Another thing I'm getting somewhat hacked off about is that I've discovered that I have to make a deliberate attempt to stop email notifications all over the place - by default they seem to be turned on. And even after I've turned them off, they get turned back on again. Somebody should be taken out and... made to alter all the defaults. Or just bring back the old forums. They weren't great, but they were nowhere near as bad as this one is. You'd have thought that they'd learned their lesson from last time, wouldn't you? But no... ... View more

AudioMasters got a heads-up about the FAQs and 'rescued' them all. Some of them need a bit of a rework anyway, so we're currently working on that. In terms of access to old threads, this has long been a bone of contention - Ozpeter had to make a very deliberate attempt to save threads if they weren't to fall off the bottom of the forum automatically. AudioMasters, on the other hand, realises the value of some of this older stuff (especially as we created a lot of it), so we don't let go of it anywhere near as easily. Adobe really doesn't like history, or see any value in it at all. The overall forum management has demonstrated this several times over now, so there can be  no doubt in any serious observer's mind that it's true. ... View more

MusicConductor wrote: I can't understand the permanent loss of the FAQs.  Hopefully we're wrong.  Add to the disappointments the sluggish behemoth that the programming of these pages makes my computer. Whilst I would like to share your hopes, experience taught me years ago that optimists tend to be the ones who get disappointed 99.99% of the time, and it's pessimists who get the occasional nice surprise, because their expectations are effectively zero, and they are therefore only very occasionally disappointed! I haven't tried the forums with any version of IE, because I stopped using that bugged piece of grungeware years ago. But I have to say that having a forum that isn't browser-agnostic is also NOT VERY CLEVER, IS IT??? ... View more

Dave K4 wrote: Other PHBB forums are fine, it's only Audiomasters I have a problem with. And when I say BT I mean BT's internal network web filters, not BT Internet. It works fine from home over BT Internet, PPPS - and just tried AM again  - it worked, once, then next time it got blocked. In that case, we'll look into it, because that shouldn't be happening. Does seem a bit strange that you can get in once and not the second time, though. ... View more

MusicConductor wrote: Hmmm.... I came back to the office and find my email inbox full of notifications of all your replies.  I did not subscribe to this thread.  Well, I didn't intentionally subscribe.  We'll have to see about this one. I did notice the missing FAQ, but figured that's because all the links are broken.  Well, silly me, on second thought links weren't what made that forum work.  So major oopsie there. Had exactly the same problems with emails, and I deliberately unsubscribed, so that's screwed in a particularly spam-like way... As for the FAQ, this was noticed in the trial period, and complained about. Nothing at all happened, so you can read what you like (or don't like) into that. Personally, I think that it's a direct snub to Ozpeter, who put in a lot of work on them. Fortunately we realised that this was going to happen, and 'resuced' them all - just as we did with the old Syntrillium forum archive. So we will revise them all a bit, and repost them on the forum that actually tries to provide some sensible backup for Audition - however old it is. So you won't find them here... RE Eric S 1: My old login consisted of my screen name and Adobe store password.  That was refused for this forum.  We were warned of this some months ago, that the merge of forum and store logins was coming and to update our account accordingly.  After several attempts, I finally got in using my real name and Adobe store password, which then automatically connected me to my screen name identity. Remember, Audition is the one product Adobe refuses to promote for itself, so that's why there's no ability to upload mp3 or wave clips! While it's easy to point out the shortcomings of the transition, at least this launch, at this point a day early, isn't the unmitigated disaster of the last attempt to "upgrade."  So maybe there's hope for the problems at hand. I had the same problem with logins - despite fixing this (I thought...) recently. It hasn't reconciled the two that I apparently have, and I can't access the usual one, so you now get a helpful reminder tagged onto my user-name... Perhaps I shouldn't complain about that! It's easy to point out the shortcomings because there are many of them. And most of them were pointed out during the 'trial' period. And nothing happened about them, so I'd say that there's very little hope at all about fixing any of them. So I thought that at least I should get the quoting style back, because despite all of the 'nicey nicey' look, it's simply too hard to distinguish different parts of the text unless you do. That should happen automatically, but it doesn't. In fact, to get anywhere at all with the layout is now quite a lot harder than it used to be. Basically, it sucks. And as for this 'points for answers' thing - whoever thought of that, and why? What a particularly ridiculous and pointless thing to do. But like I said at the start of this thread, there is an alternative... ... View more

djwayne2000 wrote: I also like being able to edit my posts... You could edit your posts on the previous forum just as much as you can on this one - ie, not for very long... And on AudioMasters you've been able to post screenshots ever since we've been there. And if you look at the list of file formats you can actually post here, can you see any specifically audio ones? I can't. By and large people find it far more useful to be able to post clips of troublesome audio than screenshots, and it looks pretty much as though you simply can't do it. You can't even post a .zip, for heaven's sake... ... View more

