Exactly...and this smashes in my point as usual again forever: I have CDA5, Acid4, SF6, VV3, NR2, and BC5, and am currently and always 98SE, WMA7.1, IE5.5SP2, with a nice little "tower of resources", modest, but where I wanna be currently, as well as billions of others on earth, I'm sure, unless you're a business or a school, etc...why would I want Vegas 4..? I'm just audio ONLY...thank you for a hard sell from anyone on the Sonic planet please...?

Bug fixes and some performance tweaks.

Peter

If you get tired of waiting for someone to spoon-feed you information, you might try reading the release notes, the 4.0 whitepaper, download the demo and give it a test drive.

That will answer your question based on how YOU use vegas. I bought the update because I can use the new features - simple as that. I don't know what will matter to you - but you do.

Seems that 4.0c update didn't fix the surroundpanner discreet center channel issue :(
Will this fix come in near future? Perhaps SoFo could release a patch that updates panner in both Vegas and Acid?

I'm a big fan of Sonic Foundry audio/video products.
I've been using Sound Forge since version 3.0 and I think that SoFo staff has done an excellent job developing them.
Let's hope that Sony keeps up the good work :)

Peter, can you give an rough estimate when surroundpanner issue will be solved?

Thanks,
BWO

Stusy: please shut up. You never make sense, and you're really annoying.

Funny thing is, I always read stusy's posts and wonder the hell he's talking about. Then I think it must be <me> that's the one going nuts as I don't understand a single sentence (sentence being too strong a word for the stuff he writes). Then I re-read and realise it's not me, but that actually the guy blatantly can't write English or write anything remotely coherent.

Unlike you, stusy, the rest of us don't crave updates for their own sake - like a mad addiction. I was merely wondering whether there were any audio updates, as this wasn't clear from the release notes and I've been having some glitching problems. PCH answered my question - thanks.

Ben

Fix implies bug. The surround panning issue is not considered a bug, but an implementation choice.

We are reviewing what the best methods are to provide the most flexible Surround mixing capabilities.

Any surround pan changes are a new feature and would probably not appear until Vegas 5.0.

Peter

"Fix implies bug. The surround panning issue is not considered a bug, but an implementation choice."

Are you kidding me? Let's not split hairs now. If your implementation choice is incorrect, then YES it is a bug. Just like if you're playing back a 24 bit file and Vegas is only using 16 bits, this could be considered an implementation choice. It would be the WRONG implementation choice, but still should be considered a bug if the correct choice is to playback at 24bit. Implement features how they're used in the industry, otherwise everyone will coin them as bugs.

Similarly, it's the same for Pre fader sends and the track MUTE buttons. The MUTE switch should be located prior to the sends within the audio processing chain, thus when you enable mute, it mutes the send for that track. Again, this is an implementation choice, but the WRONG implementation choice and is not fixed in v4.0c.

"Any surround pan changes are a new feature and would probably not appear until Vegas 5.0. "

Yeah, this is a good idea. Change it in the next version so when you open a Vegas 4.0 project in Vegas 5.0 then your mixes won't be the same. What are you on crack? You don't think ahead for those problems? The correct response should be to fix your implementation NOW so that it's doing what the people in the industry expect it too.

Bug Fixes!!???
"Numerous scripting improvements have been made." [sonicepm: bug fix]

"Copying and trimming media (by selecting the Copy and trim media with project check box when saving a project) has been improved for 24p DV media." [sonicepm: bug fix]

"Recapture accuracy has been improved for 24p footage." [sonicepm: bug fix]

"Added 24p widescreen project template and AVI/DV templates" [sonicepm: new feature!!! A user could have home-rolled these but there was some confusion about settings so we added them]

"Raster fonts are now filtered out from text generators." [sonicepm: bug fix]

Wow!!! None of those video 'implementation' improvements listed above seem like "bug fixes" to me


. Let's do the same on the audio "implementation" side now, or there's going to be a lot of us audio users wondering why we're using this video program that doesn't have correctly implemented audio features.

Implementation or bug....call it what you like, to me it's f'ed up either way.

red

Updates address a set of prioritized bugs and implemenation details. We fixed as many critical audio issues as the schedule allowed. Implemenation updates come after critical bugs. We had a number of critical bugs that had to be addressed first.

Call it what you want, the surround panner in Vegas is usable and does work.
Is it perfect. Nope. Do I think we need to offer more panning modes? Yes. Is it a critical bug. Not compared to other open issues.

As far as backward compatability, what we have now will not go away, we will just extend it to include more/different methods to control the surround pan - just like we added the contant power pan model to normal stereo mixing.

Mute issue: I understand what you want. Again, it did not meet the priority of the critical bugs on the list. While it may be annoying, there were far higher priority issues that had to be address in 4.0c.

I disagree with your 24/16 bit analogy. That would be a bug. 24 bit cannot be confused with 16 bit.

Are you implying there is a 24 bit issue in Vegas? If so, explain. The only one I am aware if a bug in Windows that is exposed by drivers that don't correctly support 24 bit packed data streams. We have added code to work around the limitations of Windows and drivers that have bugs.

We do what we can in the time frame alloted. While you may want to believe we ignore the audio users, we don't.


Peter

"We do what we can in the time frame alloted. While you may want to believe we ignore the audio users, we don't. "

Well you have done a pretty good job ignoring me......

I have asked in this forum and also in a reply to an SF support email sent to me about V4 dual processor support (earlier versions had it to some degree even though SF likes to play it down) and HAVE BEEN IGNORED! You could at least tell me either to find another product if I want dual processor support or that it will be coming in 4.0x etc.

I am quite upset that my post here and the email I sent were NOT responded to. All I want is an answer......and you haven't had the courtesy to give that to me, whether it is good news or bad.

Peter,
Good reply. Thanks. I totally understand the pressures of doing what you want to do in the time allowed to accomplish it and having to prioritize. Ohhhhhh....how I understand.

As far as the MUTE function, I could see how this would take some time to rearrange the signal processing in order to implement it differently. I actually went back and noticed it's been the same way since V2.0, so I could see why this would fall down on the priority list. I'm a little disappointed that I never realized it until now. Just shows that most of the time my sends are post fader, thus why I missed it before.

My 24bit/16bit was just that...an "Analogy". No actual problem with Vegas.

Sorry for throwing stones,
red

Red,

We are generally on the same page with regard to all things. I sometimes get a bit defensive as I guess I take Vegas and ACID way to personally. I never mean to offend - well sometimes to certain people<g>

Peter