Transport control has changed?

In AA1.5 (and earlier versions) I have it setup so that hitting the Space bar plays a highlighted section and Alt+Space plays from the begiining of the highlight, through to the end of the file.  I'm not sure what happens in AA2, but I can't figure out how to do this in AA3 - which is a real shame, since the way I work relies on this feature quite heavily.

The behaviour altered in 2.0, and there have been other complaints about this too - you are not alone.

Download and install Reaper (the work of a moment, and it doesn't mess with your registry), press ctrl/p, and look at the range of options there for configuring the program to your liking.  Compare with Audition's F4.  Now perhaps the Reaper options go too far into geekland, but none the less, I'd much rather go for that kind of optional configurability.  (Also type "?" - the question mark key - and you see a searchable, executable list of all the available commands that can be incorporated into keyboard shortcuts - up to five commands per key).

Having said that, I guess it is all a matter of market targetting, and these two apps undoubtably have different target markets.

Download and install Reaper (the work of a moment, and it doesn't mess with your registry), press ctrl/p, and look at the range of options there for configuring the program to your liking.

Are you saying that I can configure AA's transport options via Reaper?  I find that hard to believe.  If you are merely saying that Reaper has more transport options, then that's fine - but not a lot of use to me if I want to use the functionality of AA.

What I'm saying is that Audition could do well to have the range of configurable options of other programs.  So for instance those who like the "old" way of playing a selection could have that, and those that want the new could have that too.  Likewise in a number of other areas.  So long as the "factory defaults" are sensible for those who do not want to mess with the options, then there's no harm in keeping more people happy by extending their scope.

What I'm saying is that Audition could do well to have the range of configurable options of other programs.

Ah, right, now I get you.

..... there's no harm in keeping more people happy by extending their scope.

It seems to me the 'scope' has not so much been extended, but simply changed.  An option, which I have grown love and worked with for years, has simply vanished. 

Did anyone actually ask the users about this, before the change was implemented?  I would imagine that many doing resoration work really liked the original feature.

Given that there were quite a few howls when this new way of working was introduced in AA2.0 it does seem peverse that Adobe stuck with it in very 3.0 with no option to revert.  That could be because there's a technical reason (in terms of the code) to keep it that way, or that people had asked for it and were glad of it in greater numbers than those who complained (but they must have been in private contact with Adobe over that, as I do not recall anyone being pleased about it in the forums - or, possibly most likely, it simply fell through the net during development and testing as all concerned had become accustomed to the new method from version 2.0.

I think we all (me included) need to be more proactive with feature request posting specifically in the FR forums, and submitting the official form (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform) - or emailing (in the VSTi thread here there was an email address given for the purpose).  Just bewailing things that are not as we would wish is not enough - things need to get onto official lists - and as early as possible.  For all I know Adobe are putting together a feature shopping list already for the next version.

Download and install Reaper (the work of a moment, and it doesn't mess with your registry), press ctrl/p, and look at the range of options there for configuring the program to your liking.  Compare with Audition's F4.  Now perhaps the Reaper options go too far into geekland, but none the less, I'd much rather go for that kind of optional configurability.  (Also type "?" - the question mark key - and you see a searchable, executable list of all the available commands that can be incorporated into keyboard shortcuts - up to five commands per key).

Having said that, I guess it is all a matter of market targetting, and these two apps undoubtably have different target markets.

What are the two target markets?  If Reaper's targeting home recordists, who's Audition targeting?

Now there's a good question!

My answer would be - and others may have a very different take -

Audition is targetting primarily users who want a stereo editor and audio restoration tool first, a multitrack environment second, and a midi/VSTi environment third, but who want those elements plus stuff like CD burning fully integrated, and they don't want to have to buy and learn three different apps for the purpose.

Reaper is targetted at people who have already got a stereo editor and/or restoration tool - perhaps Audition! - 'cos it doesn't really have that (though it can be used for many stereo editing purposes, and does have the beginnings of noise reduction and spectral editing provided (the latter as an effect at extra cost)).  It's targetted mainly at the multitrack audio user and at those who want more complex midi facilities than Audition currently provides but who doesn't need to go as deep as Cubase for midi. 

Audition provides power tools for sophisticated users while having contextual help and a friendly-looking interface for the less sophisticated user.  Reaper's appeal to the novice user lies in its deceptively simple interface but it doesn't provide any contextual help at all, though the user-written pdf manual is remarkably good.  Audition is backed by a big support organisation for those who want to pay for it after initial installation, coupled with some fine forums.  Reaper relies substantially on its forum to support puzzled users, so you could say it targets internet forum savvy people! 

Both have particular appeal in particular other (differing) circumstances.  Audition for instance will appeal to people who want to see the whole program presented with a very elegant graphic interface.  Reaper will appeal to people using older hardware as well as new or who want to take their installation around on a USB stick.

I don't think it's any secret that I'm a big fan of both programs - they're tools that are best used in different situations.  There's no overall "best" in these things.

What a very, very intelligent, informative and (for me) useful answer.  I've been sort of pinponging between Cool Edit/Audition and Reaper for the last year.  I went to Reaper because it solved a very basic problem I've had with the Syn/Adobe products from the getgo, but there were things that Reaper either didn't do as well as CE/AA or which required me to learn a whole new software.  But when I found out that AA 3.0 does pretty much everything that I want an audio software to do, I plunked my 99 on the counter happy as a clam, and abandoned Reaper.  But I *like* Reaper - I like the way it's so intuitive, so cheap, so very, very, very well-attended and constantly tweaked and upgraded.  I like the way it challenges the big guys and embarrasses them.

So, I have permission to use both, then? lol

I actually like Audition's multitrack environment better than Reaper's, but maybe I'm missing something important, and if so I'd like to know about it cuz I spend most of my time in the multitrack environment - after I render the multitrack session down to a stereo file mixdown, I don't do much tweaking usually.  So, what can Reaper do in Multitrack that Audition can't, and what can Audition do in Edit view that Reaper can't?

(Apologies for going off topic, but I can't think of a better time or place or person to talk about this with.)

That's a rather large question, though again a good one.

I was initially tempted to try to provide a comprehensive reply, but at the end of the day about all one can do is to suggest trying your own stuff in your own way in each and see what fits.  But i'll dip my toe a little in the water, as Reaper (and no doubt many other apps) can offer pointers to future Audition developments for those not wanting to go over to other apps but liking some features of them.

It's not easy to find things in Audition's multitrack that you can't do in Reaper's, it seems to me, and it's very easy to list features that Reaper's multitrack does that Audition's doesn't.  However, whether you like those features, or find them useful, is another whole thing.

For a start, the whole operating environments are different in ways that would instantly be showstoppers for some people, but in both directions.  For instance, the way you move clips with a right-click-drag in Audition and a left-click drag in Reaper - which means that in Reaper you can't simply left-click-drag across the clips to create a selection highlight.  But the right click drag thing would drive some users from other apps nuts. 

Then take the issue of track eq - there's none in Reaper but it's built in to Audition - but if you prefer to use a VST eq of your choice instead, then that doesn't matter.  Or the way automation envelopes are displayed - in Reaper they go on top of the waveforms but in Audition they go in separate lanes.  There's pros and cons both ways - your preferences may be different from mine.

There are a number of features in Reaper's MT which would be nice to see implemented in Audition, and which perhaps could happen, and there are others which will never happen unless they re-wrote Audition from the ground up. 

In the former category, I'm thinking of things like starting out with no tracks displayed at all, and only creating them as required (and in logically numbered fashion...) - eg by simply dragging a clip below the last track, a new track is created - the implementation of ripple editing as a mode (or modes), going way beyond the largely uncommented-on ripple editing and group editing facilities now in AA3.0 - the ability to handle overlapped clips in auto-created lanes - takes in lanes - record arm/disarm on the fly (and even change inputs to tracks on the fly) - drag and drop routing and routing matrix - the ability to drag a whole region from one place to another - etc etc. 

In the latter category, things that will never happen in Audition would be the ability to handle any kind and combination of media and sample rates on any track.  Eg, having the first item on the track as a midi clip, the next an mp3, and the next a wavpack clip, and the last a 24/96 wave file in an otherwise 44.1kHz session.  Audition simply isn't written that way, whereas Reaper was written that way from the outset.  You can even have tracks recording in different formats at the same time.  Audition is locked into the original system of recording in wave-type format from the outset, whereas in Reaper you can record direct to all supported formats (so on my laptop I can record direct to wavpack lossless to save disk load and space).  But then none of that matters if you have no need or desire to work that way.

Now when it comes to stereo editing, Reaper lacks most if not all of Audition's high level restoration stuff, though there are some plugins at extra cost which go some way along the first part of the path.  But you can use it as a strict stereo editor (ie for cutting stuff up and reassembling it) by simply using one track and turning on ripple editing - so if you delete something in the middle, the gap is automatically closed rather than a hole being left.  And it has some nice stuff which Audition could do with for automatically replaying edits as you adjust them, so you don't have to keep using the transport to stop, rewind, and replay.

Personally, my way of evaluating any app is to use it for about 20 minutes, and if it "speaks" to me in that time, it's a keeper, and if it doesn't I hit the delete button right away.  I don't doubt that equal numbers of people would hit the delete button when trying both Audition and Reaper.  It just comes down to exactly what you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it, and what your personal preferences and prejudices happen to be.  Like I hope I said above, there's no "best" here.  But having Audition as Reaper's stereo editor makes a pretty powerful combination giving you the best of two worlds.  While if you want one app to do all things to some degree, Audition is the one, as its overall scope is wider.

Thanks for that, Ozpeter - it must have taken you a while to assemble all that lol.  I think I'll continue to use both and see how it pans out.

I think Ozpeter has summed it up very well. Reaper and Audition work fairly well side by side. The big plus for Reaper is that any problems are fixed fairly quickly - rather than having to wait nearly 2 years. However, I couldn't work without Audition's restoration tools.

Cheers

James.