Adobe audition vs audacity spectrals1/30/2024 ![]() ![]() It took a lot of asking and prompting of "Sales" people (no internet or forums than) to get enough honest answers from which to make my decision. Output frame accurate files to lay back to master tapes. Lay out imported media in a frame accurate session. Use my linear edit suite EDL to batch import audio from UMatic and Beta tapes. ![]() Of all the options Protools was the only one that: Understood Timecode. When I first brought Protools (separate company from Avid back then) I had a long list. (Every DAW does not do something that some client really wants it to do.) If it does not do some thing is there a workaround that you can live with (even though it may frustrate you.) I fear that I may be missing something important.Design a list of everything you may want it to do.Īttach an importance rating to each of your requirements. In what situations does Audition falter, and in what situations does PT start to offer significant advantages? the co-install stuff.) In other words, I find myself asking if Audition would be "good enough" at this point to cover all my post audio (as opposed to just the simple wav editing tasks.)ĭoes anyone have any experience with using Audition for full audio post production on MC projects? I'm curious what it's limitations are compared to PT. I have no doubt that for larger scale productions, PT would be superior, but how well would Audition stand up on smaller projects? This is something that just isn't easy to "test," but it would save some time and headaches to not have to deal with the PT caveats at this time (i.e. My question at this point is how well Audition would suffice as a full fledged mixing tool on a smaller project that still required more than what MC offers natively. I found it to be a farily intuitive program (much more so than other, similar programs), and there are a wealth of free tutorials available that made it surprisingly easy to dig into it. Using the brush in the spectral view is just AMAZING - I was able to very quickly do some noise/sound removal that on a clip that's been a real problem for me before. I've been playing with the Adobe Audtion trial (which appears to be a fully function version that only lasts 30 days), and I had the same reaction as some of the comments above with regard to the restoration capabilities. The only option for me would be the regular version. It also has limitations in track number and so forth. PT First (the free PT) is a non-starter for me given that (based on my reading) you're only allowed three project saves, all of which are in the cloud. Thanks for any feedback and opinions on this, Or, is PT just better even for that less intensive stuff? If you just need to do something that MC can't do (like add EQ to a stereo track or reverse it) being able to bounce out to Audition and back without having to close MC seems like a really nice feature. PT also comes with the extra baggage of installation issues on MC systems, and the fact that you can't run both MC and PT at the same time. The common feeling seems to be that Audition is more intuitive and easier to use compared to PT. I know that PT is the industry standard for sound work, but I see some people comment that even though they own PT, they'll use Audition (or something similar) for some of the more basic tasks. I've always used free programs like Audacity for simple wav editing, but I've always wanted to get something better in order to avoid some of the obvious limitations that these programs have (like the lack of non-destructive editing, for example.) ![]() I'm wondering how a program like Adobe Audition compares to Pro Tools for less complex audio duties like wav editing and other "non final mix" tasks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |