Sound files in PTE

[Bobo]

Please tally my vote as HIGHLY in favor of audio capability as Peter has described it.

I absolutely believe that no very basic sound track adjustment is presently the greatest limiting factor in PTE.

1. I also propose 3d capability (merely a cool gadget if we can reasonably have it)

2. An overall improved, intuitive interface (including mini previews of effects)

3. An improved forum (Peter you do a great job, but you can't do it all, and a more family/student friendly forum could be developed-- more details available if we want to discuss this)

4. I do NOT want to see prices go up, and bought PTE in part because it was a great product that--who knows--might continue to be developed and I could get free updates. That has proven to be astoundingly true. Igor has kept his word. However, I just wonder if something like purchasable plugins were available (i.e. DVD writing module, sound editing module, etc.) then those who want/need/can-afford-them could purchase them, and those who don't can live happily ever after with regular upgrades. Of course I would far rather I could have it all and have it free

[Ed Overstreet]

Some of the concerns raised earlier in this thread about adding some sound-editing capability to PTE relate at least partially to what that might do to the complexity of the software interface and its impact on some users.

What I'm about to suggest may have been raised before, and it certainly won't satisfy sophisticated sound-editing needs, but it would be a partial step that might make life a lot easier for some users, including me.

Most of the sound-editing that I do in connection with PTE shows involves trying to mix an audio track with a music track, fading down the music so the voice-over can be heard, then fading up after the voice-over ends. In many situations, in fact in most of my own projects including the one I just finished today, the voice-over needs to be attached to specific files and can be done with one or more sound clips using the "Add Sound" feature. However, there remains the need to fade down or mute the main sound file (the one that I add in the Music tab under Project Options).

I don't know how feasible this would be from a programming aspect, but it should possible (without unduly cluttering or complicating the interface) to add a fade slider to the timeline, in conjunction with the ability to select a section of the timeline with a mouse-click-and-drag, so that the user can fade the sound from the main file down (over a period of time specified by the user) to an audio equivalent of an "opacity setting" also set by the user, then fade back up. This would be done in conjunction with specific slides on the timeline to which the user has attached sound clips through "Add Sound."

Yes I know one can achieve the same result by going back and forth between PTE and Audacity and blending the sound clips into the music track at specific points in the Audacity timeline, coordinating that with the timeline points in PTE. But it would be much easier, simpler, more precise, and less prone to error if one could do that fading in PTE itself.

This still would not provide a true "mixing board" for multiple sound tracks in PTE, but by limiting the fade/sound level options to the main music file and linking that to the sound clips in individual slides, this would go a very long way (I think) toward satisfying the needs of a lot of users such as myself who don't get overly ambitious in our sound work but would like to be able to fade music up and down to accommodate voice-over clips.

This also would be less ambitious and demanding of the programmers, would provide a partial solution to at least some sound editing needs, and might be a stepping-stone to more sophisticated options later if there is enough interest and demand for it once the first step has been taken.

Just a thought ...

[11pete34]

From the replies to my original thread on 'Holding the Timing Marker' I was lead to all these comments about sound editors.

I would like to add these thoughts. I am sure we would all agree that the editing of our pictures is the prerogative of software like Photoshop, not Pictures to Exe. Equally, the editing of sound needs dedicated software such as Audacity.

To most of us the audio is as important as the pictures and to combine our edited sound and edited pictures into an Audio Visual Sequences also required dedicated software; our prefered choice being Pictures to Exe.

My thoughts are that Pictures to Exe only needs the ability to manipulate the already edited sound in a similar way that it enables us to manupilate the already edited pictures.

Peter

[Ken Cox]

Peter

AGREE

the more of these "wish lists and i would like to see " that are added the more we are going to have a turtle rather than a hare

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Glory Be & Laudi Laudi, another sensible member.

Yachtsman1

[davegee]

I agree, once again.

Image editing software is for editing images.

Audio editing software is for editing Audio.

PTE is for combining edited images and edited audio.

DaveG

[xahu34]

... PTE is for combining edited images and edited audio ...

... and this should include features like they have been described by Peter (fh1805) in post 22, above!!!

Regards,

Xaver

[fh1805]

OK, folks! I've let this debate go on without interrupting it for some time. But now I ask all who have participated - particularly those who don't want PTE to become an audio file editor - to go back and re-read my original post in this thread carefully.

I don't want to be able to edit the sound files in PTE. I want to do to them things that are equivalent to actions that I can already take with my image files.

