Harvey - are you being sarcastic here? Because the only difference between an aiff and a wav are just in how the header is written (i.e. the area of the file that tells your app sample rate, bit depth, number of channels, and any embedded meta-data so you don't have to re-enter this every time you open the file - which is what would happen with raw PCM) - none of the PCM audio data changes at all when you convert a wav to aiff or visa versa - unless the converter software is horrifically broken that is.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

LOL

See, THIS is why I said dont drink the water in Nebraska!

How about 95% of people in radio who use Audition? How about places that do Grammy Award winning audio books using Audition? I know of one personally. And from there, I learned they ALL use Audition.

Maybe theres some facilities that are in fact professional using Audition except they dont have as nice of gear as you do. That doesnt change the fact their still using Audition to Master audio.

About the hard limiter in AA3, they don't let you use look-ahead times of less than 5ms or release times of more than 40ms. In CEP, they showed that they don't recommend going beyond those perameters, but would let you do it anyway. I like making those decisions myself.

Steve,

I'm not being sarcastic; that's what I heard when I listened to the two formats. There was noticeable distortion in the WAV file and no distortion when saved as an AIF file. I don't understand (as I said above) why there's a difference, but there was.

After I mix the tracks to stereo, I now convert the sample type to 44.1/16 bits (from 32 bit), then save it as an AIF file. If I save it as any kind of WAV file, I get distortion. Since that technique works fine for me, I haven't tried to figure out why my WAV files distort.

You are either hearing a placebo effect - or you need to change the conversion program you are using right this moment. Again - there should be absolutely NO difference between a wav and aiff file with the exception of the way the header is written into the file. I'd suggest doing some conversions to and from wav and aiff and do some null tests between these versions to verify which of these two you are dealing with. I'm willing to bet it's likely the first.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Steve,

It's not the placebo effect. Here's the whole story:

My C drive crashed recently, and I had to reinstall Adobe Audition on a new drive. I suspect the Waves codec got messed up during the reinstall, but I haven't had the time to check it.

Since saving the stereo file as an AIF file is no big deal, and it cures the problem, I'll keep doing that till I figure out the WAV problem.

That's definitely a really strange problem to have - if aiff and wav are showing to null against each other in a test then I'd check your software media players for corrupted install and sound card buffer settings as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

If you don't have "Interperet 32-bit PCM .wav files as 16.8 float" checked in Audition, it will have issues with WAVs formatted that way. Aside from that, I'd have no idea how you could get such a problem.

Nope, that's checked. I'm sure it has something to do with the new install, but I don't know what changed.

Harvey, have you tried exporting a wav and an aif of the same track and trying a null test between them yet?? If they null, then its playback issues in whatever software you're listening on - if they DON'T null ....... well there's something pretty terribly messed up with Audition!! As the man said earlier - aif and wav are identical formats with different header

Once more, any legitimate professional ME's using Adobe Audition as their main DAW, feel free to chime in. heh

Pretty much every sound bite you hear on radio isn't enough to make it a legitimate DAW? That is what it's designed for.

I think its fine for radio edits, and radio spots etc. As far as a DAW for music mastering I prefer Wavelab, Sonic, or Sadie, in that order. I started out with Studer Dyaxis. If anyone likes Audition, they should by all means use it. I personally find the fidelity of Audition lacking for some reason.

And YOUR quote pretty much sums up the type of person YOU are, and we can begin with confused, mistaken, take your pick...

The link you posted talks about how the PT engine mixes internally with 48bit calculations. That's great, but my waves plugins process internally @ 64 bit, so that 48 in PT is nothing to write home about.

HOWEVER, where your mistake is, if you read the first paragraph on the second page, it says they were using a 24 bit / 48K file. PT internally processed that wave with it's "Double Precision" math algorithms, hence the "48 bit": The way it processes a 24 bit file. AA does the same thing, which is why Waves plugs run their full 64 bit internal processing potential in AA.

PT is not capable of recording or even opening an actual 32 bit or higher wave. Don't believe me? I can email you one I recorded in AA... And the manual you posted was for the Digi 192/PT HD, so that's the top of the line for them.

