Hi, Aaron.
No, I'm not Fletcher from Mercenary Audio, but all of us have
something in common: we can't stand lies or half-assed answers.
BTW, your answer to David Ruby, besides being very elegant in its
subtlety, is a perfect example of the reasons for some sort of
compromise on SF's part when it comes to accepting standards. The
truth is VST is not going away, and Vegas would only be MORE POWERFUL
if it had VST and ASIO support.


Victor.




Aaron Carey wrote:
>>
>>
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>Yes, Peter. You can ignore me.
>>>>What you can't ignore is the truth: you, as an employee of
>>>>SonicFoundry, will shamelessly lie to your customers as needed.
You
>>>>have done it in the past and will certainly do it in the future.
>>Just
>>>>take a look at your answer to Aaron Carey's statement (Post 2464);
>>>>what a transparent lie. The guy calls tech support SEVERAL TIMES,
>>tech
>>>>support tells him his problem doesn't really exist. Tech support
>>>>doesn't know what engineering is doing, engineering doesn't
>>comunicate
>>>>with tech support. You are way too busy writing the code, the
place
>>is
>>>>a mess and nobody has fed the ostrich in 67 days. Suddenly, a bug
>>>>nobody (not even tech support) knew existed anywhere but in
Aaron's
>>>>head, gets a fix!!!
>>
>>
>>Victor you arent by any chance a secret codename of Fletcher, from
>>Mercenary Audio are you?
>>
>>That hard-ass attitude, could only be his or mine! And I have
>>mellowed a lot lately, unless some knucklehead tells me that his
>>Mackie/ADAT/Rode NT-1 combo is just as good as a SSL/Studer/Nuemann
>>combo ( which actually happens all too often)

Victor Harriman wrote:
>>Hi, Aaron.
>>No, I'm not Fletcher from Mercenary Audio, but all of us have
>>something in common: we can't stand lies or half-assed answers.
>>BTW, your answer to David Ruby, besides being very elegant in its
>>subtlety, is a perfect example of the reasons for some sort of
>>compromise on SF's part when it comes to accepting standards. The
>>truth is VST is not going away, and Vegas would only be MORE
POWERFUL
>>if it had VST and ASIO support.
>>
>>
>>Victor.
>>
>>
I agree, I dont understand ASIO very well, but VST support would be
real nice. But Ive been asking for it for a while....
Maybe its time to reconsider what a "standard" is.
VST is supported by more than one platform, the unbelievably hard top
use but beautiful Logic Audio supports VST, and there are many VST
plugs made by many different companies.

Victor:

Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more features to
Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would be a
wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-thumb in
the software development business, and while I doubt you agree with
me, at least you can agree with logic. Hence, no VST or ASIO for the
time being. No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
fine. Read that last sentence again.

As a professional I know that a majority of users have very shady
concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency is
to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it was
not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with a
chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw. It's
just the user being stupid.

I think Peter and the guys deserve a lot of credit for being able to
single out people with good ideas from jerks who only like the sound
of their own opinions. It has made Vegas the tight, solid-purpose,
non-destructive multimedia editing tool that it is today.

If you want Nuendo, then go buy (yes, I used the forbidden word)
Nuendo. Don't try to make Vegas into Nuendo, that would serve no one.
Vegas has a unique work flow which I have found in no other software,
and that's why I started using it a year ago, and that's why I still
use and support it.

---

And, on a personal level, I still think you suck, Victor. Can't help
it, you've made a fool out of yourself too many times for me to be
able to respect your attitude. I know better than to mix my personal
feelings for that attitude with my professional opinions of a piece
of software, though.

Johan Althoff wrote:
>>Victor:
>>
>>Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more features
to
>>Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would be
a
>>wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-thumb
in
>>the software development business, and while I doubt you agree with
>>me, at least you can agree with logic. Hence, no VST or ASIO for
the
>>time being. No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>fine. Read that last sentence again.
>>
>>As a professional I know that a majority of users have very shady
>>concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency
is
>>to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
>>imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it was
>>not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with a
>>chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw. It's
>>just the user being stupid.
>>
>>I think Peter and the guys deserve a lot of credit for being able
to
>>single out people with good ideas from jerks who only like the
sound
>>of their own opinions. It has made Vegas the tight, solid-purpose,
>>non-destructive multimedia editing tool that it is today.
>>
>>If you want Nuendo, then go buy (yes, I used the forbidden word)
>>Nuendo. Don't try to make Vegas into Nuendo, that would serve no
one.
>>Vegas has a unique work flow which I have found in no other
software,
>>and that's why I started using it a year ago, and that's why I
still
>>use and support it.
>>
>>---
>>
>>And, on a personal level, I still think you suck, Victor. Can't
help
>>it, you've made a fool out of yourself too many times for me to be
>>able to respect your attitude. I know better than to mix my
personal
>>feelings for that attitude with my professional opinions of a piece
>>of software, though.

