Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 5:15 pm
Anyone here use cool edit? I looked at it (it looks like a distant cousin to tripledat at first glance). It's only $249 USD, and has 24/96 capability. What's your experience?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 5:18 pm
Twice as fast as Cool Edit 2000. Excellent editing capabilities. I mostly use it to clean up vynil records. I highly recommend this product!
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:09 am
wouldn't be able to live without it. definitely a must.
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 3:05 pm
Have found a copy of it. Will experience soon . Should have about the same functionality as WaveLab.. At the time version 1.2 had revolutionary FX. I used it for preparing samples and some recording work then..
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: devKid on 2002-12-23 17:00 ]</font>
. Should have about the same functionality as WaveLab.. At the time version 1.2 had revolutionary FX. I used it for preparing samples and some recording work then..<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: devKid on 2002-12-23 17:00 ]</font>
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 1:46 pm
It can even go with 32bits and 192kHz... is it enough?
It's amazing tool, we have even done many multitrackings with it. And even with the old 1.2 version (without real-time effects). Was it a pain, I can tell you =D
The 2.0 seems more unstable, it has crashed many times. May be a problem with setup, works better with different computers.
But a really decent editor.
It's amazing tool, we have even done many multitrackings with it. And even with the old 1.2 version (without real-time effects). Was it a pain, I can tell you =D
The 2.0 seems more unstable, it has crashed many times. May be a problem with setup, works better with different computers.
But a really decent editor.
Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:02 pm
Sorry to stop the party, but as far as I know, Cool Edit Pro is considered to be much inferior when compared to Sound Forge or WaveLab, In terms of sound processing (since the other two have no multitrack capablities).
I was told its inner coding is less precise, and that its summing abilities (when mixing) are no match for the 'heavy' sequencers currently on the market (Cubase, Logic, Samplitude, Sonar, etc').
It's known to be a non-professional tool, that despite its friendly, good looking interface fail to properly deliver when it comes to sound qualities.
Am I wrong, or outdated...?
Yours,
ds-sound
_________________
["...and yet I always fail to notice, that I'm still heading for the ground..."]
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ds-sound on 2002-12-27 13:04 ]</font>
I was told its inner coding is less precise, and that its summing abilities (when mixing) are no match for the 'heavy' sequencers currently on the market (Cubase, Logic, Samplitude, Sonar, etc').
It's known to be a non-professional tool, that despite its friendly, good looking interface fail to properly deliver when it comes to sound qualities.
Am I wrong, or outdated...?
Yours,
ds-sound
_________________
["...and yet I always fail to notice, that I'm still heading for the ground..."]
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ds-sound on 2002-12-27 13:04 ]</font>
Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 3:57 pm
I haven't used the multitrack capability.. so I'm not sure about that. Multitrack surely isn't Cooledit's main function.
But in terms of algorythms, I'd say it's got many of the best. Sample conversion and bit dithering is the most hi-quality anyone can get. I know this from experience.
Don't listen to what people "say", just try it. You'll be amazed at how much this shareware program can do. It even does convolution!
But in terms of algorythms, I'd say it's got many of the best. Sample conversion and bit dithering is the most hi-quality anyone can get. I know this from experience.
Don't listen to what people "say", just try it. You'll be amazed at how much this shareware program can do. It even does convolution!
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:07 am
Yeah! You have to TRY it to be convinced. Don't pay too much attention to hearsay. Demos exist for a reason.
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:35 pm
Statistically, most people involved with speech are processing their audio using Cool Edit Pro. It seems to be the standard for journalists and the so… The standard for musicians is Wavelab, and the standard for those who work making samples is Sound Forge, this is what I have read in some specialised magazines anyway, I don’t know it by experience, just reading about.
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 6:45 am
For my own taste, having worked with all 3 I've found Wavelab to have the best workflow for me.
I know many people using other Sonic Foundry or Propellerheads software prefer Sound Forge to the the higher level of interaction between them (since the apps support additional data that soundforge saves with the samples.)
Most of the people that I know using cool edit love it for the ability to natively play with loops using keyboard shortcuts. Selecting and moving selections seems to be fast.
I know many people using other Sonic Foundry or Propellerheads software prefer Sound Forge to the the higher level of interaction between them (since the apps support additional data that soundforge saves with the samples.)
Most of the people that I know using cool edit love it for the ability to natively play with loops using keyboard shortcuts. Selecting and moving selections seems to be fast.
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:16 am
For restoring vinyl and dehissing tape it is first class. The filters are very good, especially the scientific ones. I restored a hoplessly bad recorded track (permanent red!) with them. For recording I prefer Wavelab.
Happy pulsaring
Micha
Happy pulsaring
Micha