I didn't say I had a 32 bit mixer, I said I mix in 32 bit. As in actual 32 bit wave files. I have a 64 bit mixer if you really want to have a pissing contest lmao.

If you're going to debate, you probably shouldn't post links that contradict the point you're trying to get across... bad form.

I produce, record, mix, and master for a few very large labels, and multi-plat Grammy winning artists. And I use AA. Do I qualify?

Hell, I even went to college for audio engineering...

I couldn't find any matches for Mr. Bino 5150 on albumcredits.com ; )

I don't want to turn into one of them gus that starts name dropping in a heated thread to validate themselves lmao

I'm not the ME you're looking for, but I've always worked in CEP and now Audition for editing (track through console to tape, then transfer into DAW for editing, out to tape for final mix). Most of my stuff is acoustic, but I have worked on a couple major releases with large concert hall recordings (choral/orchestral music). The last project I did went from tape to DAW and then straight to the ME in digital format. That particular ME has been with Disney for over 20 years, and he told me the tracks sounded great and needed minimal processing. For me, that was a strong endorsement of AA3.

OK, I'm only a part time mastering engineer but I've used Audition for hundreds of recording and mastering projects and I've never had an issue of the sound of the software. The main weaknesses are the track EQ, which doesn't sound great, and the poor stability of version 2 which made it unusable for me.

James

Ok honestly, DAW's aren't like gear; switching between them isn't like switching mics or pres, and it isn't like going back and forth between Behringer and SSL. You're not supposed to "hear" your DAW. Recording or playing back a wave on different DAW's using the same signal chain, monitors, etc, *should* sound exactly the same. Using a third party plugin on the wave in different DAW's will sound the same as well. Anybody complaining that their DAW doesn't sound good might want to check their settings or check for user error, as the DAW should be the last thing blamed for a bad sound...

Granted different DAW's have different mixing engines, but honestly they are virtually indistinguishable as far as sound goes.

As for the guy who doesn't like the track eq, who really mixes and masters with that? Throw your waves eq or whatever plug you have, or even insert one of AA's other eq's on the track.

AA is a pro level software that will allow you to do everything you need to do, be in tracking, mixing, mastering, sample editing, radio broadcast, vinyl restoration, whatever... all the features and flexibility are there, moreso than some other DAW's. Every DAW has its pros and cons, lovers and haters. The fact is, that as far as DAW's go, AA is very capable and holds its own againt other similar software. Judge it by what it can and can't do, not by what someone else says is professional or not.

It all boils down to taste. Some people like Chevy, some Ford. Use whatever works for you to get the job done.

I've been an Audition user since the Cool Edit days; the only use I have for it is batch processing (converting 24bit masters to FLAC or MP3s for clients).

Once in a while, I may have A3 alongside PT to clean up things like clips or to remove artifacts from files (Shift-Tab to A3, use the spectral editing tools, save the file as something else, import the new file in PT).

I don't use it for processing because in my opinion, the workflow of A3 sucks, but it's great for what I described above, saves me some time (since PT isn't better than A3 for spectral editing).

Oh yeah, for burning CDs, Audition is the worst software I've ever burned a disc with, so in that department, it blows too.

EDIT: For personal use, I've created a script in A3 to "gently boost" my vinyl transfers. I love it for that, LOL.

"As for the guy who doesn't like the track eq, who really mixes and masters with that? Throw your waves eq or whatever plug you have, or even insert one of AA's other eq's on the track."

In my opinion as an Audition user, is he's correct. The track EQ's are both questionably stable, as multiple track EQ's enabled can fully bring on playback issues, and they dont sound that great. Here's the conundrum - we just WISH they worked better than they do, and your suggestion is likely, of course, the best solution on the matter.

I know I wished the track EQ's were more reliable as yes they are simple, but its a great and quick way to do some HP/LP on a track. Its likely we both hesitate to add "another" plug in to the project - itd be nice NOT to have to add another EQ plug-in is what it kinda boils down too. Id say.

And as far as using Audition to properly finish off a project/CD, can anyone name another DAW that lets you burn a disc with ISRC codes, UPC codes, AND CD text? Can anyone name one other full-featured DAW like Audition that has these disc burning options? I cant find one. WaveLab sure, but thats not a DAW like Audition.

Here's where I have to ask "Whatd you do to mess up your burn"? Haha

Audition burns discs just fine - any disc Ive ever finished off full of codes and text that was sent off to Discmakers for duplication (nearly 10 now), have all 100% been fine. All codes and all data were and are fully intact.
So with that track record, perhaps you know something I dont and it would behoove me to find out so my next finished CD from Audi doesnt have the same errors. Why does it suck at burning discs, in your opinion?

Vegas will I think, but the sound quality of that DAW really IS poor.

I love audition for some things..For example I just had a lot of peaked audio files come in. No matter what I did in other daws it wasn't working and it was from the preamp distorting and just there. Given the time and situation the clipper in adobe audition 3 took pretty much all of it out and I finished it up with Izotope RX for the little artifacts it still left. Brought it back into logic and followed it up with a simple psp eq and very little compression from the waves SSL comp. Was a great way to do a lot of long audio files quick, make it like it never happened and make the original 10 times better. This was a podcast keep in mind. It has great uses in the post production world, with VO work, fixing very damaged audio with the push of a button. It's a standard these days in radio stations and VO work around the world. I see it in every radio station and VO talent studio..Quick and easy to make commercials and archive.

Now I have 15 more to go when I get back to work monday morning :P Finally get to dive into the new Izotope RX 2 and give it a spin.

I've ran discs burned on A3 through Plextools and discovered WAY higher C1s, C2s (on projects where CD Architect wouldnt produce C2s at all). One disc I burned for an LP I transfered for personal use wouldn't play on my wife's car (a '00 stock Toyota CD player, which is "finicky" about the CDs it plays; an issue I've never had with discs burned with CD Architect on the same Plextor drive and media).

Does Discmakers do a proper data error check on premasters? I've heard from a few clients that have had them press CDs who have told me they've sent discs burned on their computers and they get CDs back, never a rejection (not sure that's a guarantee the discs will play everywhere).

They do do a check for like, an addition $19 or something that covers a couple tests - making sure everything is 44.1, etc. 'Tis quite irrefutable if youre finding C2's. Hence the thing you know that I dont, haha

Ive been lucky enough perhaps, that I just havent had a bad burn - but again, if in analysis, youre finding errors - something about proof and pudding. Dunno. Good info

I realize the post is a little old, but I just noticed it. I use AA 1.5, but mine doesn't have that exciter or maximizer nor a specific mastering module. Am I just missing it...anyone's help would be appreciated.

I like to consider myself legitimate and professional. No major albums credits, but I've done more than I want to think of. LOL! I know this is an older thread, but I'll give you my take.

I think AA3 is fantastic and VERY under-rated. But, I don't master inside of it because I use other programs for that. However, there are some incredible tools in AA3 that really work great for editing. For example, the click/pop eliminator, hiss tools etc are awesome! Completely seemless and better than any 3rd party pricey plug I have. The first thing I do when I master is bring a file into AA3 so I can preview it, remove any clicks, pops, hums, oscillations, artifacts, snerts, (yes, snerts lol) etc and then I'm ready to go. This also allows me to get familiar with the material in an up close and personal way since this listening session will be entirely through headphones.

I have tried to master through Adobe but really hate the way it previews. I like to have control over where things start and stop and sometimes that preview thing just annoys me. I also don't like how the whole mastering rack is set up...and some of my plugins don't behave very well with AA3. But I think it gets a bad rap and is actually an incredible piece of software. I just got Izotope RX 2 Advanced...so I'll be trying that out to see how it compares. But I've been in this field for many years...and so far, there has never been an artifact that I couldn't control or remove with AA3. It's not my mastering software of choice, but it IS included with my every day mastering chain for editing purposes.

It doesn't have an exciter because they're worthless. The "mastering rack" as it's called isn't necessary either and I've never really used it. It's just a way to apply multiple effects onto a single track in the editor. I'd just start a multitrack session with L/R Log Cut pan law and do all your work there. Editing is faster and easier there than the "editor" any way.

Audition does have a very good hard limiter BTW. Or are you refering to something like the BBE Sonic Maximizer? If the latter, it's also worthless.