|
Subject:NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Posted by: elfmuse
Date:8/10/2001 1:57:30 PM
Needs to made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why??????????????????? Because Pioneers DVD burner is only selling for about $700, combined with the fact that Logic + Protools can export the ready files for Softencode. |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: Ted_H
Date:8/10/2001 4:03:55 PM
Soft Encode was discontinued last September and there will be no new versions coming out. Ted |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: elfmuse
Date:8/11/2001 6:58:37 AM
Which leads me to my point; You guys are making a big mistake not offering a product to do Surround Sound Encoding for 5.1 I work for Sony Music, and a bunch of us engineers are looking for products to do this for our home and project studio use. Surround mixing for music is going to be the next biggest thing, just like computer recording was to 2 inch tape recording. This is going to explode weather or not DVD wins or Super Cd wins the next consumer platform. Everybody loves Surround. Just Imagine the Dark Side of the Moon in Surround sound;) Again I think you guys are dropping the ball on this one. I understand there wasn't a market for the software a couple of years ago but since then most of the major music multitrack software has caught up to be able to export surround ready files be it 5.1, 7.1, lrc etc..... Elfmuse |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: BaRaq
Date:8/28/2001 10:38:48 PM
Hell Yeah, I'm definitely feeling that one right there. But if these guy's include that capability within ACID, VEGAS, or SoundForge then the discontinuation of the product is warrented thus putting the overall product where it truly belongs......At The T.O.P. Just imagined a funky ass ACID Supa Mix in surround just BANGIN' on your Moma's surround compona set. And she asks who shit is that rockin' right der'! Whut's up wit dat! BaRaq |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: Cinematographer
Date:11/20/2001 8:51:34 AM
Why don't you buy Enuindo for under 1k. It does the job well for surround mixing...from the reviews I've read. |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: jeffy82
Date:5/25/2002 8:57:34 AM
SF can correct my if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the main issues is licensing Fees. For each SoftEncoder sold (before it was discontinued), large $$$ had to go back to Mr. Dolby, thus making it less financially feasible. If it made sence, more software companies would be doing it. Blame Dolby, not SF. Jeffy82 |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: seeker
Date:6/3/2002 3:28:23 AM
Ted, I realize that this response is "time displaced", but I agree with Elfmuse on this. I, too, think that surround mixing for music and sound is going to be the "next big thing" in sonic software applications. I will be burning Vegas Video projects to miniDVD and a little later to DVD, and I need (seriously want) the six tracks of Dolby Digital AC-3 for my DVDs. My Sony camcorder has a zoom shotgun mic that is effectively mono. But my music bed will be at least stereo (I think a lot of current audio CDs have Dolby encoded matrix stuff, or a knockoff of it), so that brings my audio track count up to three, and I want those to be spatially separated to a front center speaker and front left and right mains. Then, if I add some reverb or some ambience (or my music bed already has it), I want that on two more tracks with spatial separation to the rear speakers. Also, I think it might be a useful effect to have a dual voiceover narration between two narrators talking back and forth to each other, and it might be effective to put one narrator on one back speaker and the other narrator on the other back speaker. Or I might use the front speakers. If I had four narrators I might even try putting each narrator on a separate speaker. I need/want those six AC-3 tracks, so I think it would be worth it for SF to pay a reasonable fee to Dolby Labs to license AC-3 for Sonic Foundry's software and include those licensing costs in the software price. That applies to many of SF's products, including Vegas Video, Vegas Audio, ACID, and Sound Forge. All of those could use AC-3 support in the product enhancement lists of the next version upgrades. DVD authoring is a growing consumer market, and six tracks of Dolby Digital AC-3 is going to be an important part of that. The public expects Sonic Foundry to continue to play an important role in the "sonic" market. DVD authors, both professionals and enthusiastic amateurs, are going to look to somebody for tools for editing, processing, and mixing separate surround tracks for DVD AC-3. No reason why that "somebody" shouldn't be Sonic Foundry. -- Burton -- |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:6/3/2002 2:01:56 PM
