Author Topic: Adobe Audition CS5.5 (Read 22766 times)

bdasilva · « **on:** May 28, 2011, 12:38:44 PM »

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=audition

30 day trial download.

I downloaded this yesterday and I'm just not sure... On the plus side file load faster and it's almost like Isotope RX in that you can look at the spectrograph and remove noises (with photoshop like tools) ... on the other hand there are many things that were not carried over from AA 3.0. Its all very mac looking

Here is a list of program haves and have nots

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/895/cpsid_89588.html

Lets Talk about this.... I have always used "Cool Edit" but this ain't your dads Audition.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2011, 02:57:11 PM »

NO"
Time stretch in clips,
Effects panel (in Adobe Audition CS5.5, use the Effects Rack and Effects menu)
DirectX plug-in support
Dynamic Delay
Dynamic EQ
Envelope Follower
Pan/Expand
Quick Filter
Scientific Filters
Stereo Expander
Stereo Field Rotate

And no backwards compatible support for .ses files WTF??? So I cannot go back and load previous session I had saved unless I skipp all the efx I had set up that really sucks

I have used all of the above items. So I guess I'll stick with AA3 for now. Too bad that it is no a seamless integration

skaggs · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2011, 02:06:00 PM »

is this for MAc or PC? also I am still using cool edit on my pc. did that become audition? these are probably beyond basic questions, so thanks in advance. i am hoping to se tup my mac for dithering and tracking.

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2011, 12:10:34 AM »

Cool Edit Pro by Syntrillium became Adobe Audition years ago.

I popped for CS5.5 for the Mac since I had used Cool Edit and Audition for years on the PC side. The only thing that kept me from completely switching over to my macbook pro was an editing program that I was familiar with and would not have to relearn everything. When CS5.5 came out for Mac that is all it took.

Mac still needs an equivalent program to CD Wave Editor for splitting tracks then I would be really happy.

skaggs · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2011, 11:41:34 PM »

Cheesecadet,

thanks. not trying to hijack this post, but what do you and others track with? i still want to be able to make cd's when i want. is Fission the best bet. i might be willing to spring for the audition if it does most of the things cool edit did, but i do like Wave as well.

Titanium toast has been mentioned as sort of the Nero equivalent for Mac. i still am doing all editing on my old slow pc.

richard

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #5 on:** June 01, 2011, 01:43:48 AM »

Quote from: skaggs on May 31, 2011, 11:41:34 PM

Cheesecadet,

thanks. not trying to hijack this post, but what do you and others track with? i still want to be able to make cd's when i want. is Fission the best bet. i might be willing to spring for the audition if it does most of the things cool edit did, but i do like Wave as well.

Titanium toast has been mentioned as sort of the Nero equivalent for Mac. i still am doing all editing on my old slow pc.

richard

I think Audition for Mac is awesome. Especially since I knew Cool Edit inside and out. Audition has a little bit of a different look to it and some of the dropdown menus are a bit different but I made the transition pretty easily.. I basically do all my editing in Audition. Then I do the dither and SRC using Wave Editor by audiophile engineering since it has the iZotope algorithm. For tracking on the Mac I use Audacity or Fission...but most of the time I still throw my edited WAV on a thumbdrive, put it on my PC, and track using CD Wave Editor.

I use xACT for all encoding, extraction, etc.

I wish someone would make a Mac equivalent of CD Wave Editor. Maybe SCB who created xACT could make a program like CD Wave Editor for us. Don't know if anyone ever suggested it to him though.

I also use Toast 9 Titanium to burn on the Mac or if burning on my PC I use Nero 10

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2011, 10:11:33 PM »

To anyone using Audition CS5.5 on a Windows machine: have any bugs popped up yet? In particular, I'm thinking about the issue in v.3 where the program would freeze up sometimes while previewing effects. Thanks!

ashevillain · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2011, 10:36:08 PM »

Quote from: Cheesecadet on June 01, 2011, 01:43:48 AM

Then I do the dither and SRC using Wave Editor by audiophile engineering since it has the iZotope algorithm.

I know AA CS5.5 uses Izotope for the compressors (specifically states "Powered by Izotope")....I guess I had just assumed it used Izotope all the way through.

keytohwy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2011, 12:33:48 PM »

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but what does CD Wave Editor do that everyone just loves. I'm on a Mac, so I know it's not an option, unless I use a VM, but I just don't understand what people love about it.