MusicConductor wrote: Yep, looks like it is! On??? Well I don't think so. I think that it's pretty 'off' to have ditched all of the FAQs without so much as a 'by your leave', and the software formatting hasn't even picked up the quotes in previous messages properly. On top of that, there doesn't appear to be an easy way to see whether a thread has been updated unless you want to use that horrible RSS thing (which I don't). The whole thing appears to be a bit of 'nicey nicey' but with no easy way to use it. The old forum sucked somewhat, but it was nowhere near as bad as this. I mean, having your text in some stupid font really makes a difference to the content, doesn't it? The whole thing is the triumph of form over function. ... View more

I don't think that it's inherent in BT connections because I often check the forum from a BT-provided system and I don't have any difficulty with it either. And that's not exactly a million miles from DaveK's location... ... View more

>I'd love to use Audiomasters, but the format of the URLs used for the content pages is blocked by BT's security software as it identifies them as hacking tool sites. I'd be inclined to take that up with BT, considering how many phpbb forum sites there are around. I think that they are being a bit over-protective here; I don't recall anybody ever reporting us as being hackers! ... View more

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. ... View more

>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... ... View more

Gets my vote... ... View more

>Sometimes, there has to be some imperious decision making - because the decision makers have access to information that the general public does not (and should not). Like with the Banking system, you mean? Elsewhere, it says >To minimize disruption, we are transferring the last 12 months of postings to the new Adobe Forums. As well as being active on the Audition forum, I administer another forum related very much to Audition, where we have managed over two major transitions to keep the last 9-10 years of posts. They really don't take up that much room, either. Since a lot of valuable information is contained in any posts of this nature, I don't see how this constitutes 'minimised disruption' - it just means that a load of stuff has to be rekeyed, quite unnecessarily, because information they might be able to find this way simply won't be available. And I really don't believe that this is a storage issue... >I think that we've learned from past mistakes. I wish I had your confidence. ... View more

>'Distortion' is actually missing data, and you can't bring forward something that simply isn't there. Well that's true, but not by any means the only definition. Distortion can also be caused by too much data, and not all of it is removable by any means. Basically, it's mixed in with what's wanted - and like cakes, you can't exactly 'unbake' them after the event. The real issue is that in a system that by absolute necessity has to be automated (far too much variable data to be analysed by hand), the automated system has no real means of identifying what's wanted and what isn't - with a few relatively minor exceptions. In order to remove a component in this scenario, it has to be capable of isolation in an electrical sense - so for instance, with a stereo signal, it's not impossible to establish what portion of it is at any given position in the stereo field, and remove just what's at that position. Which means that something like a vocal, which is generally in a single fixed place, can be operated on with a reasonable degree of success (although anything else in that position will also be affected). But the same principle, when applied to something like reverb, simply won't work - because reverb is invariably decorrelated, and occurs all over the soundfield. And because it can't be isolated, it can't be either treated or removed. There are various things that may in the future be possible, but they are going to require massive amounts of processing, because at the very least multiple tracking FFT systems will be required. ... View more

>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. ... View more

That's great - I've renamed it to the way it was, and put it back in the archive. So the original link still works, and it's a simple matter of right-clicking on that and using Save As. ... View more

I got a message back from the site manager which says "If it isn't there, it wasn't on the FTP site when I switched hosts." So Alan, if you are presently able to, you need to put the file back! ... View more

>I will contact the owner of it... I've now heard back from the server owner, and the server is now working again - it was moved to a new ISP and not reset, apparently. What's not so good is that Alan's folder doesn't appear to be there, so a little more remedial work is required, I think. ... View more

For reasons not yet ascertained, you can't download the zip file at present. Well, I can't here, anyway, because the download site password doesn't appear to work (and it certainly did before). I will contact the owner of it... ... View more

>I would have thought the way to do this is to use multitrack view. In principle I agree, but there's something about the way the original is worded that made me think that perhaps this wasn't the answer - I very much got the impression that the OP wanted to do the editing with separate files in PP, rather than sweetening in Audition. Maybe just me, though... ... View more

>I sat down last night and had a rethink on the problem, the method I managed to work out with what I'd learned was to edit the left channel drag the field the entire length and delete it then covert the left over right channel to mono 50/50% left right. Then save it as say Radio Mic then went back to the original and repeated the process with the other channel. Ooh that sounds painful... the shortcuts are well worth it, especially if the file is large - and I think that I've saved you having to make any more copies of the original file at all! ... View more

