Review of Audition 3 in Norwegian press!

Edit simply means to alter, change or correct.

In my vocabulary, edit does include adding effects.  But digital audio has always been a part of my career.  There was never a time where I only knew tape splicing.  So to me, edit is whatever an editor does.

In my mind, restoration also falls under the "editing" heading.  In some sense, so does mastering (and by mastering, I mean final processing).

Those are the thoughts in my head.  And it has nothing to do with dillusion or improper use of terms.  It has to do with jargon following trends and technology.

I can't agree with you, although I do follow your line of thought.  As someone who does restoration work, I certainly wouldn't consider it to fall under the heading 'editing'.

What we are dealing with here is not the use of the word 'edit' as a generalised term, but with the word as it is specifically used within a certain context or industry (i.e 'jargon').  In the film or sound industry the term 'edit' specifically means to cut and assemble components of a film or soundtrack; "edit film"; "cut recording tape".  It has always meant this (at least, for as long as I have been involved with the business) and in my view, should always remain so. 

There are dozens of 'jargon' words from this business that have had their meanings changed (usually by people who know no better) so that nobody really knows what they mean any longer.  Just a few examples; producer, master, edit..... the list is quite long.  Jargon should not follow trends or technology.  It is (or should be) a precise shorthand for the industry concerned - if an existing word does not fully describe a new process, then a new word should be given to that process, not a re-definition of an old one - that merely undermines its true meaning and confuses everyone who knows the real meaning.

Nothing much changes - I wrote this in Jun 2002!!

[Quote:]
I just feel that it is important that we recognise a middle ground here between complete newbies and the real pros, who have something valid to say, but need a little help rather than put-downs and elitism. [/quote]

Unfortunately, what you see as 'put downs and elitism' is not that at all. What it really is, is an attempt to guide users towards an understanding of what it is they are playing around with.

It's quite simple really. If these guys want to pick up pointers from the 'professionals', then they have to learn to explain their problems in a way the professionals understand.

The 'professionals' hold that place within our society by dint of experience and learning their trade the hard way. Generally speaking (in my experience) most are willing to pass on the knowledge they have acquired but, in return, they expect the 'beginner' to at least do some of the groundwork for his/herself. At the very least - in terms of this thread - the 'professional' would like to see an understanding of the jargon which we use.

Professional jargon is not something which is generated to confuse the outsider, although it is often seen as that. It is something which develops, over a period of time, to describe exactly, a process or product within the industry concerned. This is not something which is solely the province of audio engineers, every trade and profession you can think of has its own jargon - and for good reason.

Jargon is a precise way of relating something to someone else in the same business. If people start to use jargon incorrectly, then no one knows what it is that is being discussed. This thread is a prime example of what I am talking about. Users are bandying around the term 'mastering' when what they really mean is 'mixing'.

Edit simply means to alter, change or correct.

That's so, but only in a strictly mechanical context. But whenever I teach editing skills, I don't put it like that, because it's rather a negative, process-based way of looking at it. Certainly as far as speech goes, I prefer to emphasise that editing is the process of selecting what's required rather than removing what isn't. That way, you generally get better-constructed material. It's also why I don't like DJ-speak.

But it's also an example of how the attributions of specific meanings to words can subtly change over time. I don't think that any of the definitions of 'edit' are actually wrong - it's just an example of how jargon also alters to take account of different circumstances. So I'm with pwhodges on this one.

Mention above of the community support for software prompts me to reflect on why the Audition forums, even with the release of version 3.0, have become so quiet over the last few years.  On the Reaper forums, there are typically 50 or 60 active discussions per day - perhaps ten times the activity of the Adobe and AudioMasters forums combined. 

Is that because all the Audition questions have already been asked and answered?  Because the program is self-explanatory?  Because it's well documented?  Because its users are generally of a self-sufficient/proficient type?  Because most users are in broadcast organisations providing in house training and peer support? 

Or, perish the thought, because not many people are using it?

Mention above of the community support for software prompts me to reflect on why the Audition forums, even with the release of version 3.0, have become so quiet over the last few years.  On the Reaper forums, there are typically 50 or 60 active discussions per day - perhaps ten times the activity of the Adobe and AudioMasters forums combined. 

Well, on the link below, CEP/Audition has certainly dropped from 3rd most popular search to 5th most popular... but Reaper doesn't even feature on the list. I don't know why - but possibly because it's off the bottom of the radar. However you look at it, it doesn't appear to warrant a mention, despite being around for a while. But since DMD's search remit includes about 100 terms, there's a good chance that if Reaper really was  that popular, they would have found it. There may be other reasons for why not, obviously - you'd have to ask them.

