23 Replies Latest reply: Aug 15, 2011 1:01 PM by Bobaudio RSS

    Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?

    ozworldz Community Member

      I bought Audition 5.5 but I have mixed feelings about it. I'm starting a full band album project tomorrow and I'm still not sure which program to use for the sessions. So many crutial features are missing in AA 5.5 (e.g grouping files..instead you have to manually select each file every time, to move parts around. This sounds like torure to me. Why would they get rid of this?) As well as the features, the program just isn't as nice to navigate. (I got very frustrated the other day trying to do a simple "click" edit). Audition 3 is just so nice (I've been using it for years!) and I don't want to set myself up for frustration using AA 5.5.

      Any comments? Is there any special reason I should bite the bullet and use AA 5.5?

       

      Thanks!

        • 1. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
          dstdean Community Member

          To be honest, I haven't used 5.5 yet, but just in general it seems to me that you would want to be concentrating on the music, mic placement, and capturing the best sound with a comfortable piece of software that you didn't have to think too much about instead of dicking around with something that could take away your focus.

           

          Just my $0.02...

           

          --Dean

          • 2. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
            Bob Howes CommunityMVP

            Well, as for the "why", the developers have been very up-front about the missing items.  This thread gives a lot of useful detail about the history of CS5.5, the missing bits and the good new stuff.  Suffice to say that nothing is gone forever.  There were just time issues involving the whole Creative Suite planned release and the total re-write being done to make it Mac compatible.

             

            As for which you should use, only you can answer that.  I can tell you that in my case, after doing the 28 day trial, I elected to stick with AA3.01 for some projects I'm involved in--some of the missing features were too key to the work I knew I would be doing.  You'll have to do your own analysis of the pros and cons though.

             

            I'm hopeful my decision will change with CS6 though.

             

            Bob

            • 3. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
              ozworldz Community Member

              Thanks for the very helpful comments. I'm definitely going to stick with AA3. In fact, I feel like a bit of a sucker, I've just given Adobe $100 for nothing (and 100% guaranteed they're going to ding me again for CS6). I agree, the missing things are too key, and if I'm not going to use in my studio, what is it good for? Bummer.

              Thanks again, it really helped me.

              • 4. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                ozworldz Community Member

                Absolutely true, and I'm going to use 3 for sure. That's the best plan. A month ago or so I decided to try using 5 for a full band session. I made a backup template of my track assignments etc in AA3 just in case. Sure enough, 5 crashed almost right away (no idea why). I pulled the AA3 template session up and was immediately back in business. I tried it again last week for a small session (guitar/voice) and the recording was fine but I ended up getting frustrating during editing (when I couldn't find "Fill Single Click"...how stupid is that...to get rid of one of the best unique features). I also had to do some file conversion and that was also frustrating...I ended up doing the conversions in AA3. I also had to make a CD...in AA3.

                But I'm sure you've heard this all before .

                Thanks!

                • 5. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                  Bob Howes CommunityMVP

                  I just realised I forgot to actually give you the link to that explanation of CS5.5 and the future that I mentioned.

                   

                  It's here:  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/838570?tstart=90

                   

                  Hope it helps,

                   

                  Bob

                  • 6. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                    ryclark Community Member

                    "Fill Single Click" function is still there but now called Auto Heal Selection in the Effects menu or Auto heal under Favorites.

                    • 7. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                      ozworldz Community Member

                      Thanks, I'll check that out.

                      • 8. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                        cupolajercs1

                        I'm forced to use Audition 3 for the simple reason that I work with loops alot and can't figure out a way to change to the tempo in a multitrack session or have the loop automatically adopt the tempo of a multitrack session.

                        I'd be so happy to be wrong.

                        The integration with After Effects would be really cool, but not as important as not being able to adjust the bpm.

                        • 9. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                          ozworldz Community Member

                          Well I wouldn't see it as "forced" to use AA3. AA3 is a great program, and right now it seems like the better of the two.

                          (ps I can't offer anything regarding the looping)

                          • 10. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                            cupolajercs1 Community Member

                            No, you're absolutely correct. It's not like AA3 is an inferior product, it's the only audio processing software I use and I love it. I was jazzed at the idea of Adobe finally including Audtion into the CS series and I was dissappointed when so many of the features that made Audition special were suddenly not available.

                            I had Cool Edit 98 and was skeptical when Adobe took it over, but was really pleased with it's transition into Audition, until this latest release that is.

                            From a programming standpoint, I understand the challenges of cross OS integration. But why release something that's not really ready? We'd have been patient.

                            • 11. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                              SteveG(AudioMasters) Community Member

                              cupolajercs1 wrote:

                               

                              But why release something that's not really ready? We'd have been patient.

