Audition CS5.5 AKA Audition 4 is launched

[is]

Okay, it's finally live now, for PCs and Macs. Well, live inasmuch as we can talk about it freely, at any rate. You can read the current Adobe blurb about it here, and of course add comments or ask questions here.

Yes, there will be different FAQs for it, and one of them will be a feature comparison chart when I've finally sorted it out. This is necessary because at present, this release is different, to say the very least. Yes, it's a complete rewrite - for reasons that should be pretty obvious. First thing to say about that is that conceptually, it's far more like what many of us thought would happen to CEP anyway when Adobe took it over. The only real mystery from this POV is why it took so long...

Is what's missing coming back? Probably the most asked question there's going to be, I'd think. Closely followed by 'who decided what to include or leave out anyway? The reason that not everything is in the new version is simply because there wasn't time to do it all properly. The developers have had their fingers burned with releasing 'unready' versions of Audition before (AA2.0) because of corporate release strategy, so this time, they've played safe by making damn sure that the bits that are there work properly. Actually, they did a bit better than this - in terms of speed, the new version is a significant improvement. And non-modal, which is a huge improvement, especially when you are doing things like NR. All I can say about what was left in and out is that there was a vociferous debate, and whilst there was a lot of common ground, the time aspects of this meant simply that some things had to be dropped - at least for the time being. The developers already know that some of the features missing are going to be sorely missed, and I'm pretty sure that they are expecting severe flak over a few of them - like no scripting, for instance. That is going to hack a lot of people off, simply because they can't use their old scripts any more. And a lot of people are going to miss the CD burning - that isn't there either. As for what gets added when - well, we are all in the dark over that, but I know that there are definitely plans afoot; we just have to wait and see.

Mind you, there's a lot in the new version to explore, regardless - even though it's going to make you work in a slightly different way. So try it when you can - see what you think. Hopefully a trial version will be available soon.

Thanks for the notice, Steve.

I went on the Adobe site and registered to be notified when trial is available.

Interesting new approach and features. The most haunting question for me is, what brand of coffee does Jason Levine drink? Holy, hopped up pitchman....

The most haunting question for me is, what brand of coffee does Jason Levine drink? Holy, hopped up pitchman....

Last time I saw him (ages ago) he turned up with some weird Starbucks stuff - something to do with a dragon, IIRC. I think he'll drink whatever he's given, though...

*update* It was probably this.

[What is Adobe Audition CS5.5?]

Since the Adobe site is, as usual, really confusing to navigate, let me post this link to the FAQ about Audition CS5.5 or whatever we're going to call it. http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/faq.html

To quote from near the top which may confirm some people's fears:

What is Adobe Audition CS5.5?

Adobe Audition CS5.5 software delivers the cross-platform tools that video and film professionals, broadcast engineers, and audio specialists need for recording, editing, mixing, creating soundtracks, and restoring audio. A new, high-performance audio playback engine drastically speeds up operation; enables work on multiple simultaneous audio and multitrack files; and allows effects, noise reduction, and audio sweetening processing in the background. Royalty-free content makes creating sound beds, scores, and soundscapes easy. Native 5.1 surround sound capability and roundtrip editing with Adobe Premiere® Pro CS5.5 software promote a smooth video production workflow, while Open Media Format (OMF) and XML support project exchange with Avid Pro Tools and third-party NLEs.

What is the difference between Adobe Audition CS5.5 and Adobe Soundbooth 5?

Designed for audio specialists in broadcast, film, and video, Adobe Audition CS5.5 is intended for professional audio production. Adobe Soundbooth CS5 software was an easy-to-use audio tool, but customers wanted the level of control that Adobe Audition offers, so we have concentrated our efforts on making Adobe Audition the best all-in-one, cross-platform audio toolset on the market.

So it's very clear that the emphasis is no longer on simple audio production but, rather, post production for video and film work.  Which would have been great when I still worked in video and film but, since early retirement, I've been an audio only kinda guy.  Just as I didn't really want my software cluttered up with MIDI stuff, I now resent paying for lots of video functionality I have no use for.

I intend to download and use the trial version of the software as soon as it's available and give it a fair go to see if the other new features (and remaining existing features) still do what I want.  For example, the disk of sound effects may be of more use to me than the Loopology I've received in the past.  (Though I have tens of thousands of my own effects I wish Adobe had purchased from me!)

However, at that point I guess it's time to decide whether I continue with Audition (I've been a user since CE96) or bite the bullet and buy some software aimed purely at audio production--which, of course, opens the can of worms of considered what else is out there.

