in fact most of it suggests there is no need to rush . . . wait a couple of months and read through the technical discussions on the forums with more care and attention

I primarily use AA for audio editing.  Different software for tracking, different software for hardware based mixing.  The primary tracking machines (which coast with 12 & 18 24/48 tracks respectively) are, apparently, not powerful enough to handle the improved AA.  The editing bay (on which I do a fair amount of vid work) has presented with 0 pressure to migrate beyond SP1 (2 being required for AA's vid engine) plus the hardware is pretty anemic by Adobe's standards . . . though I frequently manipulate in excess of fifty audio tracks at a time with it . . . the primary limit being the size of Vid monitor realestate and my memory . . .

not saying I won't benefit from the 'new, improved'  . . . I had actually thought, as I'll have a little . . . well 'free' is not exactly the word, time end of Jan, beginning Feb, to pick it up right away . . .yet again it  is the disconect between market speak and in the trenches usability that now suggests that, that 'time' might be better spent walking the dog . . . swimming . . . or heaven forbid actually creating something  (rather than figuring out why my seven year old ASIO A/D hrdware, which stutters with no other software, continues to stutter with Audition . . . oh, the driver that installs with audition is a 'wrapper'  and unfortunately incompatible with other running 'drivers' . . . (not an accurate diagnosis but consistent with official info provided from Adobe)

anyway . . . main point is I appreciated the response and view that as a positive and useful sign  . . . or not . . . think seasonal affect is kicking in . . . (one reason why walking the dog might be benefiscial for all concerned)

About three times slower:

1. Select a section in FSE using the marquee tool

2. Reduce amplitude by 20dB


I have a 90 minute mono 32-bit file which I need to do this on - on my faster PC, running 2.0, this procedure takes a little over 11 minutes; on my slower PC the same procedure in 1.5 takes about 4.5 minutes, whilst also browsing the Internet, checking e-mail etc...

Oh dear...

A few effects are 300% (3 times) faster. One of the effects (I'm not in front of my work machine to look up the specific effect) showed 1000% improvement (10 times faster).

What coffee are you drinking? Just kidding.

Please describe your computer CPU / ram configuration and how many tracks you had in your multitrack session - you're not talking about applying effects to a single wave in editview, but a multitrack session. Right?

Since you use P4, which cpu? / chipset? Northwood?The Prescott P4 cpu is faulted for running very hot: 130W. Does noise from your PC seem significant? This info will help me as I'm planning to buy / build my next PC and then buy AA 2.0.....

Thanks / Brewer

A question for you, OzPeter --

I read your note saying that in AA2.0, "All recording in MT view is now non-destructive - it's all layered, not inserted."

I haven't figured this out with the tryout version (yet), so I thought I would inquire.

Non-destructive I understand.  I'm wondering about the "layering," though.

When I use Sonar, I have the option on multiple takes of either new takes replacing the prior take(s) ("Overwrite") OR blending the takes together ("Sound on Sound") for that track or tracks -- not a mixdown, per se, but a similar result. A handy feature to use when creating layered vocals or instruments without having add extra tracks.

Is this the kind of "layering" that AA 2.0 is doing (or capable of)?  Or is it just that Audition is simply "stacking" the takes so you can pick the one that you want to use once you get the take(s) you want to keep?

Thanks much!

Russ Whaley

When I use Sonar, I have the option on multiple takes of either new takes replacing the prior take(s) ("Overwrite") OR blending the takes together ("Sound on Sound") for that track or tracks -- not a mixdown, per se, but a similar result. A handy feature to use when creating layered vocals or instruments without having add extra tracks.

Is this the kind of "layering" that AA 2.0 is doing (or capable of)?  Or is it just that Audition is simply "stacking" the takes so you can pick the one that you want to use once you get the take(s) you want to keep?

ozpeter's probably asleep...

AA2.0 only stacks up the takes. 1.5 replaces them, and several people have bemoaned the fact that 2.0 doesn't do this. I think that this is all related to the basic principle of not destroying anything unless it's a conscious, deliberate act - although some might argue that it's perhaps gone a little too far in the case of overdubs.

It is definitely hard, at least for me, to get used to AA2's layering track methods, especially when recording a piece starting over a previous track, as Audition doesn't play hidden tracks by default.  It gets annoying, and even though I select every track and click "play hidden tracks", sometimes it doesn't.

"Play hidden clips" is an attribute of clips, not tracks.  So before using it you need to highlight all the clips to which it applies.  When you divide a clip, the attribute is passed to the pieces, which is often exactly what you want.

"Play hidden clips" is an attribute of clips, not tracks.  So before using it you need to highlight all the clips to which it applies.  When you divide a clip, the attribute is passed to the pieces, which is often exactly what you want.

oops, when I said "track" I did mean "clip".