|
Subject:Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Posted by: Spheris
Date:9/23/2003 10:22:07 PM
Figure I'll be first on deck to say a few things as doubtless most everyone else who is trying out the first look at the post sonic foundry product moves to a new generartion, or at least a new version number and will have their own views to share on it. It does look and feel like 6, except for those convoluted volume and pan things. Needs to be reworked into a chainer function if not into a working workspace like vegas pan/volumes. iritating but kind of a cool idea, if you're multitracking ideas are in stereo. automation, definitely a cool idea. does work though, like the volumes/pans a bit counter intuitive. the sony brandmark is everywhere in the thing, plugins and otherwise and acoustic mirror no longer retains setting between uses so keep an eye out for that lest you turn your track to silence. Not sure how I feel about the sony branding sticking in my eye the way it does, but as the other products move along with that, I'm sure it will bother me less and less. the vu metering, not altogether sure about. nice idea. very cool implementation but lacking in comparison to the waves paz meters. But for a built in, very cool and much more usable than anything out of wavelabs overkill it all with cool gfx effect garbage the synthesis, sticking point. non dx, no overlay, non usable at least for me personally- though the tones themselves whip anything wavelab can kick out for purity. not much fun to work with in a mastering environment, fortunately brainspawn is still in business with their dx based tone gen..definitely worth a look to have. Hopefully sony will realize the usefulness of compositing the test tones to projects directly at some point for reference/mastering purposes rather than this render, cut paste, render again dance we have to do right now with it. Otherwise sound forge 6 with the same great interface and skills. I have to appreciate their moving gracefully with it through versions. But I'm staying at 6 for now until there's a bit more added value to what it offers. anyone else? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/23/2003 10:24:14 PM
I'm guessing the forum is still a bit shakey as this duplicated on a single click? Happens :) |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Tech44
Date:9/24/2003 1:30:22 AM
Sonic Foundry's branding used to be everywhere... amkes sense that Sony's would replace it, doesn't it? I like the enveloppes... exactly like Vegas in terms of functionality. Sweet. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/24/2003 8:06:24 AM
Very cool thing, but kind of cluttered to have the box chainer in my face evertime I tried to use it.. But still very cool, maybe should have been made docked as a default? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: PuffDogg
Date:9/24/2003 10:46:28 AM
Spheris - Any chance you could clue us in as to what "spectrum analysis enhancements" specifically refers to? This is the feature I'm most interested in with regard to SF7, but I'd like to know what exactly it means before I plunk down the cash. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/24/2003 11:05:00 AM
Well after about 18 hours working with it, the spectrum analysis now has the ability to make multiple snapshots of running frequencies. Which is kind of pretty to look at but useless as far as making the job of matching any easier. Nice display though, I will give it that and it is much easier on the eyes how that helps the ability to adjust much still escapes me as far as streamlining conforming anything from frequency to frequency. without the same amount of nob twiddling necessary with version 6 so I'm calling that a miss. so if your looking for something to "morph' frequency to another source..forget it. Not going to happen with this. the ionizer is still the only answer to freq content matching for not sorry to say.. though personally been using pink noise impulses successfully with acoustic mirror to conform source audio to relative flat. if you're interested in that, let me know. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: kilroy
Date:9/24/2003 1:14:37 PM
Lack of any editing within the spectral analysis window is a missed opportunity for those of us doing alot of restoration or forensic work. You will absolutely require this if you get into some serious editing tasks where anomolies, either desired or not, need to be identified and dealt with. No wave form view will cut it. Not to be pooping totally on SoFo here, there are other "mastering" type apps that have a disregard for these kind of features as well. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/24/2003 1:25:22 PM
Totally agree kilroy, and not pooping on their parade either to be clear about it.. but hoping some of these things might be rethought and perhaps fixed for a 7.1 update or such as 7.0 on its own offers not so much in upgrade value right now and I'd really like for it to |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/24/2003 1:26:57 PM
SF7 Spectrum analyzer allows you to take snap shots of a frequency curve, and keep that on the display while you are anayzing another file. For practicality purposes, this allows you to take a reference piece of similar music, where you like the way it sounds. You can therefore take a snapshot of that curve and keep it on the SA display, you can then start playback of another file and see how it matches up spectrally compared to your reference curve. This will allow you to make more precise judgement of EQ adjustments to the audio you are mastering. This is a good start for the SA, I pointed out to Sony in the development process of where an averaging adjustment is needed so that it will not respond so quickly, therefore you get more of an average spectral curve, instead of an instantaneous snapshot which will very quite significantly with different parts of a song. Hopefully, that functionality will come soon. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/24/2003 3:03:22 PM
"It does look and feel like 6, except for those convoluted volume and pan things. Needs to be reworked into a chainer function if not into a working workspace like vegas pan/volumes. iritating but kind of a cool idea, if you're multitracking ideas are in stereo." I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. It seems like this is a lot like Vegas, with envelopes placed directly on the waveform for the volume envelopes and the automation envelopes. The only thing I'm seeing different than from Vegas, is that in Vegas when you place your cursor along the timeline and have the plugin chainer window open the information at your cursor position gets updated in the plugin chainer, where in sound forge it is only getting updated during playback. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/24/2003 4:17:35 PM
Have you ever used such an editor that does not molest the phase with abandon? I have yet to see a spectral editor that works much at all, though I've not tried some of the multi-thousand dollar tools out there. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/24/2003 4:20:36 PM
the demo seems to pop it straight into chainer mode blocking my view red..might not be that way in the normal product. but this is what i'm getting on my screen, so not sure what to say to that |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/24/2003 4:26:35 PM
The difficulty in moving pan/volume outside the chainer is that there's no good compromise on UI as to when and how it should actually be applied, or whether you just have to render with it on like Vegas, or whether it is pre/post chainer, or when to reset envelopes, yada yada yada. I think it makes some sense to treat them just like any other effect because, well, that's what they are. That way, there's no additional plumbing to implement (or learn) because the forge chainer is clearer wrt order, preview vs. processed, automated, disabled, etc. So other than a little screen real estate (which could probably be solved in other ways), let me ask, what would you really gain by making pan/volume native to the engine rather than a chain operation? J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/24/2003 4:32:04 PM
Spheris, Now I think I understand. The chainer window does annoy me a little. I actually wish there was a minimize button on that window. You can grab the corner and resize it though. To further explain though, when the chainer window opens, move it to the side or drag it to the bottom of the screen. So now you're looking at the waveform. You should then be able to see all the envelopes on the waveform as it appears in Vegas. I agree with Sonic though, that having this appear in the chainer window is a good idea, since now you can move the volume envelope to any point within the processing chain. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/24/2003 4:33:35 PM
Also, if you dock it at the bottom, you can use F11 to minimize/restore it while keeping envelopes visible. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/24/2003 4:33:46 PM
actually sonic the ionizer does a fair job within phase..nothing is perfect though and that was only 399 for my mac at the time. so that 1000's your talking about is really interesting to me..do tell me more about that |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/24/2003 4:51:23 PM
"Have you ever used such an editor that does not molest the phase with abandon?" Aside from the phase, I think the major thing wrong with these editors, is that although I use a SA to compare spectral curves, I use it to find problem frequency areas to adjust and to reajust frequency areas that get effected by multi-band compression. When I'm done the curves are never EXACTLY the same, that would mean there's EXACTLY the same content within every song. Alot of songs I work on use vocal effects that over boast the midrange to give that NIN/telephone voice effect. Well I therefore can recognize that I don't want to take down that midrange area, and now the vocal effect dissappears. These 1 button push, EQ plugins, ala Steinberg's "Free Filter" and "ionizer" can sometimes get you in the ballpark of what you need, but I would never consider them for doing any serious mastering EQing, because I think they can do more harm than good in a lot of cases. Now if I'm EQing a room, and the source is the same (ie Pink Noise), then yeah, I think a tool like "ionizer" would be great. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/24/2003 4:58:01 PM