Dear Johan Assholff:

Have you noticed how my points are NEVER refuted? The reason escapes
your understanding, because you have never done professional audio
work. If that were the case, you would have a different opinion.
But let's go into a little detail here:

"Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more features to
Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would be a
wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-thumb
in the software development business..."

Well, I don't think that's a "well-known rule of thumb in the software
development business". Improving any product implies the additon
(sometimes substraction) of features, PLUS the refinement of existing
ones. Vegas needs several additions if it is to compete with more
mature software. But that's SonicFoundry's decision. I just point out
the facts.


"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
fine..."
See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same Peter
Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER AUTOMATION
can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such stupid
statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can they "work
perfectly fine" when you can't do what you're supposed to do?
Take your time with the answer. You're going to need it.


"As a professional I know that a majority of users have very shady
concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency is
to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it was
not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with a
chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw. It's
just the user being stupid."

As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would understand
the issues. Who's trying to do spreadsheet work with Vegas? Who has
suggested that Vegas should do what Photoshop does? All people in this
forum want is a product that works as advertised (ie. TO
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS)!!!! All RaceMachine (the original post) wanted
was PLUGIN PARAMETER AUTOMATION.

"If you want Nuendo, then go buy (yes, I used the forbidden word)
Nuendo. Don't try to make Vegas into Nuendo, that would serve no
one..."

Excellent point. I BOUGHT Nuendot a while ago, just like many other
users of Vegas who got so sick of the limitations imposed on them by a
greedy, arrogant company like SonicFoundry.
Now, if I wanted to use software in an illegal manner, I could. But
I'm a lucky musician making enough money that I can THINK and act on
my own.
It is not like I'm not aware of piracy on the internet. Did you know
that there's a 5 day-old cracked version of Vegas Video on the
internet as we speak? I could even give you a link. But I won't
download it, because I don't believe in making money without the
developer profitting also. However, if I were a hobbyst like you, I
would probably download it...

"And, on a personal level, I still think you suck, Victor..."

I said it before, and I will say it now: You don't have to like me. If
you want other men you can find attractive, go to your local gay bar.


Victor.





Johan Althoff wrote:
>>Victor:
>>
>>Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more features to
>>Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would be a
>>wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-thumb
in
>>the software development business, and while I doubt you agree with
>>me, at least you can agree with logic. Hence, no VST or ASIO for the
>>time being. No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>fine. Read that last sentence again.
>>
>>As a professional I know that a majority of users have very shady
>>concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency is
>>to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
>>imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it was
>>not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with a
>>chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw. It's
>>just the user being stupid.
>>
>>I think Peter and the guys deserve a lot of credit for being able to
>>single out people with good ideas from jerks who only like the sound
>>of their own opinions. It has made Vegas the tight, solid-purpose,
>>non-destructive multimedia editing tool that it is today.
>>
>>If you want Nuendo, then go buy (yes, I used the forbidden word)
>>Nuendo. Don't try to make Vegas into Nuendo, that would serve no
one.
>>Vegas has a unique work flow which I have found in no other
software,
>>and that's why I started using it a year ago, and that's why I still
>>use and support it.
>>
>>---
>>
>>And, on a personal level, I still think you suck, Victor. Can't help
>>it, you've made a fool out of yourself too many times for me to be
>>able to respect your attitude. I know better than to mix my personal
>>feelings for that attitude with my professional opinions of a piece
>>of software, though.

I will check it out.Thanx for the tip Aaron.