TIA for the explanation.

keytohwy

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2011, 09:43:42 PM »

CD Wave Editor is a simple program that most folks use to split tracks (on sector boundaries). Point and click easy.

You don't have to go in and set anything to "snap to" or "CDDA format" or any of that other BS that it seems you have to do on all other programs that I have tried.

It is very user intuitive. Nothing as simple on the Mac side that I have found.

keytohwy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:01:18 PM »

Quote from: Cheesecadet on June 06, 2011, 09:43:42 PM

CD Wave Editor is a simple program that most folks use to split tracks (on sector boundaries). Point and click easy.

You don't have to go in and set anything to "snap to" or "CDDA format" or any of that other BS that it seems you have to do on all other programs that I have tried.

It is very user intuitive. Nothing as simple on the Mac side that I have found.

Amadeus has that. I mean you just press "M" to make a marker where you want it. when done you can use the command to modify markers to move all of them to sector boundaries with one click. Seems pretty simple to me. I can work in FLAC or WAV, etc. I also like saving cue sheets out of the file, etc. That makes collaborating on a file easier.

Any way, thanks for the explanation.

acidjack · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2011, 05:01:17 PM »

Quote from: Cheesecadet on June 06, 2011, 09:43:42 PM

CD Wave Editor is a simple program that most folks use to split tracks (on sector boundaries). Point and click easy.

You don't have to go in and set anything to "snap to" or "CDDA format" or any of that other BS that it seems you have to do on all other programs that I have tried.

It is very user intuitive. Nothing as simple on the Mac side that I have found.

You've got me. I mean, it's easy and all (I used it when I had a PC) but I don't really find setting Audacity to snap to CDDA frames (a setting that stays turned on) all that tough. Plus, exporting with the labeling function means the files are already tagged when exported, so I skip that step, too.

DavidNJ · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:49:32 PM »

I've had all the versions...the new one is faster...one or two new edit features are cute...but the inability to zoom the spectral display on a frequency range is very annoying. Photoshop (and Audition 3) lets you zoom in two axes.

Disappointed...

kirk97132 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2011, 05:40:09 PM »

So I am still thinking I want AA3 not the CS5 version. But which runs better on Win7?

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2011, 03:04:49 PM »

Quote from: acidjack on June 13, 2011, 05:01:17 PM

Quote from: Cheesecadet on June 06, 2011, 09:43:42 PM
CD Wave Editor is a simple program that most folks use to split tracks (on sector boundaries). Point and click easy.

You don't have to go in and set anything to "snap to" or "CDDA format" or any of that other BS that it seems you have to do on all other programs that I have tried.

It is very user intuitive. Nothing as simple on the Mac side that I have found.

You've got me. I mean, it's easy and all (I used it when I had a PC) but I don't really find setting Audacity to snap to CDDA frames (a setting that stays turned on) all that tough. Plus, exporting with the labeling function means the files are already tagged when exported, so I skip that step, too.

Being able to set Audition to snap to CDDA frames (or several other parameters) is a great thing to have, but I can tell you from lots of experience with AA that it doesn't always do it accurately for some reason. I always make it a point to check my tracked files with Trader's Little Helper (or xAct on Mac) for SBE's and I usually find a few tracks that need to be fixed.

Quote from: kirkd on June 29, 2011, 05:40:09 PM

So I am still thinking I want AA3 not the CS5 version. But which runs better on Win7?

Indeed, that is the question. My biggest gripe with AA3 is that it freezes sometimes when previewing effects and requires you to restart the program. Not fun and very frustrating. Adobe was well aware of this issue and offered a half-baked patch that sometimes worked, sometimes didn't. Other than that, it does everything I need it to do and is my go-to DAW.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2011, 04:11:25 PM »

Yeah I had that same crap happen too. The other thing is that you cannot load previous sessions you have to start over and that blows. How hard would it be to make it backward compatible? So now I dunno got new machine and not sure what I wanna do. The trial period is a month right? I wonder if you can run both on the same machine without conflicts?

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2011, 02:10:02 PM »

Quote from: kirkd on June 30, 2011, 04:11:25 PM

Yeah I had that same crap happen too. The other thing is that you cannot load previous sessions you have to start over and that blows.

