Audition CS5.5 AKA Audition 4 is launched

I first bought CE just before CE96 was released & have kept upgrading ever since. Among the main attractions were the restoration facilities. Multi-tracking was a bonus that saved me buying other DAW software.

I now have iZotope RX2 and Reaper*. With AA 1.5 and AA 3.0.1 my needs are probably covered. That said, I expect that I'll upgrade this time, but probably for the last time. I'll see what the trial reveals. With the present exchange rate it should cost about $95 Aus, but I'll bet it's a lot more.


* Having trialled reaper several times in the past, it was only recently that I thought it time to change ($40 atm and a strong Aussie dollar). Strangely, the trigger was that it works properly with the AC-7 Core (toy) control surface while AA3 doesn't. Overall the current feature set suits me well.

@Oretez
All the PCs that I have run recently have Intel processors and AA3 processes run considerably faster than AA1.5. Were you using Athlon CPUs by any chance?

Reaper and Audition make a good combination. In my opinion, Reaper makes a much better multitrack recording and mixing tool than the multitrack view in Audition but it doesn't include decent restoration tools or some of the more esoteric processing that Audition does. So I'll often double click a segment in Reaper which opens up that file in Audition for detailed processing.

James.

Reaper and Audition make a good combination. In my opinion, Reaper makes a much better multitrack recording and mixing tool than the multitrack view in Audition but it doesn't include decent restoration tools or some of the more esoteric processing that Audition does. So I'll often double click a segment in Reaper which opens up that file in Audition for detailed processing.

James.

+1

I am happy to continue to work this way, although I have some concerns about how to "future proof" this work flow.

I am happy to continue to work this way, although I have some concerns about how to "future proof" this work flow.

AATranslator?

I don't like the development direction Audition is taking... I know that several of you have a different point of view, but I would have hoped for a good MIDI support, to mix AA fantastic working environment/GUI and editing tools with a decent MIDI support...
I don't think to upgrade from 3.01.

@Oretez
All the PCs that I have run recently have Intel processors and AA3 processes run considerably faster than AA1.5. Were you using Athlon CPUs by any chance?

no, audio systems have been exclusively intell for several years

and I was perfectly willing to accept that my hardware was significant variable with my issues . . . but based on my experience it was hard for me to believe that it was the 'only' variable.  Having used Adobe PS (and other products) in a company with some 13k employees (though far from all were had PS . . . ) I know Adobe will address technical issues if one's pocketbook is sufficiently deep . . . mine at this time is not so I get stock answers that do nothing to address my concerns

if I did not find AA to be a valuable tool I would have stopped using it long ago.  I 'need' Photoshop' in much the same way that I need facility in Pro Tools . . . but need AA only if it provides a competitive advantage

I to have migrated Izotope RX (while I do use that in conjunction with AA (and some of Melodynes features) . . . but I don't do restoration work if I can help it.  When I do it is typically on a live recording on some old tape

Gradually I worked through a number of the slower then 1.5 issues and some were 'my fault' based on things like installing bridge and how I had system configured for multiple cores . . . but even when after 2 yr. I stopped actively tinkering there was no, over all, significant speed advantage on any system for v3 over v1.5.  There were processes that were quicker in v3 but there remained ones I used that were considerably slower.  When appropriate I used scripting to deal with some of the work flow issues (but that is disappearing in V4)

[clip grouping in MV]

I don't like the development direction Audition is taking...

I don't think to upgrade from 3.01.

Reaper and Audition make a good combination...

I think this is a good change of tack for many of us. IMO Audition's strength is its editing capabilities. When I installed Reaper and double-clicked on a clip, the wave file opened in Audition. Obviously Reaper had discovered Audition during its install process.

If you want MIDI, Reaper has it. If you want to group clips* or use a control surface*, Reaper can do it.

And at the present time Reaper is only $40.


Some more good reasons for upgrading one more time:-

I'm not in any great rush to move on from AA3.01...but I know it's something I'll eventually have to do for a couple of reasons.

First, my existing hardware is a few years old now and, within a year or so, I'll have to be upgrading.  What I buy will almost certainly be a multicore processor and it would be foolish to continue to use some software that can't properly make use of this.

Second, the OS.  The "keep using XP" mantra can't go on forever.  I've been here before when I held off upgrading from Win98 to XP--gradually support for XP in terms of drivers for new gear, updates, etc. etc. will fizzle out.  Again, there's no rush but inevitably it will happen, evenutally pushing me in the direction of an update.  There's too many horror stories about AA3 on W7 for me to want to go THAT particular route...

* Reference:-

Some of the missing features are somewhat annoying. Since I'm now officially allowed to speak about it, I might as well tell you that as well as the metronome gone, so for the moment has clip grouping in MV (yes that is crazy, I know, but...), there's no scripting, half of the automation features (you can't drive it from faders at present) don't exist, and no form of external controller interface is present - not even the basic Red Rover will work with it. And no CD-writing...

Thanks for quite a cogent analysis, Alanofoz.  It details why I'm going to very seriously consider the "one more upgrade" route once the trial version is available.

However, I have to say I'm also (via various other forums) looking at the cost, features and user-views on other competing software.  For purely personal reasons, if I'm going to have to have a learning curve, the coming months won't be a bad time to do it.

We seem to be in Confucian "interesting times".

Bob

Yes... the rather detailed reply on the Adobe forum is only there rather than here because I was, for once, asked politely for my comments on the situation. Ultimately though, when I can sort out the comparison chart, that will get posted here in the FAQ section for AA4. Yeah, I'm going to call it AA4 I think - too complicated going with all that CS5.5 crap... especially if, for instance, Adobe manage to update the whole suite to CS6 without Audition changing significantly. On that basis alone, it's almost certainly better to have an Audition-specific number here and stick with that.

Dunno quite where that leaves us with the Mac version though - the software is identical, but it sure as heck isn't Audition 4 for them - or is it? Well actually I think it is. Mac users will be in the minority so it's going to have to be them that adapt to us, and not the other way around. Result!.... 

I am happy to continue to work this way, although I have some concerns about how to "future proof" this work flow.

AATranslator?

I already use your fine product (Thanks!), and it works fine to make sure I can move to another platform. My concern is more about how long I will be able to use AA3 with Reaper as the rest of the hardware and OS world evolves.

Best case scenario is that AA4 will have the the right components to make me want to upgrade again. In fairness, I suppose I will have to wait and see what track the future development is likely to take. 

"and no form of external controller interface is present "

That's a pretty retrograde step!  What on Earth was the thinking behind that decision?

"and no form of external controller interface is present "

That's a pretty retrograde step!  What on Earth was the thinking behind that decision?

Sounds like version 2 all over again...

James.

As I said over on the Adobe forums, audio-for-video people (at least those in a professional environment) certainly want external control surfaces.  I can only think that, in AA2 tradition, this one was left out due to time constraints.  I guess "leaving it out" is better than the "put it in in half-complete form" of AA2, but it seems a strange one to me.

"and no form of external controller interface is present "

That's a pretty retrograde step!  What on Earth was the thinking behind that decision?

Time to develop, and the fact that for this 'round trip' integration, it wasn't strictly necessary - according to Adobe. Personally I think they slipped up there, and clearly I'm not alone...

Mind you, I'm moderately confident that this is quite a way up the future development list. And if it isn't, then I think that even the video end users will object - they are rather used to external controllers, after all.

I think that under the slightly unusual circumstances, I might explain a bit more than I otherwise would have:

Pretty much the entire reasoning behind this form of development is as a reaction to what happened with AA2.0. The idea is that regardless of what's in or not in it, the release has to be pretty solid in performance terms. So having got to an agreed tools state (over which there were arguments - this was not done in isolation), enough time was allowed to consolidate all of the little things that happen into a solid, although unfortunately incomplete, product. Also, this one was a bit different anyway because of the move into Mac territory. In order to release a public beta, you need a pretty stable product early in the development cycle. That beta wasn't feature-complete though - the round trip stuff wasn't in it, for a start. But that didn't really matter in terms of its stated purpose - which was, to all intents and purposes to put a toe in the water and see how much the sharks bit.

Should also say that as far as the arguments were concerned, just about everybody involved felt aggrieved about something that clearly wasn't going into the new version's first release - what you have in this initial release is a case of spreading this as thin as possible. And a lot of these decisions were in the either/or category - which made it even harder, because then it isn't just about individual features, but the interaction between the choices. Nobody involved had an easy time of this at all.