Subject:can it be called an upgrade?

Posted by: studioman3

Date:2/23/2001 12:05:57 AM

The "upgrade" is $99. The intro price for the whole
program is $99. Wait - the upgrade is the whole program.
Hmmm. So, it's not an upgrade. It's just another
program. Let's all check our terms here. Instead of
calling it an upgrade, we'll refer to it as "Sound Forge
Consumer version" or SFcv. Its like a lame imitation of
the original. But, truly, it has so much potential. I can
tell the programming is better. The program is better
designed inside. Someone spent some time on it. I wonder
if all the bugs I ran into with the beta got worked out -
like memory access violations. That one's pretty serious.
I sent an email to the support crew, but only got an auto-
reply. That was over two weeks ago and now, it's out!
Maybe it's time to kiss ole sound forge goodbye. It got SF
off the ground and now they have a slew of pretty groovy
products. I enjoy vegas and its versatility and
forgivability. But I can tell that the programming was
done by an entirely different crew. Acid is still big on
the market. I would be willing to bet that Sonic Foundry
has something big cooking under the hood, but theyre not
going to say anything about it yet. The business patterns
are making sense. I'm sure next year, about this time,
when tech stocks will probably have improved, Sonic Foundry
is going to unleash a monster. The programming in SF 5.0 -
sorry, SFcv, clearly shows experimentation of a newer style
of programming and clever ideas in Digital Signal
Processing under the hood. I'm unhappy about CDA. But
Wavelab does batch files and is nicer to my processor.
I'll deal or use 4.5 until Sonic Foundry finalizes their
research and development. I smell some gumbo, y'all. And
it smells good. Do we really believe these guys would
screw us all up for no good reason? I don't think they've
forgotten who their daddy is. The music industry. Things
are hot and heavy right now with Napster (sorry, folks) and
the like causing a ruckus everywhere. No one is sure about
the future of the industry and evolution is certainly
taking its course on it. There's a pattern here we've seen
in the past. Don't ignore it. Just accept it. Mark my
words. I'm making the next prophecy (by the way - it's P-R-
O-P-H-E-T). It's fun to banter with Ted, but the poor guy
only knows what the tell him. Corporates want money. They
want our money. They won't throw us away. But they will
make a sacrifice for a long term investment. Which is
unusual in the corporate world and, in my book, a good
practice. They know how we feel. They probably felt the
same way. But you have to weigh out the pros and cons.
OK. Enough. I'm starting to sound old.

Subject:RE: can it be called an upgrade?

Reply by: Jeff_Lowes

Date:2/23/2001 10:42:02 PM

What kind of clever programming are you referring to? I
didn't really get a good chance to put SFcv through the
ringer but, from what I saw, I mostly noticed that a bunch
of great tools that SFpv (Sound Forge pro version - SF4.5)
has that are missing in SFcv. I was really expecting SF to
blow away the comp this time with 5.0 (sorry, SFcv)
boasting not only 24/96 capability but real Non-destructive
editing also (you know, like the one in CDA). Combine the
detailed editing capabilities of SFpv with the N/d editing
power of CDA and throw in a a few minor changes to the
Audio Plug-in Chainer and you've got a serious contender to
a Mac/Pro Tools rig.
I certainly hope you're right. I really like SFpv (except
for the fact that it won't do REAL N/d editing). I like the
technically-oriented interface of SFpv - not the gummy bear
look of SFcv. I sure would hate to have to look elsewhere
for a PRO editor when it comes time to upgrade to 24/96.

I guess I'll wait it out with you and keep my fingers
crossed. I will keep my eyes open too, though, for the real
deal, whoever puts it out.

Jeff Lowes
On-Track Recording

Subject:RE: can it be called an upgrade?

Reply by: studioman3

Date:2/24/2001 4:32:53 AM

Sorry. my rant was awfully vague. The improvement was not
in the interactive function of the program. But rather in
the inner workings of the same functions. I installed
512meg of ram and it showed a drastic improvement in speed,
stability, and general functions such as response time
buffer usage, video/audio alignment. If you smash the hell
out of it with whatever you can, it takes it well. 4.5
didn't fare quite so well, though it was not drastically
different. 4.5 still was slower in response time, harder
to setup as far as buffer usage, and video/audio
alignment. So, I guess 5.0 adapted well to my haphazard
setup. What this means to me is that the structure of the
programming (calling on certain programs and functions
within the program and object order and so on) has been
improved and made more effecient and adaptive. This means
more compatability and less bugs. And 4.5 had very few
bugs to begin with, so improvements were made in areas that
could have been left alone on a smaller budget. I am truly
conviced that vast improvements were made beyond the
surface and these changes are going to make a big
difference in something new very soon. Maybe I'm just
trying to convince myself that no one could be so dumb as
to mess with their whole customer base (the industry) and
totally ruin their business. Then again, maybe not...

Subject:RE: can it be called an upgrade?

Reply by: cbeck715

Date:2/24/2001 9:12:24 AM

I agree with studioman3, inasmuch as I was giving Theodore
a hard time, I was at the time picking 5.0 apart, and over
time I noticed the improvement in the inner workings, a
miniscule improvement on the outer shell,and more effecient
functions on the inside, If you make the effort to really
walk thru 5.0 I think this will be seen over time.Is this
the foundation for a big bang product coming later? Only
time will tell, Steinburg is coming on hard with nuendo, In
spite of myself I took a liking to it even thou its nowhere
to being as user friendly, fuctional, and adaptive as
soundforge, I just hope that soundforge will stay that way,
and not go over the the dark side.