Is that because all the Audition questions have already been asked and answered?  Because the program is self-explanatory?  Because it's well documented?  Because its users are generally of a self-sufficient/proficient type?  Because most users are in broadcast organisations providing in house training and peer support? 

Or, perish the thought, because not many people are using it?

None of the above?

http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/popularity.htm

The Reaper user base is younger, for one thing.  For another, they have more fun on the Reaper site.  So, it's an online place for people to hang out.  Their user base is VERY enthusiastic about the product as well - their suggestions and concerns are taken on if there's any merit at all in them, and the updates come along with dizzying regularity.  One forum invites people to design various skins for the GUI, and so there's the participation factor.  The price is excellent (what is it about free that you might object to?).  Finally, it appeals to anyone who's ever felt ignored or abused by large software companies - it's the 'revenge' factor.

By comparison the Au user base is older, more professional, more serious.

The net result of all this is that the Reaper forum rocks, and the Audition forums uh...tick over.

what is it about free that you might object to?

Well, like Audition, free to evaluate for 30 days.  Unlike Audition, it's a matter of then doing the decent thing to uninstall it or pay up, rather than being compelled by extensive (expensive?) copy protection mechanisms.

Whether you're right that Audition attracts more boring old f*rts I don't know! 

If that much-derided survey includes Reaper one day, it'll be interesting.  (Much derided usually by those at the bottom of its list, perhaps?!)

The Reaper user base is younger, for one thing.  For another, they have more fun on the Reaper site... et seq   ...Finally, it appeals to anyone who's ever felt ignored or abused by large software companies - it's the 'revenge' factor.

By comparison the Au user base is older, more professional, more serious.

The net result of all this is that the Reaper forum rocks, and the Audition forums uh...tick over.

There might be something in this - but you have to remember that all products have a life-cycle. And the point here is that Reaper is, from one POV, a modern-day Cool Edit. When that started out, it had a rapid development cycle, and a very small development team too. And eventually, it got to the point where to develop it further wasn't going to be cost-effective unless it was absorbed into something larger. And we all know what happened next...

And there's absolutely no reason to suppose that Reaper won't follow the same path in years to come - history does have a remarkable habit of repeating (or should that be reapereating) itself...

You also have to keep in mind that the core Audition forum members have been around for a LOOONNGG time.  We've beaten so many dead horses around here that there isn't much to discuss between each other!  I would say that's the biggest factor.  Then a combination of the fact that the user-base is older and more professional, that so many questions have already been answered, and that members generally come here to ask a question only when they cannot figure something out on their own.  And, of course, Reaper is still fresh and fun (for some)!

There might be something in this - but you have to remember that all products have a life-cycle. And the point here is that Reaper is, from one POV, a modern-day Cool Edit. When that started out, it had a rapid development cycle, and a very small development team too. And eventually, it got to the point where to develop it further wasn't going to be cost-effective unless it was absorbed into something larger. And we all know what happened next...And there's absolutely no reason to suppose that Reaper won't follow the same path in years to come - history does have a remarkable habit of repeating (or should that be reapereating) itself...

There's one example of this that didn't get absorbed into the megacompany - Fruity Loops, now known as FL Studio.  Their site is VERY active, with a number of VERY good tutorials (I wish I'd had them when I started out with Fruity), and they're up to Version 7.  Reaper might follow that model.

You also have to keep in mind that the core Audition forum members have been around for a LOOONNGG time.  We've beaten so many dead horses around here that there isn't much to discuss between each other!  I would say that's the biggest factor.

Yeah, I think that's a biggie.  I hang out on another home recordiing forum for most of my online forum time, and a similar thing has happened there - so many of the early learning lessons have been learned, so many of the topics are familiar, that the whole site is moving rather more slowly through the water these days.  The off-topic forum is the most frequented and most active.

Mention above of the community support for software prompts me to reflect on why the Audition forums, even with the release of version 3.0, have become so quiet over the last few years.  On the Reaper forums, there are typically 50 or 60 active discussions per day - perhaps ten times the activity of the Adobe and AudioMasters forums combined. 

Is that because all the Audition questions have already been asked and answered?  Because the program is self-explanatory?  Because it's well documented?  Because its users are generally of a self-sufficient/proficient type?  Because most users are in broadcast organisations providing in house training and peer support? 

