The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Adobe Audition Vs Pro Tools
Old 25th February 2007 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Harley-OIART's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
I started out using Cool Edit Pro 2.0, (Which was the earlier version of Adobe Audition) and it is in my opinion one of the better audio recording programs I've used. I've used Nuendo as well but it lacks some features that Adobe Audition has. In my opinion Adobe Audition is a better program than Pro Tools. Of course every "professional studio" is using PT but listen to what's being created, for instance "the proof is in the pudding." In other words I can tell when something has been recorded in Pro Tools; it just has a Pro Tools sound to it that is very digital sounding. When I record with Adobe Audition it doesn't have that sound. It sounds like whatever you put into it. Since I record my vocals and high-hats and cymbals to tape my stuff comes out sounding very musical and rich as opposed to the digital, clinical sound I here from Pro Tools. I like that you can lock effects in Adobe Audition, the wave editing is second to none. Also, as far as cleaning pops and cracks out of your audio there is no better program. Adobe Audition is easily the most underrated and in my opinion the best audio recording software on the market, period.

bcgood
Yeah... So is someone gonna jump in at somepoint and illustrate to bcgood that PT doesn't really 'have a sound' and he's hearing things... or should I do it?

I dunno... it just seems kinda ironic to me that you told a guy to not spread gospel about what a program does or does not do unless he really knows what he is talking about. After all, didn't you say "it destroy's your credibility."

[Differentiating Factors Between DAW's Sounds :]

-Panning Laws
-Hidden Dithering
-Perhaps the Mix Buss in some cases, but IMNSHO its a non-issue in most cases if the software is worth more than $40

[Human Error's that Skew Results of Said Test:]
-Levels
-Latency's
-Sample Rate Convesion
-Basically total failure of scientific method(s). Variables and Constants are kind of important when using a comparision as an opinion.
-Failure to undestand the concept(s) of : Expectation Bias, Combfiltering and its application in monitoring playback, A/B Double Blind Testing


Don't take things to personally. Just don't tell me Audition (which I use) is superior sonically than ProTools.


P.S. Cool Edit Pro 2.0 Rocks. Did some cool **** in my day on that program.
Old 25th February 2007 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley-OIART
it just seems kinda ironic to me that you told a guy to not spread gospel about what a program does or does not do unless he really knows what he is talking about. After all, didn't you say "it destroy's your credibility."
Look, the guy thinks Audition and Nintendo are great DAWs. And he prints to S-VHS. What credibility?
Old 25th February 2007 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Harley-OIART's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioMoo View Post
Look, the guy thinks Audition and Nintendo are great DAWs. And he prints to S-VHS. What credibility?
Now Now! tutt

I love Audition, Its just not the most effective tool for me professionally. And secondly... Nuendo is a Great DAW. Anyone who says different is a fool IMO.

Old 11th September 2007
  #34
Here for the gear
 

? on CEP/ Audition

hey i've been using cool edit pro 2 for a while now, and one of the key things that i found it can't do is output what is being recorded, like for a monitor when i'm going direct in. i'm not very experienced in the use of recording softwares so don't yell at me if this is a stupid question, but is there any way to make it so that the track that i am recording will be mixed in with the output in cool edit pro? if not can i do this with Audition? thanks.
Old 11th September 2007
  #35
Here for the gear
 

I think it depends on what you do. I have never played with PT, just never had the cash, and I dont track that much. I work a lot in theatre and for making very specific cuts to wave files I have never seen a better program. I run XP in a window in my mac because I havent found a good replacement for Audition on the mac platform. (if anyone knows one then let me know)

If I want to record I jump over to Ardour/Reaper when we get a mac OSX version in a few months. I would love to get PT but I dont need that much hardware right now.

-E
Old 5th March 2008 | Show parent
  #36
Here for the gear
 

bcgood, you're comment about Audition sounding "warmer" than PT tells me that you have never really worked in a pro environment or that you don't really understand sound engineering completely.

Audition and PT are merely interfaces that "listen" to the digital 1s and 0s being fed in by your firewire/usb interface, so it's up to the actual hardware you use that creates a warmer tone, and not the software you use. However, if you're referring to software plug-ins, this is a different scenario... but then this thread is not about the differences in warmth of plug-ins now is it.

