Adobe Introduces SoundBooth Beta, x86 Only

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Adobe has introduced a competitor to Apple's SoundTrack Pro dubbed SoundBooth (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/soundbooth/).

Try Adobe® Soundbooth™. Soundbooth is a brand new application built in the spirit of Sound Edit 16 and Cool Edit that provides the tools video editors, designers, and others who do not specialize in audio need to accomplish their everyday work such as:

-Editing audio quickly.
-Cleaning up noisy audio.
-Visually identifying and removing unwanted sounds.
-Recording and polishing voiceovers.
-Adding effects and filters.
-Easily creating customized music—without musical expertise.

Similar to Adobe's LightRoom (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060109021315.shtml) application, SoundBooth is beginning its life as a public beta. Adobe is offering the software in Windows and Intel-Mac versions, and Adobe specifically mentions that they will not be offering a PowerPC version of the software.

Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places. By focusing on Apple's future, we have been able to bring this powerful application to the Mac platform much more rapidly, and with a stronger feature set.

Adobe's Intel Mac FAQ (http://www.adobe.com/products/pdfs/intelmacsupport.pdf) still lists many of its popular programs (such as Creative Suite) as being ported to be Universal applications in their next revisions.

SoundBooth should be available in mid-2007. Pricing is to be determined.

[ Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Adobe_Announces_SoundBooth_SoundTrack_Pro_competitor_x86_Only) ]

[~Shard~]

Interesting, I didn't hear anything about this in the rumor mill. I'm not sure how it will fare, but competition is always a good thing...

[miniConvert]

No PowerPC version? Ouch. Lets hope that's not a growing trend for all you golden oldies out there :p

Sounds pretty cool though I think.

[platypus63]

Wow, I expected PPC support to drop in a few years, not a few months. Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s. Sucks for me with my dual G5. :(

I hope this won't be a common trend.

[bishopduke]

!

[GekkePrutser]

I'm sure this is the first of many companies to ignore the massive PowerPC userbase out there. I wish there was something like a reverse-rosetta.

So much for the age-old tradition of Macs having a much longer useful service life than a Windows PC, now a 2-month old PowerMac is already becoming obsolete.

[~Shard~]

No PowerPC version? Ouch. Lets hope that's not a growing trend for all you golden oldies out there :p

Yeah, I knew this was inevitable. (I'm running a 1.25 GHz G4 iMac.) That being said, for the applications I use (and this won't be one of them), I honestly don't see myself being forced to buy an Intel machine for a loooong time. Just because Adobe has decided to rpoceed in this manner doesn't mean other companies will follow suit. And you can bet that Apple definitely won't, at least not for a few more years. Heck, Classic was supported until what, last year essentially? And the G3 machines up until Leopard? ;) :cool:

[longofest]

Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s.

Yeah, tell me about it (looks down at my Quad). But honestly, I think it will suck even more for Adobe, as they are really limiting themselves in the market that they can reach. Come on Adobe, it wouldn't be THAT hard to code according to Apple's Universal standards, would it?

Then again, they may be trying to go for the optimal performance possible. I blogged about this a while ago (http://web.mac.com/longofest/iWeb/Blog%20Corner/Tech%20Fest/09B771A2-EF7E-4BD7-8172-9CB5E15A06EE.html), and how Universal Binaries using the Accelerate framework may not always give you all the performance options available to a program.

[~Shard~]

I'm sure this is the first of many companies to ignore the massive PowerPC userbase out there. I wish there was something like a reverse-rosetta.

So much for the age-old tradition of Macs having a much longer useful service life than a Windows PC, now a 2-month old PowerMac is already becoming obsolete.

I wouldn't worry too much just yet. As I said above, just because Adobe has decided to proceed in this manner does not mean everyone else will too. I'm betting that PPC machines will still be "safe" for a few more years in this respect. And plus, for many "non-Pro" users like myself, I don't need to run the latest version of certain software, so even if the newest versions are Intel only, this won't affect me much. My Office v.X will still run fine, just as my Photoshop Elements 3, iLife 06 and Toast 7 will. They meet my needs so I don't feel a need to upgrade them at this point in time even if new versions come out (UB or not). :cool:

[Doctor Q]

Adobe's other apps are to be Universal, but we see that they are willing to abandon PowerPC, as will other vendors who don't see much of a market in software for the old Macs, and who can save development costs by selling Intel-only applications.

[~Shard~]

Yeah, tell me about it (looks down at my Quad). But honestly, I think it will suck even more for Adobe, as they are really limiting themselves in the market that they can reach. Come on Adobe, it wouldn't be THAT hard to code according to Apple's Universal standards, would it?