                               

                              Well I agree entirely - and until now, with the exception of Audition 2, that's what has happened. Unfortunately, though, Adobe Corporate can't possibly cope with that concept. They understand how to count beans, but little else. Unfortunately though, they are responsible for paying the developers' salaries...

                              • 12. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                ozworldz Community Member

                                > But why release something that's not really ready?

                                 

                                There's only one reason for this, greed, cash grab. They got my $100 and I feel like a sucker. I don't want to pay for development, they're already zillionaires.

                                (ps. have you talked to an Adobe support person lately?...they're in India. I was shocked. This is sick and disgusting given the number of unemployed Americans.)

                                • 13. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                  _durin_ Employee Hosts

                                  I get that CS 5.5 may not be "ready" for many of you, but it's been selling very well, commercial reviews have been excellent, and we receive daily emails and comments on twitter and facebook from users who love it.  The positive comments elsewhere far outnumber the negative or unhappy comments in this forum. 

                                  Am I mentioning this to point out how "wrong" you are?  Not at all, because you're right that not every demographic (and I dislike reducing our users into "demographics") will be satisfied with this release.  >I< know what features are missing that are necessary to satisfy our long-time users, our power users, the users whose opinions matter very much to myself and the team, and we're working very hard on implementing and improving those tools for CS 6.  There's never enough time to get everything the team wants to do into an application for release and at some point, due to corporate release schedules, customer demands, or plain old development fatigue, you need to get something out the door and hope it's something you can be proud of.  Had we not shipped Audition this year, the team would have had to devote a significant amount of time to another release of Soundbooth which would further delay any Audition progress, and make for a difficult transition back-and-forth between the products.

                                   

                                  If you truly feel you were deceived or ripped off, I encourage you to get a refund for your upgrade purchase, and I hope you'll give us another look when CS 6 is released - unless there's a sudden change in policy, you'll still be eligible for upgrade pricing at that time if you have Audition 2.0 or higher, but I'd recommend downloading the 30-day trial before making that decision.  And I hope you'll share with us any other tools and functionality that you require that wasn't implemented in CS 5.5 to help us make the right decisions for which features get prioritized moving forward.  But blanket declarations that the team is simply out to steal your cash and responsible for global market failures and industry shifts accomplishes nothing and minimizes the folks who love Audition for audio restoration, forensics, voiceover recording, radio or podcast production, audio for tv, video, and theater, audiobook and seminar, sound effects, batch processing, choral and environmental recording, and more - users that are typically ignored by other DAWs in favor of the more glamorous music production tools.  (Not that we don't love the musicians, too - many of us on the team play and record regularly.)  Audition was more than ready for those folks and gives the team the support we need to continue creating tools for the rest.

                                   

                                  In answer to your specific question regarding lack of clip grouping tools in 5.5, it was not a decision that was made easily.  There was no means to implement this feature early in the cycle since it relies upon so much other work being finished and while it seems pretty simple from the interface, it gets really complicated under-the-hood as almost every multitrack editing operation would have needed to be modified to accomodate group behaviors.  By the time in the development cycle when we have the necessary foundation where clip group development could begin, we were faced with the issue of having insufficient time to fully implement and test this feature.  We made the decision early on not to implement any functionality that we could not fully test and stand behind, and the trade-offs required to achieve this feature were too great.  We opted for the little pain approach (no grouping and manual selection) over the potential greater pain of having a feature that simply didn't work as expected or that was rife with bugs.  I'll apologize for certain favorite features not being implemented, but I refuse to apologize for ensuring a level of quality and reliability in what we create, and I hope you would demand the same from us and any other application you purchase.

                                   

                                  If I've come across as a little strong, it's not personal.  You gave the new release a chance and found it didn't meet all your expectations, and that's fair.  I wish you had done so with the trial so you did not feel as if you'd been ripped off, but I hope you continue to share your concerns and understand that we make Audition for all of you, and the only way we can do so is when you let us know what you need.  I really enjoy having a fairly active community here on the forums and hope we can receive more cordial criticism through an ongoing, open dialog.

                                   

                                  Durin

                                  • 14. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                    SuiteSpot Community Member

                                    Thanks for that great post Durin.  It's not often you get such an upfront reply from devs on other forums.

                                     

                                    Before the AA5.5 release I was certain that AA3 would be the last release.  Talk is cheap but rather than say that something good is coming Adobe have shown that while it's not quite there for everyone it is coming.

                                     

                                    I know for me that A5.5 doesn't yet fully meet all my needs but what is there is unbelievable and a promise of more to come.

                                     

                                    BTW If for nothing else I would recommend upgrading just for the ability to convert OMFs ;-)

                                    The work done in this area alone is exceptional - given the dodgy (or is that Didgy) nature of the format.

                                    • 15. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                      Bob Howes CommunityMVP

                                      Let me add a +1 thanks for Durin's refreshingly open post.  It was a level of honesty and "upfront" information that I only wish every company, software and otherwise, would emulate.

                                       

                                      I was one of those who, after doing the 28 day trial, decided to stay for the time being with AA3.  Nobody twisted my arm to change and the ability to use CS5.5 for a month gave me the information I needed to take a decision--although it wasn't an easy one.  There is a lot to like in CS5.5 and, were I not a poverty stricken pensioner, I may have decided to run both bits of software in tandem.

                                       

                                      As a general comment, I wish more software companies would decide to only include tested and ready elements in their releases rather than rush things to market with bugs in them.

                                       

                                      Oh, and Durin, I was very pleased to hear you're a zillionaire.  It couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

                                      • 16. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                        ozworldz Community Member

                                        Durin, thanks very much for the excellent post. This is one of the reasons why I love the Adobe forums! The support here is fantastic. When AA 5 came out, I installed the trial but then I thought, "what am I waiting for?"...just buy it. 1) I've used Audition since it was Cool Edit, love it and am committed to using it for the long term, and 2) I don't have time to spend just fooling around with a trial version AA5 and wasn't about the start a new project on a trial version that I wouldn't be able to access later. So I thought, because of my committment to AA, I'm going to buy it anyway, so why not now. Thanks for the suggestion of a refund, however, as I mentioned, I did start one small ongoing client project on AA5 and now I can't go back (without a lot of work). Possibly the demographic of dissatisfied users are those like me. When you buy an "upgrade" but you end up continuing to use the old program, there is bound to be a disappointment factor. Bottom line for me, it's now sitting on the shelf for new projects. Maybe I will discover a use for it in the future. (I did choose AA3 for the project around which this thread began.) I will most certainly be "in" for CS6 and I'm anxiously awaiting it, in its improved form, but am not looking forward to getting dinging again. Those who helped fund the project (if you will) will end up paying more in the end. (sorry to keep bringing up money but....starving artist talking.)

                                         

                                        I hope CS6 will encourage more people to use AA. I love it, and am always singing its praises, but I don't know one other person in my large community (Toronto) who is using it! People seem to be anally stuck on those other "industry standard" programs. (Maybe if AA was introduced to the college crowd, that would change.) So don't get the impression that I hate AA, as I said, I love AA and I'm committed! However, you can't blame me for thinking Adobe is engaging in typical corporate behaviour with this move. We're a little saturated these days with greedy behaviour, all around us. (And when I talk to a support person in India, this really gets me going. I'm sticking to my guns on this one...there is *no* reason or excuse for this outsourcing other than greed. Again, jobs for Americans!!!!!). However, I'm sure this is beyond the decision-making scope of those participating in this forum (I could be wrong here).   

                                         

                                        I'm sorry that you couldn't get clip grouping into the picture, and thanks for the explanation, but it's always been there in the past and taking really fundamental things away is, again, going to encourage some of these... . That was pretty much the tie-breaker for me when not choosing it for my current project. If I'm trying to convince one of my associates how great AA is, 1) then I say the *new* version it doesn't have some "no-brainer" things and 2) he/she sees that I'm not even using it, but still using the old one, it makes it difficult for me to "sell' the new product. These are the things people will make purchase decisions based on, so it sort of negates all of the great new features that *are* there and would seem to me to be a bit of a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot situation, at least, in the short term.

                                         

                                        Durin, no problem with the "strong" comments (I'm presenting some strong comments myself) and I am very grateful for this opportunity to be able to banter about these things here in the forum. Thanks a million (pun intended ) for getting in on this conversation. I'm looking forward to learning more about AA5 as I go and eventually starting to use it!

                                        • 17. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                          SuiteSpot Community Member

                                          "And when I talk to a support person in India, this really gets me going. I'm sticking to my guns on this one...there is *no* reason or excuse for this outsourcing other than greed. Again, jobs for Americans!!!!!). "

                                           

                                          Here in Oz I feel exactly the same (no disrespect to anyone in India) but I'll relay a recent experience which shows you can't always tell where you are calling...

                                           

                                          I was in a lift when the doors opened and a young Indian girl and 2 others entered.  The young Indian girl was visibly upset and the others were consoling her.

                                          It turned out that the 3 were from a call centre which was on that floor and the young Indian girl had been abused by a caller pretty much along the lines of jobs for aussies and outsourcing to other countries.

