Downgrade to SFv8? -Sound Forge - PC - MAGIX Community Forums Archive

Subject:Downgrade to SFv8? Posted by: WavetableMaker Date:11/13/2007 1:13:17 PM I've been using SF for a decade now, and upgraded to SFv9 from v7. While there are some key features of v9 that inspired the upgrade... - IMHO the system requirements are understated. I reported one apparent bug that turned out to be clearly bandwidth-dependent. The support tech couldn't even tell me what sort of rocket ship he was flying so that I could get a realistic idea of what the real h/w req's are. (Obviously a support policy - not meant to reflect badly on the tech.) - I've long ago reported bugs that remained unfixed in 9.0c. They might seem small, but in my specific line of work they're exceedingly annoying. - Some of the new behaviours are quite unwelcome. I was rather set in my ways after 10 years of using a succession of versions, each of which seemed to be a logical progression - until now. From what I've read in this forum, it appears things really went off the rails in v9. I've never seen v8, but perhaps it might be a better compromise for me. User thoughts? From Sony I'm curious to know if I would qualify for "downgrading" to v8 at no additional cost. As it stands I'm using v7 for run-o-the-mill stuff and only using v9 on rare occasions for a few specific features. Bummer.
Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8? Reply by: Kennymusicman Date:11/13/2007 2:13:43 PM 1) Be more specific 2) What bugs? 3) lol. Made sense to me for the most part, except loop tuner. At the risk of seeming like a total fan - I really like v9. I can work with it very quickly, and the noise reduction, and iZotope stuff is a godsend. Knowing shortcut keys lets me fly around in it and edit stuff really quickly. I've run it on very modest system without trouble. Give us more info, and perhaps we can work through some of the problems on here... lol - Sony should employ me on here. teehee Serously though - give more info, and lets see what can be done HTH Ken
Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8? Reply by: WavetableMaker Date:11/13/2007 3:10:37 PM OK. I'll be the first to admit that my problems probably aren't mainstream stuff. But SF7 was fine so it isn't as though my expectations are unrealistic. Most of my Forge work is the preparation of samples for synthesizer wavetables. We're working in the mobile space where resources are extremely limited, so I do a lot of micro-editing. I use a very small set of specific features and methods. 1.) Bandwidth-related problem. With very short loops, regardless of the original signal, the dominant frequency heard will simply be 1/loop_length. As you shorten a loop sample by sample, the pitch increases. Although my system easily meets the stated requirements, SF9 hits a wall beyond which continued shortening of the loop no longer increases the pitch. At first I thought the magic point was exactly 1ms, but that was luck o' the draw. Under identical circumstances - in fact with SF9 sitting in the background, I can fire up SF7.0b, load the same file, and play the loop back as I shorten it sample by sample, and the pitch continues to rise as expected, right down to a few samples where it of course disappears into the bat zone. Tech support couldn't reproduce this problem, and proved that they couldn't, so I realized this was a bandwidth issue. I subsequently found that limit I was experiencing was indeed dependent on what else was going on with the machine. As I said, they wouldn't tell me what machine they were running, so I have no way of telling what hardware it would take to make this problem go away. And frankly, I'll be danged if I'll upgrade my hardware to cover for poor real-time performance when SF7 is fine. 2.) Reported bugs, unfixed: 2a) When playing a wave file having a sustaining sample loop in sample playback mode, there is a serious dropout between the pre-loop and looped playback segments. This problem does not exist in SF7. SF 9 plays the waveform from the top, through to the end of the sample loop, then there is a brief chunk of silence before proper looped playback of the loop region continues. It's as though it takes a while to get organized before it starts looping playback. This bug makes this playback mode perfectly useless. 2b.) Zoom in to individual sample level, select any sample "n". Now try to select sample "n-1" with the mouse. No can do. You can select n-2 and then n-1 (two steps backward, one forward). It may sound trivial , but if you spent as much time micro-editing as I do, you'd appreciate what an annoyance this is. Thanks for volunteering, but I'm not holding my breath for any miracles.
Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8? Reply by: ForumAdmin Date:11/13/2007 3:52:26 PM I've found and fixed the cause of 2b. Will check the others out. J.
Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8? Reply by: WavetableMaker Date:11/13/2007 3:55:28 PM Righteous, thanks very much. WtM

Subject:Downgrade to SFv8?