Absolutely agreed. The only upside to those crashes (for me, at least) was that it forced me to document how I was processing the tracks/files so I could recreate exactly what I was doing after restarting AA3. A pain in the ass but helped immensely in quickly getting back to the point I was at when the program froze up.

As far as running both on the same machine, I'm guessing that they might use the same folder in the directory so there could be a potential conflict. You won't know until you try it out. I would suggest doing a system backup first in case things go haywire and you have to revert back to the "pre-both versions" state.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 07, 2011, 06:10:54 AM »

I've loaded the new CS5.5 version and am gonna see how it does with 8gb of ram behind it. I loded the whole suite because you only get one shot at a trial so what the hell why not. Odds are I'll only get the Audition. But then again I can get scholastic pricing. I'll keep AA3 on my older machine for now. More reports back on actual working pros and cons. since it's a new machine I think I'll set a partion and maybe then I can keep the two versions away from each other? I'll let you know if I do a dual install and if it works. Maybe the'll set a patch to allow loading the ses files, how hard can it actually be?

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:05:31 PM »

Cool. Thanks for the heads up and please keep us posted on what you come across while using it, kirkd.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:28:24 PM »

Funny I was just gonna post initial impressions. I am loading 34 tracks at 5.5 hours each. Yes that is not a typo. A very very long benefit show for a friend. all in 24/48. Believe it or not everything...everything loaded and into multitrack for working in about 15 minutes. 15 mins is HOURS less than it used to take. And with only 3GB of ram before I could not even play all the complete tracks. I used to cut them into hour long chunks. Normal load time before of 34tracks in hour long chunks was about 80 minutes or more . Will also do playback without any hitches. I am sure that the 8gb of ram has everything to do with that. I am so glad I got it, originally was only gonna get 6. Still working thru the visual display options. They seem slightly different and will take a few days to tweak where I like them. eye strain kills me after a while so I wanna play with things. Effects look and handle the same as expected. It seems like the operations run smoother. BUT I am comparing a new machine to an old machine, and a new version to an old version. Not all comparisons will be equal. More later as I go along

PS I thought I should post machine specs. Intel i5 2310 2.90GHz w/8GB ram running win7

acidjack · « **Reply #20 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:37:57 PM »

Quote from: kirkd on July 08, 2011, 05:28:24 PM

Funny I was just gonna post initial impressions. I am loading 34 tracks at 5.5 hours each. Yes that is not a typo. A very very long benefit show for a friend. all in 24/48. Believe it or not everything...everything loaded and into multitrack for working in about 15 minutes. 15 mins is HOURS less than it used to take. And with only 3GB of ram before I could not even play all the complete tracks. I used to cut them into hour long chunks. Normal load time before of 34tracks in hour long chunks was about 80 minutes or more . Will also do playback without any hitches. I am sure that the 8gb of ram has everything to do with that. I am so glad I got it, originally was only gonna get 6. Still working thru the visual display options. They seem slightly different and will take a few days to tweak where I like them. eye strain kills me after a while so I wanna play with things. Effects look and handle the same as expected. It seems like the operations run smoother. BUT I am comparing a new machine to an old machine, and a new version to an old version. Not all comparisons will be equal. More later as I go along

PS I thought I should post machine specs. Intel i5 2310 2.90GHz w/8GB ram running win7

Kirk, I'm thinking about ante-ing up the $400 for this, mostly due to the improved multitracking. I guess you think it's worth it? My only question is, can you actually do tracking in Audition the way you can in Audacity, where you insert labels and it then exports based on them? Or do you have to go to a separate program? Also, I don't see a function to simply Amplfiyi (not normalize) to -.1dB. Does everyone using Audition just use the Normalize function, then?

kirk97132 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 18, 2011, 03:59:14 PM »

Quote from: acidjack on July 18, 2011, 01:37:57 PM

Quote from: kirkd on July 08, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
Funny I was just gonna post initial impressions. I am loading 34 tracks at 5.5 hours each. Yes that is not a typo. A very very long benefit show for a friend. all in 24/48. Believe it or not everything...everything loaded and into multitrack for working in about 15 minutes. 15 mins is HOURS less than it used to take. And with only 3GB of ram before I could not even play all the complete tracks. I used to cut them into hour long chunks. Normal load time before of 34tracks in hour long chunks was about 80 minutes or more . Will also do playback without any hitches. I am sure that the 8gb of ram has everything to do with that. I am so glad I got it, originally was only gonna get 6. Still working thru the visual display options. They seem slightly different and will take a few days to tweak where I like them. eye strain kills me after a while so I wanna play with things. Effects look and handle the same as expected. It seems like the operations run smoother. BUT I am comparing a new machine to an old machine, and a new version to an old version. Not all comparisons will be equal. More later as I go along

