Subject:SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Posted by: DelCallo

Date:11/28/2008 12:18:04 PM

So, I haven't used any version of SF for quite a while, splitting my editing time between Vegas (now Pro8) and Steinberg's Wavelab (still on version 5).

After receiving an email from Sony Creative, I have downloaded the trial of SF9 and figured I'd give it a go in editing a 3 hour recital that i recorded a couple of weekends ago.

Reading the blurb in Sony's advertising piece on line, I had the impression that SF9 could do multiple tracks. My source files are recorded in 24/96, so the material spans multiple files (recorded in Wavelab using it's split file feature).

I wanted to see how SF handles bringing these splits together, so I thought, out of curiosity, that I'd pull them together on separate tracks. But, it appears that SF remains a two track editor. Is that right? What was I looking at in the email that led me to think SF could handle multiple tracks?

The good news is that it is simple enough to copy and paste one file onto the end of the previous, but, now I'm wondering if I really can justify the purchase of SF9 (no knocking it - having spent many years with many versions of Vegas, I find the interface quite comfortable).

Can anyone offer any points of contrast (good or bad) between SF, Vegas Pro8, and/or Wavelab?

I'm not in the least interested in starting a war - just curious from those who have used more than one of these applications, what features of any of them keep you using them more than the other two.

FYI, I do most of my audio editing in Wavelab, and, while it isn't a true multitracker, either, it has a feature called the 'Montage' that allows you to assemble multiple tracks in a manner not unlike Vegas.

If you asked me why I use WL to do this work rather than Vegas, I could not give you an answer that makes sense - I'm just used to WL for this chore, so I use it.

I use Vegas for muti-cam shots where I want to use sound tracks from each cam to sync the video to a master sound track that has usually been captured separately using a higher quality audio set up than what I can do from behind any one of the cameras.

I like all of these tools, and would not hesitate to purchase SF9 if I think it will compliment my work. OTOH, if it's going to just be another piece (albeit a fine piece) of software, then, I should really spend the money elsewhere.

Your comments would be most welcome.

Del

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: rraud

Date:11/28/2008 1:49:15 PM

SF-9 is not really a "multi-track" program, though it supports multiple track files for 5/1 audio editing, ect , so it can't be compared to Vegas. Since SF-5 it's come quite a-ways. The GUI is basically the same. It now includes, CDarc, NR among other plugs, and VST support.
Wavelab is a nice program for sure. Download the SF9 demo.

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: DelCallo

Date:11/28/2008 4:21:45 PM

So, does the package include CDArchitect? I don't see that in the SF9 menus anywhere. Also, under preferences, I don't see either of my two soundcards, only Microsoft Sound Mapper, Direct Sound Surround Mapper, and Windows Classic Wave Driver.

Should I not be able to see and select between the two soundcards that are installed and operating in my system?

Oh, and thanks for the response.

Del

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: Steven Myers

Date:11/28/2008 4:47:28 PM

This is a guess:
If you're using the SF9 demo, CD Arch doesn't show up because, although it comes with SF9, it's a separate install and launches independently -- doesn't show up anywhere within the SF UI.

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: rraud

Date:11/29/2008 8:43:31 AM

Yes, CDArc is a separate application, it works seamlessly with SF-9 (as SF works with Vegas.) NR-2 is a DX plug-in as are the Isotope mastering bungle and a host of others.
Normally, sound cards & their ins/outs "should be listed in a grid menu below "Audio device type" pull down menu.
Options> Preferences> Audio> Audio device type"> "Record/Playback device routing
If your cards are not listed, they should be. Could be a demo issue?

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:11/30/2008 2:30:48 AM

You haven't understood the difference between "multiple tracks" and "multiple channels".

You also haven't understood the difference between "editing" and "mixing". Unfortunately the definition of "editing" has lately been mucho misused to the point of "blurred'- misused almost as much as the term "latency".....

SF and Vegas are totally different beasts.

geoff

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: jumbuk

Date:11/30/2008 3:26:52 PM

The SF9 package is pretty good value with CD Architect and Sony NR thrown in (plus some Isotope mastering FX).

