4 Replies Latest reply on Nov 14, 2010 1:17 PM by TeetowSBZ

    Why would an Audition USER ever buy Audition for Mac?

    P.W. Fenton Level 1

      I have purchased and used every version of Cool Edit, Cool Edit Pro, Audition 1.0, Audition 1.5, Audition 2.0, and Audition 3.0.  I have been a staunch advocate, constantly converting people from ProTools and other DAWS.  I have, stored on multiple hard drives, hundreds of multitrack sessions.  I work primarily in radio, documentary, and some film.  I have constantly gone back and re-worked older sessions to fit new formats and markets.  There is nothing like working from multi-track masters when you need to extend, or shorten a work for a new purpose.  5 years ago I bought my 1st Mac and was hooked. Soon I had several Macs, and never wanted to see Windows again.  But I found there was nothing as good as Audition on a Mac, so I had to run Windows just so I could run Audition.


      Now it's coming to the Mac.  It was like a prayer had been answered.


      Except... it's the first version of this DAW to not be backwards compatible WITH ITSELF!


      Suddenly buying version 4.0 of Audition for the Mac, that will have missing features that were in 3.0, and that requires me to boot up Windows and load sessions into 3.0 so that I can convert them for use in the Mac version... the one with the missing features, makes very little sense to me.  If I still need Windows... why wouldn't I just use Audition 3.0 that already has all the missing features?  I'm dumbfounded by Adobe's logic on this.  I've got to be missing something.


      I would gladly temporarily lose a few features just to never boot up Windows again, but that is apparently not ever going to be possible.  6 years of accumulated work would be inaccessible without an older version, run under Windows.


      I'm guessing the next thing they are going to tell us is that there will be no cross platform upgrade.


      It is inconceivable to me that anyone at Adobe thought this made good sense.  If the code exists to export .ses files as .xml it could so easily be used to import .ses files directly into this new Mac version.  I can't think of an explanation for deliberately leaving it out of this Mac version.  It is either someone's terrible error, or it's some financial concept I don't understand.  It's certainly difficult to include.


      If I want to switch to Audition on a Mac, without being shackled to Windows for the rest of time, then I have to do, at the very least, 500 of these conversions.  How does that make any sense?

        • 1. Re: Why would an Audition USER ever buy Audition for Mac?
          P.W. Fenton Level 1

          I meant it is certainly NOT difficult to include. (I need a proofreader)

          • 2. Re: Why would an Audition USER ever buy Audition for Mac?

            What are the missing features out of interest?

            • 3. Re: Why would an Audition USER ever buy Audition for Mac?
              P.W. Fenton Level 1

              Marcus, Just read the rest of the forum.  It's full of questions like... "where is this feature?"  And full of answers like... "That won't be ready for the commercial release... but we plan to include it in an update."  I'm not going to try to list it all when it's all there already.

              • 4. Re: Why would an Audition USER ever buy Audition for Mac?
                TeetowSBZ Level 1

                You'll have to take my expertise at face value, but I can assure you that exporters and importers are quite different beasts. It's entirely plausible that it's relatively easy to modify the existing Win32 codebase to export to a new format, but trying to add an importer for legacy formats to a brand new codebase is a different task altogether. I fully agree that backwards compatibility becomes much more of a dealbreaker when it's also a matter of cross-platform compatibility, but it's not likely to be a trivial task. Remember, the CEP codebase is going on a decade-and-a-half.


                On the subject of missing features, again, I cannot but appeal to your trust here, but I ensure you that with a brand-spanking new codebase, the last thing you want is feature creep. One wrongful step, and the stability and longevity of the code is in jeopardy. If Adobe is trying to revitalize Audition as a heavy-duty sound design and DAW application ("Photoshop for sound"), the importance of code stability cannot be overemphasized.


                Now, for the users, this shouldn't really matter -- we want good features, and we want them now. All I'm saying is, I can understand why Adobe has chosen this direction. It could be argued that they should have held Au4 under wraps until it was more feature-compatible with Au3, but really, what's the point of that? If it's usable now, why not just get it out the door, and let the community provide feedback on what's missing? It's how most other software companies tend to work, and I for one enjoy being part of the discussion.


                / J