If the CS3 situation is any example, then Adobe would have you believe the answer to that question is "YES". ;)

And yes, there still is a very large PPC user base out there which Adobe will risks alienating with this type of a decision. If they can make CS3 UB, and that's not coming out until spring of 2007, how come they can't make SoundBooth (a relatively simpler app compared to CS3) UB as well, which will be released presumably only a few months afterwards? :confused:

[GekkePrutser]

I wouldn't worry too much just yet. As I said above, just because Adobe has decided to proceed in this manner does not mean everyone else will too. I'm betting that PPC machines will still be "safe" for a few more years in this respect. And plus, for many "non-Pro" users like myself, I don't need to run the latest version of certain software, so even if the newest versions are Intel only, this won't affect me much. My Office v.X will still run fine, just as my Photoshop Elements 3, iLife 06 and Toast 7 will. They meet my needs so I don't feel a need to upgrade them at this point in time even if new versions come out (UB or not). :cool:

Yeah, I think software that is already on the market for PPC may even see another new release (relatively not a lot of work), but I wouldn't count on much newly developed stuff (such as SoundBooth) to be released for PPC. Unless it's being developed in XCode but for some reasons most large software companies don't use it.

I still think the current PPC line will be obsolete a lot quicker than we are used to :( At work we still use a G3 from 1999 for testing apps. Works great running 10.4.8. I don't think our PPC's will last 8 years :( I agree that Apple will support us for a good while but I think 3rd parties will drop off a lot quicker.

But you're right, we don't need the latest software per-se to have a use for our Macs... Didn't really think of that.

[ZildjianKX]

I can understand why they are doing this. This is a new product and there is no preexisting PPC version out there. It almost seems like a waste of development time since a good portion of the customer base who would be purchasing this will have an Intel mac by mid-2007.

Still sucks for the quad G5 mac owners. Now I'm just waiting for the first Intel-only mac game to come out, lol.

[~Shard~]

Adobe's other apps are to be Universal, but we see that they are willing to abandon PowerPC, as will other vendors who don't see much of a market in software for the old Macs, and who can save development costs by selling Intel-only applications.

Yeah, at the end of the day it always comes down to money, doesn't it? ;)

[speakster]

Considering that this is in Beta and probably will be for a year, I don't think their risking losing sales to PPC people since its not for sale right now....by that time, a lot more people will be running Intel Macs. Perfect time to sell a nice polished product.

[combatcolin]

You can almost hear the cries of relief of all those people who put off buying a G5 and waited for Intel.

Years of support for the PPC my left arse cheek!

[fabsgwu]

This is a very bad prescient. The universal binaries are there for a reason, Adobe is not a good Mac developer imo for this reason.

On the other hand, the design professionals won't upgrade to Intel Macs until all of their apps are ported. Once that happens there will be a lot more incentive to switch to Intel, and in the end it will be good for Apple to really solidify the base of Intel-Mac users. I guess this is ripping the band-aid off quick and clean, but it's really not fair to a lot of users.

[JDOG_]

Hah, Adobe being committed to x86 Macs. If they meant it we would have had a universal binary update to Creative Suite 2 a lonnng time ago. :rolleyes:

[twoodcc]

i'm pretty disappointed that it's not universal

[Westside guy]

I really hope I'm wrong, but this is pretty much what I was afraid of - vendors dropping PPC support quite soon after the Intel transition was complete. I know Apple will stick with universal binaries for the forseeable future; but there are no guarantees with any other vendors.

Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.

Let's hope this really is a one-off, and Adobe just did this because it's a new app that wouldn't gain a foothold with the existing PPC crowd. But given their history (or at least the history of their public comments), I wouldn't bank on it.

[Bear]

Adobe is offering the software in Windows and Intel-Mac versions, and Adobe specifically mentions that they will not be offering a PowerPC version of the software.I guess this is a piece of software I qwon't look at for a few years. Then again there are other universal apps that do pretty much the same thing. And of course why switch programs once you have something that does what you want?

If the CS3 version of Photoshop is Intel only I guess it's another version I won't upgrade to. (I'm still running Photoshop CS.) Adobe is being rather stupid.

My Power Mac still has at least a couple of years of life left in it. All it needs is another couple of gigs of ram.

[-Jeff]

I think this is a special case. This appears to be a "lite" version of Adobe Audition, which Adobe bought from Syntrillium Software (Syntrillium called it Cool Edit Pro).

Cool Edit Pro was built from the ground up for the Intel architecture. At that time, Intel Macs didn't exist. Since there was no pre-existing PPC compatible version, they have decided not to create one.

Don't worry too much. New Mac applications and updates for applications that already have PPC versions will probably be released as Universal Binaries for years to come.

[drlunanerd]

Hmm, this could work in Apple's favour if, for example, the unthinkable happened and CS3 was released as Intel-only. It'd force a lot of pro users to upgrade their hardware to Intel Macs. Then again it could piss them all off into gradually abandoning the Mac platform and switching to PC.

It's not a good precedent, but inevitable at some point. Surprising that it's happening already though.

[caveman_uk]

Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.

You're absolutely right but as a dev I'd say Adobe is throwing away a large chunk of the Mac market as many users will still have PowerPC machines even when this app comes out. Maybe, Adobe is not after the Mac market at all here. They're really interested in the Windows market but the port to x86 mac was pretty easy.

