"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
. fi...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

Part of the professional music-recording-industry scene maybe.

No "maybe". It's a fact:-)
We still need to meet the expectations of the
client/ conductor/producer, even at the editing stage.

Well yes, I accept that - for the particular part of the particular
industry you happen to be in. But there are many professional uses of
audio editing software where the client isn't standing over the editor
whilst he works.

True. Usually one is left in peace with a thermos of coffee
and a good supply of sandwiches to put the project together.

However sometimes when "patches" are made for inclusion in
a long take, there is concern over whether or not the transition in
and out will be seamless, so one has no choice but to try it on
the spot (usually during the lunch break:-)

I maintain that the need for audio scrubbing is a matter of backwards
compatibility with the skills and expectations of those brought-up in the
days of tape editing. When film studios operations changed over from
optical sound recording to using mag film the sound editors hated it, as
they had been used to a visual reference, which was denied them by mag
film. And they had to resort to the inferior method of scrubbing to locate
the edit point.


Agreed. As far as audio editing systems are concerned, the
requirements of operators differ widely. The dedicated prof
workstations, Opus, Fairlight, NED had audio scrub right
from the beginning. It was there, and worked just like a mag
film Steinbeck or Albrecht editing table, but you
did not have to use it, if you didn't want to:-)

It's fun to try to edit without listenining at all.
Just look at the score, see where you think you are on the
sequencer, mark the cue and Cut. The results are usually
surprising:-)

Iain