As has been pointed out above, the multi capability is multi-channel, mainly to handle 5.1 surround. It's a good addition, but not important if you don't need surround.

A friend of mine uses WL precisely as you do, for the Montage facility. Personally, I'd rather use a true multi-tracker, but he is happy with it.

Earlier version of SF used to come with a bundled version of "Vegas Audio" for multi-track audio. I still have the latest version, but Sony seems to have dropped the online authorisation for this product, so i can't install it. No real reason to use it now that Acid can handle most recording needs, but it was a useful tool at the time.

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: DelCallo

Date:12/3/2008 3:50:42 AM

I understand what I do, Geoff, and I am keen to software that helps me achieve my objectives. I am in no way dissatisfied with Wavelab, and I continue to appreciate Vegas for those tasks for which I use it.

To demonstrate my understanding (or lack of same), tracks would be separate instances of one (or more) recordings - not unlike what I do with audio from separate cameras. . . same event, totally different tracks of audio. . . differnet channels, 5.1 (front, rear, left, right, etc.), stereo (right, left), etc.

The concepts aren't that complex. In my subconscious effort to equate SF with WL, I melded the two concepts.

Now, I am fully aware that SF remains a single track editor with no provisions for multitrack, whatsoever.

Ok, I can live with that.

WL has its integrated montage that allows, among other features, real time sound on sound recording.

SF with CDA may or may not offer similar advantages. Given the large number of negative comments on this forum with regard to the current version of SF, I think I'll hold off on SF and hold on to WL for now.

My children (son & daughter), both graduates of the Juilliard School, both forward moving classical musicians (thank God) whose careers have benefited by dear old dad's competence in 'audio things-computer' (dad's wallet has benefited, too) have offered a present for the holidays - and I was thinking on upgrading my audio editing/mastering software. Perhaps a new camera lens makes more sense at the moment (the better to enhance presentation of the press kit CD).

I do much appreciate the responses, and I'm no zealot for one software product/company over another. I just do and use what works for me.

Thanks again for the replies.

Del

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:12/3/2008 5:25:34 PM

I'll try again. Cos it really is best to use the appropriate app for the job you want to do !

SF is an audio editor capable of recording and/or editing multi***channel*** files. Multi-channel files are not 'mulit-track' in a DAW sense.

SF is of no use whatsoever for attempting 'mixing' multi-track projects. For instance, load up a 6 channel WAV file into SF. Load up six mono tracks in Vegas. Say you want to mute 3 sections of track/channel 4, and slide track 6 back 20ms, while placing separate plugins chains on each track/channel, and a few bus effects and some plugins on the master. Easy-peasy in Vegas, a major huge complicated , near impossible, task in Sound Forge.

On the other hand, zoom out to sample resolution in SF, select the pencil tool and redraw out a glitch of 4 sample long. Or highlight the area and 'Repair | Replace" it. Or use a script to batch convert a bunch of CD tracks to MP3. Easy peasy in SF - difficult-to-impossible in Vegas. They are both completely different things.

Last time I tried Wavelab it could handle multicahnnel files (long before SF could do more thhan stereo), but had no DAW 'mixing' functions. That may have changed.

Of course you can write correspondence in Excel if you really want to ..... ;-)

geoff

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: jumbuk

Date:12/3/2008 10:17:21 PM

Geoff, you are not up to date with WL. Whilst I don't use it myself, I have seen my friend, who runs a pro recording studio, use the Montage feature for genuine multitrack editing - yes multiTRACK, not multiCHANNEL. He swears by it, and I have no doubt the OP knows what he is talking about as well.

Personally, I would use a separate application for multitrack mixing, and I hope Sony doesn't complicate SF by adding their version of Montage. To each his own.

PS a few years back I encountered an analyst who wrote letters in Excel because he found Word difficult to use :)

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: DelCallo

Date:12/12/2008 3:38:09 AM

"An analyst who wrote letters in Excel because he found Word difficult to use"

That made me chuckle, jumbuk.

After reading some of the comments on this forum regarding the current version of SF, I'm going to take advantage of my son's offer to purchase Wavelab version 6 as a present to me for the holidays.