I want to be able to position a sound file at a precise point on the timeline - just like I can position an image file

I want to be able to position multiple sound files at multiple overlapping points - just like I can place multiple images on one main image

I want to be able to control the sound level of each sound file - just like I can control the opacity of an image file (and I want this feature to permit me to do fade up, fade down, and set any volume level through all or part of a sound file)

In short I want the sound files to be "audio objects" that can be manipulated but not modified.

We cannot edit the image files within PTE (I agree that this should be done outside PTE in such as Photoshop) and I dont want to edit sound files inside PTE either (I agree that this should be done outside PTE in such as Audacity or Audition). But is it such a crime to want to be able to manipulate both halves of my A-V sequence inside this wonderful A-V software?

Right now PTE is fantastic V software, but pays only lip service to the A half of A-V.

regards,

Peter

[Guest Yachtsman1]

... and this should include features like there have been described by Peter (fh1805) in post 22, above!!!

Regards,

Xaver

That's a bridge too far.

Eric

[xahu34]

That's a bridge too far.

Eric

Hi Eric,

only recently (if I remember it correctly), you were asking for a software which transforms images from one aspect ratio to another - in a lossless way. Compared to this requirement, the audio features for PTE, as requested by Peter, myself, and others, are not a big affair

Regards,

Xaver

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Wrong again, I wasn't expecting PTE to do the aspect ratio changing, I'm happy the way it is.

Eric

[xahu34]

Wrong again, I wasn't expecting PTE to do the aspect ratio changing, I'm happy the way it is.

Eric

I would like to express the recommendation to read posts carefully and to spend some time on reflection before entering a reply. In cases where users are not certain about the value and correctness of their contribution it sometimes might be better, not to add a post. A problem with many forums (including this one) is that "experience" is measured by the number of posts, obviously not a perfect way to do it!

Best regards,

Xaver

[uuderzo]

Peter,

I'm completely with you. It's so frustrating to continually switch between the sound editor and PTE only because you want to reach a great synchronization between complex slide animations and music.

Also, I used Adobe Premiere (it's not and audio editor I suppose) but it lets you have several audio tracks and move, truncate, mix them. I don't want fancy audio filters and so on, only the possibility to choose the start and stop position of an audio track and to have some volume interpolation facility to produce fade-in, fade-out (useful for mixing tracks) and maybe to correct volume levels if the slide or the animation requests it.

Working in PTE without these features is simply working (a lot sometimes).

Working with these features is enjoying.

Greetings. Umberto

[pwear]

I have to agree with Umberto, but we should realise what is really being asked for. Inevitably, it would seem to me, PTE would have to be completely redesigned along the multi-track timeline model used by Adobe Premier, mobjects, and other such systems. If you are going to allow the audio to be on several tracks, it then makes sense that the images too should be on split tracks so that transitions, fades and so on are able to be very finely tuned against each other, and the soundtracks. And all the key-framed effects which PTE constructs in a separate window should be applicable directly in the multi-track timeline as they are in Premier, Wings etc.

I can't imagine how this could all be done without a huge amount of work that would have to be reflected in PTE's price, spoiling one of its chief attractions. It would also mean a lot of relearning for those who have devoted much time and effort to mastering the amazing powers of PTE. Having said that, once you have tried a multi-track audio workflow, it is quite hard to resign yourself back to PTE's very minimal audio options. It's also true that the price difference between PTE and some of its multi-track competitors is now about only US$50, so it may be that market forces will start to decide how PTE changes and adapts.

peter

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I have been giving this topic a great deal of thought. Why do we want to advance PTE ever further? Could the majority of users cope with the complications? Would the average user want the additional features? Our main reason for using PTE is to show the pictures we take to their best advantage. If we want to use all the bells & whistles, why stop at photographs, why not just go to video? Are the experts in PTE frustrated movie makers?

With all this in mind I have been looking at the camcorder market & what can be acheived by the amateur movie maker. It would appear the sofware available is streets ahead in features, particularly on the editing side. I have just finished reading Sony's blurb on their Vegas movie making software, and frankly if it lives up to the hype appears to be quite impressive.

Back in the early eighties I bought the first commercially available Sony video camera outfit, which consisted of a massive shoulder mounted camera and a separate recorder which hung around your neck like a lump of lead. Using it I did produce a training video for the company I worked for, which was submitted to M&S as an alternative to live traing sessions on the companies products. It was like comparing the old hard hat style diving suits to the modern aqualung.

Anyway, back to PTE, I have attached a screen shot of the editing screen for one of the Vegas range, which incidentally are priced from around £40 to £500+ with the mid range version at £90. I was considering uprating my hardware to cope with future versions of PTE, now i'm seriously considering ditching still photography & going back to video.

Anyone interested in buying a Nikon D200 outfit???

Yachtsman1.

[xahu34]

... Inevitably, it would seem to me, PTE would have to be completely redesigned along the multi-track timeline model used by ...

Hi pwear,

You are right that Wings and m.objects provide multiple tracks for images, while PTE is restricted to one crossfade track of image containers (called slides). Multiple tracks have several advantages, while the PTE model supports hierarchical structures (called parent/child relationships), a real advantage of PTE. One might start a discussion, which model is the better one, but I would recommend to leave this part of PTE just as it is. Nevertheless I would like to see the possibility of several audio tracks (instead of just one). Why shouldn't it be possible to see more than one waveform in the Timeline view, and in the O&A window, as well. The waveform representations should offer the possibility to shift the audio clips, and to manipulate their volume (envelope function).

Best regards,

Xaver

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

I use the Sony Vegas Pro suite (about $1500 worth) and I can assure you that unless you intend to spend a "lot" of time learning how to use it, you will find PTE virtually "simple" to use in comparison. Video editing software such as Sony's which was adapted when they purchased the original software from Sound Forge (now a Sony Product) before they were acquired by Sony, or Adobe Encore/Premier, etc., are complex but powerful programs. Learning to use their myriad features is a bit like learning to use Photoshop. Some parts are relatively simple, but to get the most from the program requires years for most users to assimilate. I can tell you it's a daunting task!

Best regards,

Lin

snip....

Anyway, back to PTE, I have attached a screen shot of the editing screen for one of the Vegas range, which incidentally are priced from around £40 to £500+ with the mid range version at £90. I was considering uprating my hardware to cope with future versions of PTE, now i'm seriously considering ditching still photography & going back to video.

Anyone interested in buying a Nikon D200 outfit???

Yachtsman1.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Peter,

Actually, I think not. There is no need to redesign the video portions of PTE to make it like some other products because it already has features that they don't have which make it very powerful. More new features are being added such as 3D object transformations, output to MacIntosh and other things on the drawing board. It's really not necessary to have multiple video tracks to do some very sophisticated transitions and timings with PTE.

I must agree with Xaver that simply having a couple audio tracks with elementary fades and perhaps volume control via keyframes would suffice nicely and really doesn't imply that multiple video channels are required.

These video products which have multiple video channels and multiple audio channels "can" be used to create slideshows from stills (I have a number of these products myself) but it is certainly not as easy nor as flexible in my experience as PTE. I can create complex shows with animations in minutes with PTE which take me literally hours to accomplish with Sony Vegas Pro Suite or with Adobe Encore (when I can do them at all). I can do things in a few hours with PTE which take me literally days to do with Wings (which in my estimation is the finest overall AV product availalble - but terribly expensive for the full-featured versions).

I see PTE as having a very special place in audio visual creations software. It's extremely powerful, produces stellar quality and at a very modest price with absolutely the best upgrade policy anywhere. Absolutely it's unmatched in presentation slideshow software. It gets better every few months and from where I sit the future for PTE looks very bright indeed!

Best regards,

Lin

I have to agree with Umberto, but we should realise what is really being asked for. Inevitably, it would seem to me, PTE would have to be completely redesigned along the multi-track timeline model used by Adobe Premier, mobjects, and other such systems. If you are going to allow the audio to be on several tracks, it then makes sense that the images too should be on split tracks........ snip

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Lin

I put that screenshot on to stir up some comments, I was thinking more of the mid range software at less that £100 UK. However I am going to visit a camcorder club first to suss out the pro's & con's.

Regards Eric

[jfa]

As Lin said there is a clear distinction between the "Movie or Video" and the "Image/Audio" production software tools.

The Movie or video production software, (such as Sony Vegas, Pinnacle, Adobe Premier and many others), tend to be large,complex programs which like Photoshop take a large investment of time to get to know. They do a very good job and can also be used for Image/Audio production, (Indeed I have done so), but it is like driving a Ferrie at only 50kph, overkill.

The Image/Audio production software, (such as PTE, Pro-Show Gold, PSP and others), tend to be less complex and are easier for the user to approach.

I think making comparisons between the two types of software is a little like comparing apples with oranges, if we wish to compare PTE to another product PSG is probably it's main competitor in the same field and is a much better comparison.

Here is a link to one such direct comparison---

http://www.peakhill.btinternet.co.uk/digit...oundtracks.html

This and many other comparison product tests, (magazines, WEB, user), all come to a similar conclusion, (as many users here have), that PTE while doing everything as well if not better than its competition falls down in the audio area. I get this same feedback from camera club visits I make. Indeed my own club has approximately 60% PSG and 15% PTE users, (the other 25% is spread over many products), and this is the reason I get when I ask why people use PSG or other programs rather than PTE----PTEs audio side is very poor!!.

