Review of Audition 3 in Norwegian press!

.... only a couple of very very old and grey and crinkly audiophile vinyl restorers still kicking about.

At 64, I don't think I could be described as "very very old" (although the grey and crinkly might well apply)!!  To be any good at restoration, you need to have been through the mill a bit - experience and knowledge reign in this field - the current batch of 'producerz' and 'spitterz' are simply not up to the mark for such delicate work.  All the good guys are well past the age where you would expect to find them laying tracks.

Actually, I think this is probably an increasing market.  More and more old material is about (not just on vinyl) and many museums and other holders of audio archives are rushing to transfer their collections to a digital format (maybe too quickly, in my view, but that's another discussion).  I see evidence of an ever increasing number of people getting involved in this sort of work, often by default. 

For those who are involved in transfer/restoration, CEP/AA is arguably one of the best all-round tools available.

From the radio user perspective, the 'bloatware' rubbish that keeps getting added and we wish wasn't, is stuff like spectral this and that and hiss remover (is it?) 

From the restoration perspective, we don't want added 'bloatware' rubbish in the form of midi sequencers, CD writing - even multitrack - but we still have to pay for them for you to enjoy.  It's a two-edged sword and you shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

Personally, I think Adobe has lost the plot and they are trying to turn CEP into something it was never really intended to be.  However, it doesn't really surprise me. I said this would happen, when the news of Adobe taking the program over was first announced.  I would love to see a 'stripped down' version, aimed at the restoration/transfer market, but I doubt it will happen and I suspect the economics are not viable and it's cheaper for everyone if we all continue to pay for things we don't actually need.

From the restoration perspective, we don't want added 'bloatware' rubbish in the form of midi sequencers, CD writing - even multitrack - but we still have to pay for them for you to enjoy.  It's a two-edged sword and you shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

Personally, I think Adobe has lost the plot and they are trying to turn CEP into something it was never really intended to be.  However, it doesn't really surprise me. I said this would happen, when the news of Adobe taking the program over was first announced.  I would love to see a 'stripped down' version, aimed at the restoration/transfer market, but I doubt it will happen and I suspect the economics are not viable and it's cheaper for everyone if we all continue to pay for things we don't actually need.

So, a lot of the radio guys resent the parts of the program they don't need, even though those parts ensure a wider user base and therefore a lower price?  Hmm...

As a homerecordist, I find there are parts of CEP/AA that I don't use, but it doesn't bother me much.  (I spend most of my time in Multitrack, for instance - that's where the action is for me ever since realtime effects were implemented - Edit View's just a place for occasional noise reduction and changing of sample rates, and the final mixdown.)  But a way bigger issue for me now is the support forums like this one and the one over at Adobe.  It's become apparent to me that many, many users aren't involved in the same thing I am - making music at home - and that means an absence of online support that is absolutely critical.  One of the most important features of any software (and hardware) is its online support.  The Help or manual is important, but it's the online support that's the real help - it provides the experience and insights you lack when you're working on your own - on the homerecording forum I frequent, I have learned *SO* much stuff from other people that I never would have picked up in this lifetime if I'd been working on my own.  And with a program at the complexity level of Au, that online support is crucial.  And online support for Au is working at cross-purposes often, and *that* is the issue for me.  I don't care that the program has got features I don't use, as long as they don't get in my way, and as long as I'm not paying more for the program for those features.  (I think I'm paying less, in fact, cuz those features increase the user base, bringing the price down thereby.)  But it would be very much better for me if everybody who used Au was on the same page I am, if everybody was using it for the same purpose.  That muddies the water for me.  You know, over on the Adobe site, I asked a question about sample rates, and somebody very sensibly suggested setting up a test so I could find out for myself, and one test that was suggested was to work at different sample rates with a commercially recorded piece of music.  I understood the reason why that advice was given, and I could understand the advantages of doing it that way, but it was obvious that it was given by someone who was more into restoration or radio work than home recording.  I appreciated the offered suggestion, but I went about the test in a different, more homerecording-useful way.  I wasn't frustrated by it, but I can see why some people are.  These online CEP/AA forums are like a forum that brings agriculturists and gardeners and houseplant enthusiasts together - they're all interested in how to make plants grow better, but each has a rather different aim, a rather different set of problems to work with, a rather different set of solutions. 