Bob

The most haunting question for me is, what brand of coffee does Jason Levine drink? Holy, hopped up pitchman....

Last time I saw him (ages ago) he turned up with some weird Starbucks stuff - something to do with a dragon, IIRC. I think he'll drink whatever he's given, though...

*update* It was probably this.

Thanks Steve. I think you need a medical permit to (ab)use that product in Canada.

So it's very clear that the emphasis is no longer on simple audio production but, rather, post production for video and film work.  Which would have been great when I still worked in video and film but, since early retirement, I've been an audio only kinda guy.  Just as I didn't really want my software cluttered up with MIDI stuff, I now resent paying for lots of video functionality I have no use for.

Few points about this: The video integration is, to all intents and purposes, invisible if you don't use it. The video testers tell me it works, but I couldn't personally attest to this, you'll understand... for exactly the same reasons that you don't want it, I can't use it either. Yes the MIDI has gone - and that I really hope is for good. Since the developers have effectively had their arms twisted up their backs to create a video-friendly product, and also one that will run natively on Macs, it was rather inevitable that initially, some audio-specific aspects of Audition would become victims of what was, in past terms, quite an accelerated development structure. But in the same breath, I also know that the devs are working on the audio-related stuff, and not just the missing bits either. But that I can't talk about, because a) I don't know much about it, and b) that's still sub judice because it's not part of the present release.

Other stuff that might be worth noting is that Audition is now multichannel capable natively - although once again, that's a video-related thing as much as anything - simply because video is about the only area where it's even vaguely caught on. I may be able to make some use of the multichannel processing, but I haven't been able to explore this very thoroughly yet.

All I can say so far is that using AA4.0 is a slightly different experience - although one you can quite easily get used to. As a platform for future developments, it has a lot of potential. As for the name - well, that's now confusing. It can't be AA4.0 for the Mac, because it hasn't been released for it before, and we don't really like AA CS5.5 because it's a bit of a handful, so I've taken the unilateral decision just to refer to it, certainly around here, as AA4.0. 

It's a hopeful sign that the development team are working on audio-related improvements but, for me, it will depend on what these are.  It's the emphasis on video post production that worries me.

From my time in TV, I know that the features I'd want in a post suite are not the same as what I now look for in my home studio.  There's certainly some crossover--but Audition could develop in a direction not ideal for my needs.

However, as I said, this is conjecture.  The first thing to do will be download the trial when available and see how I get on.

Bob

For example, the disk of sound effects may be of more use to me than the Loopology I've received in the past.  (Though I have tens of thousands of my own effects I wish Adobe had purchased from me!)

It's not a disk of SFX as such - it's a thing called Resource Central. An on-line database of effects that you can audition on-line and then download individually if you want to use them. There's hardly any loopology on there (certainly at present) and not much else except the effects. And quite frankly, they won't set the world on fire. A lot of them sound suspiciously similar in any given category, and all the vocal ones are Americentric - like the rest of us don't exist...

And of course, there's a huge downside to this. It means that to use it, you have to have a DAW connected to the internet - something that's almost an article of faith in the list of things not  to do...

The video integration is, to all intents and purposes, invisible if you don't use it.

Invisible maybe, but all those of us who don't need it are still going to have to pay for it.  This another reason why I am so against 'integrated' softwares - they tend to be a Jack of all trades, but master of none and the end user has to pay for the development of features that he will never use (or elect to buy more suitable software for whatever the process might be and thus pay twice).

As a long-term CEP/AA user, I will obviously look at this when the demo appears, but I fear we have reached a point where I shall not be upgrading this software again.

The video integration is, to all intents and purposes, invisible if you don't use it.

Invisible maybe, but all those of us who don't need it are still going to have to pay for it. 

Okay, another point of view. If it wasn't there, then from Adobe's POV the software is rather less viable to them, and therefore rather more vulnerable for the chop - a la Soundbooth. Somehow, that seems like a rather higher price to pay...

The video integration is, to all intents and purposes, invisible if you don't use it.

Invisible maybe, but all those of us who don't need it are still going to have to pay for it.  This another reason why I am so against 'integrated' softwares - they tend to be a Jack of all trades, but master of none and the end user has to pay for the development of features that he will never use (or elect to buy more suitable software for whatever the process might be and thus pay twice).