Open your mind.
Old 5th March 2008 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Yoda117's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioMoo View Post
You invoiced them, of course? heh
Of course thumbsup
Old 5th March 2008 | Show parent
  #38
I would say it depends on what you are going to do. For small recording/Podcast and even mastering Adobe Audition, but when your working on a big project i would rather do it in PT. I find it to be more organize. When working on Audition with many different tracks it gets messy and i get claustrophobic.
Old 6th March 2008 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Adobe Audition 3 does everything audio I need to do, quite nicely too. Even the new midi section is working okay for me. I'm happy to have it on my computer, and wish I had it 30 years ago.... !!!!!!!
Old 6th March 2008 | Show parent
  #40
Gear Maniac
 
idrinkalot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrockmusic View Post
bcgood, you're comment about Audition sounding "warmer" than PT tells me that you have never really worked in a pro environment or that you don't really understand sound engineering completely.

Audition and PT are merely interfaces that "listen" to the digital 1s and 0s being fed in by your firewire/usb interface, so it's up to the actual hardware you use that creates a warmer tone, and not the software you use. However, if you're referring to software plug-ins, this is a different scenario... but then this thread is not about the differences in warmth of plug-ins now is it.

Open your mind.
29th September 2006, 03:35 PM
Old 6th March 2008 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
I started with Cool Edit 96 and have continued through the various upgrades to Audition 1.5.

I still use Cool Edit 2000 to record rehearsals, quickly cut the file into CD tracks and burn a CD. It's a great quick little two track editor.

My attitude was that there may be better DAW software out there, and Pro Tools may be the "industry standard", but for the cost of the program, Audition pretty much does everything I need.

I don't share files with other studio's so there is no need to drop the Pro Tools name..and like I said..for the dollars, Audition has proven itself to be very reliable, robust and very efficient at recording, mixing and mastering.

Plus... I think I avoid getting Pro Tools for the same reasons I won't buy a Harley.. It's that 'herd" thing.
Old 6th March 2008 | Show parent
  #42
Gear Addict
 

What's most impressive with Audition is not what it can do now, it's the huge improvement it has seen in the latest years since the Adobe aquirement. Come back in a few years and maybe we have a serious competitor to Pro Tools and the pack.

Adobe hardly ever make crappy products and they always add useful features that people need and ask for as well as some really inventive ones.
Old 6th March 2008 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadewind View Post
What's most impressive with Audition is not what it can do now, it's the huge improvement it has seen in the latest years since the Adobe aquirement. Come back in a few years and maybe we have a serious competitor to Pro Tools and the pack.

Adobe hardly ever make crappy products and they always add useful features that people need and ask for as well as some really inventive ones.
I agree. Adobe has certainly worked hard on Audition and does continue to make improvements.

I believe the bottom line is the finished product and Adobe is certainly more than capable.

I also don't think Adobe needs to try to be a serious competitor for Pro Tools. It already has some features that are considered better than nearly any other DAW program available.. Noise reduction, frequency analysis, etc.
Old 12th March 2008 | Show parent
  #44
Here for the gear
 

I actually prefer Cool Edit over Audition. I'm just so much more comfortable on it and can work in a lot more smoothly. I am somewhat well versed in ProTools but I don't own it.
Old 22nd April 2008 | Show parent
  #45
MrT
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

I really like the improvements in 3.0 for the mix view. Have been mixing with it for a couple months now and it's great.

That said I still track on Adobe Audition 1.5. I don't use sends or plugs or any of that crap when I track so it's an amazingly stable, easy to use, easy to configure multi-tracker. Then I just open the 1.5 session in 3.0 and mix away. If you start your wave at 0:00:00 there is no such thing as a compatibility issue with ANY DAW...
Old 29th May 2008 | Show parent
  #46
Gear Head
 

Hi!

Does anyone of you adobe users know if external hardware can be used in audition with a interfece, like say a Rme Fireface 800?

Do any of you use hardware compressors and effects on mixes with audition? I've tryed to search the net for a answer but couldn't find anything.

I like audition really much but would like to use hardware with it while mixing.

Last edited by markusE; 29th May 2008 at 06:46 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 29th May 2008 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
I can tell when something has been recorded in Pro Tools; it just has a Pro Tools sound to it that is very digital sounding. When I record with Adobe Audition it doesn't have that sound.
I REALLY tried to let this one go by, but...oh boy...where do I start...oh nevermind...carry on...

-Z-
Old 26th January 2009
  #48
Here for the gear
 

Cool Adobe is where it's at

Protools dominate on the massive acceptance scale but with adobe you can use vst plugins so now your adobe audition is a fruity loops that you can record your own samples into and mix down to perfection. The only limit to audition is your ram if you dont have at least 1gig then you're selling yourself short but even with 512 mb of ram this program can put out the same quality as pro tools. protools has the habbit of creating a wavefile after every edit it seems to me and that will clog your hard drive up a lot quicker where as adobe makes you command it to create so many copies of those wave files and in audition you dont have to pay an aditional $20 to be able to mix down to mp3 format. I can go on and on.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
-silent-sam-'s Avatar
 

I use Pro tools now........ but does the name Peter Quistguard mean anything to anyone else here? hahaha
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

What's funny about not having read this thread in a long time is looking at some of the disparaging and angry remarks said towards me for dissing the sound of Pro Tools. A lot of people high up now in mastering have acknowledged the differing sounds of many daw's and have essentially sided with me on this one. Not all daws sound the same.

