Author Topic: software recomendations (Read 5433 times)

mmmatt · « **on:** April 12, 2004, 10:54:34 AM »

I've been using various cheesy freeware programs and am ready to upgrade to some decent editing software. The biggest problem that I've had with the software I'm using is converting from 48k to 44.1. I haven't done too much editing on the recordings I've made other than ballancing chanels in a few spots and normalizing. My biggest concern is making my 48K wavs sound top notch on cd, and eventually I would like to start burning dvd-a disks. I am curently running a jb3, but I might start playing with a lappy at 24bit as well. Any suggestions?

***Edit*** I use a pc, and am currently not multitracking.

Matt

pfife · « **Reply #1 on:** April 12, 2004, 10:57:55 AM »

Sound forge, over version 6.0. Works like a charm. You can do tracking in there as well.

EDIT: by tracking, I mean cutting it into tracks for the cd, not multi-tracking.

teajay · « **Reply #2 on:** April 12, 2004, 10:58:47 AM »

I use Sony Sound Forge 7 and love it. I find it easy to use, and since I have no need for multi-tracking it does the trick just fine. If you need multitracking, shoot for something like CoolEdit.

** Assuming you are using a PC **

travis

mmmatt · « **Reply #3 on:** April 12, 2004, 02:05:32 PM »

what are the differences between sound forge 7 and screenblast sound forge 7?
Matt

pfife · « **Reply #4 on:** April 12, 2004, 02:29:06 PM »

Never heard of the screenblast version... can't help you there. The one I am talking about is made by Sonic Foundry.

teajay · « **Reply #5 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:04:36 PM »

Actually as of version 7, it was taken over by Sony AFIK.

travis

nic · « **Reply #6 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:07:09 PM »

SoundForge is no longer made by Sonic Foundry, its now by Sony(as of ver 7).
honestly, I prefer v6 over v7...guess it's a personal thing.

alot of people use Wavelab. if your interested in that, wait till ver5 comes out as it has DVD-A ability built in(with gapless tracks)

pfife · « **Reply #7 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:10:29 PM »

Didn't know SF is not made by sony - thanks. I also use 6.0 as well, but it's merely because I don't have 7.0. I haven't heard that there are many improvements between the versions - is this true?

nic · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:19:58 PM »

the only improvements I noticed were ability to choose VU meter styles and automation...not exactly a full point release worth of improvements if you ask me.

mmmatt · « **Reply #9 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:21:18 PM »

I've heard that sf 6 has shitty dithering, and this was improved in ver 7. There was info on that on the OADE board a while ago. Does sound forge support dvd-a? That is something I have some interest in.

Matt

nic · « **Reply #10 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:24:58 PM »

shitty dithering? I dunno. I have the Waves Gold 3.5 bundle of plugins installed which has great tools, but I do strictly 16 bit recordings.

I didnt like SF7...too much latency for my tastes

silentmark · « **Reply #11 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:36:23 PM »

Quote from: luvean on April 12, 2004, 03:24:58 PM

shitty dithering? I dunno. I have the Waves Gold 3.5 bundle of plugins installed which has great tools, but I do strictly 16 bit recordings.

I didnt like SF7...too much latency for my tastes

So sound forge ver 4.5 has crappy sampling from 48 to 44.1 ? Ver 4.5 is what I have and still use ...

pfife · « **Reply #12 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:41:27 PM »

Dude! 6.0 definately has many improvements over 4.5... I can't speak of the resampling on 6.0, but I don't hear how it sucks, if it does...

6.0 is way faster than 4.5

nic · « **Reply #13 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:44:35 PM »

Quote from: pfife on April 12, 2004, 03:41:27 PM

Dude! 6.0 definately has many improvements over 4.5... I can't speak of the resampling on 6.0, but I don't hear how it sucks, if it does...

6.0 is way faster than 4.5

cant speak for resampling in 4.5, but there is a VAST speed/processing improvement from v5 to v6!
resampling in v5 and v6 has always sounded clean to me...

pfife · « **Reply #14 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:47:29 PM »

Quote from: luvean on April 12, 2004, 03:44:35 PM

Quote from: pfife on April 12, 2004, 03:41:27 PM
Dude! 6.0 definately has many improvements over 4.5... I can't speak of the resampling on 6.0, but I don't hear how it sucks, if it does...

6.0 is way faster than 4.5

cant speak for resampling in 4.5, but there is a VAST speed/processing improvement from v5 to v6!
resampling in v5 and v6 has always sounded clean to me...

Yeah, the processing speed is the main thing I noticed. Especially saving and loading files. They have the metadata summary files that they associate with the .wav to make it load quickly... 'tis very nice.

When I resample, I use the most sensitive option, and I think it sounds fine. But, my playback isn't the greatest, so it could very well be deficient.

mmmatt · « **Reply #15 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:56:10 PM »

is the speed directly related to the quality? i.e. is slower more precise?

pfife · « **Reply #16 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:59:24 PM »

Well, in a sense. When resampling, if you use the most sensitive setting, it takes way longer, and it is more accurate.

But, if you are talking about the same setting on 4.5 and 6.0, I would say there is no difference in quality... this last statement is a bit of a guess though.

nic · « **Reply #17 on:** April 12, 2004, 04:08:07 PM »

Quote from: pfife on April 12, 2004, 03:59:24 PM

Well, in a sense. When resampling, if you use the most sensitive setting, it takes way longer, and it is more accurate.

have you timed a resample with sensitivity set to 1, then set to 4...they take the same amount of time.
its the anti-aliasing that takes so long in the resample!

pfife · « **Reply #18 on:** April 12, 2004, 04:11:05 PM »

Quote from: luvean on April 12, 2004, 04:08:07 PM

Quote from: pfife on April 12, 2004, 03:59:24 PM
Well, in a sense. When resampling, if you use the most sensitive setting, it takes way longer, and it is more accurate.

have you timed a resample with sensitivity set to 1, then set to 4...they take the same amount of time.
its the anti-aliasing that takes so long in the resample!

Nope... never have, but I thought I read it somewhere. I have never had an interest in resampling at a lower quality than possibile.
Is the anti-aliasing the aspect that changes dependent on how sensitive it is?

I usually start it, and leave, and then come back...

nic · « **Reply #19 on:** April 12, 2004, 04:14:40 PM »

I only did it because I was curious as to the difference.
not sure exactly, but the anti-aliasing is some special algorithm/mask that is applied before the actual resampling...Ive tried it with/without...sounds better with anti-aliasing.

if SF did multitrack, I wouldnt use Digital Performer on a Mac!
I love SF

pfife · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2004, 04:20:02 PM »

Agree. I think it's a great program as well. I am really surprised that sensitivity makes no difference in processing time!

You mention Waves bundle - do you ever use the ultramaximizers in that bundle?

nic · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2004, 04:41:16 PM »

no, I use the Renaissance plugins(RComp and REQ4 or 6).

if I need(very rarely) multiband compression, I use Masterworks in Digital Performer

mmmatt · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2004, 06:23:35 PM »

Thanks guys +Ts to all!