PS I thought I should post machine specs. Intel i5 2310 2.90GHz w/8GB ram running win7

Kirk, I'm thinking about ante-ing up the $400 for this, mostly due to the improved multitracking. I guess you think it's worth it? My only question is, can you actually do tracking in Audition the way you can in Audacity, where you insert labels and it then exports based on them? Or do you have to go to a separate program? Also, I don't see a function to simply Amplfiyi (not normalize) to -.1dB. Does everyone using Audition just use the Normalize function, then?

Well, After using it for a while, I am missing some features that were no carried forward. The amplify is still there thou not sure what you're having a problem with finding it. I have not ever used this for tracking, so I can't answer that one. the little reading I've done about it says the new version is supposed to run in background more and make things run smoother. I can't really tell since I switched computers the same time I switched programs. The puter I have now has shitloads of ram so all programs will run way faster on this machine. I've got 8GB of ram. If it was me and I had to pay full list for the new version I'm not sure what I would do. I gt an education discount so I will most likely get the new version and just keep the old one on my old machine. IF it does run way faster than the old one and is more stable when running large stacks of effects in multitrack then I guess it's worth it. If you are only mixing down a set of audience mics and a SBD feed then I dunno. Sorry I can't help you out more. Any other questions feel free to ask, Kirk

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #22 on:** July 18, 2011, 04:18:35 PM »

Quote from: acidjack on July 18, 2011, 01:37:57 PM

Kirk, I'm thinking about ante-ing up the $400 for this, mostly due to the improved multitracking.

I always liked CEP / Audition fairly well when I used it, but if $400 is too rich for your blood (it is for mine), you might consider Reaper.

acidjack · « **Reply #23 on:** July 18, 2011, 04:37:52 PM »

^^ All I really want is the smooth multitracking functions, simultaneous monitoring of effects (i.e., you hear EQ changes in real time) and those izotope compressors. For everything else, Audacity does what I need it to do pretty well. Is there a less costly program that can do those three things? Because yes, $400 seems like a lot to pay for something that I don't really need all that functionality for.

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #24 on:** July 18, 2011, 04:46:31 PM »

I haven't used it after an initial trial (resolved my problem with SAM SE), however I'm pretty sure Reaper has smooth multitracking functions and real-time effects monitoring, but it definitely doesn't have bundled Izotope compressors, though. That's going to be the hard part, I think.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 18, 2011, 06:36:06 PM »

if you really want the Iztope stuff it'll cost ya. You could try getting a student or someone who works at a school to buy the discounted educational price on Adobe for ya.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2011, 10:50:41 PM »

Been using it hard fo a couple weeks now and I have had about 6 shutdown errors at least they were only during uploads of files. But still, brand new computer and fresh instal should be happening

acidjack · « **Reply #27 on:** August 02, 2011, 02:02:33 PM »

Kirk,

What I meant re: Amplify is the only "Amplify" I can find in Audition allows you to tell it how much to Amplify in dB, but there doesn't seem to be the handy feature that there is in Audacity where you go to "Amplify" and direct it to amplify until it peaks out at -0.1dB. With Audition's function it seems you just have to guess, or use normalize. Or am I missing something? I'm still playing with the program; not claiming to be an expert...

kirk97132 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 02, 2011, 02:32:42 PM »

wouldn't be the same as normalize? I just read the help file on match clip volume...read that then try it I think that is what you are looking for. I am not a real fan of Audacity, except it is free so I do use it as multitrack example for teaching students at the college about mixing basics. I know in AA3 there was an edit favorites but I have not found it in CS5.5 yet

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #29 on:** August 02, 2011, 02:39:21 PM »

You could always use the hard limit function too where you specify how much amplitude you want and then just limit it at -0.1dB.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 02, 2011, 02:47:48 PM »

Quote from: Cheesecadet on August 02, 2011, 02:39:21 PM

You could always use the hard limit function too where you specify how much amplitude you want and then just limit it at -0.1dB.

yes but not quite the same thing. I think he is trying to boost the file so that the highest peak is at -0.1db. with the hardlimit you would actually boost everything then if a peak went over -0.1dB it would limit that peak(s) to -0.1dB. Depending on the amount of boost this may or may not achieve the desired result. If you add too much boost(or input gain) at the beginning you start to lose dynamic range and with large amounts of boost you get the "stick of butter" looking wave form.