"Have you ever used such an editor that does not molest the phase with abandon? I have yet to see a spectral editor that works much at all, though I've not tried some of the multi-thousand dollar tools out there. " Ionizer 1.3 - $399usd works fine and in phase, but a lot of documentation and steps to do with it to make the most of it |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/24/2003 5:11:15 PM
Oh, there's free-ish project stuff out there like Ceres which I've never had much luck using, but I was thinking more along the lines of Cortex Instruments and maybe Metric Halo (no editing, just analysis), though they aren't as pricey as they used to be. I think I overshot what you were really looking for. What Ionizer does is nice, but not quite as free-form as I was originally thinking of. Now that I've read the copy from marketing, yeah, it is a little off. 7.0 SA is still just an analysis tool, albeit with some nice new features. J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: kilroy
Date:9/24/2003 10:56:41 PM
Uh...with respect to the spectral analysis thing. I was thinking more in terms of editing within a color spectrum window. Forge can do the spectrum plot, right? So why not have all the editing functions commonly executed within the typical waveform window also available while viewing the spectrum plot. You can locate glitches in a well implemented color spectrum window that you could never find otherwise. This is vital for restoration jobs and, unfortunately, all too necessary for some mastering tasks. Subtle mouth noises are almost impossible to locate accurately outside of color spectrum plots, and they get *real* loud when clients want that ultra smashed sound, (that's almost everybody lately) so you have to nail them before you add all that silly gain. Some artists just have wet mouths. They get missed on low resolution systems but on good boxes it can sound like a dry stick being broken. Listen to Pink Floyd's "Money" off of Dark Side Of The Moon sometime...there's mouth smacks you can't even see zoomed right in on a waveform plot. "Drowned" off of Madonna's Ray Of Light is another example. These are plain as day in a spectrum plot if you know how to set it up. Alot of de-clicking still has to be performed the "old fashioned" manual way, and no plugin I am currently familiar with does a completly satisfactory job on some subtle, but never the less very audible, impulse anamolies. If you can't see them, you can't get rid of them. A spectral plot view with fully active editing features is what's needed for certain "microscopic" editing procedures. For heavy forensic work you are almost always referring to color spectrum plots, the typical waveform view is practically useless. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: PixelStuff
Date:9/25/2003 3:03:24 AM
Ok. After reading all of this, I'm personally going to need another book to understand what is possible when mastering. Are there any good books that teach everything to do with mastering? JBJones |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 3:17:12 AM
Hi all, thanks for this so far informative thread, I have a few worries myself. I use soundforge and soundforge only for making my music/electronic film scores/soundscaping/design/ambient/game music and game sounddesign...everything ; ) Basically I take whatever soundsources I need and sample those (keyboards, field recordings samples), then I'll edit those files, apply effects and mix them all dow into a single track. It's a bit of a convoluted way to work since you can never go a step back, but I like this way of working very much. (http://www.matthewflorianz.com). For me, soundforge 6.0 does everything I need it to do and since I usually update soundforge when given the oppertunity I was of course happy to see the offer in the mail. It seems like with photoshop, everything you really need is in there, and now some things are added that are nifty on a USP list, but not in the actual working environment. SF 6.0 over sf 5.0 offered a gigantic increase in working speed which really was the reason to get it. 5.0 over 4.0 added better resolution (24 bits). In 7.0 however I cannot find in the list of features a reason to get 7.0. Sure there is some nifty new gadgets but has the core been updated? Compared to the waves series of plugins, the sonic's eq-ing is crude, have they looked into that? Have the verbs been made better? Basically every single plugin that waves makes, is much more precise and leaves the original sound intact more (at least to my ears) therfor those give me an enhanced resolution over the Sonic ones. If they fixed that, it could be a very good reason to upgrade, like the speed increase was something I could really use. Can you now read tracks from CD's and remove the CD from the drive without soudforge throwing away the tracks you read? That really annoyed me about 6.0 as I don't have GB's of free space to spare. I would pick it up in a heartbeat if it actually helps me to work quicker and faster, but as I read the enhancements list, I don't find anything usefull there (for my way of working). Could be I'm missing something : ) Thanks! Matthew www.matthewflorianz.com |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 3:19:48 AM
