Audio Adjustments facilities within PTE ?

[xahu34]

...Every one of us could have predicted the sort of responses we have seen...

I agree, but there are some "advanced members" with hundreds, if not thousands of posts who try to make others believe that the world looks different (examples: There are a lot of us that don't want PTE cluttered with a sound editing facility, or We don't really want any sound editing within PTE).

This poll does not prove anything but it seems to indicate that the group of members to which the said advanced members refer to (using words like us and we) is smaller than they believe.

Regards,

Xaver

[Barry Beckham]

Well, from a purely selfish attitude I don't need any sound editing in PTE, but most people do and I know because I demonstrate PTE to hundreds of them, in fact thousands by now.

The average user doesn't find the ending of a slide show easy, it's only easy in a sound editor when you have done it a dozen times.

My point, that I have made many times is the forum doesn't reflect the average user at all and we should be aware of that.

Xaver, you need to be aware that what most people say is often just a figure of speach, it doesn't always need to be taken literally.

[davegee]

Like Barry I will continue to use a seperate programme (Audition) to produce Audio files.

I seem to remember seeing that in some AV competitions etc the fading of the music at the end is not acceptable. Perhaps someone more experienced than I at entering such competitions could elaborate (?) not that it has anything to do with this poll perhaps.

To quote Stephan Grappelli: "Start well and end well - the middle will look after itself".

I have always maintained that no poll (or general election for that matter) is valid unless EVERYONE elligible to vote does so (IMHO). It is merely the opinion of the small band (comparatively speaking) of users who have bothered to take part in the poll and the result could hardly be used on its own in any decision-making process.

DaveG

[thedom]

The purpose of this poll is not to have an "exact" result.

I agree, each user of PTE should vote. But they are certainly a lot of users (a majority?) who have never subscribed to this forum.

That's why I completely agree, the final result will not proove anything.

But as I mentionned in the poll :

It would be interesting to know the tendency for the users of the forum.

At least this subject keeps us busy !

Have a good sunday everybody.

[uuderzo]

PTE is a commercial product, it is hardly going to be supported financially by any of us who already have it. Its the newer user and the user who hasn't even heard of PTE yet, that I am sure Igor has in mind.

I'd accept to pay the licence one more time if this can give me a decent audio adjustment environment into PTE!

I think that PTE shoud almost have:

- Multiple stereo tracks

- Possibility to choose the start and stop point of a track (maybe splitting?)

- Fade in-out through a simple line drawing schema (like most audio products out there)

Greetings! Umberto

[pwear]

Salve!

People who use and like PTE should ALL support adding sound modification as an OPTION to the interface - whether they will use/like it or not. It's not just about increasing PTE's client base - more seriously, it's about maintaining the users it already has. This is truly a matter of survival. PTE is a wonderful programme with one glaring omission - no ability to do even the most basic shaping of the audio dimension. The price gap between PTE and those programmes (wings, mobjects) that allow very flexible intuitive audio adjustments is not wide enough to stop keen AV makers from jumping across. That migration can kill off the best of products.

My proof? Here's the admission that disqualifies me from all comment about PTE - EXCEPT IN THIS RARE CASE. I no longer use it. I paid the extra and I'm enjoying far more pleasureable AV making with mobjects. The single biggest difference is its handling of audio tracks. I would not have switched, with all the unlearning and re-learning that demanded, had PTE offered even a basic suite of audio modifications.

The other threat to PTE's survival is the myth of its superior image quality. I am a pixel pedant who demands a lot of my camera, computer, monitor etc - and I can see no difference in basic image display, fades and movements between PTE and mobjects. Please note what I am saying - not that there IS no difference, but that I, a long-time photographer cannot see any. If I can't, and my photography students can't, the market-place reality is that not enough people can for it to matter. Therefore it will never be PTE's salvation.

I am not trying to start controversy, that's a waste of everyone's time. I'm just suggesting that the 'better audio' issue crops up over and over in this forum because, whether we admit it or not, PTE's very survival may depend on the speedy implementation of a competitive audio interface.

Vale!

[stardealer]

Totally agree to pwear's opinion and Igor has promised something for next version, doesn't he?

So maybe it's time to move on from the audio point to other features which can help to acquire new (and not only enthusiast)users like video integration, template wizard for ease of use, some small image manipulations, text animation functions and so on.

Regards, Frank

[Igor]

Thanks for raising this important question!

We're working on virtual editing of sound/music for next version(s). I hope it will appear soon. It's a high priority feature in our TODO list now.

[xahu34]

... We're working on virtual editing of sound/music for next version(s) ...

I'm very glad to read that! Would it be possible to give rough outline of your concept?

Regards,

Xaver