splodger
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2011/03/16 16:13:30
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 17:02:18
(permalink)
jimknof- I refer you to my successive posts, which you obviously haven't read.
As for asking...... to whom do you assume this thread is directed at?
The CEO of Cakewalk? My God you don't think I've offended him with my downright impertinence. Oh no! And now we'll never get a wave editor.... what have I done!!! I've ruined it for everyone.
|
thomasabarnes
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3234
- Joined: 2003/11/11 03:19:17
- Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 17:10:59
(permalink)
Wow jimknoph:
I hope you never have to censure me. :)
 "It's not a song till it touches your heart. It's not a song till it tears you apart!" Lyrics of Amy Grant. SONAR Platinum X64 (jBridge), Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit, Core i7 990X Extreme Edition Processor 3.46 GHz 6 Cores, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, Crucial Ballistix 24GB 1333MHz DDR3 @1333 MHz, TASCAM UH-7000, Behringer X-Touch, EVGA GTX 980TI Superclocked 6GB, 1TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD, 150GB, 320GB, 1TB 7200rpm HDDs
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 18:11:36
(permalink)
splodger, everybody's entitled to an occasional rant, and your follow-up comments indicate that you've actually given some thought to the matter. But I've seen good ideas shot down simply because a poster came off as talking through his hat. I would have phrased the original post as a question, such as "how do you guys deal with the lack of an audio editor in SONAR?"
Go ahead and get Audition or Sound Forge. After you've spent a little time with them you'll better appreciate why they are separate applications. Both go to places beyond anything SONAR (or any other DAW) has ever aspired to.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
Lynn
Max Output Level: -14 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6117
- Joined: 2003/11/12 18:36:16
- Location: Kansas City, MO
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 19:31:37
(permalink)
splodger
I do apologize Sonar X1 DOES allow 3rd party wave editors.
And yes Sound forge therefore would work Seamlessly. I guess....... I'll know once I've tried it.
HOWEVER!!!
You do have to get down into the registry of windows to do it.
Follow all 25 steps and its done.
http://www.cakewalk.com/S...reader.aspx/2007013099
Why make it so esoteric?
Why are there 25 steps of a procedure involving registry editing that could have easily be made possible from the preferences of X1? Are they in denial that someone would want to use 3rd party editing software?
here's another link related to using 3rd party tools and
Customizing The Cakewalk Tools Menu
http://www.digifreq.com/digifreq/article.asp?ID=2
Thanks to your unhappiness with Sonar's lack of wave editor I finally got Sound Forge to open within X1 after months of frustration. Between the two sets of instruction for editing the registry to allow for Sound Forge to be placed into the Utilities menu, I somehow got it to work, and now I have the best of both worlds. Your frustration has become my success story. For what it's worth, there's not much that Sony can do that CW can't, but the pencil tool, which used to be a part of Pro Audio, is very handy, indeed. Thank you for posting.
|
splodger
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2011/03/16 16:13:30
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 19:56:54
(permalink)
Bitflipper- I agree- "how do you guys deal with the lack of an audio editor in SONAR?" would certainly have been a better way to ask for help. But on another point I must disagree Bitflipper- I have used AA for awhile and it doesn't go to places beyond anything that X1 or any DAW (how about Nuendo?) has ever aspired to. X1 already has full wave editing functionality to equal AA and SF. (just not decently laid out in a dedicated window.) And HONESTLY there aren't many things they can do that SonarX1 can't already. Can't be more than these? -Spectral Views- if you really need this there are plugins for X1 -Audio clean up- again, vst's for X1 are out there. -Pen tool- which earlier versions of Sonar (as cakewalk?) actually once had. (Fortunately the machine I have access to, already has the Waves Mercury suite installed and besides, although useful, both AA and SF have comparatively generic effects and not something you'd be buying them on the strength of.) For goodness sake in X1 we already have- console view, staff view, matrix view, piano roll view, step sequencer, loop editor.....etc so it seems X1 has been aspiring pretty successfully already. Take the staff view- it's more specialized than a wave editing pane surely? I mean if X1 didn't have this and I asked why it wasn't included I'd be pointed in the direction of Sibelius or similar and told that DAW's haven't ever been about notation. Isn't a wave edit pane more fundamental to a DAW than many of the new and wonderful elements X1 now includes as standard? Also remember that AA isn't a dedicated wave editor, it's sold as being a multi track with an edit pane. The only reason X1 doesn't have a dedicated editing window is that they feel everything can already be easily done from the track view. Well it can- but not as clearly or as easily as it potentially could. My opinion is in flux however, as I use X1 more and more. Maybe I'll get used to using the track view.
post edited by splodger - 2011/03/28 20:12:29
|
splodger
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2011/03/16 16:13:30
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 20:08:25
(permalink)
Lynn- GREAT!! at least some good has come from it :)
|
Kurtly
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 33
- Joined: 2011/01/27 18:51:42
- Location: Canberra, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/28 23:52:49
(permalink)
My memory tells me that Cool Edit Pro (which Adobe bought, rebadged, then forgot about) was more a wav editor with basic multitracking ability.
Like Splodger, I think having wav editing capability built into Sonar would be fantastic and easily done. As he implied, features will only be added if it makes financial sense for Cakewalk to add them. Financial sense boils down to "Will customers pay more if we add this feature?" Only their marketing department could answer that accurately but my guess would be no, or it would already be implemented.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 00:13:06
(permalink)
I have used AA for awhile and it doesn't go to places beyond anything that X1 or any DAW (how about Nuendo?) has ever aspired to.
Can't be more than these? -Spectral Views- if you really need this there are plugins for X1 -Audio clean up- again, vst's for X1 are out there. -Pen tool- which earlier versions of Sonar (as cakewalk?) actually once had. Perhaps you just haven't gotten deep enough into Audition yet to know what I'm talking about. Spectral editing, not spectral views. Whole 'nother ballgame. "Audio cleanup" is not just hum removal. There is no VST that can correct a digital over, or remove clicks or coughs or fan noise. It's just not something you'd do with a plugin. Noise removal is an offline process that involves taking a fingerprint of the noise to it can be removed intelligently. These are complex operations that usually can't be done in real time. And pen tools are completely useless unless you're trying to accidentally stumble onto some weird waveshape. I know lots of folks are into that kind of thing, but it's not what I'd call "editing". Editing is making alterations toward a predefined goal. You can rarely draw out a problem by hand in an audio file and get any kind of useful result. The point of all this is that SONAR is not an audio editor except in the broadest and crudest definition of the term. Now, as a DAW, Audition's got nothing on SONAR. But its multitrack features were merely tacked on as an afterthought, not as its primary reason for existence. I can't speak to Nuendo as I've never used it, but my understanding is it's a DAW, not an audio editor. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about that.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 00:19:37
(permalink)
My memory tells me that Cool Edit Pro (which Adobe bought, rebadged, then forgot about) was more a wav editor with basic multitracking ability. You are correct. Audition version 1 was basically CEP with a new skin. Version 2 added integration features with Adobe's video products. Version 3 turned it - more or less - into a fully-functional multitrack DAW. It hasn't been abandoned, just back-burnered. Version 4 is in fact under development. Way overdue, say the AA user community, although personally, I can't imagine what's missing in AA3. At least for the kinds of remedial tasks I use it for.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
soundtweaker
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1036
- Joined: 2003/11/12 12:25:59
- Location: San Francisco
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 01:19:26
(permalink)
About the only thing I use Sound Forge is nowadays is converting to mp3.
|
Kurtly
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 33
- Joined: 2011/01/27 18:51:42
- Location: Canberra, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 01:19:59
(permalink)
bitflipper
My memory tells me that Cool Edit Pro (which Adobe bought, rebadged, then forgot about) was more a wav editor with basic multitracking ability.
You are correct. Audition version 1 was basically CEP with a new skin. Version 2 added integration features with Adobe's video products. Version 3 turned it - more or less - into a fully-functional multitrack DAW.
It hasn't been abandoned, just back-burnered. Version 4 is in fact under development. Way overdue, say the AA user community, although personally, I can't imagine what's missing in AA3. At least for the kinds of remedial tasks I use it for.
Maybe it'll finally get useful midi features? When I was looking to get a new DAW it was really a tossup between AA and Sonar.. Sonar just seemed more full featured, plus with their yearly upgrade cycle it seemed more likely to continue maturing. Next time I have to spend money on a DAW it may well be Reaper, who knows where it will be by October?!
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 01:36:19
(permalink)
codamedia
The Track View in Sonar is a full featured audio editor...
I haven't looked at the entire thread - I'm jumping in here to say that the Track View in Sonar is not, and has never been a "full featured audio editor." - I don't know why you said that, Codamedia, unless you don't know better. The editing done with audio in the Track View is a series of commands you're telling Sonar to do with manipulating an audio file, but it's not changing the actual audio file itself, it's changing the way the file is played back. Since you're aware of Sound Forge, I'm surprised if you don't know the difference - maybe you were just simplifying things for this thread. Sound Forge is the best solution for sound editing. Like all of us, Splodger (the OP) wants to go back and forth from changing, actually editing audio files, and using those files in Sonar. With the direct link to SF provided in Sonar, it's a great combination of tools, as well documented in Scott Garrigus's books - But it's also very understandable that in this point in software development, that one could expect a good sound editor to be included in a recording program that claims to be so revolutionary that it deserves to be called "DAW 2." Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 03:16:39
(permalink)
I do a lot of live tracking that goes for hours and hours.
SF has a lot of tools that make extracting data between markers and naming renaming of the new files created.
the batch processing can handle any offline function whether it be dithering, sample rate conversion, conversion to mp3, you name it.
I would hate to have to do any of that in SONAR because it would all have to be done manually. As for fixing up audio - SF has plugins that kill anything included with SONAR for repairing, restoring and processing audio in general. And they can all be run by SF's batch processor.
And that's just part of SF. It's audio editing functions far outweigh anything you can do in SONAR.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
splodger
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2011/03/16 16:13:30
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 06:49:57
(permalink)
bitflipper- you are quite correct I probably haven't really gotten down deep enough into AA to say what precisely can be done (ie spectral editing, batch processing). It is unfair of me to use the broad term "wave editor" without explanation but I have tried to define this in context of what i would expect it to be in X1. I must reiterate, I don't expect a fully fledged bundled wave editor with SonarX1. It would be good to be able simply use all the functions that are currently available in X1 in a clear separate "editing pane." Bitflipper- Not sure what you mean by not being able to apply noise editing effects in real time and then saying it's an offline process. Of course it's offline? Since when has any kind of wave editing been thought of as real time? Are you suggesting that vst plugins are only used as real time effects? Any process effects are 'offline'....X1 does process effects. And despite what you think there are many VST's- "that can correct a digital over, or remove clicks or coughs or fan noise." I am effectively using noise reduction already in the track view of X1 without going to a wave editor. (using a vst plugin) It is not beyond X1. X1 can do more than just crude editing already. If you have Sound Forge you can use the noise reduction in the track view of X1 without having to open SF. (make sure X1 has access to the SF plugins) But you can purchase a Sony vst noise reduction plugin set for X1 and any DAW separately. I would imagine any vst available in SF can be bought and integrated into X1. Fair enough about the comment on the pen tool ....... but it "was" once part of the DAW and others may find it useful. Like yourself, I wouldn't . Someone mentioned the effects in SF kill those in X1 but you can buy any or all of the effects as separate plugins for any DAW.. surely cheaper to just get the ones you need than the whole wave editor package like SF? (unless for batch processing as suggested.) Kurtly- it's not just about will customers pay more if a feature is added it's also will new buyers to any DAW choose X1 over another because of it. They don't get more money by charging more. In fact they can loose money by doing this. They constantly need to maintian and widen their consumer base. A consumer buys things that do the job but when more than one product does that job well it can be the smaller additions that push them one way or the other. It's fiercely competitive and the only reason a useful tool wouldn't be included would be if it interfered with the integrity of the software. Granted, a DAW with a million overblown features is worse than one with too few as it may be slow or buggy (though pc's are more powerful than ever) and need more testing but the actual money it would cost to program and implement a new feature is tiny compared to overall profits- assuming more customers are attracted over. But time is always money and if something take too long its not cost effective. Rbrowser "The editing done with audio in the Track View is a series of commands you're telling Sonar to do with manipulating an audio file, but it's not changing the actual audio file itself, it's changing the way the file is played back." NO not for "process effects" Rbrowser. It is changing the actual audio, If you select an area of a clip, then right click and go to process effects you can apply an effect destructively to that selection. That is... the wav is changed permanently in the selected area and this change is fixed when you save the project. It is not like an automation or playing back a clip by dragging over one or two real time plugin effects.
post edited by splodger - 2011/03/29 06:59:33
|
codamedia
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1185
- Joined: 2005/01/24 09:58:10
- Location: Winnipeg Canada
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 07:14:26
(permalink)
rbowser
codamedia
The Track View in Sonar is a full featured audio editor...
I haven't looked at the entire thread - I'm jumping in here to say that the Track View in Sonar is not, and has never been a "full featured audio editor." - I don't know why you said that, Codamedia, unless you don't know better.
Your absolutely right, "Full Featured" was not the right choice of words  I was merely suggesting that was where you would do your editing - and that is has a lot of power. I didn't mean to imply it was as good as Sound Forge or other dedicated editors, but yes - I guess it came across that way. I am very familiar with Sound Forge and it's powers, and I am not going to deny it is a much more powerful editor. I did mention integrating Sound Forge with Sonar in the same post - but I didn't detail the reasons as much as I should have. EDIT: In the post above splodger says: "I must reiterate, I don't expect a fully fledged bundled wave editor with SonarX1. It would be good to be able simply use all the functions that are currently available in X1 in a clear separate "editing pane." That is exactly how I understood (should I say interpreted) the OP, and that is why I was implying the Track View was the place to do this.
post edited by codamedia - 2011/03/29 07:27:00
Don't fix it in the mix ... Fix it in the take!
Desktop: Win 7 Pro 64 Bit , ASUS MB w/Intel Chipset, INTEL Q9300 Quad Core, 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, ATI 5450 Video Laptop: Windows 7 Pro, i5, 8 Gig Ram Hardware: Presonus FP10 (Firepod), FaderPort, M-Audio Axiom 49, Mackie 1202 VLZ, POD X3 Live, Variax 600, etc... etc...
|
splodger
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2011/03/16 16:13:30
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 07:41:34
(permalink)
codamedia- well at the moment the track view is all I got :)
I'm getting used to it........ still not ideal but then can't always have our cakewalk and eat it I guess ;)
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 10:09:23
(permalink)
splodger
Rbrowser
"The editing done with audio in the Track View is a series of commands you're telling Sonar to do with manipulating an audio file, but it's not changing the actual audio file itself, it's changing the way the file is played back."
NO not for "process effects" Rbrowser...
Hi, Splodger - Your response makes it sound like I was totally incorrect. I was talking about regular editing of audio, working with envelopes, slicing and dicing in the Track View - I didn't say anything about "process effects." I didn't even think of that option since I use it so rarely I can't remember when I last did. Of course you're right that adding the effects to a clip destructively changes the audio clip - but if people are using that a lot, they probably don't understand how to use effects non-destructively. That option was useful back in the day when computers had tiny RAM. Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Kurtly
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 33
- Joined: 2011/01/27 18:51:42
- Location: Canberra, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 10:35:10
(permalink)
rbowser
splodger
Rbrowser
"The editing done with audio in the Track View is a series of commands you're telling Sonar to do with manipulating an audio file, but it's not changing the actual audio file itself, it's changing the way the file is played back."
NO not for "process effects" Rbrowser...
Hi, Splodger - Your response makes it sound like I was totally incorrect. I was talking about regular editing of audio, working with envelopes, slicing and dicing in the Track View - I didn't say anything about "process effects." I didn't even think of that option since I use it so rarely I can't remember when I last did. Of course you're right that adding the effects to a clip destructively changes the audio clip - but if people are using that a lot, they probably don't understand how to use effects non-destructively. That option was useful back in the day when computers had tiny RAM.
Randy B.
Or if they're not afraid to commit to a decision?
|
Lynn
Max Output Level: -14 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6117
- Joined: 2003/11/12 18:36:16
- Location: Kansas City, MO
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 10:53:53
(permalink)
Kurtly
rbowser
splodger
Rbrowser
"The editing done with audio in the Track View is a series of commands you're telling Sonar to do with manipulating an audio file, but it's not changing the actual audio file itself, it's changing the way the file is played back."
NO not for "process effects" Rbrowser...
Hi, Splodger - Your response makes it sound like I was totally incorrect. I was talking about regular editing of audio, working with envelopes, slicing and dicing in the Track View - I didn't say anything about "process effects." I didn't even think of that option since I use it so rarely I can't remember when I last did. Of course you're right that adding the effects to a clip destructively changes the audio clip - but if people are using that a lot, they probably don't understand how to use effects non-destructively. That option was useful back in the day when computers had tiny RAM.
Randy B.
Or if they're not afraid to commit to a decision?
This illustrates the differences of engineering in the digital age as opposed to engineering in the analog age. With the massive storage capacity of today's hard drives it seems fewer and fewer engineers are willing to commit to making permanent changes to their projects. Back in the days of tape recorders and limited track counts, engineers had to make hard and fast decisions regarding bounces and printing effects to tape. Did this make better productions? Well, I don't know, but it sure made for some great engineering feats of all time. I'm not sure if many of today's engineers could survive in the analog age, but there are a lot of old timers making the adjustment to today's techniques. Yet, I'd bet that many of us old timers are more likely to commit to destructive editing than newer engineers. That's why I love my Sound Forge so much. Of course, I always make a back up copy of anything I destructively edit just in case. Just my two cents worth.
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 11:51:12
(permalink)
This is a good conversation, sub-topic to the original topic as it is.
Kurtly, "...they're not afraid to commit to a decision..." - I see what you mean. I would say it's not a matter of being "afraid to commit," but rather being adapted to using digital tools where it's no longer necessary to burn FX on to an audio clip. It's just a different way of working.
Lynn said a similar things, that "...fewer engineers are willing to commit..." I would say that not burning FX is just a smart way to use tools that weren't available in the past. Advances in technology often/always negate the need to do things the way they were previously. Once the new technology is established, it doesn't make sense to criticize the technicians using it for not working the way they would have in the past.--
Options - that's what there are more of these days. In some situations, burning FX on a track/clip is a logical way to work, while most of the time, it isn't necessary.
I had my reel-to-reel and razor blade days - Fun, interesting way to work - but I sure wouldn't wanna go back!
Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Lynn
Max Output Level: -14 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6117
- Joined: 2003/11/12 18:36:16
- Location: Kansas City, MO
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 12:09:31
(permalink)
I had my reel-to-reel and razor blade days - Fun, interesting way to work - but I sure wouldn't wanna go back! Randy B. Nor would I.
|
AngryX1User
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2011/03/29 11:56:04
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 12:12:51
(permalink)
x1 is a great program!
If only they had a wave editor!!
I am angry about that!
I am the angry x1 user!!!!
|
splodger
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2011/03/16 16:13:30
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 12:42:28
(permalink)
rbowser Well a wave editor is about destructive editing..... it's not something that usually has envelopes or buses. You don't do what you class as "regular editing" in a wave editor. So really in regards to the topic of the thread......yes the track view DOES have wave editing functions because it CAN (not that everyone wants to) act destructively just like a wave editor does. I also think there's still a place for destructive editing in the digital age. If you wanted to alter the micro of a wav (seconds or even milliseconds long) you can still use envelopes but to apply 10 effects to one note in a whole track is not always desirable this way especially if you know roughly why you're applying those 10 effects, and if you don't- true enough there's the UNDO function :) (Envelopes aren't always the way to go either. Automation generally has its problems when dealing with multiples- (ie mostly to do with visibility. How can you tell the difference when you have 10 envelopes over 1 micro section of a note?) I've had to spend time cleaning up audio and as everyone knows even the best of noise reduction software/plugin also removes something of the whole track like it or not. The more reduction the less of the original so it is often worth manually going over spot areas by hand and applying a varying sequence of effects to these areas first. As each of these areas may have different problems over different frequency ranges you don't always want to apply the same set of effects or to the same degree for each area. So you could be looking at 20, 30, envelopes or more for one track. Applying overall effects (buses/envelopes) comes after manual removal and as you've taken out the worst by hand you don't have to maximize the settings to catch everything at the peaks/troughs, be it with noise reduction, compression or whatever your using to enhance the track/wav. Another example of using destructive editing is specific one time editing of an area of a clip. If there's unwanted sound (my lead player knocks his guitar in between his two lead pieces). The easiest way to create silence in X1 is to go to process at the top of the bar- apply effect- gain and take the vol down to 0. Done...... no need to add an envelope and fiddle with nodes and no need for bouncing down. It takes half the time and doesn't add clutter. (If I cut the clip in two and cropped the ends then I'd have two clips to move every time I dragged it. not good :( ) I guess doing things this way, destructing whenever possible shows me up as someone who recorded on PC's back in the mid to late 90's when there was "tiny amounts of Ram" and this is true, but in this case speed and ease of doing a thing is the motive and would still be for certain aspects of destructive editing.
post edited by splodger - 2011/03/29 12:44:41
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 15:58:12
(permalink)
splodger
rbowser
Well a wave editor is about destructive editing..... it's not something that usually has envelopes or buses...
Yes, I know, Splodger - It's a really good post, your new one #53. I totally agree. What I've been thinking of on this thread is how many newbies are confused about what's going on when they're working on tracks in the Track View. They often think, for instance, when they're deleting a portion of audio that it's now actually gone, when of course it's just the symbolic wave graphic which is reflecting the results of the non-destructive editing. Yes - Lots of reasons to do some "destructive editing." I'm on the same page. Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 23:16:40
(permalink)
Lots of reasons to do some "destructive editing." Funny... I've been doing just that over the past few months. I've been slowly converting my old vinyl using a USB turntable and recording directly into Sound Forge. And since it was mentioned previously in this thread - I actually have been using the pencil tool to remove some clicks and pops. If you zoom in enough and have a steady hand, not to mention some drawing skills to emulate the wave shape before and after the affected section, it actually works well. And with less trial & error than applying FX (at least for me). Now do I need this ability in SONAR? No, not at al. Would I accept it being added to SONAR? Absolutely! :)
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/29 23:25:37
(permalink)
stevec
Lots of reasons to do some "destructive editing."
Funny... I've been doing just that over the past few months. I've been slowly converting my old vinyl using a USB turntable and recording directly into Sound Forge. And since it was mentioned previously in this thread - I actually have been using the pencil tool to remove some clicks and pops. If you zoom in enough and have a steady hand, not to mention some drawing skills to emulate the wave shape before and after the affected section, it actually works well. And with less trial & error than applying FX (at least for me).
Now do I need this ability in SONAR? No, not at al. Would I accept it being added to SONAR? Absolutely! :)
That's so great, Steve - I use Sound Forge in exactly the same way for recording old vinyl. That draw tool can be awesome for fixing pops in a vinyl recording - or fixing some stray click that managed to find its way into an original Sonar project's 2-track master. We're fortunate to have SF - and of course it would be cool if audio editing tools of that kind of sophistication could be included in Sonar. Considering that SF costs as much as Sonar - we would undoubtedly be looking at a much higher price tag for Sonar, and that wouldn't keep it competitively priced. RB
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Lynn
Max Output Level: -14 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6117
- Joined: 2003/11/12 18:36:16
- Location: Kansas City, MO
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/03/30 11:29:36
(permalink)
rbowser
stevec
Lots of reasons to do some "destructive editing."
Funny... I've been doing just that over the past few months. I've been slowly converting my old vinyl using a USB turntable and recording directly into Sound Forge. And since it was mentioned previously in this thread - I actually have been using the pencil tool to remove some clicks and pops. If you zoom in enough and have a steady hand, not to mention some drawing skills to emulate the wave shape before and after the affected section, it actually works well. And with less trial & error than applying FX (at least for me).
Now do I need this ability in SONAR? No, not at al. Would I accept it being added to SONAR? Absolutely! :)
That's so great, Steve - I use Sound Forge in exactly the same way for recording old vinyl. That draw tool can be awesome for fixing pops in a vinyl recording - or fixing some stray click that managed to find its way into an original Sonar project's 2-track master.
We're fortunate to have SF - and of course it would be cool if audio editing tools of that kind of sophistication could be included in Sonar. Considering that SF costs as much as Sonar - we would undoubtedly be looking at a much higher price tag for Sonar, and that wouldn't keep it competitively priced.
RB
Another advantage of having SF integrated in Sonar is its ability to burn disc at once CDs, which is far superior to CW's disc burning utility, and its excellent MP3 conversion. Not to mention the Izotope mastering tools which are included with SF.
|
JFStrat
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1
- Joined: 2011/05/05 20:52:52
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/05/05 21:05:58
(permalink)
Hi splodger, I've been trying to do the same thing. I like to use Audition from the tools menu (now the utilities menu). In Sonar 8.5 I was able to use Cool Edit Pro. It automatically configured in the Tools menu and worked just fine. With X1 I get get it working. I used this link http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/kb/reader.aspx/2007013099 for directions on how to get Audition into the Utilities Menu. It shoes up in the menu only trouble is, it will launch from the menu but you can't see it. Cool Edit will launch and you can see it but it doesn't transfer the file. Very frustrating. You can try this out, unless you already have and let me know if it worked for you. I just found this last night so I'm looking for a way to make it work. If I have any luck tonight, I'll let you know. X1 sounds great but editing is like working with both arms tied behind your back. Very slow and bulky.
|
DJSur
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 326
- Joined: 2008/10/19 15:09:04
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/05/05 21:15:34
(permalink)
Yup, no .wav editor. Get used to it. Use an external editor. That's about it.
Thanks,
-D
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:No wave editor :(((((
2011/05/05 23:33:20
(permalink)
bitflipper
...And pen tools are completely useless unless you're trying to accidentally stumble onto some weird waveshape...
Hmmm, the original topic of this thread was about how to get an audio editor to be in the Sonar menu--wasn't it?--but then turned into various rants about the lack of a native audio editor in Sonar. Well, now that the thread's been revived, I wanted to point out, as I actually did in posts after this one I'm quoting, that the pen tool in an app like Sound Forge is far from "completely useless." I highly respect my esteemed fellow Sonar Forum member David "Bitflipper" -but David, you apparently haven't used an audio editor's pen tool, otherwise you'd know that to "stumble onto some weird waveshape" is only the most rudimentary use of a pen tool. Zooming in on a track in Forge until the nodes appear, you can do the most delicate audio editing possible, taking down accidental clips (which you discover with the "detect clips" tool) so they don't clip anymore, taking out the pop of old vinyl with truly surgical precision - in short, you can play with the volume of a clip in a way that is light years ahead of what you can without a pen tool. And so forth. Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|