Date:11/13/2007 1:13:17 PM

I've been using SF for a decade now, and upgraded to SFv9 from v7. While there are some key features of v9 that inspired the upgrade...

- IMHO the system requirements are understated. I reported one apparent bug that turned out to be clearly bandwidth-dependent. The support tech couldn't even tell me what sort of rocket ship he was flying so that I could get a realistic idea of what the real h/w req's are. (Obviously a support policy - not meant to reflect badly on the tech.)

- I've long ago reported bugs that remained unfixed in 9.0c. They might seem small, but in my specific line of work they're exceedingly annoying.

- Some of the new behaviours are quite unwelcome. I was rather set in my ways after 10 years of using a succession of versions, each of which seemed to be a logical progression - until now.

From what I've read in this forum, it appears things really went off the rails in v9. I've never seen v8, but perhaps it might be a better compromise for me. User thoughts?

From Sony I'm curious to know if I would qualify for "downgrading" to v8 at no additional cost. As it stands I'm using v7 for run-o-the-mill stuff and only using v9 on rare occasions for a few specific features. Bummer.

Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8?

Reply by: Kennymusicman

Date:11/13/2007 2:13:43 PM

1) Be more specific

2) What bugs?

3) lol. Made sense to me for the most part, except loop tuner.

At the risk of seeming like a total fan - I really like v9. I can work with it very quickly, and the noise reduction, and iZotope stuff is a godsend. Knowing shortcut keys lets me fly around in it and edit stuff really quickly.

I've run it on very modest system without trouble.

Give us more info, and perhaps we can work through some of the problems on here... lol - Sony should employ me on here. teehee

Serously though - give more info, and lets see what can be done

HTH

Ken

Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8?

Reply by: WavetableMaker

Date:11/13/2007 3:10:37 PM

OK.

I'll be the first to admit that my problems probably aren't mainstream stuff. But SF7 was fine so it isn't as though my expectations are unrealistic.

Most of my Forge work is the preparation of samples for synthesizer wavetables. We're working in the mobile space where resources are extremely limited, so I do a lot of micro-editing. I use a very small set of specific features and methods.

1.) Bandwidth-related problem.

With very short loops, regardless of the original signal, the dominant frequency heard will simply be 1/loop_length. As you shorten a loop sample by sample, the pitch increases.

Although my system easily meets the stated requirements, SF9 hits a wall beyond which continued shortening of the loop no longer increases the pitch. At first I thought the magic point was exactly 1ms, but that was luck o' the draw.

Under identical circumstances - in fact with SF9 sitting in the background, I can fire up SF7.0b, load the same file, and play the loop back as I shorten it sample by sample, and the pitch continues to rise as expected, right down to a few samples where it of course disappears into the bat zone.

Tech support couldn't reproduce this problem, and proved that they couldn't, so I realized this was a bandwidth issue. I subsequently found that limit I was experiencing was indeed dependent on what else was going on with the machine.

As I said, they wouldn't tell me what machine they were running, so I have no way of telling what hardware it would take to make this problem go away. And frankly, I'll be danged if I'll upgrade my hardware to cover for poor real-time performance when SF7 is fine.

2.) Reported bugs, unfixed:

2a) When playing a wave file having a sustaining sample loop in sample playback mode, there is a serious dropout between the pre-loop and looped playback segments. This problem does not exist in SF7.

SF 9 plays the waveform from the top, through to the end of the sample loop, then there is a brief chunk of silence before proper looped playback of the loop region continues. It's as though it takes a while to get organized before it starts looping playback.

This bug makes this playback mode perfectly useless.

2b.) Zoom in to individual sample level, select any sample "n". Now try to select sample "n-1" with the mouse. No can do. You can select n-2 and then n-1 (two steps backward, one forward).

It may sound trivial , but if you spent as much time micro-editing as I do, you'd appreciate what an annoyance this is.

Thanks for volunteering, but I'm not holding my breath for any miracles.

Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8?

Reply by: ForumAdmin

Date:11/13/2007 3:52:26 PM

I've found and fixed the cause of 2b. Will check the others out.

J.

Subject:RE: Downgrade to SFv8?

Reply by: WavetableMaker

Date:11/13/2007 3:55:28 PM

Righteous, thanks very much.
WtM