I've had brief opportunities to play around with past versions of CD Architect, and to me, its approach to creating cd's is very similar to the process in Vegas, so I cannot really see how that bit of software increases my capability.

That montage setup in WL is very powerful, as you can playback one track while arming a new one to record to achieve true sound on sound recording.

The stereo editor includes most, if not all of the editing tools that I see in SF. It also includes a Spectrum Editor with which I am anxious to play (looks similar to Adobe's offering), and also now supports what I believe to be a Sonic Foundry innovation (correct me if I'm wrong), the wav64 file format that allows for single files of unlimited size/length.

WL has always had a split feature that automatically starts a new file when maximum file size limits are reached on the original file as you record a program. It has never failed me, but I like the wav64 setup of Vegas better.

Although my computer system supports 5.1 surround, I've never been that thrilled by it or later more complex multi-channel setups. Call me old fashioned, if you like, but, as a classical musician, two channels have always been heaven enough for me in order to evaluate or enjoy a performance/recording.

I would like to be able to expand my live recording abilities to more than two simultaneous tracks so that I could place more than two mics on a live venue and adjust their interaction in the comfort of my home studio.

Anyhow, after playing around a bit with the trial version of SF, I think I'm going to stick with WL.

I am certain either package would serve me well, so, I guess you could say that I'm choosing to stick with the system most comfortable to me.

Thanks for the replies.

Del

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:12/15/2008 1:28:46 PM

Have you actually tried Vegas ? The other two options appear to me hodge-podge attempts at doing what you want an oblique and difficult manner !

Free download .

geoff

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: DelCallo

Date:12/16/2008 3:14:22 AM

Geoff:
I've owned every version of Vegas since version 2.0. Before that, I cut my editing teeth via a non-linear editing/linear assembly product sold by Pinnacle. . .their Studio Director series (SD200, then SD400). I have to admit, to this day, I am amazed at the cleverness of that system even though it resulted in inferior second generation analog assemblies and took forever (with a lot of computer luck thrown in) to successfully complete a project. But it was fascinating to watch the assembly process, the computer controlling both source and destination analog decks, the separate mixer box tossing in fades, titles, and such.

But, back to your question, I have used Vegas extensively as a video/audio tool. I currently run the latest version of Vegas Pro 8, and I typically use it to sync recordings from three or four cameras with a separate audio only master audio track to produce DVD's of classical performances (use DVDArchitect to make the DVD).

I admit that my equipment is modest - the only $2,000 plus decks I own are analog Hi8, my digital deck is a humble Sony that records DV video to Hi8 tapes (and, in case you are wondering, I have to put all the Hi8 stuff through a digitizing process in order to get it into the computer - but, you might be amazed at the quality, even so).

My results, while not in the league of the hi-res boys, has served those for whom I recorded very well, and the performances I have captured are hi-powered, indeed.

My subjects have used those recordings to gain viable employment that currently include solo appearances and permanent positions with/at the LA Philharmonic, Loren Maazel, Pierre Boulez, Carnegie Hall, the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden, City Opera, Pittsburgh Philharmonic, Philadelphia Orchestra, artists residencies at Yale and Juilliard, lecture/concerts at UCLA, MIT, and Harvard.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't use all of Vegas' bells and whistles. I'm really not interested in flying titles and all the special effects, but, I'll pit my abilities against anyone in producing a faithful reproduction of a performance that does justice to the music as well as the performers.

Of course, unless you are satisfied with static multi-cam views, the quality of any muti-cam effort is dependent upon the interest and skill of the other two camera operators, and that has always proven to be a point of frustration for me. My assistants have often looked away at inopportune moments or hit the stop switch and miss sections of the program, so a big part of my editing effort is simply to look for acceptable takes of each section of the program.

Even so, I have found that, in the classical realm, at least, there seems to be more production forgiveness on the part of those who need to evaluate these performances than there might be in the popular realm where, it seems to me, that the production is considered more a part (or at least as much a part) of the creation than/as the performance and the composition.

I remember only one occasion where we submitted material to be evaluated where the recipient rejected the artists while admitting that he could not get past the audio quality, so, didn't bother to actually evaluate the performance. That performance was captured in challenging conditions at a location to which I had to fly with a very minimal setup. The equipment I used was substandard even in terms of my dated, humble stable of tools. . . but the performance was pristine, and the production was, otherwise up to snuff.

The same recording that convulsed this reviewer propelled the artist to some really first rate venues - such is the 'bizz'. Rejection by this reviewer is neither an indictment of the artist nor the reviewer. Both moved on successfully to other opportunities, both will probably be pleasantly surprised by the success of the other when they inevitably meet up again for some new opportunity to collaborate at some future date. The music world is truly small, after all.

I apologize for the long-winded answer, Geoff, but I do consider myself very familiar with Vegas, very familiar with Wavelab, quite familiar with older versions of Sound Forge, and familiar enough with the current version to choose Wavelab over it, not because SF is an inferior product, but, because, for the money, I can get the educational version of Wavelab (currently available at roughly 50% of the non-ed version that goes for around $600 US).

In addition to its editing capabilities, it also includes a label printing facility that incorporates a database that greatly simplifies the production of professional looking CD/DVD labels, jewel case liners. Given the rather formal format of classical program layout, it's nice to get titles/composers, etc correctly entered into a database, correctly associated with the correct audio track, then, never needing to concern oneself with accuracy on that phase of the production again in the production process.

Thanks again for your replies.

Del

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: DelCallo

Date:12/16/2008 3:37:41 AM

On a side note, Goeff, I find myself increasingly put-off by the tendency of producers for mass-media to construct performances using studio tools, performances that could not occur in real time, or, if they did occur, would not be of a quality level that most consumers would accept as 'professional.'

It's been a while, but I imagine you could find a rant or two of mine on this topic on this forum. I always dread the parade productions that are part of the US holiday season. The real 'performers' are the leagues of high school participants who perform in real time at the mercy of whatever onsite audio pick-up facilities the networks have set up on site. The 'pro' "performers" ride on floats, dance in the street, and lip-sync to studio-produced sound tracks that are piped over the on site speaker systems and over the broadcast networks, and give these "performers" a level of quality that they would likely not be able to meet in controlled, indoor live performance conditions, let alone outside on a city street.

The same is true for the Orange Bowl half-time show and the Superbowl half-time show.

It's all very clever, and it uses all that cutting edge technology has to offer, but, in my view, it is, in a way, dishonest, and does a disservice to all those who might be inspired to become performers - whether in popular or classical realms.

So, who are the real artists, those who truly know their craft and can deliver live performances of high quality, or those who need to rely upon multiple takes in a studio with special effects to enhance their sound, performing studio-crafted works that could never exist in a real-time performance?

I don't have an answer to that question. Perhaps the studio thing is an artform in and of itself.

The juxtaposition of live with pre-recorded in a parade seems inherently unfair to the live performers, though, IMO.

. . . and the predominance of pre-recorded 'live' guest performances on various TV shows, etc., it seems, creates a falsely inflated level of quality that is not attainable by most performers/would-be performers in real time.

. . . . my two cents.

Del

Subject:RE: SoundForge 9 vs Wavelab or Vegas

Reply by: DelCallo

Date:12/16/2008 4:03:21 AM

One last thought . . .

I was initially attracted to Vegas because, for the price, it seemed vastly more capable than anything else available for similar money, and also because, in terms of hardware requirements, it could accomplish so much more on humble hardware than programs costing much more.

It appealed to me from an almost anti-establishment perspective, representing a capable and ground-breaking alternative to the expensive, mega hardware demanding, high learning curve alternatives of the day.

I was making great little pieces of audio/video at almost zero cost when many of my colleagues felt such production impossible, or possible only at great studio expense.

Sony's purchase of Sonic Foundry and the mere passage of time has blunted some of the mystique of the product, though one must concede that the product would probably not have survived but for the Sony purchase.

Not having moved to HD leaves me unfamiliar with some of the more current capabilities of the product, but I still consider it one of the more efficient software offerings available in the universe of software offerings.

. . . and now, I am finished, thanks!

Del