As a long-term CEP/AA user, I will obviously look at this when the demo appears, but I fear we have reached a point where I shall not be upgrading this software again.

which was my point all those years ago when Adobe killed CE.  That it took so long is also precisely one of my problems with Adobe . . . homogeneous, monolithic & not nimble in response to how technology can improve work flow (see Pro Tools (which shares these traits))

interestingly while I do a fair amount of vid/flm wrk for me the absence of functional scripting is probably a deal breaker unless the upgrade price is dirt cheap  There are things being float about offered in the new version that I would find useful but it is unlikely I'll budget an upgrade even for 2012.  CE (back in the day) actually helped me compete with PT (a program for which I have not affection).  I could be quite mistaken but I don't really see Adobe's take on audio/video integration helping me compete effectively with companies that out capitalize me

The time effort spent on adopting to yet another 'new' way of working (with v2.0, v3.x now CSS5.5) is, for me, probably better spent searching for linux based stuff that is more nimble in response to keeping me competitive

(oh, and three yr. ago when I documented and registered issues with how slow V3 was I consistently assured, both here (though not so much directly here) & by Adobe that my issues were due to my system limitations . . . it's nice to know that developers thought that bringing 'speed' up to snuff was a priority . . . but the experience, yet again (based on nearly 20 yr. experience with Adobe) does nothing to increase my confidence or willingness to give them more money)

(oh, and three yr. ago when I documented and registered issues with how slow V3 was I consistently assured, both here (though not so much directly here) & by Adobe that my issues were due to my system limitations . . .

So are you saying that if you had a processor and HDs that went twice as fast as you actually had, Audition 3.0 wouldn't have gone faster? I'm pretty sure that it would have, even though that might not have been physically possible at the time!

(oh, and three yr. ago when I documented and registered issues with how slow V3 was I consistently assured, both here (though not so much directly here) & by Adobe that my issues were due to my system limitations . . .

So are you saying that if you had a processor and HDs that went twice as fast as you actually had, Audition 3.0 wouldn't have gone faster? I'm pretty sure that it would have, even though that might not have been physically possible at the time!

I will chime in and say I have gone through multiple computer refreshes with AA3. I found that even though my computer now is massively more powerful than my last computer, AA 3 performance scaled poorly.

Went from Quad-core Q9650 / 3GB RAM / 32-bit OS.
To i7 6-core (12 logical cores) 990x / 12GB RAM / 64-bit OS.

Audition is only marginally better. The redrawing is exactly the same, latency perhaps a little better, plugins still crash a lot, will still run out of RAM, and will only use a couple cores (maybe 4, nowhere near the 12 cores).
For this reason I have begun using Reaper 4Alpha and boy it is amazing. AA still the audio editor of choice. But for awesome performance, LOTS of plug-ins and really smooth and quick redraws reaper is simply better. Reaper never runs out of RAM prematurely, and it uses all 12 cores equally.

My hope is AACS5.5 performs like Reaper. If it does I will pay the $99 to upgrade my AA3.0. I really hope so, I have been a die-hard from Cool Edit 2000.
I am most comfortable with AA, it is "home" for me. Only issue is it (3.0) performs really poorly compared to the competition.
I am excited for the AACS5.5 demo!

I will wait for the comparison data, but in the meantime I am playing with the Reaper demo and  $40 for a full license compared to $99 for an upgrade is an easy choice if the new AA isn't a considerable improvement on the old one

(oh, and three yr. ago when I documented and registered issues with how slow V3 was I consistently assured, both here (though not so much directly here) & by Adobe that my issues were due to my system limitations . . .

So are you saying that if you had a processor and HDs that went twice as fast as you actually had, Audition 3.0 wouldn't have gone faster? I'm pretty sure that it would have, even though that might not have been physically possible at the time!

of course not . . . my issue was on the same systems (more then one) running a stable OS with 1.5 remaining installed, V3 was consistently out performed by v1.5 in areas that could be tested head to head and for many of the reworked processes V3 using different code performed more poorly . . . sometimes a little sometimes a lot

of course faster processors and bigger hard drives would have improved the situation but I didn't see Adobe offering to help me fund those purchases  So?  continued my migration to using dedicated HD hardware recorder and using Reaper for more and more things . . . stream lining my use of AA for those things at which it seemed to have a competitive edge . . .   my problem is that once again I was being told that my issues were due solely to my hardware . . . which I didn't  believe then or now

one of reasons I started using Cool Edit was not because it was either as fast or faster then other editing software but because it seemed at the time (1996) that its math implementation had at least a slight edge over some other common options.  If with V3 I had been presented with some reasonable dialog concerning my issues I would 'feel' better about doing biz with Adobe . . . 

part of my issue(s) on at least one system was that I inadvertantly installed 'bridge' and had a hell of time eradicating it . . . but while I hold fewer seats then in past there were system pairs (desk top lap top) on which I did not install bridge and had similar poorer performance with v3 then 1.5