Subject:Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Posted by: roblesinge

Date:6/30/2010 6:47:34 AM

I know there has been a lot of animosity about what happened to Sound Forge after version 8 (the peak of Sound Forge, IMO). Unfortunately, after being forced to move to SF10 recently, I've had some time to use it in a real work environment, and I just can't keep my mouth shut anymore.

SF10 is an even bigger step backwards than SF9 was. It's clunky, cluttery, slow and is missing a bunch of functionality that used to be extremely helpful to my workflow. The entire reason my workplace has stuck with SF since version 4.5 is that the workflow made our particular line of work very fast and efficient. SF10 slows that process down now, tremendously. I'm having to re-learn how to make SF do what it used to do (some of which, apparently, it will never do again). I'm assuming that after SF8, some genius decided that the entire application needed to be re-written from scratch, because that is what SF9 and 10 have felt like--a complete failure of a rewrite. I mean, SF 4.5 responded more quickly than 9 or 10 do (I'm not kidding, it's like you built in lag-time to EVERY editing process. Even just moving the cursor around takes forever). Snapping is clunkier, scrolling is clunkier, it takes longer to do menial tasks, playback is choppy and distorted on occasion (which would point to hardware, but the only thing that has changed is the software). It's almost like SF10 is gasping for breath every time I hit play. You removed basic windows functionality from all of the drop-down menus in plug-ins (I can't quickly recall presets by hitting the first few letters/numbers in the preset. I'm not completely sure HOW you even managed to remove basic Windows functionality). All of the multi-track whats-a-ma-doodles in the world aren't worth that. What about us lowly folks who count on SF to be JUST a good two-track editor?

I've tried a couple of times to address my issues with tech support, only to have them send me to report a bug, only to have that bug submission ignored or refused by the programming team. Basically, Sony has made it clear to me that they are only interested in catering to people who want to (SLOWLY) mix multi-channel projects. You've destroyed the best two-track editor EVER by turning it into something it was never supposed to be. I'm constantly on the search for something that will replace SF, and when I find it, we're gone. All 5 of our licenses are gone. I've held my whole workplace back to SF8 because 9 and 10 were such disasters. Unfortunately, we had to upgrade to Windows 7, so SF10 has to happen now. I know I'm just a little fish in a big pond, but Sony should be ashamed for what they've done to a perfectly good application. Why developers feel like they need to re-invent the wheel with each new version number, I'll never understand. Well, you turned a perfectly good wheel into a square rock in this case. Do us all a favor, and stop releasing "upgrades" that are actually GIGANTIC steps backwards. "Here you go, here's a much slower application, that doesn't do it's main job very well anymore. But look, it does all of this other shiny new stuff that some of our other applications already do."

I apologize for the rant, as I've read through a few rants about SF9. I had to get this out somewhere, and this seems like a logical place, visited occasionally by people who might realize they screwed up big-time.

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:6/30/2010 3:35:22 PM

It would be a 'gigantic step backwards' if many users were having the problems that you are.

I think that you are missing some basic understanding of current SF functionality, and are imagining that it has changed focus to something it in fact has not.

Is does not and cannot "mix multi-track". The two-channel editing capability has simply been extended to WAV (etc) files containing more tracks than two.

If you are having the playback problems you mention, then you have either a hardware problem, insufficiently powerful hardware, or an OS-related problem - maybe even some system settings 'optimised' for the way DAWs needed it many years ago. Are you sure that 'nothing has changed' in you software/os other than SF - no driver or Win updates ? No new applications at all been installed that could change system settings or files ?

The 'presets' thing may be because SF has needed to move to .NET base, and presumably indeed could be addressed. It is so important that I hadn't even noticed until you bought it up, but still a handy 'feature' seemingly lost.

And of course there is nothing to stop you running older versions....

geoff

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: Larry Clifford

Date:7/1/2010 8:19:36 AM

I will admit up front that I am not a highly technical person. SF is a hobby to me.

I am still on XP-SP3 w/2 GB RAM. That is sufficient for most of my work. However. I also have Norton Internet Security 2010 and all features on for protection. The PC was purchased in late 2005 (old and slow). I am using SF 9.0e, and have 10.0b on the shelf waiting to be installed.

