2 Replies Latest reply on Feb 25, 2010 4:59 AM by djohn96

    Audition vs. Soundbooth

    djohn96 Level 1

      I just want to mention my two cents on this general subject in hopes that it'll get factored in to some small degree somewhere along the development line. Since it seems very unlikely any audio software will ever dethrone ProTools as the undisputed choice for audio pros, I suspect a large percentage of Audition and/or Soundbooth users are not dedicated audio pros, but video pros who also need a way to work with "that squeaky stuff that goes along with the pictures". For that reason, ease-of-use is just as important as a feature-rich product, which is why, as much as I hate to admit it since I'm a long-time die-hard fan of all Adobe products, I actually still use Sound Forge for my audio work more often than Audition or Soundbooth ... largely because I got to know it well before Adobe offered any audio tools at all and I bet I'm not the only one that scenario applies to. Just something to consider ... thanks for reading my ramblings. Cheers!

        • 1. Re: Audition vs. Soundbooth
          ryclark Level 6

          Audition and Soundbooth are very different animals. Many, maybe thousands of, audio pros do use Audition for many reasons, particularly in Radio. Soundbooth was designed to be a cross platform audio add on for use with Adobe's video tools and is therefor IMHO not a full audio editing package.

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Audition vs. Soundbooth
            djohn96 Level 1

            Perhaps I didn't word my thoughts well ... I didn't mean to imply that no audio pros do or should use Audition ... I just meant that, since Soundbooth doesn't at all seem to be a comprehensive audio tool, I don't really understand the reason for its existence.  I'm a video editor/motion graphics designer and Soundbooth doesn't even approach meeting my audio needs ... why not just combine the two and make one good one, which I would consider Audition to be much more of the starting point for?  I was only saying that, if they do decide to combine the two, in my opinion, they should be careful not to overcomplicate the result too much in an effort to make it all things to all people as they seem to be doing with Photoshop ... why in the world does Photoshop, as the best raster image manipulation software on the planet, need to become bogged down with video editing features when Adobe already offers some of the best video editing tools with After Effects and Premiere!?  Seems to me its only to appease the few who are unwilling to use the right tools for the job at hand.