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #31 on:** August 02, 2011, 03:22:46 PM »

I believe the function in Audacity that acidjack is looking for in Audition is, indeed, "Normalize". Unless I'm mistaken (and using his example), if you select a waveform in Audition and have the program Normalize it to -0.1 dB, it will bring the highest peaks to -0.1 dB and increase the amplitude of the rest of the selected waveform the same increment. It doesn't work like a hard limiter or a compressor.

acidjack · « **Reply #32 on:** August 10, 2011, 03:09:43 PM »

^^ Ahh. I thought I had read on TS that "Normalize" actually did something different/"bad" to the waveform. If it's the same as "Amplfiy to -0.1" I'm good to go!

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #33 on:** August 10, 2011, 05:00:03 PM »

Quote from: acidjack on August 10, 2011, 03:09:43 PM

^^ Ahh. I thought I had read on TS that "Normalize" actually did something different/"bad" to the waveform.

I don't know if "Normalize" is bad, per se, and I suppose it might work differently on different programs, but depending on the recording it might not always be the best thing to use. As an example, if the waveform you're working on hovers somewhere around, say, -5 dB but you have a few peaks from a hard drum hit or loud handclap closer to -1 or -2 dB, using "Normalize" will adjust everything according to those peaks and your recording might still be rather low in volume. In those cases, it could be better to hard limit those peaks first before normalizing or manually raising the amplitude across the whole waveform a set amount as the peaks only last milliseconds and shouldn't cause noticeable distortion on the recording.

A few threads regarding this are on the Adobe forums HERE and HERE.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2011, 11:02:18 AM »

Quote from: acidjack on August 10, 2011, 03:09:43 PM

^^ Ahh. I thought I had read on TS that "Normalize" actually did something different/"bad" to the waveform. If it's the same as "Amplfiy to -0.1" I'm good to go!

By what you had asked originally I believe this is what you are refering to. AFAIK and everything I have read about Audition, it only brings up the gain on the entire file so that the highest peak will be at the level you specify IE: -1dB.

Quote from: Fried Chicken Boy on August 10, 2011, 05:00:03 PM

I don't know if "Normalize" is bad, per se, and I suppose it might work differently on different programs, but depending on the recording it might not always be the best thing to use. As an example, if the waveform you're working on hovers somewhere around, say, -5 dB but you have a few peaks from a hard drum hit or loud handclap closer to -1 or -2 dB, using "Normalize" will adjust everything according to those peaks and your recording might still be rather low in volume. In those cases, it could be better to hard limit those peaks first before normalizing or manually raising the amplitude across the whole waveform a set amount as the peaks only last milliseconds and shouldn't cause noticeable distortion on the recording.

A few threads regarding this are on the Adobe forums HERE and HERE.

There is some merit to using a limiter like you said, for example:

if you have two peaks from an extra hard drum hit that are 10dB higher than everything else then only using normailze will make those peaks the max on the WHOLE file. If you THEN ran a hard limit with a 10dB gain(or boost) applied it would limit those two errant large peaks and bring the rest of the file up. When I am mixing multitrack I will use a limiter on drums a lot of times for just this reason, but I do it while mixing. I think the way to approach hardlimiting as a final operation is to have a light touch. You don't want to lose your dynamic range or end up with the stick of butter looking wave form. To achieve the best of both worlds a two step approach might be best. First normailze.... if you are happy with the results then you're done...if the wave is still a little low due to some random large spike, then run the hardlimit, with your gain set at a level that will bring the majority of the levels up to where you want then while the limiter handles the overs that will happen. Hope that helps

kirk97132 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 03, 2011, 02:51:00 PM »