I use Pro Tools 8 now and have to say it's sound and features have improved quite a bit.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by markusE View Post
Hi!

Does anyone of you adobe users know if external hardware can be used in audition with a interfece, like say a Rme Fireface 800?

Do any of you use hardware compressors and effects on mixes with audition? I've tryed to search the net for a answer but couldn't find anything.

I like audition really much but would like to use hardware with it while mixing.
You can record anything with Audition. The input to your interface has no way of knowing if you are sending a signal from a compressor, reverb unit..etc. So the short answer is yes, you can certainly record from outboard units.

And you can send a track to the output of your soundcard for outboard processing and bring it back to another track easily..

Adobe allows you to adjust for latency.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #52
I've always used Audition, it's just easier to work with and I can get tracks layered out really quickly. Mixdown is easy and the automation is great! I've been using it since Cool Edit Pro 1 haha. I like it a lot more than Pro-Tools.

-Chris-
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

I still use Adobe Audition as well. It is still a very powerful and underrated program.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #54
MrT
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by silent-sam View Post
I use Pro tools now........ but does the name Peter Quistguard mean anything to anyone else here? hahaha

One Love... thumbsup
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Addict
 
fzit0's Avatar
 

Smile

i used to love audition
but when the new version came
it dissapointed me
and had to change to cubase
Old 23rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzit0 View Post
i used to love audition
but when the new version came
it dissapointed me
and had to change to cubase
Seriously? I find that with version 3.0, it made Adobe Audition so good. I use it with Fruity Loops 8. It's great! I want to use a Mac but these 2 softwares have been keeping me with a PC.

ps: I don't know why, but Fruity Loops 8 sounds better soundwise than Fruity Loops 7.
Old 27th February 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Here for the gear
 

I use Adobe Audition (version 2.0, I think) and have been a fan of its layout and user-friendliness (at least for the basic work I do with it) since CoolEdit 98, which was the first program I ever used.

Still, I think that I swear by Audition because it's all I've ever known and I can work so effectively with it--it's the best not because of its features or sound, but because it brings out my best work. That's how a DAW ought to be judged. If you believe you get a "different sound" out of ProTools, it doesn't matter whether it's human error or some fluke of program engineering: you're still better off with the program that suits the way you work.

I have heard that Audition is notoriously bad about external VSTs, third-party plugins, and so on. I've tried to figure some of these out without success. But before people on this thread get too defensive of their program of choice, I remind everybody that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on one-inch tape, fed-through a four-track mono recorder. Even CoolEdit 98 is light years ahead of this... and yet we come back to it time and time again as a masterwork of engineering.

It's about what system allows you to do your best work... and not much more than that.
Old 27th February 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Maniac
 
58lespaul's Avatar
 

What do you guys think is stopping Audition from making a bigger name for itself? I mean, Adobe is a big company and they could make a serious push for market penetration.

Well... now that I think about it Adobe may have missed their chance at increased market penetration... they are certainly bigger than Steinberg, Cakewalk or Emagic... but not Steinberg owned by Yamaha, Cakewalk owned by Roland or Emagic gobbled up by the almighty Apple...
Old 27th February 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58lespaul View Post
What do you guys think is stopping Audition from making a bigger name for itself? I mean, Adobe is a big company and they could make a serious push for market penetration.

Well... now that I think about it Adobe may have missed their chance at increased market penetration... they are certainly bigger than Steinberg, Cakewalk or Emagic... but not Steinberg owned by Yamaha, Cakewalk owned by Roland or Emagic gobbled up by the almighty Apple...
I think Elastic Audio and Beat Detective are way too valuable with pro tools. You can't do any of that in Adobe. Let's face it, as much as I love Adobe, Pro tools is the industry standard, and you need it to actually do business, especially in Hip-Hop RNB, when most sessions are recorded in Pro Tools.
Old 27th February 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Cameron Johnson's Avatar
 

I was on CEP 2.0 for a while before making the jump to Nuendo... for the most part, I haven't really gone back - but you're right... it's incredibly intuitive to use. I still use it for some editing though...

everything I am as an engineer, I attribute to CEP!
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 51019
Avatar for Fleaman
Fleaman 10th June 2013
replies: 59 views: 40968
Avatar for wado1942
wado1942 4th November 2010
replies: 295 views: 60954
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 158111
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump