|
Subject:SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Posted by: Spheris
Date:9/16/2003 11:54:15 AM
Can someone lean a head in and give us a heads up on this we see the new features but would like a rundown on if it retains the current dx plugs drops any features etc. some of us just got 6, so it would be good to know if we're going to follow the upgrade curve immediately and that's ONLY based on feature set of the new product. Thanks |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: fishtank
Date:9/16/2003 12:12:54 PM
I would like to know if ASIO will be supported. I assume this would be a logical step for SF - but you never know. They didn't mention this in anything I have seen so far. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: PixelStuff
Date:9/16/2003 1:32:18 PM
What specs are you talking about needing? JBJones |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/16/2003 5:34:26 PM
"I would like to know if ASIO will be supported." I would not expect it, but what's the need for it? There was a little survey on this forum a little while back regarding ASIO and Sound Forge. Basically, what came out of it was ASIO is needed for latency issues, which isn't a necessity for a stereo editor. If you have a need for ASIO in Sound Forge could you let everyone else know why? Here's the discussion: http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=3&MessageID=167270 red |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: fishtank
Date:9/16/2003 6:02:17 PM
Because the WDM interface sucks with my hardware. I agree there is no need for low latency, but it would be nice to have ASIO as an option for those of us who would like it. Besides, Wavelab has it and I'm sure many people opt to use ASIO with it even though it also supports WDM. Another good reason is to be using exactly the same interface as you do in Vegas. This way, you can be sure you are hearing things the same. I swear I can hear a difference with my setup - it shouldn't be this way, but I think something funky is going on with the WDM part. The bottom line is that I am already almost convinced to switch to Nuendo for multitrack at this point and will probably not bother upgrading to SF 7 if ASIO is not supported. Seems like SF is becoming less and less pro while others are going the other direction. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: MJhig
Date:9/16/2003 6:28:05 PM
>>>>Another good reason is to be using exactly the same interface as you do in Vegas. <<<< ASIO is notoriously non-multiclient. Having Vegas and Sound Forge (or any other app.) using ASIO simultaneously would in most circumstances lead to conflicts. You are expecting Sound Forge to be a multitrack app., it's not it's a stereo audio/mastering editor. Vegas is the multitracker. The only flaw I see in Sound Forge (and it's huge) is it's burning functionality. No DAO (red book) or CD Text severely hinders it's ranking since the most basic burning software these days supports that and much more. If you have WDM driver problems why not use MME in Sound Forge, there is no need for low latency in Sound Forge. Also do some research on your driver/hardware configuration, this would indicate a problem in that area. MJ |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: fishtank
Date:9/17/2003 7:37:43 AM
I am running Windows 2000 - I do not think you can use MME with that. I have done research and talked with tech support for my hardware - they admitted the problem but do not seem interested in fixing it. I own the hardware and I'm stuck with a problem which could be fixed easily by having the ASIO interface option in Sound Forge. >>> You are expecting Sound Forge to be a multitrack app<<<<< Where did you get that from my post??? No I am not. I just wanted to monitor tracks the same way (ASIO) as I do in Vegas. I sometimes edit Vegas tracks with Sound Forge and usually *Master* the final mix in Sound Forge as many others do. Also, SF makes CD Architect which does do Redbook DAO - just not CD-Text AFAIK. Me saying that you are expecting Sound Forge to be a CD burning app is more accurate than your condescending statement about my knowing what a stereo editor is versus a multitrack. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/17/2003 7:52:50 AM
"I am running Windows 2000 - I do not think you can use MME with that." That would be news to me, since I run a laptop with win2k, MME drivers and Sound Forge installed on it. Seems like most of your information you're presenting is inaccurate. It also seems strange to me, that your h/w manufacturer admittantly say they have a problem with the WDM drivers you're using and won't fix them, and then you point the blame of your problems at Sound Forge to fix your h/w's problems? ASIO is a Steinberg licensed technology, which means Sony would have to pay Steinberg to use this in their app. If it is not needed, then why pay? It's a given that ASIO is in Wavelab....ahhhhh...that's Steinberg and they want everyone in the world to think ASIO is needed for an audio app. They've obviously pulled the wool over your eyes, fortunately for us Sony/Sonic Foundry is a little smarter in the workflow and need for low latency solutions and put them in the right app. Otherwise we'ld all be paying an additional price on top of Sound Forge, for a feature which is not needed, just because "Wavelab has it". |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: fishtank
Date:9/17/2003 11:28:45 AM
I have no idea why I'm bothering to continue this thread that is going nowhere, but...... I stated that I did not THINK you can use the MME drivers - this may not be correct, but your comment about most the information I am presenting being inaccurate is way off base. Furthermore, I am NOT blaming SF for the problem with the WDM drivers on my hardware - I just said if I could go ASIO with Sound Forge it would sovle them which would be worth the upgrade. Do not put words in my mouth Red. There are other issues (Microsoft releated, I believe) with MME that can cause problems for interfaces with large number of I/O channels. If SF chooses not to have an ASIO interface with Sound Forge 7 than so be it. I will not be happy and probably end up not upgrading from SF 6 and eventually move to something else. I just don't understand why you have to attack others in these forums when their views are not identical to yours. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/17/2003 12:40:02 PM
Seems, like you're accusing everyone that responded to you for attacking you. I just stated the facts, if that bothers you I'm sorry, but it seems like you needed to get your facts straight. "I am running Windows 2000 - I do not think you can use MME with that." That is not correct. "Another good reason is to be using exactly the same interface as you do in Vegas. " This is incorrect also, as pointed out. ASIO is actually a problem between 2 seperate apps. "I have done research and talked with tech support for my hardware - they admitted the problem but do not seem interested in fixing it. I own the hardware and I'm stuck with a problem which could be fixed easily by having the ASIO interface option in Sound Forge. " You also have the option to change the hardware, so you're not stuck with the problem, and it can easily be fixed without a software upgrade or ASIO. "Seems like SF is becoming less and less pro while others are going the other direction." This is also incorrect, but you chose to make a blanketed statement like this with no supporting facts that have any true bearing on your problem. Sonic Foundry actually is listening to more pro users, and you can see that with some pro suggested features in v7.0 like VU meters, improved spectral analysis, undo after save option and the addition of Pink, White, and Brown noise generators. I can tell you first hand that the VU meter within SF7 blows Wavelabs out the door. This is the most accurate and useful VU I've seen yet in any software program, and I'm happy to say I've helped in this development process. "There are other issues (Microsoft releated, I believe) with MME that can cause problems for interfaces with large number of I/O channels. " Really? And those are? Can you name some specifics, or is that another blanketed statement without supporting facts? I've tested Vegas and Sound Forge, using MME drivers with 8in/20outs....no problems here. I believe that can be contributed to the hardware's driver and not Windows. There are latency issues with MME, but that's totally different than "I/O" as you've mentioned. There's actually I/O problems with ASIO when using multiple sound cards, within the ASIO spec it only supports one hardware device, thus limiting your I/O capabilities. I'm not attacking you, but I think you definately need to get your facts straight, otherwise you're spending money for something that is not necessarily fixing your problem like you're expecting and bashing Sound Forge in the process. You should consider this as a favor, but hell if you want to keep spending your money and causing yourself more problems, feel free....it's not my money. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/17/2003 1:52:08 PM
Okay back to topic gentlemen red, can you give me an answer on what was dropped, are the dx plugins still included is the noise gen a standalone item or a plugin etc...those are the real questions this nonsense over asio and its trash versus usable products gives me a headache, not a steinbuggerme fan, all apologies |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Ben
Date:9/17/2003 3:15:49 PM
As an aside, I do think it's high time what once were the XFX plugins - now including in Forge - were substantially updated. These are <very> long in the tooth, don't all sound that great and are lacking in some now standard features, such as BPM on the delays, flanger, etc. It would be nice to have to Sonic Foundry/Sony plugs bundled with Forge that competed with the Waves stuff sonically. Ben |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/17/2003 4:09:57 PM
While I agree that some of the XFX are not aging particularly gracefully, I imagine if Sony invested the time and effort required to compete with a full-time fx shop like Waves, they wouldn't be giving them away with the apps...just food for thought. J. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/17/2003 4:21:30 PM
Spheris, I can't give you exact details at this time, it's due out at the end of the month as mentioned on the front page of this website. I can say from past experiences that I have not seen Sonic Foundry drop anything that was in a previous version as far as features......well except for the Mono switch in Vegas. I would expect you'll see everything you've seen in the past, plus the features listed on the front page link, they'll just have an updated name attached to them. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Ben
Date:9/17/2003 4:31:24 PM
Fair call Jason. But perhaps some sort of in-between solution would be good - updating the XFX slightly, for example the delays at very least are crying out for BPM to be added to them. The reverb has always, er, sucked. XFX must be, what, at least six years old and are beginning to show their signs of age. I was just thinking SF 7, ideally, would have been nice time to beef them up a bit. Ben |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: MacMoney
Date:9/18/2003 7:17:43 AM
Very well put Rednroll. Guys we beta for Waves MOST of the Waves plugins cost more than Sound Forge! and you want Sonic Foundry to invest that kind of time into the XFX bundles? Sonic Foundry NR2 $200-$300 Waves X-bundle $1250 Sound Forge 7.0 will be the best Sound Forge yet! Tony Mac |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Ben
Date:9/18/2003 7:59:10 AM
I know all that Tony and I'm not asking for SoFo to create a similar package to Waves - just stating that it's about time the plugs were updated and brought into line with other stuff that's out there. As I said, they are <very> old. As they're an essential part of Forge, I'd argue that it <is> important for them to be brought up to date. Ben |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs -
Reply by: SonyEPM
Date:9/18/2003 10:15:18 AM
http://www.sonicfoundry.com/news/ShowRelease.asp?ReleaseID=568&CatID= |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/18/2003 12:31:05 PM
Thank EPM but that was what spurred the original question. I guess we'll wait. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: CDM
Date:9/18/2003 4:41:15 PM
what else are you looking for? Those are the new features. |
|
Subject:RE: SF7 Specs - We should have them now
Reply by: PixelStuff
Date:9/18/2003 11:40:39 PM
Charlesdem, That's exactly what I was trying to ask in my initial reply ... third post from the top. Between the press release and the feature list there shouldn't be much left to know. JBJones |