I think I spoke before my turn there, the undo past save seems like something that I can use. Since I usually have some 20 or 30 files open, being able to save them with the undo hystory attached is really usefull....now if only I could save the entire working space, with all the files still open....can I ? : ) |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Chienworks
Date:9/25/2003 6:24:54 AM
Matthew, i'm curious about your CD tracks problem. I never had this problem with any SonicFoundry software. When i import a track from a CD, it gets converted to a .wav file on my hard drive. After this, the CD is no longer necessary. It sounds like you are somehow merely referencing the data on the CD rather than importing the track. I didn't even know this was possible. How do you do it? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 7:59:51 AM
@Chienworks I never had any troubles with soundforge 5.0 either, I would just use the software to read a file and it would make a temp file on my harddrive. My problem was with loading *.wav files from CD drives which I should have clarified indeed. SF 6.0 would read these fine, but if I take out the disc it would say that the file is no longer available and close the window. SF 5.0 never had that restriction and I am sure most of us back up our projects in wav, not as an audio disc. When I work on an album I end up with a lot of GB of data which I need to put on several discs so it is essential for me to be able to have several CDR's 'opened' at the same time. I can work around it by first copying to my HD and opening those files, however, that would result in one file and one equally large temp file, wheras reading from a disc only produces the temp file = half the space needed. Could be that the latest update to soundforge has solved this problem, I quite frankly never checked : ) Matthew |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/25/2003 9:27:56 AM
Sound Forge 5.0 always created a temp copy of the entire file unless you were opening direct mode, in which case you would have had the same problem. 6.0 and later reference the file directly since it doesn't actually modify the source file in the course of editing. No temp files are created (other than perhaps a peak file) unless new data is generated via an effect, render, etc. That behavior hasn't changed in 7.0. If you wish to work on a file stored on CDR, you must either keep it in the drive or copy it to your hard drive. That's not a bug, just physics. J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/25/2003 9:32:50 AM
Not in the way you are thinking, but you can save a single window to the new .frg project format, which will store the entire edit history and consolidate all the data used by the window. The idea being you can have multiple editing sessions without rendering to a media format and losing your history once the window is closed. Also, it's obvious when you play with it, but the undo-past-save feature is different. You can save as media types and as long as the window is open, the history will be intact, but as soon as you close the window, it's gone. The demos are now 30-day fully functional trials, so why not just try it out yourself? J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: RikTheRik
Date:9/25/2003 10:03:37 AM
By reading your comments, it does not seem there are enough exciting new features up to spend $100 bucks for an upgrade. I tried the demo and found it quite disappointing... It is still a fantastic product but thinking to the improvements on the previous versions upgrades, this one is quite a minor one (still at the same upgrade price). For the spectral viewer, Izotope Ozone has a pretty good one with much more options... |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 11:08:31 AM
That behavior hasn't changed in 7.0. If you wish to work on a file stored on CDR, you must either keep it in the drive or copy it to your hard drive. That's not a bug, just physics. I never said or even hinted at this being a bug. I said this was impractical as often the material I work with is stored on DIFFERENT CDR's. SoundForge as a program tells me that I must finish working on one CDR before I can move on to the other, that is not very ergnomic or efficient. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 11:10:32 AM
This is a feature that does indeed warrent an update. Also understand, with my negative comments about certain functionality I am not trying to undermine the programm, I love working with SoundForge and couldn't do the music that I do, as I do it without it. And I will indeed try the demo : ) Thanks for the feedback! |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: drbam