Cubase sx does 5.1...so does nuendo...I hear alot of talk about sonar getting it. Why wait till ALL your competiters have it THEN immplement it. That doesn't make any sense[?]. Especially if you guys want Vegas 4 to be taken seriously with the audio croud besides video. I really hope that this is at least in your top 15 to get done in a version or 2. Later. |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: pelvis
Date:6/3/2002 8:43:45 PM
Question for those who know: is the AC-3 encoder free in Nuendo or Cubase SX, or is it a separate purchase? |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: Art5
Date:10/4/2002 10:10:22 AM
It seems some people here are confusing 5.1 mixing with 5.1 encoding. A number of product mix 5.1. Samplitude and now Acid 4.0 but they do not encode it. |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: shawnm
Date:12/27/2002 1:20:33 AM
>is the AC-3 encoder free in Nuendo or Cubase SX, or is it a separate purchase? It's a separate purchase (around $900.00 US I think). Shawn |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: Nat
Date:12/30/2002 12:41:30 AM
I personnaly think that Dark Side of The Moon in 5.1 would suck. It was meant to be in Stereo so why not listen to it in Stereo.... It's like Widescreen movies vs pan and scan... Movies are made widesceen, why listen a cropped copy ? |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: Anano
Date:1/8/2003 12:25:12 PM
Check out this thread from the Vegas Video forum: http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=146881&Replies=14&Page=3 Then look at the screenshot on this website: http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/vegas.htm You will see a few references to "DVD Architect" and an AC-3 encoder. |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: timbre4
Date:1/11/2003 2:07:51 PM
It's all a matter of opinion; you must be too young to remember the quadraphonic version from 1974! I have three different quad versions burned to DTS CDRs to get the original effect using modern 5.1 gear. (largely 4.0 in this mix) This is all about to be pleasantly made obselete on 03/03/03 when Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon makes it's debut in high resolution 5.1 audio. Originally announced as a DVD-Audio title, it will instead debut as an SACD multi-channel/stereo disc. SONY agreed to pick up the tab so they could tout it's SACD format. You must have an SACD player to play the disc. Don't assume this album was only meant for stereo, because that is clearly not the case. It was written and recorded just as quad sound was emerging and Pink Floyd was also one of the groups using a quad PA system on the road. It's a natural for the format and represents the "killer app" for the hi-res surround formats. Stereo is fine, I suppose, but I'm rarely satisfied with it anymore and always find surround mixes more capable of delivering the goods. OTOH, Think how much money you'll be saving (and fun you'll be missing)... timbre4 |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: timbre4
Date:1/11/2003 2:17:18 PM
I do agree with you on widescreen films being viewed as intended. People don't get it and hate the black bars. [sigh] But this is not a good analogy for music. Since Pink Floyd DSOTM was made available in BOTH formats at roughly the same time, we can argue all day about it, but both are valid. When I first bought Jeff Beck - Blow By Blow in 1975, it was quad. That was the way it was "supposed" to sound, because it was my first impression. Was never satisfied with the stereo version. (black & white TV anyone?) Now I have that same mix on an SACD disc, wow! Please consider that records (albums) are ALL illusions whether mono, stereo, quad, 5.1 or whatever's next. We just have to roll with it, and enjoy it even more as the formats improve. timbre4 |
|
Subject:RE: NEW VERSION OF SOFTENCODE
Reply by: oblio98
Date:1/23/2003 10:09:12 AM
"Nat" wrote: I personnaly think that Dark Side of The Moon in 5.1 would suck. It was meant to be in Stereo so why not listen to it in Stereo.... ------------------------------------ Actually, Alan Parson mixed this album with 4 channels from its inception. He created a discrete quadraphonic mix for tape, and a matrixed mix for SQ album. (Unfortunately, Capital in the US used the matrix mix for their tape. Those in the UK got the real discrete mix). Anyway, this new release will be the largest selling multi-channel recording in the short history of the new SACD format! :-jon |