Q: What's the best way to prune back my rubber plant?

A:  Well, in September I always get out my combine harvester.  I can do about 160 acres a day if the weather's good.

The two-edged sword you mentioned isn't in the program itself, it's in the user base and their different needs.

Q: What's the best way to prune back my rubber plant?

A:  Well, in September I always get out my combine harvester.  I can do about 160 acres a day if the weather's good.

Sounds like a result to me!

The two-edged sword you mentioned isn't in the program itself, it's in the user base and their different needs.

As any software attempts to be 'all things to all men', then the user base will inevitably become diluted, as more people from different disciplines climb aboard.

That said, there are a lot of AA users who are primarily interested in using its multitrack capabilities - some of them even post their efforts here - so it shouldn't be that hard for you to find like-minded users.

Having recovered from Christmas, I came to see if anyone was interested in the review and found a full-blown "discussion" going on! What fun!

Having read Steve's reply I realise he is right in the strict (Steve G) sense. However, I still think my reaction was partially justified, and I feel that anyone reading the review would get the impression that AA is purely about editing, and has nothing to do with "music".

I consider AA the centre of my music making efforts. Whilst I create tracks in other apps, and import them into AA, and only record "live" playing in AA, I still see AA as the place where my music comes together. All the mixing and mastering happens there and each song spends its most formative time in AA and not anywhere else. I regard Jammer Pro, and Sonar as pre-AA utilities and Ozone as a post-AA utility. It may be technically "wrong" but it just shows how AA forms the centre of my music universe. And that folks, is what caused my reaction.

.....I feel that anyone reading the review would get the impression that AA is purely about editing, and has nothing to do with "music".

One point, you haven't considered, is that 'editing' is often understood by the younger generation to mean adding FX, etc. - in other words, when they talk about 'editing' they actually mean the whole process of tracking and mixing, not just a cutting/pasting operation (which is how I - and I imagine, you - understand it). 

It annoys the hell out of me that the precise jargon that I grew up with has been hijacked and diluted (if not totally destroyed) by people who have no real understanding of what they are doing, but I guess we have to make allowances for that fact when reading reviews like this.

.....I feel that anyone reading the review would get the impression that AA is purely about editing, and has nothing to do with "music".

One point, you haven't considered, is that 'editing' is often understood by the younger generation to mean adding FX, etc. - in other words, when they talk about 'editing' they actually mean the whole process of tracking and mixing, not just a cutting/pasting operation (which is how I - and I imagine, you - understand it). 

It annoys the hell out of me that the precise jargon that I grew up with has been hijacked and diluted (if not totally destroyed) by people who have no real understanding of what they are doing, but I guess we have to make allowances for that fact when reading reviews like this.

I think you have probably hit the nail Graeme. I think it is the use of terms that is confusing me. Whether I use them correctly or not, I have grown used to a certain set of terms, when they get reinterpreted I get thrown off. And yes my use of "editing" is much more in line with yours, and doesn't include FX etc.

.....I feel that anyone reading the review would get the impression that AA is purely about editing, and has nothing to do with "music".

One point, you haven't considered, is that 'editing' is often understood by the younger generation to mean adding FX, etc. - in other words, when they talk about 'editing' they actually mean the whole process of tracking and mixing, not just a cutting/pasting operation (which is how I - and I imagine, you - understand it). 

It annoys the hell out of me that the precise jargon that I grew up with has been hijacked and diluted (if not totally destroyed) by people who have no real understanding of what they are doing, but I guess we have to make allowances for that fact when reading reviews like this.

