Thread Cubase vs. Adobe Audition

Hi there!

I was hoping to see who would contribute to this thread but anyway, here goes!

I have Cubase SL 2.2 which I use mainly for audio work. My midi is handled by my Sonar 4 but that's another story. I've played around with the Audition demo and here are my views.

Audition is great for banging together tracks. I've used it while it was Cool Edit in an audio post production studio, and it was so easy to fly in tracks and mix down later. I liked the 'rubberbanding' of the volume and pan envelopes. I didn't like the fact you couldn't automate effects. The same with Audition, you could apply effects on the track level but on the clip level, you had to go to single file view and apply effects from there. The mixer/s do not follow your envelopes unlike in Cubase where you could automate almost everything.

I don't know if Audition will recognize VST effects without a VST wrapper. Since my vst adapter is engaged in Sonar, I think that's how Audition recognizes my vst effects; but Audition doesn't come with any wrapper in the package.

Since Audition doesn't have midi, you can't use it to control vst software synthesizers like Crystal and Triangle, which are both freeware. That, for me, is Audition's biggest limitation.

Audition seems to be best in is audio manipulation. It's noise reduction is one of the best I have ever used at this price. It runs rings around Cubase when it comes to editing audio; but then again, I have Wavelab so that area is covered quite well for me.

If there's one thing that Audition can do that Cubase can't, is burn cd's without the need for additional software.

Best,

What you can do with envelopes in Audition is use them to indicate the wet/dry mix of fx in your track/clip, the way you'd use an aux return knob on a mixer. Audition is a revamp of Cool Edit Pro, which is essentially a hopped-up wav editor...

Audition 1.5 does recognize and use VST fx.

You can pick up energyXT for around $50: It's a host program and can be configured as a VST plug-in that you could use to do your MIDI trip. I think... www.energyXT.com

I'm still using Cool Edit Pro 2, with the Beta CD burner, and it works fine for my purposes. I don't do MIDI, though... :cool:

%1$s a écrit Hi there!
. The same with Audition, you could apply effects on the track level but on the clip level, you had to go to single file view and apply effects from there. The mixer/s do not follow your envelopes unlike in Cubase where you could automate almost everything.

I don't know if Audition will recognize VST effects without a VST wrapper. Since my vst adapter is engaged in Sonar, I think that's how Audition recognizes my vst effects; but Audition doesn't come with any wrapper in the package.


If there's one thing that Audition can do that Cubase can't, is burn cd's without the need for additional software.

Best,

Well you tried the demo.. So let me give you a full spectrum of those mis-reads you poseted^^, first Adobe Audition is able to make scripts for automating effects for the clips as to the track effects which yes you can automate... You may have noy checked that feature in adobe. In addition Audition can regonize both Direct X effects, import Sound Forge Effects, and you can add VST plugins with the import feature in version 1.5.. and finally you can burn your project files with adobe. Simple go to the Cd project view and import your mixdown tracks and viola done. peace.

i like Cool edit pro (audition) better for audio than cubase. its easier to use and seems to be much more stable on my computer.

I used Audition for a long time, and I ‘m really satisfied with it. The multi track view is the best designed interface I ever used. But, the Cubase is after all a complete little music factory. The various possibilities with virtual instruments and other VST plug-ins made this software a must have in my home recording arsenal.
So I recommend both. For laying down the tracks I have audition. And for MIDI, adding exotic sounds or any sampled sound is don trough the Cubase.

Check this web site for some info about this topic
http://homerecording.awardspace.com

I will ride on existing information and eventually contribute my own ideas. Adobie Audition and Cubase LE both recognized my Firebox mixer but Adobe seemed so much easier. It took me two weeks to get Cubase LE to work properly. It took me 5 minutes to lay down dual tracks in Adobe. I am concerned about the midi differences since I'm using a midi keyboard. Thanks to those who have contributed here. More later.

Hi friends,
The reason I prefer Audition, is because it is capable of recording in sample rates of 176.4 and 192, while cubase can only record up to 88.2 and 96 sample rates.

I have now found out my Adobe Audition does not record MIDI. You can import a MIDI file but recording a MIDI keyboard cannot be done. CuBase records MIDI ok. CuBase is a good program but it takes getting used to. CuBase does not layout their program as well as Adobe.

%1$s a écrit Hi friends,
The reason I prefer Audition, is because it is capable of recording in sample rates of 176.4 and 192, while cubase can only record up to 88.2 and 96 sample rates.

and that is written where...?