Any reason not to consider Adobe Audition 3?
Posted on Jun 15, 2008 03:41 am
Member Since: May 19, 2008
I downloaded the demo recently because I started out with Cool edit Pro way back. Once I got it working (though not thoroughly tested), I managed to do a lot of the stuff I couldn't do with my bundled software (Sonar Le and Cubase LE)- though to be fair AA3 is not entry level and a lot more expensive. I have to admit i am partial to Cool edit or Adobe -as it's now called - so I was just wondering if there's any place where the products are compared or rated so I don't pay a bundle for something I can get at a better price? I also noticed that most of the people her seem to be using the cakewalk based software. Is it a better option since I allredy have Sonar?
[ Back to Top ]
Jun 15, 2008 04:04 am these days it's not really a better/worse issue, it's all about work flow and feel. if you can do all you need to do in any app, then it's all good...quality isn't an issue. i like cakewalk because it's a great audio editor and midi sequencer, i'm not to keen on adobe's sequencing abilities.
i've got a buddy who still records to cakewalk pro audio 9 on a windows 98 system, he loves it, and swears by it.
Jun 15, 2008 04:48 am Some would question my sanity for saying this (they may or may not be right), but unless you have the need for MIDI or some other features that Cool Edit Pro doesn't offer, why upgrade? CEP 2.0/2.1 has 128 track capability, a host of great tools and well-designed effects, and is extremely user friendly. It's a timeless application.
Some would also argue that the quality of the CEP/Adobe audio engine is inferior to other apps, but I can't offer an expert opinion on that one.
I use Adobe Audition 1.5. The only differences between it and CEP 2.1 are a CD burner and a few other little tweaks. I can honestly say that unless another app surfaces that can surpass it for my needs, I'll be using it 'til I'm dead.
By the way, I do mostly voice work, but I have used CEP/AA 1.5 for serious music recording with fine results.
Jun 15, 2008 05:13 am I use Sonar now because of the midi support, but if you don't need full featured midi support Audition is every bit as good and has alot more features for audio editing. Either one does a fine job, it just boils down to which has a user interface that suits you and the features that you need. Sonar has a fully functional demo as well I'd suggest downloading it and trying it out.
Since: Jul 02, 2003
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Jun 15, 2008 01:28 pm I use audition 3, I upgraded just for the improvements they did in regards to multi core CPU's. Audition 3 supports VSTi and Rewire but I do not use those functions at all and cannot comment.
Since: Jun 20, 2006
The things I like about Audition 2 and 3 over the old versions is ASIO support and the fact that it writes the waves to disk as you are recording them. Some people hate this, but when recording a 45 minute jam session I don't have to stop and click save because my temp space is filling up.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Jun 15, 2008 09:11 pm Yep, my main reason for staying upgraded with Sonar 7 PE is the fact I use pretty much all the tools in there.
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Another reason is the fact it can be fully customized to fit MY workflow. I set it up very similar to what I have gotten used to using in Cakewalk products since the beginning and it works for me. It may not work for you as it does for me.
My main comment is use what is comfortable for you and has the features you require. No need to go with a full on upper level app if it is not needed at all. Like Herb stated, he is an artist that does not need all the bell's and whistles that some of us might use so he sticks with what works for him. I still use an older version of both Wavelab and SoundForge, because they do exactly what I need and they do it well.
coolobace135 in the house tonight!Member
Jun 16, 2008 01:57 pm I use AA 1.5 as well. The main reason for me to use that over Cool Edit is that it allows for vst plugins where cool edit only allowed dx plug ins. That being said, I'm very happy using AA 1.5. The main reason why I don't upgrade is what Cpt Tripps said about writing the audio directly to disk. I don't want to have to go and clean up all the outtakes after I finish a recording session, or otherwise if I leave them there, they are taking up all my hard drive space.
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Izzy Dutch'The Flying Dutchman'Member
Jun 16, 2008 02:01 pm I use AA3 and am very happy with it.. I started with 1.5 for a short period of time, then updated to 2 and now 3. 3 is worth it compared to two, there are several new cool plugings. The one I like most is the Tube modelled compressor.
Since: Jan 11, 2006
I also use IzoTope Ozone in combination with AA3 and as far as I'm concerned it's a great match.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Jun 17, 2008 12:51 am On that note Coolo, I did end up purchasing "Audio File Cleanup" for audition. I point it at a project file and it pulls up all the wavs in that folder and tells me which ones are in use. It was scary at first so I backed up entire folders before testing, but as of right now I trust it. Yes it was extra money, I think only $20 though.
Since: Jun 20, 2006
And yeah, the tube compressor is nice eh!
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.