|
Subject:what do people want from SF 7?
Posted by: CDM
Date:10/26/2002 10:20:19 AM
It's funny - this seems to be the only forum on the SF website where people don't really express what they want from a future version of Sound Forge. Now, we all know it's a close-to-perfect app, but it could always stand improvement. What are people's wish-lists. It's the only way SF will know what to concentrate on for future version (besides using the product suggestion page). I, for one, would like to see real non-destructive editing - i.e. I can save an edit list in the .wav meta data or as a separate small project file. This way I can work on a file and close it without committing changes to the actual file until I know I'm done. I would also like to see a way to make edits and crossfades with a Vegas-style single track. I'm sure I'll think of others, but I just want to get the perverbial ball rolling. CDM |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/26/2002 12:08:59 PM
I'll have what you're having above Charles, would love to see those two for sure. Also: 1. A DX spectrum Analyzer....a usefull one rather than the bouncing dots one like now. 2. A VU meter.....a must for mastering!!! Maybe even a DX VU meter so I can put it in multiple spots for the plugin chainer. 3. Get rid of the 60 second limit on the simple synthesis. I can't even understand why there is a limit? 4. I think direct editing is necessary for a lot of vegas users that like to work that way. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Ben
Date:10/26/2002 12:15:45 PM
>>> 4. I think direct editing is necessary for a lot of vegas users that like to work that way. Amen to that - it'd mean I'd able to work the way I (and of course others) used to with Forge and Vegas, ie making changes to files in Forge and hearing/seeing them in Vegas without having to commit to saving in Sound Forge. >>> I would also like to see a way to make edits and crossfades with a Vegas-style single track. Yep, that'd be great. I've always thought it'd also be cool to be able to drag and drop within a single file; move chunks around without copying and pasting. But anyway, isn't it a bit early to be talking about SF 7? Do you know something we don't Charles...?!? Ben |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: RiRo
Date:10/26/2002 9:59:59 PM
I know it sounds kinda redundant, but I would like to see a volume envelope. I use the volume envelope in vegas, but it would be nice to do it in Sound Forge when I am just working a file there that will not be taken into Vegas. I like Red's vu meters... especially at different points in a DX chain. RiRo |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: RiRo
Date:10/26/2002 11:57:05 PM
I'd also like to be able to put markers in Vegas, and have the markers in place when I open in SF. Seems like this would be a natural, but it does not seem to be there, unless I've just missed it. RiRo |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: DaSoundGuy
Date:10/28/2002 8:34:03 AM
Other than the (IMO ESSENTIAL) built-in multi-track idea for mixing, crossfading, etc within Forge instead of using an external app, I think the next evolutionary step for this audio editor would be to control effects over time. For example: Filtering that changes frequency from beginning to end of a selection area, or can be controlled by envelope. Time stretching that can similarly be envelope-controlled over time. Compression ratios that can be envelope-controlled over time. Another idea is to put some kind of transitional signal-level matching on the both borders of processed selections. For example: performing a simple fade in from a quiet section to a louder section does not automatically fade correctly into the selection or the section after. Some intelligence in the processing would have to be in effect. This could also be done for other things like EQ, pitch shifting, time stretching, etc. While many would say that these are the domain of audio-multitracks, I disagree. As a sound designer, it's inefficient to shift back and forth between editor and multi-track. In Vegas' case, the multi-track doesn't even have these features yet. DSG |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: JTelles
Date:10/28/2002 8:42:46 AM
And how about "Group Waveform Normalization"? I suggested this before and couple of guys did not understand it properly (it CANNOT be done in the current batch converter). The suggestion is described here: http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=104897&Page=0 |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Spirit
Date:10/28/2002 9:06:16 AM
Ableton Live has an interesting feature - something like a "measure record" function. (I haven't used it). The gist seems to be that you define the BPM and the number of measures and that's the exact record time you have. This would be handy for loop work, especially with the Acid tools, so you'd immediately have a loop of exactly the right length and just need to nudge it to find the best non-clicking spot. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: DaSoundGuy
Date:10/28/2002 11:32:25 AM
"Group Waveform Normalization" and other batch processes could indeed be automated but would need some kind of scripting language so that parameter limits/ranges would be specified. I've thought of this too when having to process hundreds of sound files. The usual answer is "hire someone else to do that"! What a boring job that would be - IS! For example applying batch peak normalization where the peak is based on matching the RMS level of a file to a specified range, taken from a scan of the first 4 seconds of the sound files, making the scan skip the first 500 ms of the files, and limiting maximum peak to -1 dB no matter what the result of the above may be. In one go. Then again: Sonic Foundry offers "Media Services": there's a good chance that they use this kind of scripted processing internally. It could be that may want to reserve these advanced tools for themselves. DSG |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: DaSoundGuy
Date:10/28/2002 11:41:10 AM
Mulling over my previous post: it would be even cooler if the scan scanned ALL the sound files and found appropriate ranges for ALL, BEFORE processing anything! A META-Batch processor. Ah...automation... but isn't this kind of thing why we got into computers in the first place? ;) DSG |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Vocalpoint
Date:10/28/2002 1:11:28 PM
DaSoundGuy, Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this: "(IMO ESSENTIAL) built-in multi-track idea for mixing, crossfading, etc within Forge instead of using an external app" This idea is already done very well. It's called Vegas. I hope you are not saying that you want Forge to become a multitracker. That would kill it's appeal IMO. Cuzin B |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: DaSoundGuy
Date:10/28/2002 2:09:36 PM
"I hope you are not saying that you want Forge to become a multitracker." No. In fact I use Vegas every day as well. But let me give you an example: Say I have to create a single sound file that is composed of A) a fly buzzing B) a wooshing white noisy sound and C) an explosion. I have all three sounds and I can assemble them in Vegas BUT there are problems: 1) the fly buzzing isn't long enough and I want to give it a doppler effect 2) the "whoosh" I have is too long and I want to enhance it by flanging and possibly echo. The basic assembly of these elements is simple in Vegas, but the only way I'm going to find the appropriate global effect I need from the combination of these sounds is by trial and error; I experiment, listen, undo, do-differently, listen, etc... The problem is that every edit done in Forge from Vegas is destructive: there is o SEPARATE edit history maintainted for the editing of EACH file. And using "Copy to Forge" will just end up with a very messy collection of files considering the amount of testing involved. Some things could be done in Vegas if the Effects were automatable; but they're not currently. The time-stretching in Vegas doesn't seem to sound as good as Forge's time-stretching (though I've noticed this is content dependant). An integrated multi-track tool within Forge would allow for a separate history maintained for every open file, the way it currently is. That way I could experiment and undo indefinitely. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE would be to allow Vegas and Forge to be more intimately connected so that separate histories for each file or even each EVENT (!) could be maintainted. That would accomplish the same goal. Hope that's clearer. DSG PS: how do you close "Bolds" on this board?... |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: CDM
Date:10/28/2002 4:58:32 PM
Ben - Unfortunately, I don't know anything you don't but I do know that by the time rumors of a new version start circulating and they announce public betas, it's too late to start making suggestions. So, why not start now? This is the time when they're getting to work on the feature lists, etc. I totally agree with Brian's suggestion of a new Spectrum Analyzer - one that's actually useful in mastering. That would be way up there on my list. It should be able to save and compare snapshots. And fx automation and envelopes would be nice too. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/28/2002 7:54:50 PM
I've been screaming for VU meters since v4.5 and I guess nobody get's the concept? I would really love to see a VU meter on the record input panel along with a DX and playback meter. I run from DAT or CD through my TC finalizer, add multiband compression, EQ and such, and directly into Sound Forge. I have no way of judging my overall compression levels, because it has a PEAK meter....which is great to insure I don't clip anything, but not so great when I'm trying to match up levels when mastering and deciding how hard I want to compress something. I think Penquin audio...or somebody like that makes a DX VU meter....but that doesn't help me with the way I work when mastering. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Ben
Date:10/28/2002 8:13:30 PM
>>> An integrated multi-track tool within Forge would allow for a separate history >>> maintained for every open file, the way it currently is. That way I could >>> experiment and undo indefinitely. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE would be to allow Vegas >>> and Forge to be more intimately connected so that separate histories for each >>> file or even each EVENT (!) could be maintainted. That would accomplish the same >>> goal. Da Sound Guy - I'm totally with you on this, but I don't think the answer is to make a multitrack(ish) Forge. Why I'm always going on about bringing back destructive editing is that - to a certain extent - what you what to do <used> to be possible with the Vegas - Forge combo. With Sound Forge 4.5 and 5, if you enabled Direct Mode editing and something like 'Open Command Line Files in Direct Mode' (I think, it was a long time ago...), you could: - right click file in Vegas > open in SF - edit this file as you wished >> every change you made in Forge would come up in Vegas WITHOUT saving! You could also undo in Forge and again this would be reflected in Vegas. Only once you were completetely happy with your file would you hit save in Forge. The only restriction I found with this was problems when doing edits/FX which increased a file's length - this would cause some weird anomolies in Vegas. The work around was that if you planned to do such an edit, you'd add silence to the end of the file and save, then do your editing. There was also something similar which I can't recall completely right now, meaning you had to convert mono files to stereo to avoid problems. This obviously was file rather than event based, but it pretty much did the job for me. I <hate> having to 'open copy' everytime I need to make a very minor change to a small file; as DaSoundGuy says, one inevitably ends up with a ridiculous number of files scattered over your hard drive (eg, Snare 6 Take 3 Take 1 Take 2 - highly possible - happens to me all the time!). Unless SoFo can make SF 6 operate like this, whilst retaining the non-destructive editing, I plead with them simply to make working in the old Direct Mode way an option. I'd <love> a solution for this - is there any chance Peter H could explain whether, theoretically of course, this is possibe? Pretty please... (Charles, I was only playing about - I'd love SF 7 asap, especially if SoFo would include the ideas in this thread; most of them make perfect sense for the way the app. should be going. I'd especially love SF 7 if it include an option for Direct Mode file editing!) Thanks Ben |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: RikTheRik
Date:10/29/2002 5:57:09 AM
>>1. A DX spectrum Analyzer....a usefull one rather than the bouncing dots one like now. Yeah I would really like that too. >>2. A VU meter.....a must for mastering!!! Maybe even a DX VU meter so I can put it in multiple spots for the plugin chainer. There is a free DX vu meter available from www.PSPAudioware.com (very professional audio software). |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: stusy
Date:10/29/2002 10:44:31 AM
Personally..? an inexpensive upgrade from 6d, and maybe another e or f yet..! PLUS, since I do most my stuff with Acid 4 (and meld w/sonar131 from time to time; less now with the 4.0a midi features), for me, I would envision somebody with more smarts than me to read my mind as far as how to make the appletree better, i.e., going from acid to SF to VV3...even then, I would always consider SoundForge a "middle app" to a final product, be it on cassette or CD, to go to a publisher, etc...CD5.0 is interesting, but redundant, unless...? well, you see my point, right..? |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Sonic
Date:10/29/2002 12:47:32 PM
A note on direct mode and Vegas/ACID integration: In my mind, direct mode is slow and dangerous. It also does not fit with all the non-destructive gains that went into Sound Forge 6.0, particulary undo/redo speed. It doubles all testing scenarios, could cause some workflow confusion to newbies, and would mean essentailly retrofitting an old version on top of a new one. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's not the path I personally would want to take. As far as Vegas/ACID integration, there are two other solutions to consider: 1) Allow Vegas/ACID to read through the Sound Forge engine while edits are unsaved. While this sounds ideal, it would require a great deal of integration work with respect to shared file access, could easily bog down Vegas performance, and obviously requires changes to multiple applications, introducing different behaviors depending on the version combination you happen to be using. -or- 2) Allow Sound Forge to undo after save. This means you still have to labor through an occasionally long save (insert standard spiel about paying at the end as opposed to paying as you go in a destructive editor) before hearing the result, but would be able to continue to undo/redo changes about the save point (and they'd still be fast). This one is very do-able and entirely contained inside Sound Forge. So is (2) an acceptable solution for this problem? Or is it the actual time spent saving in Sound Forge that is the hindrance? J. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Ben
Date:10/29/2002 1:41:39 PM
