This content has been marked as final. Show 10 replies
>1. Be able to work with particular amplitude ranges only, e.g. you have selected a one second area at 5000Hz to 8000Hz and within that area you want to only manipulate the top 10dB of frequencies within that area.
You can do that now, if you apply the dynamics processor to the selection you've made. Come to that, you can apply just about any effect you want to just that frequency-limited selection.
>2. Select a particular frequency region (e.g. 75Hz to 80Hz) and have the ability to have its harmonics selected also.
The 'harmonics of a region'? What kind of BS is that? Individual frequencies have harmonics, not regions. And for any region you select, extending the selection vertically includes all of the harmonics present anyway, so once again, you could say that it's already there...
Personally I have no use for no. 3 either - I can get staggeringly good results from the system as it is, And anyway, the ability to repaste BG noise into spectral holes is already there too, to a degree where the edit can be made completely inaudible, if done with care.
There is one thing that *could* be usefully added though - the ability to drag out a variable 'skirt' around the area you've selected, which could determine the rate of the transition into whatever you are doing within it.
ie. Photoshop Brush Feather type option.
You can do it to some degree with the Brush set to a lower Opacity and drawing over itself to increase the Opacity in the centre.
All of my above requests are to make it easier to do things. Yes you can do some of this stuff already but not as easy as it could be...
1. Yes, I could use a dynamics plugin, but what if I want to remove certain parts only and don't want a specific sound of a dynamics action (and yes, I can set up a compressor. Show me a compressor that does not have some kind of sound associated with it.)
2. Harmonics of a region was bad English on my part. I know what I mean but can't figure out how to explain it.
3. Again, yes you can do it already, but it would be easier if some type of specific random spray operation of a cloned portion of audio were available.
4. As a new suggestion, be able to outline more than one area of selection before processing begins.
All of this is to try and make things easier. There are a Gazillion things in Photoshop to make things easier, or you could do it by multiple actions of different techniques for the same effect, you have the choice which to use. Why should the same not be applied in Audition.
Lastly, the above are only requests/suggestions.
If you don't like it SteveG, save your suggestion of BS for someone else (try KVR, there are lots of people over there that appreciate over reaction...)
Well you can now at least export your Spectral View as a bitmap, work on it in Photoshop and then re-import back into Audition :)
>There are a Gazillion things in Photoshop to make things easier, or you could do it by multiple actions of different techniques for the same effect, you have the choice which to use. Why should the same not be applied in Audition.
Because that's a picture editor, and Audition edits sound. Believe it or not, the rules aren't the same... and your requests 2) & 3) clearly indicate that you may not really understand what the differences are. Just because you can display a visual representation of something, it doesn't follow in the slightest that using the same tools you'd use on a picture would achieve anything useful at all.
You should bear in mind that single images don't display temporal changes, and to say the very least this makes the idea of a 'spray brush' somewhat bizarre, to say the very least. What is the point of being able to spatter noise in two effectively unrelated dimensions?
>If you don't like it SteveG, save your suggestion of BS for someone else
It's applied where it's deserved.
How extraordinary to be so close minded. Where would the world be if we all kept to accepted thought...
As for suggestion 3, I have already used cloned audio to great effect but, it remains a tedious process to achieve correctly.
Some of yesteryears BS is now accepted thought, but maybe that's too much of a step for you...
You're going to have to try a lot harder than that, I'm afraid...
But since you apparently don't have anything to back up your statements with, you're going to have a few problems.
Adobe needs to take a look at U&I Metasynth.
So many more things are possible that we haven't even dreamed of.
I have been an Audition user since Cool Edit days.
I talked to David Johnston back then (1996) suggesting spectral editing and he said that resynthesis wasn't possible because the computing power was not there to do it quickly. It is now!
>Adobe needs to take a look at U&I Metasynth.
Hmm... Audition is fundamentally an editor. If you start doing all sorts of left-field things like Metasynth does, then you stand a good chance of alienating the main customer base - which, whether anybody likes it or not, is radio users. And the vast majority of their use *is* basic editing. The reason that they like it so much is that it has a clean, uncluttered interface and it's not confusing... even U&I admit that Metasynth is confusing!
The other thing (and this is just an observation) is that over the years, Syntrillium (and subsequently Adobe) have been noted for not taking *any* notice of what anybody else does. In some ways this is good, and in other ways, a lot of people seem to find it quite annoying. Virtually all of the truly innovative stuff in Audition has come directly from David Johnson, and whatever he does seems to bear no relationship to anything else at all - and yes, it's a double-edged sword. It may well be that Adobe are paranoid about being accused of copying anybody else's designs - that's certainly the way it seems to be.
But, one of Audition's strengths is that it processes audio in a sensible way, and provides appropriate tools for this. And if certain things that might seem obvious to some people haven't been implemented, there's usually a good reason for it - and it may not necessarily be what we might think it is, either.
In re-synthesis of the spectral view of an actual wave form you would need a lot of memory for a single view and a @#$ load of processing power in order to make it work 'without' losing quality. And as Metasynth is a synthesizer (where AA is not) it can get away with lower quality.
I could see something like an 'Amplitude Brush' or 'Effect Brush' that amplifies or attenuates (effects) the areas you paint as you paint with an added option to effect each area only once per click. It would work with simple effects, but more complicated ones would need more work. For something like reverb you would need to add a second and third cross-hair or overlay that shows what it is reading from before the cursor and what it is affecting after the cursor, but I think it would still need to paint a selection like it does now in order for it to work correctly. OR! Maybe just having the effect change the shape or style of the brush used for painting the selection... ;) That would be simple ;)
 The brush could have an added feature to select only when amplitude reaches a certain level...
Other then that.. yeah... Re-synthesis is possible, but isn't really efficient as of yet and isn't really going to be something audio professionals really 'need' to complete their job. So I don't see it being in Audition for several years if ever unless its a third-party plug-in.