Date:9/25/2003 11:38:26 AM
>>I said this was impractical as often the material I work with is stored on DIFFERENT CDR's. SoundForge as a program tells me that I must finish working on one CDR before I can move on to the other, that is not very ergnomic or efficient. << I confused about why this is a problem. Unless I'm missing something here, you will need to save and render the edited file(s) at some point anyway, so why not just copy the material to the drive initially and be done with the CDRs? drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 12:17:05 PM
@drbam... Imgine having 10gb of free data and needing to work with 6 gb of data from CDROMS. Basically I'd be working with about 10 CDR's in that case. If I copy them to my Harddrive I have 4 GB of space left. If I then open all these files in soundforge it would create an extra 6gb of temp data....which is 2 GB's to much. If I could read these files from CDR directly WITHOUT first copying them to harddrive, I would need just 6GB of space. It would save me a copying step and make work generally quicker for me. I so appreciate that soundforge can work on files directly; however, it would have been nicer to give me the option to use direct mode or not as sf 5 and previous versions did. My annoyance at the time (as I did write the suggestion people) was that they removed something from the program that I was actually using a lot. Just like they removed the wav view from the fade windows (which they have re-established in a later patch thankfully). It's a question of what works faster, certainly being able to work directly off several CDR's is quicker than reading them onto disc first and then opening them. Am I a spoiled bastard, you bet I am ; ) To me it seems the good people at Soundforge didn't take into account that some people work with very large and long files; and the only way to back those up is by dividing them over sevarl discs. Of course, all of this isn't a real problem as it isn't as real bug (as sonic rightfully pointed out. Hope I descirbed this subject clearly enough : ) |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: MJhig
Date:9/25/2003 12:32:24 PM
You should seriously consider, especially since you apparently generate income from working on large media files, purchasing more HDD's. They are cheap now, you can get a WD 120GB WD1200JB EIDE ULTRA-ATA/100 7200RPM SE W/8MB BUFFER for under $100 USD. Even better get two and a removable cage to easily remove one and slide in another. MJ |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: gjn
Date:9/25/2003 12:33:05 PM
that does not justify for me the appelation "7". ¶ ¶there is not enough evolution. ¶ ¶the algorithms of reverberations of Sony validator it....!!!!! ¶ |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: toncu
Date:9/25/2003 12:33:52 PM
There are a few performance losses in 7 vs. 6. Note that I'm using the trial version of 7 and the full 6.0e release. Handling of WM8 WMA's and MP3's seems to be un-optimized. The release notes for 7 say that proxy files are only built for DV. It doesn't say that proxy files are no longer created for other formats, but the implication is there - and the program behavior supports the removal of this feature. I'd guess that someone thought it took too long from Open to "get busy editing" on these files and dropped the "take a few seconds to create the proxy file, but realize great time savings for the entire working session" optimization. I'd also guess that it wasn't a QA person or a software dev that made that call. Anyhow, I loaded a WMA file, started playback and about 2 seconds in, hit the 'M' key to drop a marker. It landed about 2 seconds after my keypress. Thinking it was a fluke or a file I/O lag problem, I tried it again with the same result. I exited and reloaded SF7, still repro'd. Markers have always been instant with previous versions of SF - even when I was running it on an old <400Mhz Pentium Tecra 740 notebook. I'm using a 2Ghz P4 Tecra 9100 for this test. Note that Markers work as expected with WAV files, though dropping them causes the scrolling to jerk. It's like the DirectX implementation is flaky or something... I'm usually an instant-upgrader of Sound Forge products. At this point, I'd be paying $99 for a lesser product. Granted, I haven't explored the new features - I was really intrigued by the WM9 export option. But, I edit far more than I export and version 7 derails my "as it's playing" workflow. I'll keep an eye open for an updated build - hopefully it'll happen before 10/31. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: SonicJG
Date:9/25/2003 1:56:22 PM
toncu- The marker latency you're reporting didn't happen for us during testing, and doesn't reproduce now either--markers drop instantaneously, on much slower systems than the one you're using. Can you give us a few more details? Where was this .wma created, what bitrate, which drive is it being played from? Which OS are you using, and are there any background apps running? Video card? Any other details? Thanks, Joel |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/25/2003 2:14:55 PM
priceless just took a look at the 24bit export and 16 bit reopen error as well out of wma lossless joel, some ideas on what we're looking at with that? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/25/2003 2:14:55 PM
priceless just took a look at the 24bit export and 16 bit reopen error as well out of wma lossless joel, some ideas on what we're looking at with that? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: toncu
Date:9/25/2003 2:28:17 PM
Thanks for the quick reply! > Where was this .wma created, what bitrate, which drive is it being played from? I created the .wma via Acid Pro 4.0d's Render option. It's 64kbps, 16-bit, stereo, 44k sample rate, according to info reported via right-clicking it on my desktop (the actual file, not a shortcut) and viewing Properties. I'm playing it from c: which is the only hard disk on this system. > Which OS are you using, and are there any background apps running? WinXP SP1, 512MB RAM. Plenty of background apps running. <g> However, the only difference between the 6.0e test environment and the 7 demo test environment is the version of Sound Forge that was running at the time. All of the other background apps were running throughout the session. (Sure, something might have been flushing a buffer or whatnot, but the probability of it happening 3 times to v7 and 0 times to v6 is low.) > Video card? Any other details? The video card is the on-board S3 SuperSavage/IXC 1179. Using S3's driver version 6.13.10.1256. 16MB. 1400x1050 32-bit @ 75hz. 1GB paging file, approx 384MB used, DirectX 9.0b. DirectDraw acceleration is enabled - actually, all the DirectX stuff is unadjusted by me. I just took a peek with DXDIAG to get the version info. I'd be happy to send the WMA file to you - it's only 250KB or so. I'm also happy to provide any additional data you'd like. I'll give it a try on my dual-proc P3/866 after lunch. Further, I'll also give it a try on my "music" machine at home (P4/3.06Ghz, 1GB RAM, M-Audio Omni Studio/Delta 66). |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/25/2003 2:50:24 PM
We are aware of the 24-bit wma9 codec issue. Sound Forge 7.0 will save them correctly, but will open them at 16-bit for the time being due to some unexpected changes to the WMA SDK provided by Microsoft. Until this is fixed, consider the .pca format as an interim lossless solution. J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/25/2003 2:56:15 PM
FWIW, you are the first person I ever heard of who prefers proxies. I would tend to think there is something flaky going on with disk io and/or CPU cycles if you really need them on a modern machine. But I digress. Also FWIW, there will be a new pref in the first update entitled "Always proxy compressed formats." The marker thing is quite odd, and as Joel mentioned, we never saw a problem. But I imagine seeking the play position from wma is getting hung up somewhere. The problem only occurs on playback, right? Of course, you woudn't see it in previous versions because the files were always proxied. J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Sonic
Date:9/25/2003 3:12:47 PM
>> If I then open all these files in soundforge it would create an extra 6gb of >> temp data....which is 2 GB's to much. To summarize, Sound Forge 6.0 and 7.0 do not automatically create an initial temporary copy of the file when it is opened. New temporary files are only created when media is modified, and only of the length of the modification. The original file is referenced as long as it is needed. But you actually preferred 5.0's behavior where the entire file was copied to a temp file (non-direct mode) when opened. Unfortunately, this is now a complete waste of disk space in all but your scenario because the non-destructive engine in 6.0 and 7.0 doesn't make changes to the file as it goes. There's no point in duplicating data it can already use. J. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: toncu
Date:9/25/2003 3:42:01 PM
There's always a chance that the reason I prefer proxies is that I don't know any better... Great to see that you're expanding proxying to include other compressed formats. I _love_ when functionality doesn't disappear in upgrades - quite content to have a toggle. Thanks for that. As for the WMA problem, I've only tried dropping markers during playback. I haven't yet tried any recording with 7. Assuming that your very rational theory about lag between asking for current file position and getting it doesn't pan out, here's a wild-guess: Did you guys change the priorities of any relevant threads in this version? I'm asking because there's a lttle background app running on this system that runs at a very low priority - it defers to virtually any other app. I'll go kill it and try again. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: toncu
Date:9/25/2003 3:48:20 PM
I killed that low-pri app and had the same results. However, I should clarify that it's not now, nor was it a 2 second lag - my bad estimation. It's actually averaging .625 seconds from keypress to where the marker lands. I created a new file, started recording, hit the marker, it landed properly. So, yeah, it's just on playback. T |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Spheris
