Subject:General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Posted by: Weka

Date:5/7/2002 6:41:01 PM

Am I all-in-all better off?
Thanks
Siabadar

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Tech44

Date:5/7/2002 7:08:24 PM

Better question: is it worth the $129? I was thinking it'd be more in the realm of $50 ... :(

Cheers,

Asylus

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:5/7/2002 7:13:06 PM

With Noise Reduction included for $199.95? I'm definately going for it. The nondestructive editing alone will save me enough time to pay that back in a month.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: billybk

Date:5/7/2002 7:54:44 PM

This is one upgrade I am going to pass on. I already have ACID 3.0, Vegas Video 3.0, Batch Converter, Noise Reduction 2.0, and SF5.0. There is not much in the SF6.0 upgrade to justify me laying out $149.00 for an upgrade when I have pretty much everything I need in the above mentioned programs. Plus, I bought SF5.0 for that great $99.00 download deal SF offered early last year. I'll be darned, if I am going to pay more, for an incidental upgrade, than what I originally paid for the program.
The BIG mistake SF made with SF6.0, was not listening to its users, and finally incorporating CD Architect features into it like they did for VV3.0. I mean, a purported mastering program, without DAO CD burning, is a joke. If it had CD Architect like, DAO CD burning capabilities, added in and the upgrade was under 60 bucks, then I might consider it. Right now I'm saving my pennies for the upcoming VSampler 3.0 upgrade, LiveSynthPro 2.0 upgrade, FXpansion's DR-008 2.0 upgrade and quite possibly a Native Instruments FM7 purchase.

Billy Buck

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Jonah

Date:5/7/2002 8:17:24 PM

Not for me, I payed 99 dollars to get 5.0 last time, and I agree with not paying more to use 6.0 I would pay the 99 dollars again becasue I really like 6.0, but the extra 30 dollars is too much when I don't have the money to spare. I think if you have the money it is worth it mostly becasue of the speed. To me the speed is the only thing that has really made a difference for me. I am pretty angry about this especially since 5 really wasn't much of an upgrade from 4.5 either. I'll have to buy 6.0 used like I did with 4.5. 5.0 showed up for 99 dollars boxed at best buy, and I hope the same happens with 6.0. I might just run the demo version to do editing and copy files back into 5 for saving and all that if that works. Or maybe I'll even switch over to cool edit pro 2, which is a real upgrade.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: InformationSponge

Date:5/7/2002 8:33:14 PM

How do I get that $199 deal. I have SF5 and wouldn't mind paying the upgrade cost if I got the noise reduction stuff... otherwise I'll just keep using CEP for noise reduction and SF5 for the rest of the stuff. $150 for the upgrade is a little steep, especially when I bought the program for $200 at bestbuy.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: TSKYRAIDER

Date:5/7/2002 10:46:43 PM

Yes, as I read the list of "new" features I was dumbfounded . Wasn't this what I purchased Sound Forge 5 at $99 for? Well, the 64 bit precision would be nice but wouldn't that have to be supported by the hardware soundcard? The improved plugin manager should be a free update! And if you want to use the improved MPEG support one has to buy ANOTHER plugin! I think the lack of new features caused the "padding" of new features. Hammerforge, batch converter and FX were all included in SF5. Only one positive comment so far, about the noise reduction. Is it that much better than the several other noise reducers I have ? I won't know until I fork over the cash.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:5/7/2002 11:07:43 PM

I have to say, the SF Noise reduction is the best noise reduction I've ever used and is the best plugin SF has ever developed IMHO. That would probably be the most incentative to upgrade. I have to agree, that these updates aren't enough for a new version pricing update. Sonic Foundry, probably jumped the gun on this one, and probably should have waited and offered more features for a new version update. My opinion is that v5.0 should have had the non-destructive editing features, and they initially dropped the ball on the v5.0 release and are trying to make up for this with the v6.0 release. v5.0 had a very short life compared to versions 4.0 and 4.5. Since I mentioned 4.5, why didn't they offer 6.0 as v5.5 as it really is and offer a $50 upgrade for 5.0 users? This is the fault of Sonic Foundry's sales and marketing departments, which I've expressed my discerns about their marketing blunders before.

My answer was to buy Vegas Video, and now I hardly ever use Sound Forge. Vegas Video has 95% of the features of Sound Forge plus a whole lot more and there seems to be more updates and features worth a version update.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: trouble_t_roy

Date:5/7/2002 11:10:17 PM

$150 to upgrade to SF 6 is a joke. I too purchased SF 5 for the $99 intro price, and that's about all it's worth to me. And as far as I'm concerned, SF6 should actually be called SF 5.1 and it should be free.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: VU-1

Date:5/8/2002 12:36:21 AM

Hmmmmmm......I'd have to say that I'm torn on this one. SF6.0 for $130....naahhh. SF6.0 AND Noise Red. 2.0 for $200....well.....???

I have N/R 1.0 but, from what I have heard, 2.0 is far better. I don't use it all that often, but there are times.....hmmmmmm......