                                           

                                          It certainly got me thinking - you just never can tell ;-)

                                          • 18. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                            SteveG(AudioMasters) Community Member

                                            I don't really care where customer service is outsourced to, as long as it's in English I can understand, can actually do something useful, like answer the questions, and get things done. This isn't usually an issue for me though, because customer service is just about the last place I'd go - unless it's the only place, which unfortunately happens with my internet service provider, etc.

                                             

                                            'Indian' English isn't always the easiest thing to understand, even when you've had some practice. I can understand American English, and don't have too much difficulty with Aussie English, but even here in the UK there are some local dialects that aren't that easy to pick up. This is probably why they don't make an extensive practice of putting call centres in places like South Shields - it takes months to get your ears around that one!

                                             

                                            Anyway, all call centres should use American, Aussie or 'English' English (aka Recieved Pronunciation). Any firm using Indian English shows a profound lack of respect for the majority of their customers, I'd say. They should either train their call centre operatives to speak properly, or find a call centre firm that does. So for me it has nothing to do with Nationalism or anything like that - it's just got to work properly using language I can understand.

                                            • 19. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                              Mark Estdale

                                              As a professional user and a contributor to the design of early iterations of Cool Edit, from my perspective AA seems to be falling down the homogenised black hole of appealing to the masses. Those who need specific tools: " for audio restoration, forensics, voiceover recording, radio or podcast production, audio for tv, video, and theater, audiobook and seminar, sound effects, batch processing, choral and environmental recording, and more" will all be disappointed to some degree.

                                               

                                              Adobe do not create specialist small pro-market precision tools they create mass market profitable usable tools. All singing and dancing mass market tools like AA aims to be are not the answer for professional end users. Pro users need specific functionality not features. ProTools and Nuendo have their weaknesses but both are more finely focused. Cool Edit was cool until it got too ambitious, but still it was a great bit of kit and Adobe did really well in keeping the core in shape up to 3.

                                               

                                              The features lost are lost because the lowest common denominator rules.

                                               

                                              As an aside, you will have experienced in this forum Adobe are gleaning your ideas to make a better product. This is encouraging you to give away extremely valuable IP.  If you are happy for Adobe to profit from your creative ideas then feel free to share with them. But please remember your ideas may potentially be worth millions to someone. If they are good you ought to be paid for them. Adobe will not reward you, they will take and use with no regard to your creative input. Sharer beware.

                                               

                                              WP

                                              • 20. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                                Mark Estdale Community Member

                                                As a professional user and a contributor to the design of early iterations of Cool Edit, from my perspective AA seems to be falling down the homogenised black hole of appealing to the masses. Those who need specific tools: " for audio restoration, forensics, voiceover recording, radio or podcast production, audio for tv, video, and theatre, audiobook and seminar, sound effects, batch processing, choral and environmental recording, and more" will all be disappointed to some degree.

                                                 

                                                Adobe do not create specialist small pro-market precision tools they create mass market profitable usable tools. All singing and dancing mass market tools like AA are not the answer for professional end users. Pro users need specific functionality not features. ProTools and Nuendo have their weaknesses but both are more finely focused.

                                                 

                                                The features lost are lost because the lowest common denominator rules.

                                                 

                                                As an aside, you will have experienced in this forum Adobe are gleaning your ideas to make a better product. This is encouraging you to give away extremely valuable IP.  If you are happy for Adobe to profit from your creative ideas then feel free to share with them. But please remember your ideas may potentially worth millions to someone. If they are good you ought to be paid for them. Adobe will not reward you, they will take and use with no regard to your creative input.

                                                 

                                                Sharer beware.

                                                WP

                                                • 21. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                                  buzshaws Community Member

                                                  Thanks for a most refreshing read of truth, whingy pom. It's a shame, but depending on which side of the business fence you're on, it is what it is.  The approach you described is all too common and follows a typical superficial business model, but it doesn't take alot of analysis to see what's been going on all along.  To elucidate, a small consolidated perspective:

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  Version 1

                                                   

                                                  Adobe Audition was released on 18 August 2003. It had no new features, and was essentially Cool Edit Pro under a different name. Adobe then released Audition v1.5 in May 2004.

                                                   

                                                  v1.5 was about the only thing Adobe did right, by both the product and customers.

                                                   


                                                  Version 2

                                                   

                                                  Adobe Audition 2 was released on 17 January 2006.

                                                   

                                                  This version was a pre-mature and rushed release (20 month wait for that?) so Adobe could concentrate on Soundbooth, a subterfuge whose only purpose was to allow Adobe developers to practice development on the Mac platform. AA users and Soundbooth users were used, and Adobe delivered TWO simultaneous bills of goods. Oh, you guys are real good!

                                                   

                                                  Almost two years later...

                                                   


                                                  Version 3

                                                   

                                                  Adobe Audition 3 was released on 8 November 2007.

                                                   

                                                  Given v2.0 was no than a ruse, v3.0 was the only real quality release since v1.5, over 3 years prior.  Though somewhat slow and clanky to get going, IMO, v3.01 is a wonderful program for audio restoration and editing.  Since November 2007, Soundbooth and avid AA users waited while Adobe spent time to bring Mac users into the fold, then offered the long-initiated and displaced-to-the-back-seat PC users this in mid-2011:

                                                   


                                                  Version 4

                                                   

                                                  Audition 4, also known as Audition CS5.5, was released on April 11 2011 as part of Adobe's Creative Suite of programs. Audition 4 was shipped as part of the Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Master Collection and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Production Premium, replacing the discontinued Adobe Soundbooth.

                                                   

                                                  Soundbooth...? Who remembers that one?  Oh, sorry, those who paid for it.  And how backwards could AA4 be from what many have waited for since November 2007 (v3.0)?  Now those poor buggers are being told they'll be more happy with CS6. 

                                                   

                                                  What was that saying about fooled once shame on you?  Fooled for 8 years (since AA1 and all its presumed promise) while still being waylaid into hanging hopeful for a reasonable degree tangibly improved substance (hang in there, it's maybe coming in CS6!), shame on me, lol.  Does 10 years need go by before some people reclaim a shred of self-dignity, or will the persistently futile apologists continue their reign of the aforementioned insanity?  Stayed tuned until next year folks, same time, same channel. Oh, and keep those suggestions coming!  If you have doubts, then simply bookmark this thread and lets analyze that outcome.  Until then everything else aside from 2007's v3.01 will be merely (more) words

                                                  • 22. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                                    SteveG(AudioMasters) Community Member

                                                    buzshaws wrote:

                                                     

                                                    Version 2

                                                     

                                                    Adobe Audition 2 was released on 17 January 2006.

                                                     

                                                    This version was a pre-mature and rushed release (20 month wait for that?) so Adobe could concentrate on Soundbooth, a subterfuge whose only purpose was to allow Adobe developers to practice development on the Mac platform. AA users and Soundbooth users were used, and Adobe delivered TWO simultaneous bills of goods. Oh, you guys are real good!

                                                     

                                                     

                                                    Nah, that bit's wrong.

                                                     

                                                    It's true about the rushed release, etc but that's not the reason - nothing to do with Soundbooth at all. It was simply because, at this stage, Audition had been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Creative Suite. The Creative Suite has programmed version release dates, agreed ages in advance and completely unshiftable - apparently. This appears to be an Adobe Corporate decision at the time, despite the developers shouting 'foul' at the tops of their voices - simply because in Audition terms, the release date was, to say the least, unreasonable. So what got released was, to all intents and purposes, a late beta of what should have been released. What happened next was that, as a result of what could only be described as a debacle, Audition got itself out of the CS, and Audition 3 was developed at a more sensible pace. But there was a Quid Quo Pro. In order for Audition to be removed, it had to be replaced with something, and that's when the developers started work on Soundbooth, and why.

                                                     

                                                    It's perfectly true that Soundbooth was, to all intents and purposes, a test development for the minority Mac platform - I don't think that this has ever been denied privately, although its public persona rather glossed over that... but the end result of this was that it was then deemed reasonable to develop what is effectively Audition 4 as a dual-platform release. But you do get a degree of developer revenge, because they've clearly said to the management that if they want timely development of Audition within the CS, they have to be able to devote 100% of development time to it, or a repeat of the Audition 2 fiasco might result again (sounds like a potential threat situation when put like that!). Management clearly has to capitulate over this one, and Soundbooth is unceremoniously dropped.

                                                     

                                                    The management conversations are only based on second-hand reports, but the chronology (and reasons) are a matter of public knowledge, and have been for a while now.

                                                    • 23. Re: Audition 5.5 versus Audition 3?
                                                      Bobaudio Community Member

                                                      Well stated, buzshaw. I look forward to seeing what CS6 brings, but it will have been a long wait by that time. AA 3.01 remains the better tool for audio analysis and restoration work - and whatever else Cool Edit filled needs for. CS5.5 doesn't offer much for me beyond free tools like Audacity.

                                                       

                                                      For recording an album you might try the upcoming Propellerheads Reason 6. Record/Reason offer a nice interface for purely recording, and these are being combined into one product as Reason 6 and will support both Mac and Windows 32/64 bit.