Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

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

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.

You are not alone in that.

Of course, you're never going to convince any old reptile who never got into
modern DAW software of that fact.

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.

Like I said before, scrubbing is a poor substitute for a good visual editing
environment. I say that as a person who has edited tape and via DAW software
going back for decades.

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi

It's fun to try to edit without listening 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:-)

I often mark cue points visually, and when I go back and listen to them and
see how they line up with the audio, I'm usually right on.

I can set cue points visually within one sample. (1/44,100th of a second).
When I set cue points on video by scrubbing, I'm lucky to get within a few
frames. I generally refine that visually to within one frame, but that is
still a whopping 1/30 of a second.

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I do use scrubbing when I edit video, but this is mostly
because the video editing software I use does not
provide the same quality visual environment for editing
audio that CEP/Audition does. I periodically export
audio from A/V tracks, edit it in CEP, and then put it
back, including restoring lip-synch by hand if
necessary.

As a matter of interest which video editing package do
you use? I've tried a few but haven't found the perfect
one.

Adobe Premiere Elements. I'm experimenting with Vegas Studio.

FWIW in the UK ProTools seems to be the editor of choice
in the TV field.

It's the "no brainer" choice.

Sort of like buying IBM computers - the old saying used to be that nobody
ever got fired for buying IBM.

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
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.

I'm not that well up on sound production using optical tracks - but
surely they were sound only rather than comopt?


Indeed they were sound only, but if you look closely at an optical track
you can see the modulation, a bit like seeing the waveform envelope
displayed by audio editing software (though smaller, and without zoom
options!). That was the "visual reference" to which I referred.

Ah. I see.

I suppose you could 'develop' the magnetic film like they used to do for
editing in the early days of videotape. ;-)

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

I suppose you could 'develop' the magnetic film like they used to do for
editing in the early days of videotape. ;-)


You could, and I understand that some die-hard editors did. But it's fiddly,
messy and slow compared to just looking.

David.

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I do use scrubbing when I edit video, but this is mostly because the
video editing software I use does not provide the same quality visual
environment for editing audio that CEP/Audition does. I periodically
export audio from A/V tracks, edit it in CEP, and then put it back,
including restoring lip-synch by hand if necessary.

As a matter of interest which video editing package do you use? I've
tried
a few but haven't found the perfect one.

FWIW in the UK ProTools seems to be the editor of choice in the TV field.

Many years ago I was forced to use Soundscape as a dubbing prog. I hated
it at first being used to AudioFile, but quite quickly got to like it.
With some development (and faster hardware) it could have been pretty
good
for semi pro use. I *think* it got bought out by Behringer - but a quick
Google shows nothing.


Certainly in the film business, Avid is pretty much the standard. It is a
bit of a hotchpotch and has some file compatibility issues, but everyone
seems to know it.´

Avid has become something of an industry standard.
One if its strengths is that any freelance can hire a
so called "self-drive" editing suite, and even without
previous experience, be up and running within a few
minutes.

The same goes for audio editing where ProTools is
ubiquitous.

Iain

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Iain Churches wrote:

So is there only one level of undo in Audition. Don?

Even the early versions of audio workstations from
Opus, New England Digital, Fairlight etc offered 99 layers.

No, there are many levels (100 I think), but you must go back through them
in the reverse order you applied the changes. You can't select one several
levels back to undo, while leaving more recent ones intact.


Don.
Dyaxis, Fairlight and ProTools are my editors of choice I was
wondering in Audition, does one have the opportunity to set
the "slope" of the the edit, ie the duration of the splice
in frames or mS ? Some classical edits require a very long
transition from take to take to make them work successfully.

Iain

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Malcolm H" wrote in message
...

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


"Malcolm H" wrote in message
...

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


"Malcolm H" wrote in message
...
This is a spin-off from an earlier thread in which Graham posted the
following link:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multime...Edit-Pro.shtml

Does anybody know how I can get a license for this program at a
sensible
price? I have been a licensed user of Cool Edit 2000 for many years.

Am I missing something here? You state that you have been a
licensed user of CEP2 for many years, and then ask where
you can get a licence.

The licence for CE2000 was purchased from Syntrillium.
I now want a license for CEP2.

OK. Then isn't it time to make contact with those
nice people at Adobe. Not an impersonal e-mail,
but a phone call. Use your English charm and
persuade them that they could exchange your
CE2000 key for a CEP2, as a gesture of
goodwill. Betcha they agree:-)


Syntrillium no longer exists!

Thank you for the suggestion Iain. I have had a phone conversation with
the nice people in Adobe but unfortunately they are unable to give (or
sell) me a key for CEP2.

That's a pity, Malcolm. I know that Syntrillium had generic
keys that worked across a range of versions and products.
They gave these to beta testers/reviewers/evaluators etc.
As a long established user of CE2000 one would have thought
it would have been good PR to let you have such a key.

Iain

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Avid has become something of an industry standard.
One if its strengths is that any freelance can hire a
so called "self-drive" editing suite, and even without
previous experience, be up and running within a few
minutes.

The same goes for audio editing where ProTools is
ubiquitous.

You reckon both can be used without previous experience?

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Cool Edit Pro licensing
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Avid has become something of an industry standard.
One if its strengths is that any freelance can hire a
so called "self-drive" editing suite, and even without
previous experience, be up and running within a few
minutes.

The same goes for audio editing where ProTools is
ubiquitous.

You reckon both can be used without previous experience?

I used the term "freelance" (editor understood)
which implies an understanding of the concepts
and previous editing skills and training.

I have seen film editors who had previously used Steinbecks
and perhaps U-matic Lo-Band systems working fast and
accurately with Avid or Lightworks, after a very short
initiation indeed. They are well-known, and rightly so, as
intuitive systems.

Similarly, any sound editor should be at home with ProTools
after a very short time indeed.

Iain.