[jfa]

To follow on from my previous post this issue can be addressed simply by making the audio timeline interactive so that the audio file can be adjusted as we can now with the images. We don't need multiple image tracks.

Peter said it well and I totally agree---

I don't want to be able to edit the sound files in PTE. I want to do to them things that are equivalent to actions that I can already take with my image files.

I want to be able to position a sound file at a precise point on the timeline - just like I can position an image file

I want to be able to position multiple sound files at multiple overlapping points - just like I can place multiple images on one main image

I want to be able to control the sound level of each sound file - just like I can control the opacity of an image file (and I want this feature to permit me to do fade up, fade down, and set any volume level through all or part of a sound file)

In short I want the sound files to be "audio objects" that can be manipulated but not modified.

This then brings PTE to a true AV program as Dave said---

Image editing software is for editing images.

Audio editing software is for editing Audio.

PTE is for combining edited images and edited audio.

This allows the images and audio to both have accurate and precise positioning and adjustment, not just the images as at present.

[Barry Beckham]

I think there are a number of interesting issues here and I would remind everyone of two things

1. You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

2. Jack of all trades equal a master at none. (ie for most of us on this forum, sound editing in PTE would have to equal the capacity of Audacity

for most of us to be happy with it)

The majority of people who contribute to this forum are not typical PTE users, you are in the main PTE enthusiasts, so your needs are miles away from the average user. Some of you can often get very defensive of PTE, which can sometimes get in the way of a balanced debate . As enthusiasts don't we need to take a step back and think about how sound editing would impact into PTE for the average user, not us.

Most of you don't need sound editing in PTE to do what you need to do, but then we are not typical users either. However, I do a lot of demos and I meet a lot of amateur photographers and there is not a shadow of a doubt that PSG is popular to some degree because is does allow basic sound editing.

In time PTE has to adopt some form of sound editior, that will reduce music to the length of the show and fade it out over the number of seconds the author chooses. I would expect that would meet the needs of the PTE bulk users.

If PTE was able to offer sound editing to the level Audacity does perhaps it should be via an add-on like Video Builder. That way the screen controlling the sound would be available to enthusiasts, but not clutter up the normal windows making it harder for newer users to learn PTE. One of the issues people have with practically all software these days is knowing what three essential buttons they need to press to get the job done from the other 999 other options that they just don't need, either for now or forever.

The more that is put into PTE, the more complex it makes the software to learn and some will be driven away by that. You cannot use your own experences as a judge here, because you are not typical users, you have to stand back.

Finally, to contradict my own waffling here, where is it written that we always have to follow the crowd anyway. Someone has to forge their own path and be different from the competition.

[dadou]

Happy to read your comment , Barry !

It is very important to give to the basical user a simple tool . It is as into an ordinaty kitchen : if your first try is pleasant , you will do a most complicated one the second time , and so you will progress .

[uuderzo]

In time PTE has to adopt some form of sound editior, that will reduce music to the length of the show and fade it out over the number of seconds the author chooses. I would expect that would meet the needs of the PTE bulk users.

If PTE was able to offer sound editing to the level Audacity does perhaps it should be via an add-on like Video Builder. That way the screen controlling the sound would be available to enthusiasts, but not clutter up the normal windows making it harder for newer users to learn PTE. One of the issues people have with practically all software these days is knowing what three essential buttons they need to press to get the job done from the other 999 other options that they just don't need, either for now or forever.

The more that is put into PTE, the more complex it makes the software to learn and some will be driven away by that. You cannot use your own experences as a judge here, because you are not typical users, you have to stand back.

You are right. Sound editing should be done with a sound editor. If I need to add echo effect or do something that will alter considerably the waveform of my sound, sure I'll go with a dedicated sound editor.

But being not able to put a piece of music in the timeline and adjust another piece position does not make PTE simpler to use IMHO. It makes harder when you just want to do something synchronized with music. It's always possible to hide the complexity (if any) of the interface making PTE behave like always and letting the "advanced" user to expand the audio interface only when needed. It's not necessary to put on the screen all the complexity all in one if not needed.

Anyway, with such additions, the video and audio parts of PTE would be more balanced, letting the user move the audio samples just like it moves the slides on the timeline.

I'm sure PTE is a great software, the flexibility of the video part is awesome but I admit that sometimes I look around for something that would let me manage audio better (and I dont' need a recording studio software). And it makes me little sad.

Greetings. Umberto

[Ken Cox]

The thing that puzzles me is the people that are entering competitions all the time do not seem to be complaining about the sound ability of the current state of pte

so

that leaves me to believe "it aint broke so dont try fixin it"

ken