Since the SF6.0 beta release, I have been asking myself if there is really any reason to "upgrade" from SF4.5. I already have VV3 & Acid Pro 3.0 and I have to say that I now use VV3 100% of the time for any editing that I need to do and for about 95% of my mastering projects (the other 5% involves running FFTs, an occaisional pencil tool use and CDArchitect - since VV3 won't burn a CD for me, AT ALL!!!). So now I'm wondering: 'Do I even need Sound Forge at all any more?' (except for CDA & if I (I mean THEY) can get VV3 to burn a CD for me, I won't even need CDA anymore). My biggest fear of installing 6.0 is that it will take over 4.5 & I will lose CDA.

Except for a few special tools, I can't think of anything I could do in SF6.0 that I can't already do (easier & faster) in VV3. Plus, if you take a look at just about ALL of the Pro editing programs, they support more than only 2 tracks (a stereo pair) of audio. There are many, many times that I use extra tracks while editing & even in mastering. So, do we REALLY even need Sound Forge anymore at all?

I won't spend the money just to have 6.0. If I do go for it, it will be to get N/R 2.0 & to have the ability to open up hi-res. files and use SF's specialized tools on them w/o having to render down first.

But, $200......!!! Hmmmmmmmm.

Jeff Lowes
On-Track Recording

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: _maz

Date:5/8/2002 1:45:35 AM

billybk, and you won't regret saving you money for the VSampler 3 update :)

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: RikTheRik

Date:5/8/2002 3:27:14 AM

Yeah I agree to say SF6 upgrade is overpriced !!!
But the $200 deal for SF6 + Noise Reduction is really great.
For less than the price of Noise Reduction alone, you have SF6 ;)

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: jgalt

Date:5/8/2002 4:45:24 AM

I was shocked when I saw the upgrade price! I have no interest in upgrading for that kind of increase. I immediately un-installed the Beta version of SF6. I have Noise Reduction 1 and have been favorably impressed with its performance compared to the noise reduction in competing software. I've never seen a factual comparison of NR1 vs NR2, only the hype, but the "deal" of SF6 + Noise Reduction 2 *might* be a good deal.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: dbarry

Date:5/8/2002 7:52:03 AM

My question is, (ignore the $ ), does it save me time? When you do non destructive edits, I assume that they have added a render step that you must run occaionally or you risk loosing what you have done. Unless you trust SF and Windows to never crash or hang. I have lost edit with Vegas due to (being dumb) having Internet Explorer running at the same time on an XP box.
Maybe someone knows the technology method used to do the ND edits?

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: CDM

Date:5/8/2002 8:18:46 AM

The non-destructive editing, other than not just saving an editlist when you save, is as it is advertised. You can make edit after edit after edit, and, depending on what you are doing, saving is much faster than in 5.0. There is no more temp mode or direct mode. Just one mode. The crash recovery actually does work - if windows crashes, you have a power outage, etc. etc., your edits will be recoverable when you launch SF 6 again. You get your undo list back and the file is as you last saw it. I've tested this and it works. There is a slight saving bug in build 132 for background processes which will be fixed in 6.0a, but it's not dire. Nothing will be harmed by it.

anyway, the non-destructive editing is great, and overall, this is a MUCH faster version. Not to mention the modeless plugin chainer, which for me, is the be all end all. That alone is worth the upgrade.

BTW, NR 2.0 is MUCH better than 1.0, IMHO.

Plus, there are lots of new little things in there that are really nice too. I use Vegas 3 for almost everything ordinarily, but now that Forge is so much faster, I'm back to using both.

just one guy's opinion.
cdm

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:5/8/2002 12:33:02 PM

I haven't used NR 1.0 in quite sometime, but if I remember correctly the big difference was that 2.0 was when it became a DX plugin, therefore it could be used in other applications. Along with that it offered some additional features like click and pop remover and vinyl restoration. The actual noise reduction part remained the same. The only thing I use Sound Forge over Vegas now is to reverse audio, create Acid Loops, and to scan and remove DC offset when mastering, and sometimes to reduce the bit resolution to give that special grainy sound much like SP1200 drum machines, do for Hip Hop drums.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: CDM

Date:5/8/2002 1:48:39 PM

No, it actually offers more NR algorithms which are much better than 1.0

Mode 2 being the best, IMO

Mode 0 is what NR 1.0 was, if you want to compare.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: LarryAW

Date:5/8/2002 2:15:24 PM

I recently purchased a competitive upgrade to WaveLab 4 for $299, which does include a 600+ page manual. I am mentioning the manual because many cross-grades don't include the manual. WaveLab 4 is great and I wasn't going to upgrade to SF6. I think I have every plug-in in the world except for SF's Noise Reduction, which I really wanted. When I saw the offer of SF6 and NR2 for $199, I purchased the bundle immediately.

It's a nice upgrade and I am extremely comfortable with Sound Forge. This being said, if you already have SF 5 and NR 2, then I don't think this is a particularly "compelling" upgrade.