[iris_failsafe]

Actually they are concerned that their mac share is growing and they were not ready for it. Within their creative apps macs are over 50% and growing.
Here is the article
http://software.seekingalpha.com/article/12183

[morespce54]

I miss Sound Edit 16.
I used that app so much in the old days... way before Macromedia and Adobe got into the game. :rolleyes:

[ChrisA]

I wish there was something like a reverse-rosetta.

There is. It is called "QEMU" It is free and Open Source.
On your G5/G4 processor you can
emulate the following Intel x86, ARM, SPARC, MIPS and Power PC.
The first of these is what you asked for. This is more like "Parallels"
than rosetta.

See here for detail
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/about.html

[jdechko]

I messed with it for about 5 minutes and it's nowhere near Soundtrack, IMO. Now I'm not an audio or video pro, but I like to do some tinkering. But as someone else stated, Adobe Audition is much more competition to Soundtrack is than SoundBooth.

Also, this doesn't necessarily need to be a UB. Heck, from what I saw it doesn't really even fill a need with the Intel Macs. Logic and Soundtrack seem to be much better options.

[iMeowbot]

The developers at Adobe are saying that the company simply didn't want to spend that much time on the product. A Universal version was ruled out, and the next option would have been to make this a Windows-only product. Whatever, there isn't exactly a shortage of Mac sound editors.

[Willis]

No PPC version... man, thats going to hurt sales somewhat. Adobe should remember the mass of Apples customers are PPC users, and most people still have machines around 5-6yrs old. Cutting them out the loop is harsh, not to mention those who own newish G5's.

[tech4all]

While I have no interest in this app, it is disappointing that they left PowerPC in the dust. Hopefully this isn't a new trend other companies will follow.

Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places.

While that may be true, there are still plenty of PowerPC customers out there. Probably more than Mac x86, right? Then again, as it was said by someone here, this was probably just meant to be a Windows only app, so they might have just made a Mac x86 version so that there could be some Mac support.

[codo]

Who the hell wants this? This space is already filled.

Port Audition to the Mac already - I've been using it for years, and its literally one of two things i cant stick on my MacBook. (Editing in Parallels is foul, and Boot Camp is a waste of space on a 120 gig hard drive for a few applications.)

[-Jeff]

Port Audition to the Mac already

I agree! Audition is a much better audio editor than the ones in Logic Pro and Sountrack -- and I have hundreds of hours on each of those applications.

This news gives me hope that Audition will be ported to the Mac.

[p0intblank]

Cool, more software is a good thing. No support for PowerPC users is just unfair, though. :( Oh well, I have no interest in it anyway. Now if it was Photoshop CS3... then I'd be pissed! :p

[mdntcallr]

it's weird they made a conscious decision to NOT allow ppc computers to use.

it is like they dont want more customers. maybe with photoshop they will do same.

[Pistol Pete]

whatever we just need rosetta for our PPC Macs ;)

[fixyourthinking]

Only edits lossless not compressed files.

It doesn't edit AACs or MP3s.

[typecase]

Wow, I expected PPC support to drop in a few years, not a few months. Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s. Sucks for me with my dual G5. :(

I hope this won't be a common trend.

Amen! Why not just release it Universal and check the other box when compiling?

[ChrisA]

You're absolutely right but as a dev I'd say Adobe is throwing away a large chunk of the Mac market as many users will still have PowerPC machines even when this app comes out. Maybe, Adobe is not after the Mac market at all here. They're really interested in the Windows market but the port to x86 mac was pretty easy.

If you make a Universal Binary the program not only has to run on the PPC but has to hve usable performance. So they would have to taylor the program's feature set so that the PPC was not over taxed.

If you design a program with a target minimum system requirement of "at least a dual core Intel processor and 1GB RAM" you can add a lot of nice features that you could not have if the program had to run on a G4 or G5.

One relivent bit of info is that user's tend to buy most of their software near the time when they buy a new computer. People with older machines simply don't buy much new software. So while there are thousands of PPC Macs in the world not many of those Mac owners will be potential costomers while almost everyone who buys a new computer is a software buyer.

[ChrisA]

Amen! Why not just release it Universal and check the other box when compiling?

Likely they are not using Xcode. If you have to maintain code that is Windows/Mac cross platform they may find it easier not to use Xcode.

[BornAgainMac]

Yes, I am doing the same. My simple "Hello World" is Intel only. Yes, I am going to click on the check box for Intel just to piss off the G5 loving Mac owners. ha ha ha.

[volk]

Who the hell wants this? This space is already filled.

Port Audition to the Mac already - I've been using it for years, and its literally one of two things i cant stick on my MacBook. (Editing in Parallels is foul, and Boot Camp is a waste of space on a 120 gig hard drive for a few applications.)


I couldn't agree more. I use Audition/Cool Edit Pro at work (radio production) and have yet to find a suitable replacement for it on the Mac. Soundbooth has very limited usability without being able to bounce tracks into an integrated multitrack.

What's sad is that when I saw all the audio apps available for the Mac I thought Audition level functionality would be easy to find. I couldn't have been more wrong. I have tried Soundtrack and Peak, and each are good in their own way, but neither fill the needs of a typical radio station production load. It is very frustrating to me. Ironically, I sent an e-mail to Adobe just the other day requesting that they port Audition...when I saw the headline about Soundbooth, I got really excited until I realized it was a port of Cool Edit 2000. Still, I downloaded it and will test it on my iMac.

