Subject:Considering buying SF or maybe SF XP... advice???

Posted by: KaBudokan

Date:3/5/1999 10:42:30 PM

Hey folks!!

I am currently using Acid Music, and am considering buying
either Sound Forge 4.5 or maybe only XP... Is SF 4.5 a
good enough editor to take the place of external effects?
I am mainly thinking about compression here, possibly
reverb and delays, etc. I am kind of wondering whether I
should get XP and then maybe buy a tube compressor for
vocals to warm the sound up a little and add compression.
I don't know how much of the SF 4.5 stuff I actually need,
but it may be the best bet in the long run. I appreciate
any advice you may have and could offer. I am primarily
doing just home recording, but like everyone else, I want
to get the best possible product I can. I have a pretty
good ear, and so appreciate quality. I played around a
little with the demos for SF 4.5 and SF XP, and was fairly
impressed with the compression on SF 4.5...

Thanks for any advice...

Alex

Subject:Re: Considering buying SF or maybe SF XP... advice???

Reply by: Rip

Date:3/6/1999 8:10:58 AM

Alex,

I have XP45, and I think it rocks. If you are only doing
basic stuff and want to save a ton of $, its hard to beat.
I am mainly doing high quality .wav files, but I have had
no complaints about XP at all.
By the way, I have not used compression yet for anything,
so unfortunately I can't speak to that directly.
Overall a very good product for $50.00

Rip

p.s. I think the idea of outboard tube compression makes a
lot of sense, at which point I could HIGHLY recommend XP as
a recorder.

Alex Kreutzer wrote:
>>Hey folks!!
>>
>>I am currently using Acid Music, and am considering buying
>>either Sound Forge 4.5 or maybe only XP... Is SF 4.5 a
>>good enough editor to take the place of external effects?
>>I am mainly thinking about compression here, possibly
>>reverb and delays, etc. I am kind of wondering whether I
>>should get XP and then maybe buy a tube compressor for
>>vocals to warm the sound up a little and add compression.
>>I don't know how much of the SF 4.5 stuff I actually need,
>>but it may be the best bet in the long run. I appreciate
>>any advice you may have and could offer. I am primarily
>>doing just home recording, but like everyone else, I want
>>to get the best possible product I can. I have a pretty
>>good ear, and so appreciate quality. I played around a
>>little with the demos for SF 4.5 and SF XP, and was fairly
>>impressed with the compression on SF 4.5...
>>
>>Thanks for any advice...
>>
>>Alex
>>

Subject:Re: Considering buying SF or maybe SF XP... advice???

Reply by: SteveW

Date:3/9/1999 11:10:30 AM

Alex Kreutzer wrote:
>>Hey folks!!
>>
>>Is SF 4.5 a good enough editor...>>

I have enjoyed XP4.5, but was a bit annoyed with the
incorrect information I found in the on-line help file
regarding loop creation. I just recently purchased an SB
Live Value, and have begun creating soundfonts using Vienna
Soundfont Studio. This works much like a sampler in that
you need a seamless loop in order to sustain the note.

Apparently, XP4.5 will not store nor read loop start and
end points stored with a WAV file, even though the box says
you can create loops and the help files refer to a "loop
tuner" which I was told by tech support was available with
the full version of Sound Forge. They apoligized and said
for only $249 more, I could get the full version, which
defeats the point of buying the more cost-effective XP4.5.

Other than that, XP4.5 is great at "one-shot" loops - I
have been using it to convert Mixman Professional track
files to WAV files to use as soundfonts in Cakewalk Pro
Audio 8.04, and it works fine.

Subject:Re: Considering buying SF or maybe SF XP... advice???

Reply by: Vid_Nut

Date:8/27/1999 3:33:00 AM

I've found that Sound Forge is good for sample editing, format
conversion,and altering bit depth etc...

If you are looking for something to use in order to author multimedia
applications (Director, Flash, Real Media, or AVI's - SF & XP don't
support Quicktime for some reason - ok maybe the Microsoft
partnership??) Then SF or XP will be a very useful tools for you.

Some of the effects are decent for minor tweaks and even drastic
alterations ( special effects or industrial samples) BUT:

So far... I don't see it rivaling outboard gear.

None of the effects can be done in real time!

I've personally found that this is, in a lot of ways, a counter
intuitive approach to the whole creative process.

If you are used to running your audio through an AUX buss out to a
bank of rack effects, then waiting for an effect to be calculated and
then rendered will make the process seem slow and slightly
disconnected. - There's nothing like 'inching your knob to the proper
gate - attack time or trigger level - as the sound is playing.