Or, perish the thought, because not many people are using it?

There was always an official forum "over there somewhere" for this program, and it was always populated by a couple of stuck-up cronies who spoke down to newbies and even made fun of them, and just wrote to impress each other, quite sickening to see.

Edit simply means to alter, change or correct.

In my vocabulary, edit does include adding effects.  But digital audio has always been a part of my career.  There was never a time where I only knew tape splicing.  So to me, edit is whatever an editor does.

In my mind, restoration also falls under the "editing" heading.  In some sense, so does mastering (and by mastering, I mean final processing).

Those are the thoughts in my head.  And it has nothing to do with dillusion or improper use of terms.  It has to do with jargon following trends and technology.  An "Editor" can do all of the above.  Virtually everyone born after 1980 has been spoiled with digital audio since our adolescent years.  Some people my age do not know what an 8-track cassette or a record is.  It's true.  I've seen it.  It's simply the way we grew up.

My children may not know what a CD is.  Maybe not even an mp3 player, depending on what's next!

Does that make sense to anyone but me?

Emmett

Because I also have a Press and authoring background, the meaning of editing was embedded in my mind from early on as the simple action of taking out the unwanted parts of something and re-arranging what's left, and if some re-writing was involved then changing a paragraph by adding something new would be exactly the same as running an effect filter over a spoken word now, I suppose. But did you all see how the word 'embedded' was itself lifted out of HTML jargon and suddenly became the in-word to describe how TV reporters were on the front-line - embedded - with the troops in Iraq.

Of course Emmett, and all of us now, work in a program where we actually do the work of several people. Today we don't just edit, but we are the creative, and the editor, and this is the reason for Emmett's view on editing. The roles of script-writer, engineer, creative artist, sound recordist and editor have been rolled into one, made possible by the technology. Those who only edited maybe can't understand why an editor could possibly want to do some creating in the editing process. Imagine that now we have photo-journalists who are also editors and .. publishers! You can now be all of these people by taking the photos, writing the piece and publishing for a worldwide audience on your very own publishing house, magazine, newspaper, which is the website/blog. And so it is with sound creatives, who write or create, record, edit and release their own material on their website - which can also double up as publisher, record label, shop and broadcast station.

As for mastering, I for one do not know today's nor the original full meaning of this action. To me mastering is the final part of the audio process in preparation for CD or DVD publishing, which few of us get involved with anyway, and mastering may well be an overused term. If you read the small print on album jackets you can see how all albums are mastered by a different studio than the one that did the main recording, so the mastering process must be in itself be a very skilled process, and probably comes from a time when only a few people had the skill to make audio sound good on early equipment like record players and crackly radio. Doubtless today, the mastering guy is needed less and less, or is the mastering guy even more in demand, as the industry scandals about the problems with today's digital recording rage on. 

But did you all see how the word 'embedded' was itself lifted out of HTML jargon and suddenly became the in-word to describe how TV reporters were on the front-line - embedded - with the troops in Iraq.

No, what I saw was somebody use the word 'embedded' correctly, and then misattribute its origin, (it's never been used correctly as a part of HTML jargon) and then complain about its correct use in another situation.

The word 'embedded' has been in the dictionary for a very long time and it still means, as it alsays has, to fix, or become firmly and deepy fixed, into a surrounding solid mass. In computing, its original use related to hardware processors, as in 'embedded systems', not software. If it gets used as a software term then strictly speaking it's inaccurate, although understandable. The inaccuracy of course is implied by software not being 'solid', as such. And once again, it's an example of incremental changes of meaning. And since beds are generally preferred when they are soft, I don't see any reason why this change shouldn't occur...

In my experience, journalists are some of the worst offenders when it comes to misusing the language - even worse than DJs.

But did you all see how the word 'embedded' was itself lifted out of HTML jargon and suddenly became the in-word to describe how TV reporters were on the front-line - embedded - with the troops in Iraq.

No, what I saw was somebody use the word 'embedded' correctly, and then misattribute its origin, (it's never been used correctly as a part of HTML jargon) and then complain about its correct use in another situation.

My statement is correct, since we had never heard of journalists being embedded, certainly not in the way that TV and the Press were using that term during the Iraq war. I also did not that say nor imply that the origin of 'embedded' was HTML. And yes it is correct to use embedded in HTML, haha  . Look who's playing journalist now eh..