Yeah so I switched from my Mac to a PC and I was wondering what is the best program to transfer my taped shows? I know I need to use CDWave to split the tracks. Thanks for the help!

Personally I like Sound Forge a lot.
You might also want to check out WaveLab, its a little easier for adding plugins non-destructively.

I find cool edit way more easy to work with. The interface and stuff.

i prefer soundforge

I'm not sure if this is still true, but a year or so ago Cool Edit's resampling blew away Soundforge's resampling (for example, changing from 48kHz to 44.1 kHz).

i'm pretty sure wavelab blows away both these programs, but my only issue with it is the look of the visual waveform. really boxy waveforms like most new albums don't look as boxy as they would in cool edit or sound forge making you think they aren't as squashed as they really are.

I prefer soundforge too. It's more "professiona" :)

The best resampler is SSRC. I recommend using the BeSweet front end for it. It's rad. You can get that stuff at dvdrhelp.com

Originally posted by Dead
The best resampler is SSRC.

WORD. I use it to resample from LPCM DVD tracks from 48 Khz to 44.1 and burn to cd :)

Originally posted by StillBecomingApart

WORD. I use it to resample from LPCM DVD tracks from 48 Khz to 44.1 and burn to cd :)
Me too. :rockon:

Originally posted by Dead
The best resampler is SSRC. I recommend using the BeSweet front end for it. It's rad. You can get that stuff at dvdrhelp.com

It has an option for noise shaping, so I heartily endorse it.

does anyone ever use Adobe Audition 1.0

Originally posted by ivor

It has an option for noise shaping, so I heartily endorse it.
I don't do that, I just use it to resample wavs from 48khz to 44.1khz.

Originally posted by Monte
does anyone ever use Adobe Audition 1.0

cool edit adobe style?

yah i'm curious to how it has changed the program. Although i'll stick by Nuendo and either Wavelab or Soundforge as being the best audio recording/mixing/mastering tools.

Originally posted by ProgressChrome


cool edit adobe style?

yah i'm curious to how it has changed the program. Although i'll stick by Nuendo and either Wavelab or Soundforge as being the best audio recording/mixing/mastering tools.

It's just a CE pro 2.2, everything's the same (except fo the burner plug in missing) and users of 2.1 can upgrade to audition for free.

Originally posted by ProgressChrome
i'm pretty sure wavelab blows away both these programs, but my only issue with it is the look of the visual waveform. really boxy waveforms like most new albums don't look as boxy as they would in cool edit or sound forge making you think they aren't as squashed as they really are.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It's called compression, and they use way too much of it on albums these days.

A digital waveform is comprised of samples, lots of them - 588 per frame, 75 frames per second, and 588 x 75 = 44100, which is 44.1kHz, or cycles(samples) per second. If you boost the input too much, you get clipped(amplified to the maximum, if not more) samples. However, the method they use in studios these days doesn't complete ruin the sound - it just sounds weird. Although, I am a big fan of the mars volta and blood brothers cds that were put out last year, both of which use compression heavily...

The program you use on your com-pu-ter has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Andrew Fogelsong

Although, I am a big fan of the mars volta and blood brothers cds that were put out last year, both of which use compression heavily...


You like Mars Volta' sound on studio? I don't. First time I listened to it, I thought my hi-fi was broken, or my CD had problems...

Sorry, I'm off topic :(

Originally posted by Andrew Fogelsong


What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It's called compression, and they use way too much of it on albums these days.

A digital waveform is comprised of samples, lots of them - 588 per frame, 75 frames per second, and 588 x 75 = 44100, which is 44.1kHz, or cycles(samples) per second. If you boost the input too much, you get clipped(amplified to the maximum, if not more) samples. However, the method they use in studios these days doesn't complete ruin the sound - it just sounds weird. Although, I am a big fan of the mars volta and blood brothers cds that were put out last year, both of which use compression heavily...

The program you use on your com-pu-ter has nothing to do with it.

The Mars Volta Cd is really pushing it, When I looked at the wave forms of tha talbum I was amazed you could hear anything.

Originally posted by StillBecomingApart


You like Mars Volta' sound on studio? I don't. First time I listened to it, I thought my hi-fi was broken, or my CD had problems...

Sorry, I'm off topic :(


Sorry, I was really tired when I made that post. I really like the band's music on the cd, not so much how it sounds. Playing the songs in Cool Edit, it pretty much just stays at 0db. Almost no dynamics, which is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by Andrew Fogelsong



Sorry, I was really tired when I made that post. I really like the band's music on the cd, not so much how it sounds. Playing the songs in Cool Edit, it pretty much just stays at 0db. Almost no dynamics, which is just ridiculous.

That's ok. :)

Originally posted by Andrew Fogelsong


What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It's called compression, and they use way too much of it on albums these days.

A digital waveform is comprised of samples, lots of them - 588 per frame, 75 frames per second, and 588 x 75 = 44100, which is 44.1kHz, or cycles(samples) per second. If you boost the input too much, you get clipped(amplified to the maximum, if not more) samples. However, the method they use in studios these days doesn't complete ruin the sound - it just sounds weird. Although, I am a big fan of the mars volta and blood brothers cds that were put out last year, both of which use compression heavily...

The program you use on your com-pu-ter has nothing to do with it.

I think you missed what I was saying. I completely understand how compression works. I was strictly talking about the visual representation of the waveform in wavelab compared to the other programs, it gives you a distorted impression of how the waveform really is. I am both visual and auditory with the way I edit music and I like to use visual cues.

Originally posted by ProgressChrome
I think you missed what I was saying. I completely understand how compression works. I was strictly talking about the visual representation of the waveform in wavelab compared to the other programs, it gives you a distorted impression of how the waveform really is. I am both visual and auditory with the way I edit music and I like to use visual cues.

so you're saying that a waveform in wavelab looks more compressed than how the same waveform would look in cool edit or sound forge? that's weird.

Originally posted by Andrew Fogelsong


so you're saying that a waveform in wavelab looks more compressed than how the same waveform would look in cool edit or sound forge? that's weird.

other way around... a waveform in wavelab looks less compressed

Originally posted by ProgressChrome
other way around... a waveform in wavelab looks less compressed

Ha! That's what I meant. That is weird.

Well I finally decided to choose Cool Edit Pro, or in my case Adobe Audition. I'm an Adobe fan so I guess I was a little swayed in using their product. I find the program very easy to use and I like the idea where I can have multiple sessions on a single wave file. My old Mac program couldn't do this. Plus the EQ seems to be very nice.

So another question, to EQ or not to EQ? I like to EQ cause in my opinion it sounds better.

Btw, audition 1.5 is out.