Please Adobe...give us Audition!

[parenthesis]

I loved Cool Edit back in the day (when it wasn't an Adobe property). I might have to check this out.

[wmmk]

well,i suppose this begins the leave PPC users in the dumps trend. along with the 802.11pre-draft n or whatever cards in the C2D macs, upgrading is becoming a more realistic possibility for me every day.

[codo]

I couldn't agree more. I use Audition/Cool Edit Pro at work (radio production) and have yet to find a suitable replacement for it on the Mac. Soundbooth has very limited usability without being able to bounce tracks into an integrated multitrack.

What's sad is that when I saw all the audio apps available for the Mac I thought Audition level functionality would be easy to find. I couldn't have been more wrong. I have tried Soundtrack and Peak, and each are good in their own way, but neither fill the needs of a typical radio station production load. It is very frustrating to me. Ironically, I sent an e-mail to Adobe just the other day requesting that they port Audition...when I saw the headline about Soundbooth, I got really excited until I realized it was a port of Cool Edit 2000. Still, I downloaded it and will test it on my iMac.

Please Adobe...give us Audition!

I use Audition for the same purpose. I preferred the application when it was Cool Edit, I feel Adobe have bloated it out ever so slightly. But beggars can't be choosers - It's an important tool for me.

I've had a go with "SoundBooth", its literally the most basic editing pulled from the original Cool Edit code with a few effects pallets. Defiantly not enough for me. It runs well though, nice-ish interface, not sluggish. I personally wouldn't pay more than £30 - £40 for it, its just too basic.

[spicyapple]

If Adobe decides to release CS3 as Intel-Mac only, Apple will experience a huge increase in sales of Mac Pros. Such a move by Adobe would have a positive benefit for Apple. Users will upgrade willingly kicking and screaming because Adobe products are bread and butter apps.

[Jedi128]

Its just disappointing to see something intel only. I thought this would be extremely rare, and it should never actually happen. Don't they understand that you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to support older systems. Not everyone has the means to just buy a brand new computer everytime software they want is released. I hope this is just a one off case of it being Windows only, and Adobe just making it intel only cause it was easier.

[kalisphoenix]

What utter crap.

Screw Adobe.

[vi2867]

That's the wave of the future...

Intel Macs have been out for almost 11 months. This is what Apple and the Software companies do. This is how they make their money.

If they continue make new products compatible with old products, people will have no reason to buy new products...

[quigleybc]

Meh

I have so many Audio editing apps right now for PPC, I'm not too concerned.

It is slightly alarming about the Intel only....

But, I'm not gonna sweat it.

[BenRoethig]

I'm sorry for everyone with a PowerPC Mac, but the sooner the PowerPC is a distant memory, the better for the platform.

[milo]

now a 2-month old PowerMac is already becoming obsolete.

I certainly hope you didn't buy a Power Mac two months ago, especially since Apple announced the intel switch over a year ago.

Classic was supported until what, last year essentially? And the G3 machines up until Leopard? ;) :cool:

The original G3's were only suppored through 10.2.

While I wish I could run this on my quad, it makes total sense. They're not "abandoning" anyone since this is a new app, and probably won't have a final version shipping for months. If they're expecting slow adoption of this anyway, why bother doing a version that people will be abandoning as fast as they are adopting?

While the intel only thing is a negative, I'm very happy to see any new audio apps appear that are alternatives to STP. Soundtrack Pro is a turd and has been since its release what, a year and a half ago? Apple needs to realize that shipping an app that is complete garbage is not acceptable.

I'd much rather run Sound Forge under parallels than use STP.

[jephrey]

I can see why they'd do it with a "new" program, but SE16 was my audio editing prog of choice even having to open OS9 to use it. Finally, soundstudio came around and went multi track, and although I like it, the bit view in SE16 was priceless for what I do, and that thing saved and opened files in a snap.

Even though it's new, I still had hoped that UBs would be the norm for new stuff for longer, especially from someone like Adobe. I got my G5 in mid 04 and had hoped to have it for 8 years. Looks like it'll be more like the 4 years I had ye olde G3 for. Maybe I can squeeze more out of it, but we'll see.

Whatever,

J

[bowzer]

I wish there was a mac version of audition... I really don't like any audio editors I've tried on the mac so far.

[volk]

I use Audition for the same purpose. I preferred the application when it was Cool Edit, I feel Adobe have bloated it out ever so slightly. But beggars can't be choosers - It's an important tool for me.

I've had a go with "SoundBooth", its literally the most basic editing pulled from the original Cool Edit code with a few effects pallets. Defiantly not enough for me. It runs well though, nice-ish interface, not sluggish. I personally wouldn't pay more than £30 - £40 for it, its just too basic.


Audition has definitely suffered from the "Adobe Bloat" syndrome and I would happily move on from it, but every audio app out there is either focused on recording musicians in multitrack or simple single track editing. Soundtrack has a lovely user interface and excellent integration for video work, but can't handle the simple things radio users need.

