[MacTel]

Quote:

---

IMHO, this feels more like a proof-of-concept or alpha version...they have a ways to go before this becomes something real, let alone, golden master material.

---

In truth, Lightroom isn't a true beta product either. Adobe has switched the layout and feature set of Lightroom with just about every beta release. A beta traditionally has meant that the features are set and only minimal tweaks and bug fixes will be applied before the gold master release.
Adobe is telegraphing their moves unlike Apple and this may be a strategy on their part to test the Apple waters and see if there is a Mac market to go after. They have the funds and resources to eventually make this a viable product through the numerous "beta" interations. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[adobephile]

Um. . IT'S A PUBLIC BETA!!! Aim your comments at the appropriate forum, and Adobe might just consider them.

[adobephile]

What does it matter WHAT they call it? The significant fact is that it's majorly functional already, AND they're listening to a broad number of users--the kind of input they wouldn't get on a conventional beta amongst a relatively small group. They're not wasting their time figuring out who all to invite to the beta--how could they know which photographers just might want to give it a try--especially those who aren't already on their radar? This way, ANYONE can try it, if only briefly, on their own accord. And word of mouth amongst peers just might be a more effective inducement for getting a broader, better sampling of potential and actual users.
It's also serving a bit of a PR funcition in that it's already Universal, as well as Mac-first--two messages which may help allay a little gossip and grumbling over where Adobe's sentiments lie, and just what they're doing to get their major apps to Universal or better.

[Schneb]

I was so hopeful. Adobe bought Macromedia that basically just SAT on SoundEdit Pro, the best audio editor I have ever worked with. I was longing for Adobe to take it out of mothballs and just bring it into the new century, but alas, it was not to be.
As it stands now, there is nothing that Adobe Soundbooth will be able to add that will surpass AmadeusPro for just $40.
On the other hand, if they were to take SoundEdit Pro and carbonize it, and make a WinXP version-- put the Soundbooth interface look around it, then you would have something that I would definitely consider. The only extra I would add is the sample denoiser found in Apple Soundtrack Pro and filters for LP pops and clicks.
So what did SoundEdit Pro have that made it special? The biggest advantage was the ability to colorize selections of sound for later reference. I could add additional tracks. The simple approach to how it works via clicks, drags and keystrokes.
So that is my initial take on SoundBooth. With none of the jems of SoundEdit Pro, it is just another sound editor with the exact features as Soundtrack Pro, Amadeus, SoundForge or the myriad of other offerings out there. -- sigh.

[brycesteiner]

Quote:

---

As a specialist in digital print production, I've got to say that Adobe's emphasis on web technologies is strongly detrimental to their traditional print stronghold.

---

Mark, I have to agree with you on just about every point you made. Though I do like Indesign CS2 very much over anything else out there. I don't like Illustrator at all anymore. I have CS2 only because I have to. At the same time though I'm not fond of Freehand MX either. The last good version of Freehand was 9. Then Macromedia trashed it with all this web crap it added to it to keep up with the Jones'. If they would have stuck to perfecting their file and separation structure it would be much better today. I think the same thing about Quark. 4.1 was the last one that was innovative and reliable.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

"Adobe is going head-to-head with Apple's SoundTrack Pro by releasing a public beta of Soundbooth."

---

Unless Adobe is coming back to the Mac market with Premiere, etc. I don't see the purpose of this application. It's meant for sound content for video workflow. This is exactly why Apple bundles their product with the Final Cut Studio package. If you're doing high end video you're either going to be using Final Cut or Avid. So, is this targeted for Avid users? Final Cut Express users? I see where Adobe is going with this on the PC side as it's meant to work in conjunction with Premiere. I'm not sure I see the same value on the Mac side though.
Usually when Apple and Adobe compete in the same arena, Apple wins. Adobe's best chance at beating Apple is with Lightroom considering the bad reputation Apple had from Aperture's initial release. Still, Lightroom is still in beta and Aperture is progressing nicely. Time will tell on this one.
Steve

[whitedog]

Considering the steady improvement Lightroom has made since the first beta release I expect Soundbooth will evolve nicely as well. As with Lightroom, it looks like the whole point of Adobe's public beta program (a rather new strategy for them) is to stimulate the widest possible range of feedback from potential users. This works especially well for new products.
Quark made the leap to using a public beta for XPress 7, though how much they listened and learned is hard to say. Personally, I applaud the trend to public betas of major products; it can only improve the relationship between developers and users.
As for competing with Apple, Lightroom forced them to roll back the price of Aperture by 40%. I'd call that a public service. InDesign has had a similar affect on Quark XPress 7, which costs $750, $250 less than I paid for XPress 4 way back when - well over a 25% discount if you factor in inflation.
On the subject of FreeHand, it was on life-support even before Adobe bought Macromedia. FreeHand was included with Studio 8 but not upgraded from the previous MX release. Its future is murky at best. It would be reasonable to expect the best features of FreeHand to show up in the next version of Adobe Illustrator, though this is unlikely to satisfy FreeHand fans.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Sure would be nice if it were better than soundtrack pro. Apple made a huge splash with me and other media professionals, but they sure have taken their time refining their apps. They've added a lot of compatibility fixes, but they haven't bothered to really finish some of their apps. With all the focus on the iPod and laptops, I'm glad Adobe is taking on Apple again. Heck, Final Cut Pro still doesn't have a descriptive undo/redo list, just says "Undo" and "Redo". Whoops! Did you accidentally hit a button? No way to tell. Want to go back ten commands and start over? Good luck finding the spot where you want to start over. Go Adobe, get moving Apple.

---

Unfortunately, Adobe decided to not compete with Apple in the nonlinear video editing realm. It's weird that Adobe justified building Soundbooth "from scratch" for the Mac but couldn't justify doing that with Premiere Pro, Encore, Audition.
I'd like to see all of those applications on the Mac. Rumor is we will in spring of 2007. I hope we do.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

I was so hopeful. Adobe bought Macromedia that basically just SAT on SoundEdit Pro, the best audio editor I have ever worked with. I was longing for Adobe to take it out of mothballs and just bring it into the new century, but alas, it was not to be.
As it stands now, there is nothing that Adobe Soundbooth will be able to add that will surpass AmadeusPro for just $40.
On the other hand, if they were to take SoundEdit Pro and carbonize it, and make a WinXP version-- put the Soundbooth interface look around it, then you would have something that I would definitely consider. The only extra I would add is the sample denoiser found in Apple Soundtrack Pro and filters for LP pops and clicks.
So what did SoundEdit Pro have that made it special? The biggest advantage was the ability to colorize selections of sound for later reference. I could add additional tracks. The simple approach to how it works via clicks, drags and keystrokes.
So that is my initial take on SoundBooth. With none of the jems of SoundEdit Pro, it is just another sound editor with the exact features as Soundtrack Pro, Amadeus, SoundForge or the myriad of other offerings out there. -- sigh.

---

The biggest feature of SoundEdit, for me, was the ability to make a selection of the waveform in a track and copy it and then switch to Director and paste it as a cast member. This was a huge time saver for me and SoundEdit was the only audio application that could do it. This didn't work in Windows, BTW.
This kind of integration is what makes people use your product, IMHO. It's what people talk about when discussing iLife.
If Adobe puts Premiere Pro, Encore, Soundbooth and After Effects in a bundle for the Mac, I would seriously look at it versus FCPS. If anything, I hope that it would make Apple reconsider not selling their pro applications separately.

[Schneb]

Something must have changed. I've been able to cut and paste to and from SoundForge to Director for several years now. I just opened both and tried it, and it worked fine. This is on Windows XP. However, I think you are right about the Mac version.

[peterkirn]

Soundbooth will clearly have an edge over Soundtrack Pro in that you'll actually be able to buy it separately -- and given that Audition is priced around STP's old price of $300, probably at a significantly reduced price.
I like the SoundEdit integration idea. You should suggest it on Adobe Labs' boards. I think the integration now would be with Flash, not Director, but it still makes a lot of sense. If you check out Audition on Windows (or Sound Forge, as someone else suggested) I think you'll find these apps have far surpassed SoundEdit in most respects; sadly, they may not be easily portable to Mac from Windows depending on their codebase. But going back to SoundEdit doesn't make sense; we should move forward. Moving forward, though, means these new apps should be as least as innovative as, say, this integration example, so point well taken.
So far, I'm impressed with Soundbooth; I think it'll be interesting to follow through the beta. And I do get the sense that Adobe is listening to feedback.

[lantzn]

I can't recall where I read it but the chance of Premiere coming back to the Mac is very real.
It's been awhile, but wasn't the reason Premiere choked was because of the way it ran so slowly on the PPC platform?

[lantzn]

I hadn't really thought about it but it does seem that these products got buggy once they became more web based. I to prefer Freehand over IL. I came from a print background and actually started with running a press. Freehand got buggy after version 9. They never did fix the bugs in 10/MX and just moved onto the next version. I also like InDesign CS, but then I came from an Pagemaker background, never used Quark.

[lantzn]

"Adobe's best chance at beating Apple is with Lightroom considering the bad reputation Apple had from Aperture's initial release."
Just curious, how was Apple hurt with this release? Was it the app or the price? If price, Apple did drop the price in half shortly after and gave an equivalent coupon for the difference to those who bought at the higher price. If app, I don't own it and would like to know how it affected their rep?