Subject:Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Posted by: TRS

Date:11/17/2001 11:25:20 PM

I,m still using 4.5 and am wondering what 5.o has to offer that 4.5 does'nt? Without cd arch in 5.0 I don't
see it as an upgrade.
Is there any other cd program that can do what cd arch
does?
What are you 5.0 users using to layout and burn with?
Do you miss cd arch?
Do you feel that cd arch is or was high quality?

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:11/18/2001 1:29:49 AM

No, you're perfectly right 5.0 is a downgrade except for the 24bit support. Vegas is now going to offer CD architect features in V3.0 so there is hope for us CD architect people. If you don't plan on getting Vegas 3.0 then stick with v 4.5 and use CD architect. You can have v5.0 and v4.5 both installed on the same system if you decide you need the 24 bit ability. The only other thing that 5.0 offers is the Wave Hammer plugin, but if you already own one of the Waves Maximizer plugins, it basically does the same. So decide what is best for you.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: beetlefan

Date:11/18/2001 3:28:25 PM

5.0 is much better. But SF made a grave mistake in discontinuing CD Architect. I guess they wanted to go after the average consumer.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:11/18/2001 6:09:11 PM

Yeah 5.0 does a much better job moving the dither noise from the sensitive parts of the "musical spectrum" when you check the noise shaping option.

Isn't that right Beetle?
I'm still waiting to hear what dither noise is beetle and how it relates to the "musical spectrum". I have a book that you can read if you need some reference referals of how Digital audio works, if you would like to read it?

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: TRS

Date:11/18/2001 7:47:55 PM

I would like to read it and any other books you might
reccomend on the subject of mastering and digital recording. You sound like you know the deal.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: VU-1

Date:11/18/2001 9:31:51 PM

Beetle -
I agree that SF biffed when they let CDA go. However, I am interested to hear why you think that 5.0 is much better than 4.5. I still use 4.5 & think that it is superior to 5.0. I looked at the Beta & the only thing that 5.0 has that I wish 4.5 had is the 24/196 capability. Other than that, I don't see it as worth the extra money or even as an upgrade, for that matter.

JL
OTR

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: TRS

Date:11/19/2001 9:29:03 AM

I am still using 4.5 and don't even own 5.0.
Im dithering from 24 to 16 using Apogee's UV22
provided in the Mackie D8B. This seems to work great for me but then again I'never done it any other way.
I came from the analog world years ago. I just went all digital year and a half ago.
Are there better ways of dithering or is dither dither?
24/96 seems great but cd's are 16/44.1 so I come into sound forge at that and master using the using the form it will be in in the end.Am I off my rocker?
I'm not into buying every new gadget that comes out and until the industry settles on a new standard, cd's
are what we are putting out. So it seems to me working with bit depth and sample rate of a cd is the rite thing do. So once again being new the game am I off my
rocker?
By the way I am a rocker.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: RickZ

Date:11/19/2001 8:35:17 PM

Lately I've been copying 16-bit from DAT to SF5.0 as 24 bit files. Then edit entirely in 24-bit, and use Batch Converter as a last step to convert to 16-bit for CD-R burn.

I think I can hear an improvement in clarity, compared to editing in 16-bit format. I guess it depends on how many edits you do. www.digido.com used to have a lot of interesting reading on the importance of having lots of bits, haven't checked in a while though.

Hope this helps . .
Regards,
Rick Z

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: beetlefan

Date:11/20/2001 1:07:10 PM

OTR, Rick Z is absolutley correct. It is MUCH better to process in higher bit depths. SF 5.x works at an internal 32-bit floating point rate to avoid sonic degradation caused by processing in just 16-bit. So, the guy who feeds his Appoge ditherd sound into SF 4.5 is defeating his purpose.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:11/20/2001 4:25:28 PM

And your point is? Sound Forge 4.5 processes in 24 bit!!!

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: VU-1

Date:11/20/2001 6:15:28 PM

Yes, it is best to process at the highest possible bit depth which, in 4.5, as Red says, is 24-bit. All SF DX Plug-ins process at 24-bit.
That's why I run my internal processing within the Plug-in Chainer. By processing within the chainer, the material only has to be converted twice - to 24 bit at the start of the first plug-in and back to 16- bit at the end of the last. Incidentally, I have a few 3rd party plug-ins that process at 64-bit.
However, as I said before, with the exception of 5.0's hi res. capability, considering ALL other features of both 4.5 & 5.0, I still consider 4.5 to be far superior.
Now, if SF would do a little work on 5.0 (see my soap box novel on the 'Redbook audio in Vegas Video, not in Sound Forge' thread in CDA Forum) I would be more than happy (ECSTATIC!!! rather) to make the switch. Until then .... no thanks.

JL
OTR

P.S. Actually, I have thought about getting 5.0 just for the hi res. capability. But then I thought, why? If its hi res. I want, I can just make do with Acid (Pro 3.0) for now. I can load into Acid in hi res., use all the same processing as I do in SF 4.5 and then render it down to 16-bit, 44.1k and open it up in 4.5 to do final normalization & then build my CDs w/CDA. Acid can even edit in the Non-destructive realm, Sound Forge can't. In fact, I would rather upgrade my Vegas LE to the newest Vegas Audio when it arrives than go to SF5.0.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: joetbn

Date:12/6/2001 3:37:41 AM

If you have 4.5 the 5.0 upgrade is worth it just for the acoustic mirror and wave hammer plug ins, 4.5 and 5.0 can co-exist in the same machine so you can still use cd architect. plus I do recording from analog sorces, ,so I like to go 24/96 in, do alll my editing, then convert down to 16/44.1 as the last step, I think it is a big inprovement.

Subject:RE: Is 5.0 better than 4.5

Reply by: beetlefan

Date:12/6/2001 8:54:27 AM

I prefer to stay at 24-32 Float bit rates all through SF, and THEN use Cool Edit's dither and noise shaping when going down to 16-bit.