>Not necessarily. Surely after you have saved it you just do an Undo and have your stereo file back to split out the other half from. Don't like that! I do have another suggestion though - and that's to do the Ctrl-A Ctrl-L bit, and then go Edit>Copy to New. Then, go back to the original waveform by clicking on it in the files list, and go Ctrl-R and do Copy to New again. That leaves your original, gives you two mono files to save and doesn't invoke Undo - which I've always regarded as something of a cop-out in this sort of process. What's most annoying is that the process I described doesn't seem at first glance to be amenable to being scripted... it's failed at every attempt so far, because the concept of 'to New' doesn't appear to be supported in scripting at all, unless I'm missing something. ... View more

>Or you can use the Convert Sample Type (F11) to split out the audio into separate files. Hmm... you have to have a separate copy of the stereo file in the first place for this to work. If you set Convert Sample Type to change your file to 100% left, it will promptly get rid of 100% right for you! And using the channel mixer will run you into the same problem - you need at least two copies of your file to start with. I still think that all things considered, my original approach is the one to go for, simply because it creates what you need without you having to do a load of extra work in the first place. ... View more

Probably the easiest and simplest way is to use keystrokes, although you are going to have to save a pair of mono files during the process, which involves a 'save as'. So, in EV: Ctrl-A (selects entire file) Ctrl-L (selects LH channel) Edit>Copy to new (no keystroke for this, but you could assign one if you needed to) File>Save As Then go back to your original file (which we are not destroying, incidentally - good practice) using the Window menu (it will be selectable at the bottom of the list), and repeat the process above, only this time using Ctrl-R instead of Ctrl-L. I'm sure that there are other ways of doing this as well - I can think of at least one using MV, but if you want to keep process files, the above method is probably the best one to use. ... View more

>We actually called Dolby inquiring the legalities of the issue, and Dolby stated that small businesses are allowed to encode AC3 without a license... >At any rate, as can be seen Dolby licensing does not have to be expensive. Other programs do in fact come with it and you're not paying an arm/leg for it either..... which is why I don't understand it's exclusion from Adobe Audition. It's true that if you enquire as a small business, the answers from Dolby are different - I've had that experience over hardware issues with them. But if, as Adobe, you ask about general licence terms where the end use simply cannot be controlled, I'd guess that the answer would be somewhat different. It's also possible that in recent times, Dolby has changed their licensing policy somewhat - which to me would make some sense; I always thought that if you wanted something to become any sort of a 'standard' format, the way to do it was not to make it prohibitively expensive for people to generate it. But I'd still rather that the expensive surround version was an addition to Audition, and therefore not a part of the up-front cost - simply because I, and I strongly suspect the vast majority of users, have no use for it whatsoever at present. It would be nice to think that it was available should I need it someday, but that's as far as I'd want to go. ... View more

>You are just lame-plain ignorant too steve. Unlike you, I have some evidence to support my claim; i.e, you are still exhibiting it in spades: >adobe can develop & sell AC-3/DTS, AMR filters as separate plug-ins. But AAC should be supported as native filter, because of iTunes. What about FLAC & LAME? You just don't get it, do you? Adobe develop editing software, not filters. Adding support for filters is somebody else's problem, not Adobe's. ... View more

You've got a high and mighty view of your role in any of this, haven't you? Let's take Igor, for instance - what he has to say about this is: >I have received some requests for writing a plugin for Adobe Audition. and that will be the same for any plugin writer - they wouldn't do this on the basis of a single request at all. Any of us could make these requests if we really wanted to - and obviously some people have. And they would have done this for themselves - not for any altruistic reasons at all. Your general demeanour isn't to be genuinely helpful in the slightest - you are just selfish. >You're right steve, we are victims because adobe don't listen to costumers. adobe didn't add AAC,AC-3,AMR support in Audition 3. That's because they made available a SDK - just so that people could write extensions for it. We've told you all this before; it's you that doesn't listen, not Adobe. And if Adobe had to develop all this code that just a few people might want, then the overall cost of the software for everybody would be increased. So, fortunately for the rest of us, they have more sense than to listen to the likes of you. You're not a victim - you're just plain ignorant. ... View more

>Why should waste my time for nothing? It's not your time I care about - it's everybody else's, having to read the garbage you write on every other forum where you lower the tone. They are the real victims; your inconsiderate behaviour gets nobody anywhere at all. It gets you nowhere either, so why the F.H. do you do it? >It's just your opinion. No it's not. When I said "Slags off everything, never offers any constructive help at all to anybody, and can't write proper English" that was based on observing your behaviour here, and not an opinion at all. And on top of that, I haven't heard a single, solitary voice in support of you, either. >Steve, I know you hate me Wrong about that too - I despise your behaviour. ... View more

>They thing they are gods of audio business. Compared to you, they are... compared to you my deaf grandmother would be - and she's dead! ... View more