Regards,

Larry

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Doug_Marshall

Date:5/8/2002 2:39:16 PM

For those interested in noise reduction the flexibility of version 2 is astounding compared with version 1. I use it every day to "rescue" location-recorded files for playback in a sampler. Without the tools in version 2 many of the files I edit would have to be thrown out. If you need noise reduction and don't have version 2, go for the upgrade. That's my vote. Unfortunately I already had NR 2, so the 6.0 upgrade seems too high to me.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Weka

Date:5/8/2002 3:51:38 PM

Well I listened to what you all said and decided to go ahead.
SF 6 is very sleek and quick. It will save me a hell of a lot of time over the course of a year (cleaning the front off 70min files for example). However the plugin chainer is a reason alone to get it. I really love it. NR 2a is fabulous like the posts above indicate. Because of our hopeless $NZ exchange rate this has cost me a lot more than it would cost an American buyer. But assuming the stability of previous SF editions, I think with the NR unit, it's probably a good buy if you are professional and time is an issue - as it is in my case.
Thanks All
Siabadar

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: VU-1

Date:5/8/2002 4:10:51 PM

Well, I didn't really get a chance to give the Betas on honest shot. But....

As far as editing goes, I'll take VV3 over Sound Forge ANY day of the week - and get the job done much easier, better & faster. Slipping events around, doing complex fades & crossfades (and simple fade-ins/outs for that matter), adjusting the volume with an envelope, importing other takes to paste or mix in, adding effects to selected portions (tracks), etc., etc., etc. just takes the wind right out of SF's sail IMO.

I really would like you guys to explain to me why the chainer is so much better in 6.0 than it is in VV3. I know there are some differnces, but what? and why is that better? (Besides the obvious one - being able to bypass it with one click. I sure wish VV3's could do that!)

Also, it sounds as if they aren't as dumb as we think they are. Sticking N/R 2.0 in there with 6.0 is probably going to be their Ace to get us to fork over the bucks. I will probably end up biting on that one myself.

JL
OTR

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: CDM

Date:5/8/2002 4:41:10 PM

I wasn't saying the chainer was better than Vegas, just better than 5.0.

But the Share Plugin chainer and the ability to have different chains per open file is also a big plus for mastering.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Weka

Date:5/8/2002 4:48:00 PM

Why don’t I use VV3?
I have been running various versions of SF 6 days a week for 4 years now and have not had a single (SF provoked) crash. I stare at the thing all day and can do all the short-cuts literally with my eyes closed. It, and Sonar make me a living sufficient to maintain a lifestyle here in New Zealand - where software is proportionally much more expensive. To change tools, even if the tool is "better", simply slows me down with no advantage to the client who couldn't care anyway. SF gets the job done without falling over, presents me with no curved balls and I get to spend more time on the beach. Also I don’t know what VV3 is (lol)
Cheers

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: VU-1

Date:5/8/2002 5:06:33 PM

>>I wasn't saying the chainer was better than Vegas, just better than 5.0.<<

Dude, I'm not arguing the point. I'm just asking for info since I haven't had much exposure to the new chainer.

>>But the Share Plugin chainer and the ability to have different chains per open file is also a big plus for mastering.<<

Please elaborate. Thanks.

>>To change tools, even if the tool is "better", simply slows me down with no advantage to the client who couldn't care anyway.<<

Won't slow you down one bit. The operation of both is VERY similar - only a couple of minor diffs. that can be overcome very quickly. VV3 is actually a much more powerful editor than SF - even SF6.0.

>>Also I don’t know what VV3 is<<

Vegas Video 3. BTW - it has all the audio features of previous Vegas versions, and then some.....

JL
OTR

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: CDM

Date:5/8/2002 5:20:22 PM

I agree completely. I barely ever edit with Forge. I use Vegas all day long every day. It's phenomenal for editing, mixing, and mastering. All the way up to DAO burning.

However, I still use Forge to record my V/O sessions, especially now that it has autolabeling for markers and regions now whcih allows me to make my recording the exact same way I mark my script. I've been asking for that forever!! But, I also use it for mastering. I might open a song or two and add some effects to the chainer. Then I might switch to the other song and work on that one. Depending on the file focus (if shre plugin chainer is OFF), the chainer switches to chain you were working on for that particular file. So, you can have multiple files open, all with different chains. This makes it easy to master, match levels etc. But, you can also see how one chain might sound on one of the other open files, without removing its existing chain, for comparison. Just focus to the file whose chainer you want to share among all the files and choose the Share Chainer option. Now all the files will use the same chain as the file you were focused on. Now see how they sound. To go back to the previous chains, just return to the original shared chain file and uncheck Share Chainer.

Not to mention that now the chainer doesn't have to have the focus. You can play from anywhere within a file and preview through the chainer. It "floats" like in Vegas.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:5/8/2002 6:10:50 PM

If you know all the short cuts in Sound Forge then you know most of the short cuts already in Vegas Video 3. Vegas Video 3 is a true multi-track audio and video editor. It's pretty much like having Sound Forge on steroids. Therefore it shouldn't slow you down any adding this to your collection. It's not like getting Vegas is keeping you from using sound forge. Once you get over the 30 minute learning curve you'll be off and running on Vegas.

Subject:RE: General consensus please. SF6 or not?

Reply by: Weka

Date:5/8/2002 6:54:16 PM

Smooth talkers. I'll take a look at it!
Thanks