I agree, 1.5 was a far better product. The only update in 2.0 is the
interface (blech) and in VST (but its implemented crudely and half the
plugins I work with don't work well with it.
Anton
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van:
> Namens macmang4125
> Verzonden: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:31 PM
> Aan:
> Onderwerp: [Nature Recordists] Re: Audition 2.0?
>
> --- In Marty Michener
> <> wrote:
> >
> > In the last week two friends have asked me about Audition 2.0, and
> > have read bad reviews of it, as compared with the previous
> edition and
> > to
> Cool
> > Edit Pro, its forerunner. What is the consensus of this group? Is it
> worth
> > $350 or should I tell them to procure a copy of 1.5 for $100?
> > One wants to use it for multi-channel music mixing, the other for
> bird songs.
> > (I still use Cool Edit Pro).
> >
> >
> > -- best regards, Marty Michener
> > MIST Software Assoc. Inc., P. O. Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049
> > http://www.enjoybirds.com/
> >
> > "I am strongly induced to believe that as in music, the person who
> > understands every note, if he also possesses a proper taste, more
> > thoroughly enjoy the whole, so he who examines each part of a fine
> view,
> > may also thoroughly comprehend the full and combined
> effect. Hence, a
> > traveler should be a botanist, for in all views plants form
> the chief
> > embellishment." Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle
> >
>
> I would go for the 1.5 version myself, one feature missing
> which is very useful in the field I work is the playlist
> function, completely missing in version 2. It also seems
> somewhat slower than 1.5 as well.
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|