Language is a living, ever-evolving thing. You yourself now use the words hijack and diluted in reference to jargon, whereas once hijack ONLY refered to terrorists taking over a plane, and diluted was only used in connection with liquids .. somebody somewhere is turning in their grave at your use of English.

But I have to agree with you. Words which have been bastardized today which annoy me the most are DJ (which to me still means a person who TALKS inbetween records), and how many softwares do we see now who refer to SONGS that are not songs at all, they are beats or loops or instrumentals with no singing at all, this one is really terrible; Propellerheads and ImageLine will talk about your SONG, which is not a song at all; a song as far as I am concerned must have SINGing which has been SUNG = SONG.

Language had a past, too - and it doesn't appear to be quite what you think it is, I'm afraid...

Language is a living, ever-evolving thing. You yourself now use the words hijack and diluted in reference to jargon, whereas once hijack ONLY refered to terrorists taking over a plane...

Actually, it never did - ships and trucks perhaps, but terrorists and planes actually hijacked the word themselves! Wiki background info here.

and diluted was only used in connection with liquids ..

Slightly safer with this one, but the definition has included the possibility of other interpretations for a long time, in the form of "to diminish the strength, flavor, or brilliance of by admixture".

somebody somewhere is turning in their grave at your use of English.

You should perhaps be careful about whose use of English you comment on...

Words which have been bastardized today which annoy me the most are DJ (which to me still means a person who TALKS inbetween records)

DJ is not a word - it is an abbreviation of Disc Jockey. 'Jockey' in this sense comes from the American slang for the operator of a machine. As Wiki helpfully has it: "In 1937, American commentator Walter Winchell coined the term "disc jockey" (the combination of "disc", referring to the disc records, and "jockey", which is an operator of a machine) as a description of radio announcer Martin Block, the first announcer to become a star."

Personally, I wish they'd stick to doing just what it says in the definition.

Language is a living, ever-evolving thing.

Agreed - but jargon should not be.

You yourself now use the words hijack and diluted in reference to jargon, whereas once hijack ONLY refered to terrorists taking over a plane, and diluted was only used in connection with liquids .. somebody somewhere is turning in their grave at your use of English.

I doubt they are.  A synonym for hijack is 'usurp' - would you prefer I use that instead?  As for planes, I was always under the impression the the common use today for such a thing was 'skyjack'.  Dilution has always meant to 'reduce strength' - and that's exactly is what has happened to our particular jargon.

However, this is common use language, which is subject to continuous change, whereas I don't think that technical jargon should change, else it loses all sense and nobody knows what anyone is talking about any more.  Some other, so-called, 'technical' forums, to which I belong, contain questions which I completely fail to understand, simply because of the misuse of jargon, although it's a fair bet I would know the answer if the question used the terms correctly (or, more to the point, the correct terms).

Language is a living, ever-evolving thing.

Agreed - but jargon should not be.

I can't agree there.  Jargon is often associated with specialist areas which are changing faster than other aspects of life, and so can be expected to develop and change faster than the general language.  Think of computing, say; indeed, as an example, the word hacker changed during the 1990s from expressing admiration of skill to describing the bad guys.

Paul

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

...  As for planes, I was always under the impression the the common use today for such a thing was 'skyjack'. 

Er no .. you'll never hear a TV announcer say that a plane has been skyjacked, so your impression is totally, utterlly, absolutely and completely wrong.

[totally, utterlly, absolutely and completely]

Er no .. you'll never hear a TV announcer say that a plane has been skyjacked, so your impression is totally, utterlly, absolutely and completely wrong.

OTOH, I don't think that anybody's ascribed a new meaning to the word 'tautology'... 

Er no .. you'll never hear a TV announcer say that a plane has been skyjacked

Really?

... so your impression is totally, utterlly, absolutely and completely wrong.

I think not - it's a term I have heard often enough.