FWIW, I discovered today that HairerSoft is working on a pro version of Amadeus. It is only available as a beta at this point, but I have downloaded it for experimentation. Apparently, they have added multitrack support. You can learn more here: http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusPro/AmadeusPro.html

I haven't had a chance to install it yet, but I am hoping it works...

[Buhbuhb]

Given that universal versions of Adobe's software are not universal yet (Or at least most) does anyone know exactly how much slower any particular Adobe program (photoshop, illustrator, etc.) runs on an Intel Mac compared to a PPC Mac? I've heard it runs slower, but HOW much slower?

[081440]

Guess another company will have to produce a reverse of Rosetta if this trend keeps up!

(because Apple would never do it, they don't want people using their PPC machines anymore)

[extraextra]

I'm interested in the program, but I can't use it on my Powerbook, uggghhh. Damn you Adobe!

[jettredmont]

Wow, I expected PPC support to drop in a few years, not a few months. Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s. Sucks for me with my dual G5. :(

I hope this won't be a common trend.

Well, I think what happened here is that Adobe was developing this application for Windows only. Then, they saw Intel Macs and said, hey, for a little extra dev work, we can support Macs too!

The likely problem here is that their underlying sound processing libraries (probably still left over from Cool Edit et al) are heavily reliant on Intel technologies.

I seriously doubt they started from scratch and decided that they'd do it Intel only just to tick us all off. It's seriously significantly easier to just use Apple's Intel/PPC libraries OR isolate your bottleneck code and #ifdef away the two hand-tweaked assembly bits, than to even support older versions of Mac OS. I mean, seriously: developing an app which is backwards compatible with Jaguar is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than developing (from scratch) an app which supports Tiger/PPC and Tiger/Intel!

In any case: will this be an emerging trend? Probably. I can imagine a lot of Windows developers will look at their legacy codebase, the newly-changed calculus of Mac compatibility, and decide that it will be easy to slap a Mac-friendly interface on their Windows/Intel code base where that was just plain impossible before. And, yes, there will also be those who otherwise might have taken the plunge into a true Mac version of their software who look at the same calculus and decide it would save them a whole lot of money and cost them only half of their new market to just slap a Mac-happy interface on their old Windows workhorse instead.

So, for better or ill, that's what we're likely to see. The good part is that it's an increase in software available for the Mac. The bad part is that it's a decrease in software written ground-up to work perfectly on the Mac.

[joemama]

Random yet related question:

What do people recommend using to record basic voiceovers in iMovie and FCExpress? My high school students currently use ProTools and Mbox and it's just way too complicated to record a simple voiceover.

[jettredmont]

Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.


Umm, I'm far from a non-coder. Writing a new app is very much an issue of "checking a box" in XCode. The problems come in when dealing with a years-old code base, much of which has embedded processor assumptions (ranging from hand-tweaked assembly to direct vector calls to assumptions on byte order).

New code, though, you know that you have to support multiple CPU architectures and so you call htons for your byte ordering and use vector libraries rather than direct calls; the sole remaining issue is hand-tweaked assembly, which should be significantly less than 1% of your overall application code especially if you are putting out a new product (you typically don't have enough knowledge to find the bottlenecks where going straight down to the metal is required until your app has been out in users' hands for a while). With all that absorbed in "the process", the only thing left is, yes, checking the box in XCode to generate the UB version of your app.

There's a bit more involved at the compile stage if you want to support both UB and older OS versions (Panther, Jaguar), but it's a lot easier to tell your customers that they have to upgrade to Tiger on their old G4s and G5s than to tell them they have to buy a whole new machine!

[AHDuke99]

i'm pretty sure that adobe has said that CS3 will be universal, so you guys need to calm down. i highly doubt it will be intel only. as for the performance on intel macs of cs2, its kinda sluggish. it takes forever to launch. its pretty rough.

[sandylp]

Instead of coming out with new applications, I would prefer that Adobe put more of an effort into developing an Intel-Mac version of PhotoShop just a bit sooner than Spring of 2007. I've been delaying buying a new Mac until the new CS3 is available. :confused: Doesn't make much sense to buy a new computer, when the application that you use the most runs better on the old one!

[hcuar]

This demonstrates that Adobe is a bunch of morons. If they listened to Apple and used xCode they could click one button and produce a universal binary.

Perhaps Adobe writes ****** software that isn't engineered to be platform independant.

[bilbo--baggins]

Surely the safest way for software to ensure 100% compliance with OS X is to use Xcode - which automatically produces universal binaries. I would be quite wary of buying software that doesn't follow Apples recommendations. Any changes to OS X could potentially cause problems.

Also seems odd that Adobe are using a mixture of software development methods. They've obviously been using some dodgy compiler if it's taking them this long to move to Xcode. Yet lightroom is being developed from ground up as Universal binary - yet this other software isn't. Very strange.

[darwen]

Why such a negative response? The software out there sucks... more competition means more quality. Sound design needs some major upgrades. It needs to more innovate.

[steve_hill4]

Why such a negative response? The software out there sucks... more competition means more quality. Sound design needs some major upgrades. It needs to more innovate.
I had a quick play with SoundBooth and this appeared to suck too. I can't see it being a decent replacement just yet.

[tk421]

Come on, people! This isn't Photoshop. This is a beta. If it is an entirely new application, why should they develop it for PPC? I don't understand all the fuss. Anyone in need of audio software has plenty of options out there. Remember, this isn't even 1.0 yet. It won't be for a while.

[codo]

Why such a negative response? The software out there sucks... more competition means more quality. Sound design needs some major upgrades. It needs to more innovate.

There is absolutely nothing new or innovative about this software. Adobe have pulled a small portion out of a superior program, Audition, and slapped a bit of marketing chat on top to produce a half arsed application that's market is already saturated with adequate basic audio editors - Particularly on the Windows side, which lets remember, will probably make the most profit for Adobe anyway.

I'm complaining because I don't just want this small portion, I want Audition in full for OS X, as many others clearly do. If they can port the original code base for SoundBooth, then certainly can for Audition.

If it is an entirely new application.

It's not. Read above.

FWIW, I discovered today that HairerSoft is working on a pro version of Amadeus. It is only available as a beta at this point, but I have downloaded it for experimentation. Apparently, they have added multitrack support. You can learn more here: http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusPro/AmadeusPro.html

I haven't had a chance to install it yet, but I am hoping it works...

Awesome, ill check that out. Thanks.

[Platform]

No PPC version...WOW that was fast..no too good though :(

[SmileyDude]

Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.

I call bull -- I have a lot of code that I compile as universal at home and work. Sure it's a little more than checking a box, but for a lot of code, it's not much more.

And for an app that started as Intel, making the reverse transition is probably much easier. There is no CodeWarrior legacy crap, MPW, etc, etc. It already compiles in GCC 4 and will continue to do so under PPC. The only remaining issues are endian issues and maybe the possible use of assembly code.

[Seasought]

I think it's a little early to start worrying about PPC support being dropped entirely. I see this more as an exception than an oncoming norm.

If not and suddenly all PPC support is dropped...it's upgrade time! :eek: :D

[WildPalms]

Ahhh, so then its fine if Apple makes a Photoshop competitor. Sweet.:)

[Seasought]

I'm interested in the program, but I can't use it on my Powerbook, uggghhh. Damn you Adobe!


Great avatar! :D

[Seasought]

I'm sorry for everyone with a PowerPC Mac, but the sooner the PowerPC is a distant memory, the better for the platform.

I'll agree with that if you're willing to cover the bill on a new Intel Mac of my choosing for me. ;)

[kresh]

hehe With 11 billion cash in the bank (half of Adobe's market cap), it would be really sweet if Apple acquired Adobe!

Drop all Adobe apps for Windows. Force people to either convert to Mac or find an alternative.

Ah it's just an awful, evil dream.

Please come true :)

[Kingsly]

I would love some better noise reduction filters to clean bad location sound.

Soundbooth looks promising for that... but I think I'm better off springing for Soundtrack Pro. :o

[joemama]

hehe With 11 billion cash in the bank (half of Adobe's market cap), it would be really sweet if Apple acquired Adobe!

Drop all Adobe apps for Windows. Force people to either convert to Mac or find an alternative.

Ah it's just an awful, evil dream.

Please come true :)

...and then M$ would dump Office for the Mac and by-by mac sales (well, new buyers in any case.)

[Digitalclips]

Then again it could piss them all off into gradually abandoning the Mac platform and switching to PC.


So you are thinking ... OK as a graphics pro, I need a new computer to run my Adobe Software now it's not available for my G5 and I am pissed off (at who Apple?), so damn it I may as well buy a PC and Windoze instead of that Intel 8 Core Mac with OS X Leopard I was thinking of.

Don't worry, I don't really think this is a huge danger!

What I want next is Apple to bring out an alternative to Photoshop, heck it was based on Mac Paint in the first place ;)

[Digitalclips]

Random yet related question:

What do people recommend using to record basic voiceovers in iMovie and FCExpress? My high school students currently use ProTools and Mbox and it's just way too complicated to record a simple voiceover.

How about using itself FCExpress? I make TV material with FCPro and can record VOs directly and I think FCExpress is pretty similar in most areas. Correct me if I am wrong ...

[heisetax]

This is just the beginning of eh end for PPC software. How long do you really think that Apple will support the PPC with new OS revisions? If things stay the way Steve Jobs has done in the past, 10.5 will either be the last or at most the next to last version of a PPC version of the OS.

More companies will probably start taking the easy way out. This means skipping the Universal Binary file & making it Intel Mac only.

Bill the TaxMan

[themacthinker]

Apple is coming up with an update of their production suite this January.
Adobe can keep trying, I don't think that they are getting even close...

[dornoforpyros]

ummm so can some one explain to me just what in the **** adobe is trying to accomplish?

Let's review.
1) Apple announces intel switch, Adobe is there with smiles raving "It's about time!"
2) Apple releases intel based MBP and iMac, shortly after Adobe releases Universal FAQs sheet saying that professionals will have to wait till CS3 for a universal binary.
3) Adobe starts cutting out PPC support, but has yet to offer any Intel Support.


Am I the only one a little confused by their actions? So what? neither chip is good enough?

[eXan]

The first time I read the title, I thought that Apple has made Soundbooth app. After re-reading it, I realized it was Adobe who made it :eek:

Photobooth, Soundbooth, dont they look familiar? ;)

How did they make a x86-only app for OS X? I though the only way app can be compiled for Intel OS X is use of UB format! Guess I was wrong...

Anyway, I dont need this SoundPooth, I'm happy with my Soundtrack Pro :D

[SPUY767]

We all know that this is just Adobe's Revenge for Apple stepping on its e-Toes with items like Final Cut Studio which for all practical purposes smacks down anything that Adobe can muster up, and for Aperature, which is not as good as it could be, but is still in the realm that Adobe used to dominate. On the audio front, I hope that this costs a lot less than Logic Express because if it's not 50% or more cheaper, this horse is dead before it leaves the gate. I mean, Logic is already cheaper than Audition, and for my money, LE does a bit more than Audition (granted I don't come even close to using the full capabilities of LE).

So maybe Soundbooth is just here to compete with Soundtrack, which is kind of dumb, as no one will be using Soundbooth on a Mac since soundbooth will not integrate with FCS the way that Soundtrack does. The more I write about it, the dumber releasing this app for the Mac sounds. I mean. . . Adobe dropped Premiere for the mac because FCP smoked it, but now they want to release an audio app for mac that probably only has a place in a Premiere workflow. Hell, maybe this is just a SoundEdit Deck 16 II!? WTF!? I'm leaving.

[fixyourthinking]

This demonstrates that Adobe is a bunch of morons. If they listened to Apple and used xCode they could click one button and produce a universal binary.

Perhaps Adobe writes ****** software that isn't engineered to be platform independant.

Not for things that make hardware calls - it's not as easy of a compile.

[mk_in_mke]

I am biased... I like every app Apple does... Or almost all of them...

I downloaded and tried Sound Booth:
- Interface: nothing close to Apple's soundtrack
- Features: nothing close to Apple's Soundtrack

Will wait for the next betas and test again but first impression is thumbs down... I think this has been made for AE users who want to have a sound utility or to keep the people who built Sound Edit 16 busy (ex Macromedia).... A lot of work to do to get to Soundtrack features and feel... And by the time it will be donen Soundtrack will get more and more muscle...


Quad Intel 3Ghz
8 Gb Ram
1 Tb HD
NVidia Quadro 4500
Apple Cinema Display 30"

[iJED DV]

I messed with it for about 5 minutes and it's nowhere near Soundtrack, IMO. Now I'm not an audio or video pro, but I like to do some tinkering. But as someone else stated, Adobe Audition is much more competition to Soundtrack is than SoundBooth.

Also, this doesn't necessarily need to be a UB. Heck, from what I saw it doesn't really even fill a need with the Intel Macs. Logic and Soundtrack seem to be much better options.

Absolutely, I have no idea why the mac rumors article said it was a competitor to SoundTrack Pro. I'm at a conference in San Francisco and spoke with an Adobe rep who was demoing Soundbooth. It's meant for an audience who doesn't care about the advanced features of Audition but would like to clean up audio or build simple beats. While it does have a couple of similar features to Soundtrack, it's a much more basic program.

Also, I questioned the guy about the PPC thing. He said any existing programming that supports PPC will continue to be supported through at least one more release, since they already have the PPC code foundation. Anything new will be Intel-only, because the architechture is the same. They were told that if they waited for Soundbooth to be released on PPC, there would be no Mac version of Soundtrack.

[Kaafir]

And so it begins - this is the first of only many apps that are going to be written to work with Intel chip sets only, I'm afraid. I am, however, somewhat taken aback that they appeared this early from a major software company.

Perhaps there have been others, but I've not seen anything myself released which didn't have a PPC version available or was UB until now.

[volk]

We all know that this is just Adobe's Revenge for Apple stepping on its e-Toes with items like Final Cut Studio which for all practical purposes smacks down anything that Adobe can muster up, and for Aperature, which is not as good as it could be, but is still in the realm that Adobe used to dominate. On the audio front, I hope that this costs a lot less than Logic Express because if it's not 50% or more cheaper, this horse is dead before it leaves the gate. I mean, Logic is already cheaper than Audition, and for my money, LE does a bit more than Audition (granted I don't come even close to using the full capabilities of LE).

So maybe Soundbooth is just here to compete with Soundtrack, which is kind of dumb, as no one will be using Soundbooth on a Mac since soundbooth will not integrate with FCS the way that Soundtrack does. The more I write about it, the dumber releasing this app for the Mac sounds. I mean. . . Adobe dropped Premiere for the mac because FCP smoked it, but now they want to release an audio app for mac that probably only has a place in a Premiere workflow. Hell, maybe this is just a SoundEdit Deck 16 II!? WTF!? I'm leaving.



I don't understand why anyone would slam a company for releasing a product for the Mac...competition is good, and the audio editor market isn't as healthy on the Mac as you think.

This app isn't designed to compete with Soundtrack Pro...it squares off against Soundtrack, Audacity, Amadeus, and Peak LE. Now, Peak is well respected, but I'm not sure why...it seems very clunky to me. Audacity and Amadeus aren't bad, but they suffer from smaller toolsets, interface abnormalities and no video integration. Soundbooth would be a nice addition to this group.

What I hope the most is that this is simply a test of the code base to bring Audition to the Mac...something that I think is desperately needed.

[jessica.]

Why spend the money if there is no market?

[menziep]

Damn Early for x86 only mac software!

[~Shard~]

Damn Early for x86 only mac software!

I guess we'll see if this kicks off a trend, or if it a bit premature in the industry...

[iMeowbot]

Damn Early for x86 only mac software!
This is to be expected. Apple sold 680x0 Macs right into mid-1996, but support for the chip was even disappearing from mainstream stuff like Netscape by 1998.

[drlunanerd]

Perhaps there have been others, but I've not seen anything myself released which didn't have a PPC version available or was UB until now.

Parallels :D

[lazyrighteye]

This was one of the most handy little apps that I lost when OS X hit the scene. Super intuitive, super effective.

I have Peak and Pro Tools and neither handle those simple, everyday audio needs like a SoundEdit 16 could.

I very much think there is an audience for Soundbooth and that it will be well received. Based on my experienced with SoundEdit 16, if Soundbooth were Universal, I'd more than likely purchase... immediately.

[SPUY767]

This was one of the most handy little apps that I lost when OS X hit the scene. Super intuitive, super effective.

I have Peak and Pro Tools and neither handle those simple, everyday audio needs like a SoundEdit 16 could.

I very much think there is an audience for Soundbooth and that it will be well received. Based on my experienced with SoundEdit 16, if Soundbooth were Universal, I'd more than likely purchase... immediately.

Amen to that. Nothing I have ever found is as good at simple splicing of uncompressed audio files than SE16. Amadeus comes close, but not cigar, it just doesn't feel like SE16.

[AidenShaw]

Parallels :D

Boot Camp

[bimmerkid]

Dear Adobe,

START FOCUSING ON CS APPS! Damn... My mac mini g4 works faster converting my raw to jpeg files than my c2d iMac! I know you need to compete with Apple... but focus on your current products that are in need of updating to Universal code for the professionals that rely on them!

Thanks,
Bimmerkid

[~Shard~]

Dear Adobe,

START FOCUSING ON CS APPS! Damn... My mac mini g4 works faster converting my raw to jpeg files than my c2d iMac! I know you need to compete with Apple... but focus on your current products that are in need of updating to Universal code for the professionals that rely on them!

Guess you haven't heard - Adobe is not updating CS to UB until CS3, set for release in Spring 2007. :cool:

[pulsewidth947]

When I used a PC I used to use Cool Edit Pro, which then changed to Adobe Audition. So I'm delighted that they are creating a new product, particularly as I hate the only other real contender - Bias Peak.

I've been using Audacity, but it just not advanced enough sometimes.

[AHDuke99]

This demonstrates that Adobe is a bunch of morons. If they listened to Apple and used xCode they could click one button and produce a universal binary.

Perhaps Adobe writes ****** software that isn't engineered to be platform independant.

it isn't that simple, especially if their code is as outdated as i've been reading it is. hell, i am working with the poisoned p2p developers and even we are having trouble making it a universal binary. it involves much more than just clikcing a box in most cases.

[BenRoethig]

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/30/soundbooth/index.php

Macworld posted an article on the subject today. You can read it with the link above. I'm going to post a couple comments from the article by Adobe's John Nack.

Nack offers a different point of view. From his perspective, if Apple hadn’t switched to Intel processors, Soundbooth might very likely be a Windows application only. Apple’s migration to the Intel chip architecture “makes Mac development more attractive,” said Nack.

“Here’s the reality: Apple’s migration to Intel chips means that it’s easier to develop for both Mac and Windows, because instead of splitting development resources optimizing for two different chip architectures, you can focus on just one,” he wrote.

This is why the PowerPC machines need to go as quickly as everyone can buy an Intel machine. Making a intel only Mac Application is cheaper and less time consuming for the developer and is able to take advantage of any code optimization for the x86 platform. That makes it more likey that we'll get better software products and applications we normally wouldn't get. To be frank, developers had absolutely no reason to optimize PPC applications. The platform is too small to warrant it.

The follow snippet is something the platform as a whole should take note of. It should be pretty self explanatory.

Nack — a professed “die-hard” Mac user — also refers to “that vocal little group of zealots and forum trolls” he sees as particularly damaging to Mac users’ reputations as a whole.

“You’re hurting the Mac platform. You’re hurting the Mac community. You need to crush a little aluminum foil against those antennae of yours, because you’re hurting everyone concerned. You’re making it harder (and less appealing) for people of goodwill to make the effort to support the Mac,” he said.