Ted_H wrote on 10/15/2002, 5:10 PM
What happened to the ability to slide tracks together and create your own segues? Whats up with the 2 minute limit on playback?

I don't understand. I'm definitely not seeing what you describe. Automatic crossfades is enabled by default (toggle on and off with "X"), and there is no playback limit on the beta. I just checked (again) to make certain. Did you register the beta?

CDM wrote on 10/15/2002, 5:17 PM
yeah, I don't see any problems either. There's another post about this it seems.

Trust me, all you want is in there!!
sreams wrote on 10/15/2002, 9:32 PM
I think what he means is... it is impossible to customize crossfade shapes, since there are no longer independent envelopes with nodes for each event, as in CDA4. I have to choose a shape from a list of presets.
CDM wrote on 10/15/2002, 10:33 PM
You make a good point. In CDA 4.0 you could actually overlap two events with NO fade at all - essentially starti gone song at full volume over the already "burned in" fade of a previous song. Or whatever. There was a lot of flexibility for interesting and completely customizeable crossfades and transitions. I hope SF can find a way to return this functionality. Unless I'm missing something...

SonyDennis wrote on 10/15/2002, 10:45 PM
1) If you are getting 2 min timeouts on playback, you're running an incorrect version that got posted when it first went live for download. Please uninstalled, re-download (sorry) and install the one that's posted now.

2) You are correct that CDA4 let you edit envelope points in the crossfade. CDA5 has ASR event envelopes, with 25 different crossfade profiles, and a single volume envelope.

Is this a big issue? What could you do before that you want to be able to do now?

Are you sure you don't want a multi-track like Vegas?

sreams wrote on 10/16/2002, 12:47 AM
> Is this a big issue? What could you do before that you want to be able to do now?

> Are you sure you don't want a multi-track like Vegas?

With Vegas, one could do this kind of thing with multiple tracks... yes... but any files imported from CDA4 into vegas would lose any custom crossfade info (including the lack of any crossfade, as pointed out earlier). In other words... CDA4 files burned from Vegas3 would in some cases sound different.

For a CD Authoring app like CDA, I think multitrack is overkill and not really intuitive when there are other ways to maintain the "linear" perspective that makes more sense with CD creation.

My solution... we have per-clip plugins now in CDA (thank you!). How about per-clip envelopes that can be optionally added... much like Sonar. Sonar has a track volume envelope... clip envelopes... and slip-fades and crossfades. The only thing missing from CDA5 is that one extra element. And if that were put in place... the one remaining task would be to allow automatic crossfades to be turned off... -and- allow overlapping clips to sound simultaneously. That way, you could use the clip envelopes to create any shape you like in the overlap... per clip.

eduardo wrote on 10/16/2002, 1:07 PM
2) You are correct that CDA4 let you edit envelope points in the crossfade. CDA5 has ASR event envelopes, with 25 different crossfade profiles, and a single volume envelope.

Is this a big issue?

YES it is a big issue! I have not yet installed the Beta so I hope I'm not needlessly blowing smoke, but I definitely want editable xfades. There are many times when you want some bizarre looking xfade envelope that makes perfect sense in the context of that particular overlap - these weird xfades are very easy to do in CDA4 by adding nodes ath the perfect places in the waveform display.

I gotta play with it, but on first impression, being limited to a number of xfade presets is a substantial step backwards. Are these xfades stretchable or otherwise editable?

Could one overlap with auto xfade turned off and then modify the levels on both tracks, in effect building a xfade from scratch?

well, I better try it before I come up with more possibly stupid questions!

thanks for resurrecting the program - this is very a good thing!

Weka wrote on 10/16/2002, 2:01 PM
Please my name added to the list. This IS a biggie that would keep me with 4.0g. I do a lot of FX compilation and do not want the software telling me how I want my X fades. Also why can't we just have a box into which we type gap durations. "give me 2.9 secs between tracks 2 and 3", and voila? Is this just me?
Still a HUGE CDA fan!
sreams wrote on 10/16/2002, 3:45 PM
Here's an example of something CDA4 can do that 5.0 cannot:

Let's say I have two tracks... track one I'd like to fade... and track two I'd like to kick in in the midst of tack one's fade. With CDA4, I could overlap the clips, draw a fade at the end of the first clip, and leave the second alone... and it would work. This is impossible in 5.0. Track two will either a) fade in, if crossfades are enabled, or b) kick in and cutoff track one completely.

This is -very- important. Even Vegas 3.0 can do this, albeit with the clunkiness of multiple tracks. Just give us per-clip envelopes back (as in CDA4) -along- with everything else that is there. Again... look at the way envelopes and crossfades are dealt with in Sonar for a great example.

sreams wrote on 10/16/2002, 3:47 PM
In other words, just to be clear... give us clip envelopes like we had in CDA4, without ditching the global track envelope that's been added to 5.0.