Well after using it for the trial period here's what I got. I'm running a Levono with i5-2310 CPU @ 2.90GHz; 8GB RAM; windows 7. I had a really long multitrack show to mix down. It was a cancer benefit show5.5 hours total. There was a total of 36 tracks all recorded at 24/48. I always run tracks in Audition @ 32 bit float. It only took about 10 minutes or so to load the tracks originally. It seemed like the very first click of play on the transport control took 20 -30 seconds and after that it was pretty instantaneous. Even with the huge file set playback was smooth and did not have any stuttering. Most of the effects from the AA3 version are there BUT not always in the same place or shown the same as before. That was kinda a pain in the ass at times. Even after loading effects and running multiple buses playback was still smooth. As a comparison to AA3 it is basically the same, with slightly tweaked looks and layout. I can't comment on how it is on CPU usage because the AA3 I used was on a different computer that was much slower and less than half the ram. I am going for the new version. I like audition anyway and since I can get the discounted price it's a no brainier for me. If you liked AA3 or even AA2 then this version has a very small learning curve and you could jump in and do what you were doing on the previous version immediately.

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #36 on:** September 07, 2011, 02:33:38 AM »

Thanks for the assessment, kirk. I'll have to give it a try at some point.

adrianf74 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 09, 2011, 10:37:08 AM »

As mentioned in the first post, many of the options that we use/need/require have been removed from AA3 in this newly rewritten version. I'm running an i3-540 and noticed that CS5.5 was a lot faster on my machine but with the missing features, I rolled back to 3.1. Might be time to look at other software solutions.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 09, 2011, 04:52:20 PM »

I dunno, I was using AA 3 for a long time, and while there are some features that are gone, a lot have just been rearranged and/or are not accessible in the same ways or windows. All in all, while I still use AA3 on my old machine I'm sticking with CS5.5 on the new machine. Just the ability to utilize more than 4GB of ram is huge for me. I had recorded a huge show, 39 tracks 5.5 hours each. The old AA3 could not play this file, not even without any efx added, and it took HOURS to load. Especially something that big. The CS5.5 loads it in all first time in about 0 min and can play everything even with the CPU intensive effects that have warning prompts. I also like the way things save better and the smoothness of jumping between MT view and single track view. I do occasionally want an effect that is missing but it is becoming less and less and I use it. I can't say that the retail price tag is worth it but if you can find someone who can get you the educational price then for $150 it's a great deal.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2011, 11:10:24 AM »

Well I ran into my first little stuttering playback yesterday. Had not saved the multitrack after doing a ton of work....cutting hour long opener from 30 track recording while running 20 buses including three with the CPU intensive warnings. EFX of all kinds...EQ, limiters, MBC, compressor, amplifly, dynamics, gates yet once I did a save things settled down. I'm pretty impressed it took everything I threw at it and remained stable while playing a 90 minute show. DId see that no stretch in multitrack view now

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #40 on:** December 16, 2011, 05:14:34 PM »

So I am running CS5.5 on my macbook pro and once I open a .wav file that has already been transferred to my HD via SD. Card i occassionally get the "detected dropped samples" alert in the bottom right corner. Mind you that this is just playing a file that has already bee transferred to my computer. I am not using CS5.5 to record shows directly.

The files are intact and not missing any samples on the original SD card. Once dragged to macbook they are still intact. When playing in CS5.5 the alert comes up...and to make things worse it doesnt happen everytime. I can reload the same file and audition seems to handle it fine.

i am wondering if I indeed am dropping samples or if this is a bug of some sort? I already have my audio hardware preferences for buffer set at maximum?

Anyone else experience this? i see it has been mentioned online via a google search but no recommendations for a fix have been made and I dont know how widespread this issue is.

Any help is appreciated...

kirk97132 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 16, 2011, 05:28:49 PM »

Never had that error message pop up. Dunno if could be Mac related or not, I run a PC. But, never have seen any reference to dropped samples.

ashevillain · « **Reply #42 on:** December 16, 2011, 09:42:46 PM »

I've had this happen. I'm pretty sure there are no dropped samples. If I press play and just let it go without jumping around that message never appears. As soon as I move the cursor (thus interrupting playback) then it appears.

The way I figure it, even if there are dropped samples there's nothing I can do about it. I format the SD card in my recorder prior to recording and transfer/edit the resulting file to my Mac the same way I've always done and never heard a problem. The recorder is not dropping samples.

I could go back and open files that never were opened in Audition and recreate this issue every time...press play and let it go = no problem....move the cursor = the message appears. I think either there are no dropped samples upon playback and it's caused by moving the cursor/starting/stopping or else Audition is the most sensitive software ever (but still my ears have NEVER heard any problem).

I'm no expert though...if you find out something else about this and it turns out that it makes a difference somehow, let us know!

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #43 on:** December 16, 2011, 10:41:51 PM »

Thanks for the reply. I kinda figured it was just a bug because I was able to play files through as well without the message popping up. I never could hear anything wrong either. Just thought I check if others had the same experience.

Thanks

Cheesecadet · « **Reply #44 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:16:31 AM »

So I talked with Tech support at Adobe today concerning the "detected dropped samples" message that I would occasionally see. They assured me that there are no dropped samples if you are transferring from a SD card to HD. Just a bug that needs to be fixed, and they made a note of it.

However, they did mention that there is a possibility of dropped samples only when directly recording into Audition and you do not have enough memory and have latency issues.

So to sum it up:

1.) Transferring from SD card = No possibility of dropped samples.
2.) Recording directly into Audition = Possible dropped samples if your computer doesn't have enough speed/memory.

Oh yeah, and as far as iZotope goes in CS5.5, I do not think it applies to the SRC or Dithering...which is why I still use Wave Editor for that. It looks like it only applies to Time Stretching in CS5.5...FWIW.

Fried Chicken Boy · « **Reply #45 on:** January 05, 2012, 03:59:49 PM »

Quote from: Cheesecadet on January 05, 2012, 12:16:31 AM

Just a bug that needs to be fixed, and they made a note of it.

Good luck ever seeing Adobe release a working fix for that.

Thanks for the additional info, CC.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 31, 2012, 06:43:58 PM »

The deeper I get into automation lanes the more I discover that you can control and chancge settings over time. Just great that I keep discovering stuff!

spyder9 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 31, 2012, 07:46:49 PM »

CS6 is out now. Anybody try it? I see that it they added things back in like the Channel Mixer.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 31, 2012, 09:25:34 PM »

No I havent' kinda held off on purpose

cashandkerouac · « **Reply #49 on:** November 13, 2012, 02:53:43 PM »

Quote from: spyder9 on October 31, 2012, 07:46:49 PM

CS6 is out now. Anybody try it? I see that it they added things back in like the Channel Mixer.

i just noticed that a few days ago and wondered if it's worth the upgrade. i've been very happy with version 5.5.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 10, 2013, 06:42:29 PM »

Question:
After doing multitrack export I am experiencing a slow playback on the exact same multitrack session. Any ideas on what might be happening?

cashandkerouac · « **Reply #51 on:** October 15, 2013, 01:02:24 PM »

Quote from: kirkd on October 10, 2013, 06:42:29 PM

Question:
After doing multitrack export I am experiencing a slow playback on the exact same multitrack session. Any ideas on what might be happening?

so the original file that is open in the multi-track interface slows down after you export it? does the exported file also play slow? i've never encountered that problem before.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 15, 2013, 02:17:37 PM »

Not the single exported file just the multitrack session plays slow.

Now a second question. I am having issue with playback on large track counts. Never had this issue before but this is first time I am running a total of 74 tracks and busses. I guess that 8GB of ram just aint enough eh? Does anyone know if pre-rendering tracks will handle the associated sends to those busses?

cashandkerouac · « **Reply #53 on:** October 17, 2013, 04:35:00 PM »

Quote from: kirkd on October 15, 2013, 02:17:37 PM

Not the single exported file just the multitrack session plays slow.

Now a second question. I am having issue with playback on large track counts. Never had this issue before but this is first time I am running a total of 74 tracks and busses. I guess that 8GB of ram just aint enough eh? Does anyone know if pre-rendering tracks will handle the associated sends to those busses?

it sounds like a computer/memory issue and may not be anything directly related to the software. perhaps a memory upgrade will do the trick.

kirk97132 · « **Reply #54 on:** October 17, 2013, 04:53:14 PM »

the slow playback was happening on much lower track counts. Two different issues. BUT I know the memory is the issue with the huge track count

Author Topic: Adobe Audition CS5.5 (Read 22766 times)

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

adrianf74

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

kirk97132

cashandkerouac

kirk97132

cashandkerouac

kirk97132

cashandkerouac

kirk97132