Talk:Adobe Audition

Cool Edit deserves its own article
I would like to make a ddrequest for information concerning pre adobe audition cool edit. its an amazeing peice of software writtem, i believe, in the mid 90s but i cant be sure. i dont think cool edit and cool edit pro should link to adobe audition. they warrant their own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.194.108 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 January 2007
 * True. I knew it and could pay my tribute in writing with some lines. Please note the redirect to Adobe Audition is a sort of publicity to Adobe. 188.25.109.237 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised seeing Cooledit in the Adobe Audition page. Cooledit surely deserves its own article.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I don't support. This article is already too short and its contents has little significant value. Anything that can be put in a separate article can be put here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant requirements for a separate article are listed at Notability (software). The guideline discusses such issues as the longevity or durability of a piece of software, the amount of third party reviews of it, the number of times the software is mentioned in teaching tools, etc. Here's what I see on Cool Edit Pro to help build toward notability:
 * Cool Edit Pro 2 in Use ISBN 1931769184, a third party book dedicated to the software. The authors have also written other books about Cubase, Sonar, and competing audio software.
 * "Getting on the Right Track", Maximum PC, November 2000. A review of three software audio editors. Cool Edit Pro gets three paragraphs of dedicated review.
 * Mike Collins (2004) Choosing and Using Audio and Music Software, Chapter 12. Collins says in his 2004 first edition that he intended to give Cool Edit Pro its own chapter named "Cool Edit Pro", but just as he was going to press the software was bought by Adobe. Without changing the chapter text in any "major" or "significant manner", he renamed the chapter "Adobe Audition (Cool Edit Pro)".
 * Guerilla Film Makers Movie Blueprint, pages 427–428. Chris Jones dedicates two pages of instruction to telling the reader how to use Cool Edit Pro to prepare audio tracks for film.
 * Multimedia Applications, Services and Techniques, page 86. The authors describe a typical audio editing system based on Cool Edit Pro, as used by a journalist to prepare audio media.
 * Learning unplugged, pages 51–52. Diane Mary Gayeski describes how to use Cool Edit Pro to record and mix audio tracks.
 * Web Design in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference, page 405. The author lists two PC audio editors appropriate for the web designer. The list is Sound Forge and Cool Edit.
 * Tania Shillam (2003) Radio. Shillam says on page 22 that "Most colleges tend to use Cool Edit Pro – a professional system as used by the BBC and many commercial stations. Cool Edit has replaced open reel tape machines as an editing tool and has the advantage that you can multi-track on it. Often used for making commercials, features or even whole [radio] programmes."
 * These sources tend to show that Cool Edit was notable by itself, before Adobe bought it. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Notability is required but is not sufficient. We can have a separate article whenever the material on that subject reach sufficient mass to warrant a split. (And honestly, I don't why you people think Notability is such a holy grail while it is not even a policy.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

CoolEdit Pro 2.0
CoolEdit Pro 2.0 was basically the same program as Adobe Audition 1.0. The only real difference was the substitution of Adobe in the help and information areas. Most in the pro audio industry consider CoolEdit 2.0 and Audition 1.0-1.5 to be the same program. 75.120.83.193 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

wat about peter Q? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.126.186 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Cool Edit Pro 2.1?
This article says that the last version of Cool Edit Pro was 2.0 but several sites such as Softpedia distribute 2.1 216.86.120.252 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * CoolEdit 2.1 was the same as 2.0. The only difference was to include more flexability to sample from and writ eto the more modern versions of the MP3 format.  This was possible under 2.0 with a patch.  A few other plug-ins were included (which were seperate downloads in 2.0).  75.120.83.193 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Adobe Soundbooth
I note that Adobe Soundbooth is being included in Adobe Master Collection and Adobe Production Premium. The last version of Production Premium included Adobe Audition. Does this mean that Adobe Audition has been renamed to Adobe Soundbooth? TerraFrost 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Audition 3 came out after Soundbooth. http://www.adobe.com/products/soundbooth/compare/ --Jhartmann (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Somthing is wrong with the picture
Somthing is wrong with the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofer Robin (talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 June 2007

Replacing Soundbooth or not?!
I can't get a straight answer out of Adobe whether Soundbooth is replacing Audition or not. Here is the latest I got from an Adobe chat agent:


 * Visitor: Is Audition going to be in any suite package?


 * Clark: I will be glad to help you with that information.


 * Clark: I'm sorry that Audition is not included in any of our Creative Suites.


 * Visitor: Will new versions of it have dynamic link?


 * Clark: Instead of Audition, we have included SoundBooth CS3 in the Creative Suite 3 Production Premium.


 * Visitor: I need the multi-track tools when I do animation


 * Clark: Sure, SoundBooth will meet your needs and expectation.


 * Visitor: Is audition going to be continued to be produced?


 * Clark: Adobe Audition allows you to record, mix, edit, and master digital audio files with powerful tools that bring flexibility and control to your desktop studio.


 * Clark: Audition is a standalone product and it is available for $349.


 * Clark: Are you ready to add the item to your cart?


 * Visitor: I have Audtion 2.0, is there a newer version?


 * Clark: SoundBooth is the new version.


 * Clark: We don't have any upgrade for Audition.


 * Visitor: Is adobe going to make new versions of audition eventually or is Soundbooth replacing audition?


 * Clark: SoundBooth have replaced the Audition. We are not going to release any new version for Audition.

I don't want to change it based on this because for all I know this guy was in some God-forsaken 3rd world country and has no clue. Can we confirm with a citation that Soundbooth is not replacing Audition? I know there is a page on the Adobe site that compares the two, but that's not concrete proof. Ryratt 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Confirmed here: http://blogs.adobe.com/hartshafer/2006/10/introducing_ado.html#more I don't know how to cite. 76.86.0.31 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clark must be an online sales person and he doesn't have all the information regarding future releases of Audition and Soundbooth. As stated on Hart's blog above (which doesn't verify question and answer between visitor and clark), Soundbooth is a different Audio application targeted at different group of people (Video Professionals). Audition has not gone away and infact a new version was released November 2007. That is confirmation on it's own that Adobe is still working on Audition. If Soundbooth was replacing Audition, Adobe would have removed Audition and would have directed users to go download Soundbooth. The fact that both Audition and Soundbooth are available for purchase means that Soundbooth is not going to replace Audition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Adobe will release Audition for Mac with new features soon, so is much likely it's not going to dissapear. --Peroyomas (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Audition.png
Image:Audition.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Audition.png
Image:Audition.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Audition.png
Image:Audition.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Audition.png
Image:Audition.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

.CEL data format
The native CoolEdit audio format has extension .cel - what was this, and is it supported by any other software? Drutt (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AFAIR, .cel stands for "Audition Loop" (even though "Cool Edit Loop" appears to fit the acronym slighty better :-)). An audio loop is typically an audio snippet which can be repeated or combined (arranged) together with other loops to eventuelly end up in a new song. AFAIK, an "Audition Loop" used MP3/MP3Pro for the audio data. Loop file formats typically also include metadata like "oroginal pitch" and "original tempo" (BpM). I am not aware of any other appliocation which understand the .cel file format. Despite using MP3/MP3Pro as a codec, a .cel file appears not be compatible with MP§/MP3Pro (while MP3 files can be extended with custom data chunks (like the ID3 tags), which are skipped by software which doesn't know them, this appears not to be the approach taken by Audition - at leatst .cel files cannot be renamed as .mp3 and opened in WinAmp).
 * Since .cel files are based on a lossy format and meant for the special pupose of storing audio loops, I wouldn't consider .cel as the native format. --Klaws (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Winamp 5.5 recognizes and plays them. Drutt (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a stub
How do I make it have the box saying that it's a stub?

WIll someone tell me? Or at least do it themself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangLab (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More CoolEdit history
I think the early part on CoolEdit requires more information, particularly regarding years and time frame. The only years mentioned regarding CoolEdit so far are "the early 1990s" as for when Syntrillium was founded, and 2003 when Syntrillium sold it to Adobe. There's no mention whatsoever of most of the things that happened between the founding of Syntrillium and the sale of the program to Adobe, and especially not when it happened.

In other words, an own timeline for CoolEdit would be nifty: When did the first (crippleware) release come out? When did they release CoolEdit96 (presumably in 1996; it's the version I've been using next to CoolEditPro until Audition came out)? When did they release CoolEditPro? Etc... --2003:71:4E6A:B457:9D64:FBFA:3880:5109 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also note cooledit-3.12.0] and cooledit. This cooledit is a text exitor and is related to Midnight Commander (try  after cloning mc). Perhaps the only resemblence with Adobe Audition/Cool Edit Pro/Cool Edit is the name. Leen 94.212.249.212 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It reads like an Adobe sales brochure
"Audition CS6 ...It included faster and more precise editing"

What is more precise than editing to the single sample, to the actual 16-bit or 32-bit integer or floating-point number, which Cool Edit had before Adobe bought it? Likewise for "faster" - can anyone quantify this, or is it just sales talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.109.118 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Need cleanup and bring verified sources...
Heyo, I just wanted to say that I slightly improved the article, but not significantly. The sources must be independently verified.  —Jamesluiz102—  (talk)  03:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Destructive"
I've been using the program ever since it was still called CoolEdit96, and the only "destructive" thing about it was that you had to hit the undo button rather than turn effects on and off, while the files on the HDD stayed the same. That's not called "destructive", that's simply called "not in real time". --2003:DA:CF39:B891:75A8:AC28:3C40:AB12 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)