Weka wrote on 10/16/2002, 4:07 PM
I think we all feel strongly about this. At risk of repeating myself and before I write-off to SF I'd like to know if I'm alone in finding the procedure for gapping tracks in CDA unnecessarily complex. It's now Rt mouse/select to end/keypad 6 or 4. Alt or shift added to above will determine the detail as will widening the data image. Why not simply and globally punch-in a gap into a box in seconds and fractions of seconds and be done with it?
Comments please
mportune wrote on 10/17/2002, 11:05 AM
I know I'm a little late with this, but put me down for custom crossfades. That's the one feature that sold me on 4.0. Otherwise 5.0 looks gorgeous so far.
eduardo wrote on 10/17/2002, 12:49 PM
If the gap is to be the same for all tracks it's quick enough to set it in options->prefrences->editing->"default time between CD tracks (seconds)", but you probably know that already...

for unique gap values I don't find it a problem to just grab the track and drag it with the mouse then audition the results, adjust if needed. But I can see that if you needed very specific gap lengths that were not the same for all tracks then it would be nice to be able to just enter them in a dialog box. In the old CDA you could enter the new start time in the PQ list box and it would move the track in the timeline, I'm not sure you can do that in CDA5. And of course it's up to you to add the desired gap time to the previous track end value to come up with the right start time. And you would need to check out what happens with the subsequent tracks/gaps as moving one doesn't automatically move everything after that, unless you are using the mouse and selecting the track in question and everything after it as well.

oops, I guess this got long and boring real quick! sorry
Weka wrote on 10/17/2002, 1:40 PM
It's an operational issue. In compiling a CD for commercial release, you have your tracks displayed before you and a producer who wants to play with sequence and spacing. Ordering is great in CDA. But he (or she) would love to be able to look at the monitor and say, "xyz has a 2.8 sec gap - make it 3.5". I say, "OK" and punch-in 3.5. Done. This would make the producer happy and by default me. I know you can mouse on the little box-thing and get the duration in 5. And I know how to gap - been doing it 4 years.
Yes? No?
God, it's lonely out here in the middle of the South Pacific with my petty little needs desires. Think I'll become a Buddhist.
peahix wrote on 10/17/2002, 2:01 PM
another feature i'd like to see that, i suppose, is related to this gap issue: it'd be nice to have a default value for a gap between the track marker and the actual start of the audio for any given song that is added to the track list. because of the quick fade-in that alot of CD players do at the start of tracks, i always put at least 15 frames of silence before the actual audio starts on any given track. normally i do this in sound forge by simply inserting 15 frames of silence at the beginning of each song file... but it'd be nice if cda could just do this automatically and non-destructively for me. obviously, the track marker position can be manually altered later, just as the default gaps can be altered later.

anyway, seems like it should be an easy feature to implement... would anyone else find this useful?

RandyP wrote on 10/17/2002, 2:58 PM
A Major Biggie for me! This is a feature I use daily on CDA4, please let it stay with CDA5.


Randy Perry
Staff Audio Engineer
Rhino Records
Weka wrote on 10/17/2002, 3:04 PM
Yip. My hand up on that one too. I'm not sure what 15 frames would equate to but I use 200ms to get round the muting of older CD palyers. Any further thoughts on that?
Estuardo wrote on 12/31/2002, 9:33 AM
I too find that custom crossfades,like I could do so easily with CDA4, is very VERY important to me.

With CDA5 I have an option for only six types of fades. Definately an important shortcoming for me. Sure, I can use a second audio layer, but it could be done so "elegantly" with CDA4 - very slick. Having everything on one layer made it a lot easier to see how everything interacted.

I vote major importance to bring back this feature ASAP.

Estuardo wrote on 1/1/2003, 3:55 AM
I know it was said that a more complex cross fade can be done using a second audio layer, but I'd like to elaborage on my last post.

If the two files are NOT on the same layer there is no way to accurately position them, which is very important (at least to me) when beat matching.

I suppose I can overlook this (and a couple other) shortcomings as overall, CDA5 is a vast improvement, at least for me.

Chienworks wrote on 1/1/2003, 9:38 AM
Estuardo, can you explain why it's so much harder to beatmatch them when they're on separate layers? They'll be one right above the other and the cursor crosses both files at the same place. Seems to me like it would be actually easier when they're not right on top of each other covering each other's waveforms.

You could also collapse the second layer while positioning the files, then expand the second layer while adding the fades.
Estuardo wrote on 1/2/2003, 1:30 PM

Sure, I'll try to explain why it's more difficult (at least for me) to match or align two different waveforms what are not on the same timeline. When moving one selection to obtain the best position to match the beat/rhythm, I zoom in enough where I can clearly see the two waveforms to make the best match.

You said "Seems to me like it would be actually easier when they're not right on top of each other covering each other's waveforms." Well, yes, however, as I said above, I will be moving one waveform back and forth to obtain the best alignment. Even if I cannot see underneath this waveform, moving it will show, and quite easily, where the best point is. Remember, the ENTIRE waveform is not underneath. There will be a significant amount that will show as the section I'm moving does not cover 100% of the other. If I could change the colors of the waveforms (like we could in CDA4!), it would be even easier to see the differences (IMO).

Sure, the cursor will pass over both selectons in CDA5 when using two layers, but to me, that a pretty cheesy way of doing it. Just like if I'm comparing two different waveforms on an oscilliscope. If I really want to see any differences I'll move one on top of the other.

Collapse one layer, position, I said, CDA4 did it more elegantly.

Maybe it's just me, but when one only has six fading options to choose from, it doesn't really equate "professional", but more of a generic, run-of-the-mill "do-it-all-for-everyone" function. In this regard, I believe CDA took a step (or two) backward form CDA4.

I like CDA, and CDA5 is better in a lot of other regards. I merely posted this in the hopes of providing feedback from a user in hope of making an already good product better. From what I've see so far, I'm certainly not the only one that feels this way.