Topic: editing software

[porphyry]

apparently the way a sound editing program carries out functions such as equalisation can affect the end result.   does this mean that different programs work in different ways?

for editing operations - ie. volume, equalisation, pan, reverb ( -- and NOT for operations such as transferring a digital signal bit for bit or cutting tracks at a precise point -- ) are some programs better than others?

what program* do you think is best for carrying out these tasks, and why?

ALSO please don't base your answer on how simple or complicated the program is to operate, i just want your opinion on the differences in quality of the music post-editing (if there are any) between the programs.

cheers!

*some examples: cool edit pro, cubase, pro tools, soundforge, wavelab... they seem to be the most popular


...If i may phrase the question in a simpler way:
imagine that you apply the exact same equaliser settings to a particular music file using cool edit pro and then cubase... would there be any noticeable difference in the resulting files?

[MattD]

I haven't done enough comparison to say which is better, but there is definitely a difference from one DAW to another. This is usually due to how the program handles data when doing these operations, specifically the errors introduced in rounding.

There was a really good discussion about this on one of the DAW lists a few weeks ago - DAW-mac, I think.

[zowie]

for editing operations - ie. volume, equalisation, pan, reverb ( -- and NOT for operations such as transferring a digital signal bit for bit or cutting tracks at a precise point -- ) are some programs better than others?

Those aren't editing operations. Editing is cutting and pasting and trimming.  Those are mixing and premastering functions.

[porphyry]

Those aren't editing operations. Editing is cutting and pasting and trimming.  Those are mixing and premastering functions.

editing in the general sense that it is software intended to be used in editing music. like photoshop is used for editing images.

sorry!

[zowie]

The fact that (some) editing software can be used to apply reverb does not mean that adding reverb is an "editing operation."  Listening to music is not driving even though cars can play music.  Driving is not anything you can use a car for.  Editing operations are not anything you can use editing software for.  okay, I'm done

[porphyry]

you're a philosophy student, aren't you.

[B]

i loaded a cubase demo on my comp from the new mogwai cd,  and that thing is screwy as hell...thats all

:shocking: b

[nic]

"The fact that (some) editing software can be used to apply reverb does not mean that adding reverb is an "editing operation." "

this is wrong. if you are altering the sound in ANY way, whether adding gain, panning, compressing or even fading, you ARE editing the music

[porphyry]

if you are altering the sound in ANY way, whether adding gain, panning, compressing or even fading, you ARE editing the music

oh no no no, how dare you use the english language in a broad general way that everyone understands and is correct!  

[jpschust]

ok to go back to the original question, of which program i think is best--

it is very hard to say which is best persay.  honestly, they are different tools for different functions.  

I am a protools guy at heart.  I prefer to work in that, but sometimes it isn't the right tool.  Especially when transfering and doing basic work on field recordings.  For that situation using protools is kind of like using a jackhammer to put in a nail.  

I want to put them into two catergories for me (and i use these terms very very loosely)

The major recording programs: Protools, Nuendo, Cubase

The mastering programs: Soundforge, Wavelab, CEP

For me it is a combo of Protools, Soundforge and Wavelab.  These are the ones whose layouts i understand and seem logical to me.  They all have certain functions that are better than others.  To me, what is most important is choosing the right tool for the job and understanding how to use it.  

[porphyry]

+T jp and MattD....

[Brian Skalinder]

I like Syntrillium's Cool Edit Pro 2 (now re-branded Adobe Audition) for my uses:

DAT > PC transferring.
Occasional compression.
Occasional EQ-ing, usually bass roll-off.
Occasional amplitude/level tweaks.
Fades.
Haven't used it's multitrack functionality yet.

I find the interface very intuitive and easy to learn and use.  The Help documentation is excellent.  As with all of these programs, it can be purchased retail, or found online "free".

[porphyry]

yeah i cut my teeth on CEP2. great program. just wondering if i should explore any others when i start doing serious recording and mixing and premastering - not editing.   the multitrack function can be a bit confusing though...

thanks and keep those recommendations/opinions coming....

[jpschust]

i think that looking at sound forge is worth your time and you get a free 30 day trial on their site.  

[nic]

I second the Soundforge...if you need the Waves Gold plugin pack let me know, I may be able to help you.
the Renaissance plugins are worth more than Soundforge alone!

[Tyler McGhee]

would any care to elaborate on these plugins and what they do?

[MattD]

Waves makes a whole suite of programs. They elaborate on all of them at their [a href=www.waves.com]website[/a]. The ones that I've used are the L2 Ultramaximizer, IDR Dither, and the Renaissance Convolution Reverb. I use the L2 for shows where the crowd is much louder than the music and for some stealth shows. I use the dither whenever I go to 16-bit (or as part of the L2 b/c the the plugin is 32-bit and I'd dither back down to 24). I've used the reverb for a very dry-sounding room where I made an onstage tape. I ended up liking the non-reverbed recording better, but it was interesting to compare.

[Tyler McGhee]

thanks for the info!  +t!