for When the Adobe Audition 4

Report · Oct 19, 2008

hi is there any information about AA4, for when and the new fonctionnalities ?

Report · Oct 19, 2008

>hi is there any information about AA4, for when and the new fonctionnalities ?

There never is until it's released. If any of the beta testers told you, then they'd have to kill you, because they are all bound by a non-disclosure agreement. And over a long period now, there have been virtually no leaks at all.

Report · Feb 25, 2009

When can i expect adobe audition 4.0?????

why adobe is taking such a gap in this case?

is they discontinued or gonna discontinue adobe audition?

why there is no 64 bit release in adobe audition?

why audition don't support more than 4 gb ram????

Report · Feb 26, 2009

>When can i expect adobe audition 4.0?????

You already seem to be... but read previous reply.

>why adobe is taking such a gap in this case?

Because the same team also develops SoundBooth. As a result, the period between releases of both programs is inevitably extended.

>is they discontinued or gonna discontinue adobe audition?

One day, yes. But there is no indication yet of when this will be. A necessary precursor will be a complete lack of sales for new versions, but I'm not aware that this has happened yet.

>why there is no 64 bit release in adobe audition?

See above.

>why audition don't support more than 4 gb ram????

This is a 32-bit OS limitation.

And, you are going to have to be patient, I'm afraid...

Report · Jan 01, 2010

Was just wondering if there was anything in the forums about possible Audition 4 version. Soundbooth is just a limited version of Audition as far as I can figure, just coded to run on Apple machines. When they get Soundbooth up to the same level will Audition/Soundbooth become, essentially, one product? Although I also work on a MacBook Pro, Soundbooth held no interest for me because it didn't do much compared to everything I already have. I was working a lot with Audition but have now moved on to Logic Pro (MBP) and Sonar (PC) and Melodyne Studio (both) as Audition appeared to have reached it's end of life point. Too bad, used it from before Adobe bought the company... still use it on occasion. Not that anyone will be reading this but thought I'd write anyway.

Report · Jan 01, 2010

tomrrt wrote:
Not that anyone will be reading this but thought I'd write anyway.

Oh, people do read these threads... and the answer I gave in the second post of this thread still stands.

I was working a lot with Audition but have now moved on to Logic Pro (MBP) and Sonar (PC) and Melodyne Studio (both) as Audition appeared to have reached it's end of life point.

So how do you define its 'end life point'? Since you can't possibly know what the developers may or may not have in mind, and there have also been loads of suggestions made to them since AA3.0 was released, I don't think that you can justify a comment like that as anything other than a wind-up - just like everybody else who trys the same thing...

Report · Jan 01, 2010

Go easy Steve, I think that using Logic Pro, Sonar and Melodyne Studio is probably punishment enough

Report · Jan 03, 2010

And possibly some PT to really make it painful!!

I would love to see AA run on my macpro, however I keep my little ole vista machine going for the constant need for serious editing. Never know...could surprise us all.

Report · Feb 26, 2009

What, specifically, is your work flow that needs Audition to be 64 bit (to address more than 4 gigs of RAM)?

-Matt Stegner

Report · Mar 03, 2010

>>What, specifically, is your work flow that needs Audition to be 64 bit (to address more than 4 gigs of RAM)?>>

I didn't ask the question originally, but I have my own answer for this.

I am a quadraphonic hobbyist. Other such hobbyists have developed scripts for Adobe Audition that will convert quadraphonic recordings from the 1970s into the constituent 4 channels, which can then be converted to home theater formats. This involves using the center channel extractor and other processor intensive effects. It takes several hours on most computers for the complete script to run on an album. I would *love* to see all four of my processors chugging away in the task manager when running these scripts, cutting that time down significantly.

That said, I'm not in a huge rush for AA 4.0. It will come when it comes.

J. D.

Report · Mar 03, 2010

jdmack01 wrote:
I would *love* to see all four of my processors chugging away in the task manager when running these scripts, cutting that time down significantly.

I don't think you would - because at that point your computer's OS would stop functioning!

The RAM issue doesn't have any direct bearing on how many processors are running - that's not it at all. Audition isn't actually a particularly heavy user of RAM; it's video software that tends to eat this up. And I'm pretty sure that this is where Matt is coming from; what's the real need for being able to address RAM that the processors won't use anyway? The processes that really benefit from multiple-processor operation are FFT-based ones, which only really get efficient when the processing load is shared, but even they don't use huge amounts of RAM either.

Report · Mar 03, 2010

I guess I wasn't thinking so much about RAM as processing. I thought that only 64 bit software could take advantage of the full power of a quad core processor. I know that when I'm running Adobe Media Encoder CS4 on my 64 bit Vista system, I can see all four cores processing away when I open up Windows Task Manager, and the CPU usage is near 100%. With Adobe Audition, when I'm running the script I described, I see the processing being bounced from core to core and the CPU usage is around 25%.

But again, my usage is a bit unusual, and for everything else, I think AA 3.0 works just great!