Sound design, IMHO, is all about feel.

If you need a good sound editor get the SF or XP.

If you're doing any digital multi-tracking or sample creation don't
use the effects. You get a lot more mileage out of the un effected
sample anyway...(ie. You never record effects to tape right ? -
atleast you shouldn't - That only means you have to live with what
you've recorded - a little too much or too little etc..)

If you want to do digital multi-tracking, get yourself a good
software sequencing package that supports a robust plugin
architecture ( There are a few that I have tested and could recommend
but I'm not sure if I'd be breaking the rules of the discussion board
by posting them). Anyway.. there are several on the market and they
all support NON DESTRUCTIVE - REAL TIME effects through DSP.

For what you can't get through DSP you can make up in outboard gear.


Hope this helps.

//J






Alex Kreutzer wrote:
>>Hey folks!!
>>
>>I am currently using Acid Music, and am considering buying
>>either Sound Forge 4.5 or maybe only XP... Is SF 4.5 a
>>good enough editor to take the place of external effects?
>>I am mainly thinking about compression here, possibly
>>reverb and delays, etc. I am kind of wondering whether I
>>should get XP and then maybe buy a tube compressor for
>>vocals to warm the sound up a little and add compression.
>>I don't know how much of the SF 4.5 stuff I actually need,
>>but it may be the best bet in the long run. I appreciate
>>any advice you may have and could offer. I am primarily
>>doing just home recording, but like everyone else, I want
>>to get the best possible product I can. I have a pretty
>>good ear, and so appreciate quality. I played around a
>>little with the demos for SF 4.5 and SF XP, and was fairly
>>impressed with the compression on SF 4.5...
>>
>>Thanks for any advice...
>>
>>Alex

Subject:Re: Considering buying SF or maybe SF XP... advice???

Reply by: fracture

Date:8/27/1999 4:35:00 AM

What I forgot to say in my previous post was:

Digital compression is still not even close to as warm sounding as a
nice Tube compressor...no comparison.

Also, a note about the post before me.

It is true that XP does not save it's cue point or regions out to
most of it's supported sound formats. It INCORRECTLY states however
that one of these is .WAV files when, in fact, .WAV files are THE
ONLY file that XP will save cue/regions into.

The only sound format where I can understand it not being possible is
RAW (because it has no header to store the data).

XP, instead, saves it's cue points out to .SFL or session 8 .PRM
files (seperate from your sound) or not at all. To top THAT off.. XP
does not try to read the .SFL file BACK into the program (XP) if you
open the file again later for editing. (SAY WHAT?! - file format not
recognized ?).

Don't ask me why, Programs like Sound edit 16 (Mac only) will save
cues to .AIFF files. So I know it's possible. - Maybe it's that
Microsoft thing again..hmmm.

Whatever the reason, if you are doing multimedia authoring that
depends on cue points you're stuck using .WAV's or using another
editor that supports the format you want to use. ( the Macromedia
equivilant of .MP3 -> .SWA for example.)

Anyway, the online helps also incorrectly state that .AIFF is a MAC
format when in fact, SCGI, MAC, and Windows support it. (Windows
Media Player). - go figure.

--> If anyone can tell me what program makes use of an .SFL file I'd
appreciate it. So far I can't see a use for it and no mention in the
helps.

//j

Subject:Re: Considering buying SF or maybe SF XP... advice???

Reply by: Conscious

Date:9/18/2000 6:11:00 AM

If you can comfortably afford Soundforge 4.5, (depending on what you
do with it it will pay for itself)go ahead and get it. It is amazing
what can be done with it after you've gotten familiar with all the
controls. You can put together great quality projects that you won't
beleiev you created using the program.

Alex Kreutzer wrote:
>>Hey folks!!
>>
>>I am currently using Acid Music, and am considering buying
>>either Sound Forge 4.5 or maybe only XP... Is SF 4.5 a
>>good enough editor to take the place of external effects?
>>I am mainly thinking about compression here, possibly
>>reverb and delays, etc. I am kind of wondering whether I
>>should get XP and then maybe buy a tube compressor for
>>vocals to warm the sound up a little and add compression.
>>I don't know how much of the SF 4.5 stuff I actually need,
>>but it may be the best bet in the long run. I appreciate
>>any advice you may have and could offer. I am primarily
>>doing just home recording, but like everyone else, I want
>>to get the best possible product I can. I have a pretty
>>good ear, and so appreciate quality. I played around a
>>little with the demos for SF 4.5 and SF XP, and was fairly
>>impressed with the compression on SF 4.5...
>>
>>Thanks for any advice...
>>
>>Alex