Audition 3 'review' in Mix Online......

Oh come on with the sarcasm Steve! What the reviewer wrote is perfectly ok, more the merrier.

a) most of that (with one exception) was not sarcastic, and b) how the hell would you know?

Er...yes your comments about that "review" have been sarcastic and rude, and a few other members have posted in this thread too that Audition fans are quite happy to see reviews of Audition even when they don't contain somnething new, and your second point sums you up at the moment, you seem to think that you need to be an Audition expert or a beta tester to be able to comment on a review like that, well, no you don't, you can be anybody actually, even anyone NOT named Steve  

OK kids, let's keep the sparring to only on weekends please.

In all seriousness, perhaps we should be asking Steve why he would discredit the Mix review, given his privileged status, though I think we know he can't/won't answer that question.

Well Steve did say that some of the information is totally wrong and he's right in pointing out mistakes in articles although he can't be specific. We all know where bad incorrect information leads to, don't we?

Well apparently it can't too awfully wrong, as I found out about the "review" from Hart Schafer's blog here....
 
http://blogs.adobe.com/hartshafer/

If it's good enough for Hart Schafer...........

I would think that if something was blantently wrong, Hart would have mentioned it.

Let's be happy MIX Magazine gave it a thumbs up.

If it's good enough for Hart Schafer...........
Let's be happy MIX Magazine gave it a thumbs up.

Wayne, all this says is George Petersen posted HIS take on the beta. Hart wil be under the same NDA but even wiser, failed to acknowledge any discrepancies. At least it got the thumbs up.

Any publicity is good publicity. They could have said nothing. They could have trashed it in favor of another application.

Mark, you're right -- I didn't reread the top of the thread today.  Sorry, guys!

There is no review - and I have to say that one bit of information in that report is factually wrong - but I'm not allowed to tell you which bit! And when I say 'wrong', I mean totally wrong...

Er...yes your comments about that "review" have been sarcastic and rude, and a few other members have posted in this thread too that Audition fans are quite happy to see reviews of Audition even when they don't contain somnething new, and your second point sums you up at the moment, you seem to think that you need to be an Audition expert or a beta tester to be able to comment on a review like that, well, no you don't, you can be anybody actually, even anyone NOT named Steve  

This is, of course, total BS - as usual. But I don't think that anybody else was in any serious doubt about that...

I would think that if something was blantently wrong, Hart would have mentioned it.

Why? He's under an NDA as well. He really can't say any more about this for precisely the same reason that I can't. Which is why you are not going to get a single solitary clue from either of us!

But Hart Schafer is the man in charge of Audition, yes ?? I think he could say if he wanted to. Whatever you're refering to must not be that important, as Hart wouldn't have posted the link to the article if it was wrong about something important

Anywho, it doesn't matter to me, the article did nothing to influence my decision to pre-order AA3, but it did re-enforce it. I like the idea of a "powerhouse" application on my computer. "...a serious audio tool by anyone's standards" .....also makes me feel good about my purchase.

Just the fact that Audition now has midi recording capabilities, puts it in a whole new category. It's now is in competition with the top audio programs out there. It's no longer, just an audio editing program.

But Hart Schafer is the man in charge of Audition, yes ?? I think he could say if he wanted to. Whatever you're refering to must not be that important, as Hart wouldn't have posted the link to the article if it was wrong about something important.

Depends who it's important to, really. It really wouldn't be in Hart's interest in the slightest to say a word, and wouldn't be in mine either.

Well, if you can't tell us what you're talking about, it's pointless to argue about it.

Er...yes your comments about that "review" have been sarcastic and rude, and a few other members have posted in this thread too that Audition fans are quite happy to see reviews of Audition even when they don't contain somnething new, and your second point sums you up at the moment, you seem to think that you need to be an Audition expert or a beta tester to be able to comment on a review like that, well, no you don't, you can be anybody actually, even anyone NOT named Steve  

This is, of course, total BS - as usual. But I don't think that anybody else was in any serious doubt about that...

No not total BS at all, and the truth is you have very little support for your rudness and uncalled-for scathing of the MIX review.

No not total BS at all, and the truth is you have very little support for your rudness and uncalled-for scathing of the MIX review.

Uncalled for?  Even I noticed that as a "review" it was pretty free of original content.  I expect more than a rehash of the press release in reviews.  Pretty naive of me, I know, when it comes to the music press.

Seeing how's Audition 3 hasn't been officially released yet, dontcha think it's a tad bit early for a full fledged, in depth review ??