J. D.

Report · Mar 03, 2010

jdmack01 wrote:
With Adobe Audition, when I'm running the script I described, I see the processing being bounced from core to core and the CPU usage is around 25%.

I'm sure that Audition could, with some work by the developers, be made to be more efficient from this POV. I think that a lot of people have noticed that if you really load the program up with tracks, especially with effects on, that you need to lock as many as possible if you want to get a reasonable level of replay - rather more so than with other software doing comparable things. This doesn't generally affect me, because I rarely run more than about 8 at once, and generally don't need to do any channel processing at all (classical mixing), but for anybody doing larger mixdowns, this can become something of an issue.

Time alone will tell what happens, though.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Once there was a shareware HTML-editor called "Homesite".

Adobe bought the editor, did one small update, integrated its technique to Adobes Dreamweaver, and Homesite was history.

I'm afraid the same will happen with Audition (Cool Edit).

Report · Feb 09, 2010

{Sgrìobh Richard)
Once there was a shareware HTML-editor called "Homesite".

Adobe bought the editor, did one small update, integrated its technique to Adobes Dreamweaver, and Homesite was history.

No, I'm pretty sure Homesite's features were integrated into Adobe's GoLive. At least, that was the upgrade path Adobe offered at the time. And that was a fair while before Adobe acquired Macromedia, and refocused its web offerings on Dreamweaver.

Report · Mar 01, 2010

Why can't Adobe at the very least say either "yes, we're working on an upgrade to AA3, but that's all we can say" or "no, we will no longer be upgrading Audition"...and at least then we'll know whether to keep waiting, or move on....

Harry

Report · Mar 01, 2010

Adobe have always said that they would indicate if Audition wasn't to be developed any more, and no indication has yet been given...

That's all you get.

As for why - well it always begs a few questions. The general answer has always been that they never make promises in advance, just in case they can't deliver them, so it's simplest to say nothing at all. I'm pretty sure that the real reason though, is simply that - THEY CAN!

Report · Feb 28, 2009

It can't happen the same way as Adobe have in effect completely re-written Audition since those long-ago Cool Edit days.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

And anyway, Adobe didn't just buy Cool Edit, they bought Syntrillium, lock stock and barrel - including employees if they wanted to relocate. And a lot of them did... and are still an important part of the Audition development team.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

If something isn't making money chances are it gets dropped.

I wouldn't know if they are making money out of AA but even if it gets dropped it won't be for a long time and that doesn't mean all AAs stop working.

But enough of this negative talk....

Report · Mar 12, 2009

"Adobe bought the editor, did one small update, integrated its technique to Adobes Dreamweaver, and Homesite was history"

And where did Macromedia come into this? Your story doesnt really add up

Report · Mar 01, 2010

I'm always a bit bemused by people who suffer so badly from "new-version-itis" anyway. I buy Audition to record, edit and mix sound. The version I have is doing that okay just now and, although Adobe often find some nice whiz-bangs to add on, the basics are there for me. Indeed, most of the basics were there several versions back in a smaller, slightly more reliable and less resource hungry package.

I'll probably buy a new version when it comes out--but with as much trepidation as anticipation. I use Audition to earn money (to augment my retirement income) so "solid and familiar" are more important to me than "new and flashy" if it involves a learning curve.

If there's something genuine you need your audio work station to do that Audition can't, by all means move to something else--IF you can find something better. MIDI aside (and for MIDI I would be working with something else), I can't think of any competitor that isn't "out of the frying pan and into the fire".

Bob

Report · Mar 02, 2010

Bob Howes wrote:

I can't think of any competitor that isn't "out of the frying pan and into the fire".

I can think of a couple - but I'd describe them as jumping out of the frying pan staight into my bank balance, and digging huge great holes in it...

Report · Mar 02, 2010

I can think of one or two myself...but have the same problem with bank balance. To me "competitor" has to imply a similar (or maybe even "not more the double") price range.

Bob

Report · Mar 02, 2010

I'm always a bit bemused by people who suffer so badly from "new-version-itis" anyway. I buy Audition to record, edit and mix sound.

Call it what you will, I call it keeping up with, and being compatible with, everything else that's out there. I have some amazing virtual instrument plug-ins from EastWest and Steinberg that I can't use on Audition, because they're not compatible. I have to go to my old version of Cubase, which I'm really not crazy about, but it's my only choice for now, in order to use these instruments. It would be so much easier for me to do all my recording on one DAW instead of importing and exporting files from one to another.

So my choices are...put out $$$$ to upgrade to the latest version of Cubase, or put out $$$$ on a completely different DAW that will do all the things I need, but would also have to completely learn another operating system, or wait and hope that Audition upgrades at a reasonable price (which it always has been) and can handle the latest technologies/plug-ins out there, and the learning curve won't be as bad as learning a whole new DAW.

I'll probably buy a new version when it comes out--but with as much trepidation as anticipation. I use Audition to earn money (to augment my retirement income) so "solid and familiar" are more important to me than "new and flashy" if it involves a learning curve.

Then why bother upgrading, when clearly you are happy with the way it is/was?

....and so I wait and hope...for now...

Harry