Hi Jason - thanks for your extensive response; it's much appreciated. I know exactly what you mean about direct mode - the way I work with it <is> clumsy and, although it works for me, I can understand it can get messy and confusing. Also, as you say, it would be a shame to lose the non-destructive enhancements of SF 6. As for your options, #2 sounds absolutely ideal - saving wouldn't be a bother at all as long as we had undo and redo for each file [BTW: dunno if it's something up with my machine, CTRL-S doesn't work for save in SF 6, works fine in everything else. Is this a v.6 problem that other people are experiencing?]. As far as I remember, Cool Edit Pro allowed for undo after save, though obviously all undos are lost once you close the app, which is fine by me. If you could implement your second option into Forge, I'd be over the moon! Would be way better than the way I'm having to botch direct mode editing at the moment. Sounds like a great solution. Thanks Ben |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Ben
Date:10/29/2002 4:57:34 PM
As an addendum - re: time spent saving files in Sound Forge, assuming we had your number (2) option implemented. For me at least, the time issue wouldn't be much of a problem. I generally work with relatively small files and if I wanted to edit a very large file, knowing it'd take a while to save in Forge, I'd probably hit 'open copy in sound forge' in Vegas. All in all, I think (2) is a good work around and certainly a million times better than what we have now in terms of Sound Forge-Vegas integration. Ben |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/29/2002 8:45:17 PM
Good...we're talking about direct editing. I have no preference and it works just fine for me the way it is...I have no problem with "open copy" in sound forge and having to save the copy to get an update. Usually the only thing I need sound forge for outside of Vegas is to reverse an event....which I hope one day will make it into a Vegas feature. I have a work around for direct editing. What I don't have is a work around for a VU meter. Now can we talk about why we don't have a VU meter in Sound Forge??? I get the feeling that non-audio users have done the programming for Sound Forge and just don't get the need of a VU meter? Get yourself a copy of WAVELAB....someone from Steinberg noticed a need for a VU meter along side a peak meter. Hmmmm...think maybe some mastering engineer might have clued them in on the use for this, and they considered they might have mastering customers when developing a stereo editor program? There it is right along side a peek meter when you open the record window...along with a phase meter. Any other mastering engineers in this forum hear what I'm saying? |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: JTelles
Date:10/30/2002 9:18:24 AM
I couldn't agree more. I have been using the EXECELLENT (and FREE!) VU meter (it's called PSP VintageMeter) developed by PSPaudioware. It is a DX plug-in, so it is not always available like the SF meter. Having both meters always available, side by side, seems great! |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/30/2002 1:59:09 PM
Thanks for the recommendation of the PSP Vintage meter....it works pretty awesome. I just think I need to spend some time calibrating it....but hey!!! It even gives me that option if I don't like the way it's responding, I can adjust the response times. Thanks for the tip. Now if Sonic Foundry can follow and put the same kind of thing on the record window, then my mastering needs will be complete. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: CDM
Date:10/31/2002 11:22:55 AM
Brian and others - after reading these posts I am reminded and inspired to think that Sonic Foundry should really concentrate on the mastering elements of Sound Forge in the next version. I really think they should concentrate on a really kick ass Sprectral Analyser and better plugins in general. I, personally, have never mastered with a VU meter before, so that's not crucial for me. I started mastering in a PC only. I know that's unconventional and many may not consider this to be true mastering. In fact, I don't try to compare myself to Frankford Wayne or Sterling Sound. I just tell my clients that they will be having a more "personal" experience - that they can sit with me, tweak as much or as little as they want and bring other source CDs they may want to compare our work with. As for relative levels, I just use my ears and do all of my adjusting (maximizing, compressing, eq'ing) relative to a track I consider to be a "benchmark". I have found this to be very effective and don;t consider the work I do (and nor do my clients) that much less "professional" sounding than the bigger, hardware based mastering studios. Anyway, I'd love to see more attention paid to this in future versions of Forge. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/31/2002 2:21:10 PM
