2 Replies Latest reply on May 6, 2011 9:05 AM by Steve C2

    Bring back Amply/Fade and other comments

    Steve C2 Level 2

      Hi,

       

      Please bring back Amplify/Fade.

       

      Here is my workflow:

      When I record concerts (I frequently combine audio with video, but this is not necessarily the case), I need to cut audio CDs.  After cleaning up the audio files and applying affects (EQ, etc.), I use track markers to delineate where song tracks begin and end.  I then use Amply/Fade with the Fade Out option on small sections where the song ends.  Of course, if the beginning of the song has a beginning that is abrupt to the point of being jarring, I can use a Fade In option.  After fades have been applied, I switch to CD mode and burn the selected tracks to CD.  One of the great things about Amply/Fade is that one gets consistent results every time.  Drag fading (available for the beginning and end of clips) might be "fun", but I regard it as more difficult to apply consistent results.

       

      The fact that the CD burn functionality is missing from CS 5.5 really restricts my ability to give CS 5.5 a fair audition.  I think that CS 5.5 sounds better than AA 3 (and this is really important to me if this attribute carries through to the finished product), but the final proof is in listening to the finished product.  Yeah, I can burn in AA 3 or by using some other product, but I have doubts as to whether I revert to AA 3 for burning, I am losing the improved sound qualities)..

       

      Back to Amply/Fade...I accept, to some degree, the need to release this rewritten product without all of its previous functionality.  So, part of my evaluation process was to see how well CS 5.5 records and if its effects were not sufficient for me, to use it as a shell for third-party VST plugin effects.  My reasoning is that, possibly, it would be more productive and might be somewhat cost effective to stay with Audition than switch to another DAW.  While Ozone 4 appears to work with CS 5.5 (it shows, although I have yet to test it), some other VST plugins erroneously are disabled.

       

      Suggestions:

      If possible, publish a roadmap for your customers, in terms of what features you plan to reintroduce and when they should reappear.  I realize that I risk sounding arrogant with a request like this, but at least for me, 12 to 18 months waiting for a "maybe" is just too much.  It would be good if interim releases could restore at least some missing functionality before CS 6.  Also, before the release of CS 6 (maybe this was done for CS 5.5), evaluate the product in terms of beta user reaction to the feature set.

       

      Final thoughts:

      It would be good if you could post a compelling features list.  I have roughly 27 or 28 days left on my trial.  It's obvious that many useful features are missing.  Rather than spending the remaining time puzzling over missing features, I would prefer to spend my time gushing over how CS 5.5 would be a great addition to my tools.  Yes, the performance seems a little faster and it plays nicer with my current audio interface, but from the point of testing basic features, the speed doesn't matter.  And, in the end, it's quality of results and ability to adopt an easy workflow that matters.  The non-modal dialog design is welcome.  In itself, however, it's not enough.

       

      Thanks,

      Steve

        • 1. Re: Bring back Amply/Fade and other comments
          ryclark Level 6

          I am intrigued to know how Audition CS 5.5 sounds better than AA 3?

          • 2. Re: Bring back Amply/Fade and other comments
            Steve C2 Level 2

            Hi RY,

             

            I can't explain why, but it sounds more "open" or more "spacious".  This is just a matter of wild speculation, but the best way I can guess at what's going on is that it might sound like there is an EQ boost at some point in the spectrum without having to add one.  I have not tried every possible combination, but for an audio clip recorded with CS 5.5 at 192khz and then played back within both AA 3 and CS 5.5, I can detect a difference.  And, while I have a decent audio interface, I think that my audio monitors would generally be considered to be insufficient for mastering purposes.  Perhaps someone else can weigh in (possibly from Adobe) and tell me that I am imagining things, but Durin has, in an earlier posting, said that CS 5.5 should sound as good or better.

             

            Steve