On 22/02/2013, Richard L. Hess wrote:

> On 2013-02-22 2:51 PM, Paul Stamler wrote:
>> I'll venture to disagree with Richard's recommendation of Samplitude.
>> It's an extremely powerful and flexible program, loaded with features
>> that you won't need for this project. I recommend a less fancy
>> program, something like Adobe Audition, which is far more intuitive
>> and has a less-steep learning curve. It won't do a lot of the things
>> that Samplitude can do -- but you won't be doing those things.
> I see that Audition now easily handles multiple stereo tracks. This is
> good.
> 
> Does Audition handle this in a virtual mode where the changes you make
> on screen are not written to the original file?
> 
> For example, the native way many/most photo editors work (such as the
> normal / classic modes in PhotoShop and Paint.NET) if you merely save
> the file, the changes are written back to the original. Whereas in
> Adobe Lightroom, changes made in the Develop module are saved in the
> database (and the sidecar file if desired) as the default.
> 
> Samplitude works like Lightroom (and has since 1998 when I first
> purchased it (the version I purchased was called Red Roaster back
> then)). Except there is no central database but rather individual
> sidecar files (called Virtual Projects or VIPs). If Audition works
> this way natively and easily, then go for it. Samplitude/Sequoia is
> one of the best-sounding DAWs--and yes even level changes can sound
> differently among DAWs (though probably not important for your
> project--it's most noticeable in high-end classical music). I have not
> put Audition against Samplitude, so this is not a put-down of
> Audition. I do know someone who abandonded ProTools for that very
> reason.
> 
> Cost: Audition $349 http://www.adobe.com/cart.html?marketSegment=COM
>         Samplitude ProX $499  http://www.magix.com/us/samplitude/
>         Note, there is a consumer version of Samplitude now on sale
> for $100
>         http://www.magix.com/us/samplitude-music-studio/detail/
> 
> It looks a lot like the ProX version I use. I do not know what the
> differences are. I SUSPECT (your mileage may vary) that it will do all
> you want. I'm not certain what limiters and equalizers come with it,
> but you're not using those. For $100, it's worth a try to play with
> it. I'll admit to not having used Audition since it was Cool Edit, so
> I cannot say.
> 
> I'm certain Audition would be fine for you. Tom Fine uses it, I think.
> It's all what you get used to.
> 
There is no need to be nervous of big programs with many features. One
has only to learn to use the few features that are relevant to the job
in hand.

There is no law that the user has to master every facet of the software.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]