Yes, that's how I have to do it now. Basically do a judge by ear to level things out. Here's where my problem lies. I mainly use my TC Finalizer for doing my EQing and multi-band compression when mastering. I can get the spectrum where I want by using Spetralab because this will update in realtime as I make eq adjustments on the finalizer. The finalizer has a peak meter on it so I can ensure I'm not going over 0dB and clipping. I can add compression to make the track louder, but how much compression or how much louder am I making it and how is this level compared to the 10 other tracks I'm mastering after it? From here I then record into sound forge and once I have all the tracks loaded in, I have to spend more time applying more processing to balance the levels out or I decide I need to go back and apply more or less compression on the finalizer....therefore doubling the time I'm spending mastering a song. I can't do an A/B level comparison between tracks while recording into sound forge. Once they're in Sound Forge, I usually use Steinberg's magneto as a tape compressor and it also has a VU meter in it...but not a very accurate one, but get's the job done with effecting the spectral content the least. If I had a VU meter, when recording into sound forge, then my levels would be almost identical....therefore I would not have to subject the audio to more processing. I find when mastering, the less processing I have to put the audio through, the clearer and more open it sounds. Anytime you do more processing it introduces more errors and distortion. Many mastering engineers will avoid normalization if the track is already near 0dB, just to avoid 1 additional processing step and I try to do this by making sure the level is very close to 0dB when leaving the finalizer. Right now, I feel sound forge is practically forcing me to do additional processing without having a VU meter. I prefer to work in sound forge, because I'm quick and effecient with it plus, region names get saved with the files when I import them into CD architect for track assembly, but it seems like Wavelab is a better solution for me, because it has a VU meter on the record window. Yes I have work arounds...I can open up Wavelab..use the VU meter, make my compression changes for volume maximization on the finalizer, close Wavelab...open sound forge and record. Make additional tweaks in forge if any....save...open in wavelab, and use the VU meter again to ensure what I'm hearing is correct....close wavelab, Open in sound forge and use CD architect and assemble the tracks. Now that sounds like a lot of fun doesn't it? Seems like it might be a whole lot easier for me to become more effecient in working with Wavelab and get rid of Sound Forge all together? Maybe alot of other users will feel the same way....and guess what? No Sound Forge 7.0. A VU meter is a simple function...I'm not asking for a rocket science feature here. It's so easy PSP audioware is giving one away for free. Basically, instead of spending programming time on "Super Duper Music Looper", give us something that is useful. As I've said, I've sent this request in and outlined the needs and uses for it, since I started using sound forge for mastering since v4.0. Do I need a bigger hammer to get this necessity through to someone or is it just easier to change applications to a company that already understands the need? |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Ben
Date:11/1/2002 7:21:31 AM
Further to what Charles said, I definitely think it's time SoFo rewrote a lot of its 'XFX' plugins - the ones that ship with Sound Forge. Although some are okay, compared with the likes of Waves a lot of them don't sound too great and have fairly basic functionality. So better soudning DSP algorithms I guess, but let's stick to the nice, clean standard SoFo interfaces on the plug-ins. And, yeah, what about some almost Ozone-like functionality. Get Sound Forge to do what a TC Finalizer does. Now that <would> be nice... Ben |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:11/1/2002 9:16:56 AM
Here, take a look at this press release posted on Sonic Foundry's website. http://www.sonicfoundry.com/news/ShowRelease.asp?ReleaseID=486&CatID= January 14th is just around the corner. I know alot of people are probably sweating at Sonic Foundry right now. As I said, "Sound Forge 7???" I may never see my VU meters. |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:11/1/2002 1:38:20 PM
The stock market represents about 1/4 of the economy, doesn't it? I'm not a propellerhead on the issue, but doesn't it just also represent investor-related stuff? Investors, from what I've understood, just don't have confidence in tech stocks right now... Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: jasonb
Date:11/4/2002 2:52:06 PM
Native VST support without vst wrapper would be great! |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Geoff_Wood
Date:11/5/2002 4:48:24 PM
All this talk of 'mastering in SF'. Just as SoundForge is a stero editor, and Vegas is the multitrack, surely the appropriate application for mastering more than a single track must now be considered to be CD Architect 5.0 ? Of course any DX plug, such as the suggested updates for spec-anal, and VU metering, apply equally to CDA.... geoff |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: Spirit
Date:11/6/2002 9:17:31 AM
Please: bpm in effects like everyone else in the industry ! |
|
Subject:RE: what do people want from SF 7?
Reply by: jeh
Date:5/28/2003 1:03:22 AM
Something simple... fix the "elapsed time" in the record window so it doesn't madly update as fast as it can, hence taking 100% of the CPU while recording. An update every 0.1 second would produce just as useless a blur in the tenths-of-second position and would take a fraction of the CPU. |