I will at times receive a file from a friend (WMA I believe, not MP3) that is 4 hours long. The work consists of breaking it down into smaller segments, one for each topic of a seminar, and save it as MP3. Sometimes SF will run slow because of the low resoureces. It definitely improves when I turn everything off in Norton.

I also believe that 3 GB RAM would help me some.

I see your system has 4 GB RAM and Windows 7. There are many flavors of 7. I do not know the prectical (not minimum) requirements for RAM and your version of Windows 7. More memory is always better.

Another thing is the speed of your hard drives. There can be a lot of read/write to them.

I get the feeling that you are unhappy with Sony doing a rewrite of SF. That is a good thing. It may make it easier for them to add features later on. Also, they can make optimal use of Windows features. Taking it to the rediculous, would you want them to keep the program based on Windows 3.1?

I will stop noew and let the more highly technical people speak.

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: roblesinge

Date:7/2/2010 10:27:04 AM

I've continued playing with SF10 and have found ways around my problems for the time-being. I suppose there is a possibility that my system isn't running SF at peak performance, but I have a hard time believing that. I did, in a moment of anger, attempt to install SF 8 on this machine, but couldn't get the install to start. So, it looks like 10 and I will just have to learn to get along.

I do hope they fix the presets bug at some point, although I was led to believe that it wasn't a major concern for the dev team. I brought it up back when SF9 came out and I see that it hasn't been addressed yet, so I'm not hopeful. For now, I'll just have to slow down my process, which is not ideal.

BTW, I misspoke when I used the word "mix," in talking about multi-channel files. I realize you can't truly "mix" multi-channel with SF. I was implying that concessions seem to have been made in order to get multi-channel editing to function properly. Or, at the very least, it seems the dev team lost focus on what SF was already doing well in order to add questionably important functionality. It's a bit like having someone go into your golf bag and bend your favorite club.

I realize that it's their job to expand the market for SF, but they did it at the expense of loyal customers who count on SF to continue working the same basic way throughout new releases. Meanwhile, there were some areas that could've used improving, which were ultimately ignored. My first example would be improving the Batch Converter. I use this with EVERY project I edit, and it hasn't changed much from version 4.5. It still won't handle large amounts of files (more than 700 or so), which is ridiculous. There is no merge function built in. You also can't disable metadata in Batch Converter (I have clients who don't want the metadata header embedded, you CANNOT keep it from embedding with Batch Converter--another bug I reported that was ignored). Again, nothing major, but the Batch Conversion tool is a HUGE reason I like SF.

I realize I'm just being a complainer, but we've paid a lot for SF throughout the years, so I feel a bit entitled to do so. Thanks for listening, and I apologize for the perhaps hasty rant I posted here.

Rob.

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: Sparrow

Date:7/20/2010 6:26:00 AM

I tend to agree with you about SF10. I have mastered several hundred CD
projects with Sound Forge, going back to Version 4.5 and Windows 98...

With SF version 10 it is hard to figure out the old past logic and rules for
Red Book CD's..

Not sure why?

So keep an XP-Pro Computer on the side as we all figure out what the
new "logic" is?

And Left became 1, and right became 2??

sparrow in chicago

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:7/20/2010 5:31:10 PM

L/R beomes 1/2 beause if you have more than 2 what would you call them !

Not sure what you mean by Logic and Rules for Red Book ? But why aren't you using CDA !

geoff

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: Sparrow

Date:7/31/2010 12:06:21 PM

You are right about Left and Right! I was just making a joke..

I have been "learning" CDA 5.2 and dealing with the many changes that
deal with regions and tracks..it is starting to make sense, and the changes
are a bit faster once you figure them out...I still can;t get CDA version 5.2 to
see my motu, I just posted that fact on the CDA forum..perhaps you have
a some advice on "finding the motu"..

sparrow in chicago

Subject:RE: Yes, another SF10 rant... Sorry.

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:7/31/2010 5:30:20 PM

Yep, as just added on the CDA forum, CDA does not see ASIO drivers, at all, ever. You need to ensure the 'vanilla' Windows driver is installed too.

geoff