Date:9/25/2003 3:49:49 PM
Okay, this is a weird one, but someone double check for me on this can you export any wave to quicktime 6 aac from the save as let me know..it isn't happening here |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: toncu
Date:9/25/2003 4:09:32 PM
At first it didn't work. I had a version 5.x QT Player installed. I had to install QT 6.3 using the Recommended option which includes the authoring bits. I exited and reloaded SF7, opened a WAV, saved as "QuickTime 5.0 (.mov)" and it wrote out the MOV file. I have no ready way of determining whether it is a "Quicktime 6 AAC" or not - but I'd presume that it is based on the fact that until I installed the v 6.3 authoring bits, I couldn't save a MOV. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Mathew Florianz
Date:9/25/2003 4:27:24 PM
"There's no point in duplicating data it can already use." But It cannot use the data, that's my whole point! Take the CDR out of the drive and POOF! No matter how many copies you made of the file, or even edited; you loose everything. Sure, buying a hard disc will solve my problem. Sure I could insert a disc, preview the tracks, then go into explorer, copy the files, then and only then open them in soundforge....I get tired thinking of it alone. Both solutions are not making the tools transparent. In my view software is supposed to free you up from mundane tasks; tasks a PC can do for you. The PC can easily recognize a data source as removable and thus decide that a temp file is the way to go since removable discs can and in some cases will be removed. A suggestion for future updates perhaps? Anyway, I bought a bigger harddisc ;) |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: kbruff
Date:9/25/2003 8:12:56 PM
I am only asking this question in this series, due to the number users that are a part of this stream to begin with. How can I print the contents of an entire stream of entries? There are occassions where I am quite interested in the statements of the contributing authors and I wish to capture the responses in an off-line format, such as a word file or printed copy. ( I am aware of copy and paste etc., but is there a feature that will simply printout the entries "automatically") Please reply -- Thanks -- Kevin |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Chienworks
Date:9/25/2003 9:00:58 PM
Kevin, there is a Print button at the bottom of the page. You can also use your browser's print function as well. I'm going to guess that your reason for this question is because you only see one reply at a time on your screen and you have to click on each subject to see the other replies, one at a time. Is this correct? If so, click on Edit Acount in the upper right corner of the page. Change the Forum View to "Non-Threaded". This will let you see all the replies at once and is ideal for printing. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: kbruff
Date:9/25/2003 9:06:57 PM
Thanks -- Chienworks This was perfectly what I wanted. ---== Kevin ==--- |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: toncu
Date:9/26/2003 3:33:17 PM
I couldn't repro the WMA/Marker behavior on my P4/3.06. Yay. Still a problem on the notebook, though. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: PuffDogg
Date:9/27/2003 8:36:26 AM
Spheris, Thanks for the info. I guess I'll look at the demo to see if the graphical improvements are enough to warrant the upgrade, but it's seeming that on paper the only reason for me to do it is to stay on the upgrade path. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: iGomes
Date:9/27/2003 10:42:37 AM
And more, if pass mouse pointer in the spectrum analizes the machine crach !! NO SF 7.0, I STOP IN 6.0 VERS. !!! |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: MrMenace
Date:9/28/2003 9:35:53 AM
I haven't waded through all the list yet, but what I found is that CPU utilization of SF7 is a bit higher. In fact running the same song through SF6 ends up at about 60% to 70%, where SF7 stays more like 85% to 99%. This of course drives the CPU temp up and get the temp adjusted fan to start making a bit of noise. (Like I can hear it in the other room) I will read through the list in a bit. Dennis |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: gjn
Date:9/28/2003 1:33:23 PM
I repeats it. ¶ ¶I have acid4 pro, soundforge6 and vegas video. ¶ ¶soundforge 7 does not represent a major evolution. ¶ ¶caution!!! ¶ ¶a spectrograph functions free ¶with the software "audacity". ¶ |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: ponzan
Date:10/2/2003 12:02:00 PM
I liked the new option for finding clips, was waiting for it. I disliked the problem with 100% CPU utilization during playback and the huge price of the update. I guess the CPU problem would eventually get solved though |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Forge 7 - First Impressions
Reply by: Ben
Date:10/2/2003 3:21:38 PM
Ehh?? How the hell is $99 a 'huge price' for an update? |