Aaron Carey wrote:
>>
>>
>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>Yes george we are using it as well and it is no diff than other
>>>>programs we use that are vst ready.I will say though I preffer
the
>>dx
>>>>plugins alot better than the vst.Vst does have some good drum
>>>>replacers though.Yes it does work flawless for us.This is the
>>answer
>>>>for folks who MUST have vst.
>>>>happy mixing...:-)
>>>>
>>
>>My Alesis (yes I said the "A" word, kick me to the audiophile hall
of
>>shame!) DM-5 and D-Drum trigger sets have been quite idle since I
>>found an EXCELLENT direct-x plug from a company called wavemachine
>>labs!
>>It's called Drumagog, and I guarantee that you will not spend
another
>>day creating trigger tracks, side chaining eq's into compressors
and
>>gates, trying to make ok trigger tracks to replace drums with...
>>Check it out.

There is really nothing being accomplished by this.Just confusing
others,not educating them because neither of you have known
credentials either as a software developer or an engineer who has
weathered 3 major label records.We really need to help others
learn.When I use pro tools it is no diff than any thing else
really.Vegas is still going to grow like they all do.That is why
there is nuendo;it took a long time to get there for them but a
friend in the know has told me that it is not being sold in canada
and that they are having major probs with the software.This is out of
the horses mouth no names mentioned.But I will mention a friend of
mine who just finished Motley Crues digital editng,good record check
it out.Look for Rail Rogut for credits.He worked with Mr. Clink who
is a hell of a producer!!!Also clapton has come to mind Ansley
Dusbar, ry cooder,etc.
SO WHAT!!! these are people we work with on a reg basis.This software
is only our tools.We do not live in it we just use it like when we
were using 8tracks.Creativity is what makes the music not all the
damn bells and whistles.If your editing 2 trax get
soundforge,wavelab,etc.If doing multitrack get Vegas,Pro
TOOLs,SAWPRO, etc.Never buy into a product that is in it's infancy is
what we have always been told.Nuendo is too new,we would never use it
on any label stuff.Vegas is coming close to what we like just need to
work on the punch in abit more;already been there I know.Templates
good idea and a few other things that I agree with from
Aaron.Industry is still using 2 inch tape to track then edit in
fairlights or protools.The future of using no outboard gear is upon
us.But the INDUSTRY still does not see this is viable yet.Just
because they say so does not make it GOD'S WORD!!!
I will be honest ,it is going to be a great work like acid after a
few tweaks,I can only hope that there will be more updates SOONER.
Also phase is a must.See victor is not totally off.He has the idea he
just has a short temper.Passion of musicians.I do understand.Name
calling though?HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL.I would hate to track Axl Rose!!!
hahaha
I respect everyones thoughts and opinions as well as my clients.Hang
tight guys it only gets better on the upgrade ride!!




Victor Harriman wrote:
>>Dear Johan Assholff:
>>
>>Have you noticed how my points are NEVER refuted? The reason
escapes
>>your understanding, because you have never done professional audio
>>work. If that were the case, you would have a different opinion.
>>But let's go into a little detail here:
>>
>>"Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more features
to
>>Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would be
a
>>wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-thumb
>>in the software development business..."
>>
>>Well, I don't think that's a "well-known rule of thumb in the
software
>>development business". Improving any product implies the additon
>>(sometimes substraction) of features, PLUS the refinement of
existing
>>ones. Vegas needs several additions if it is to compete with more
>>mature software. But that's SonicFoundry's decision. I just point
out
>>the facts.
>>
>>
>>"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>fine..."
>>See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same Peter
>>Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER
AUTOMATION
>>can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such stupid
>>statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can they "work
>>perfectly fine" when you can't do what you're supposed to do?
>>Take your time with the answer. You're going to need it.
>>
>>
>>"As a professional I know that a majority of users have very shady
>>concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency
is
>>to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
>>imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it was
>>not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with a
>>chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw. It's
>>just the user being stupid."
>>
>>As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
>>experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would understand
>>the issues. Who's trying to do spreadsheet work with Vegas? Who has
>>suggested that Vegas should do what Photoshop does? All people in
this
>>forum want is a product that works as advertised (ie. TO
>>PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS)!!!! All RaceMachine (the original post)
wanted
>>was PLUGIN PARAMETER AUTOMATION.
>>
>>"If you want Nuendo, then go buy (yes, I used the forbidden word)
>>Nuendo. Don't try to make Vegas into Nuendo, that would serve no
>>one..."
>>
>>Excellent point. I BOUGHT Nuendot a while ago, just like many other
>>users of Vegas who got so sick of the limitations imposed on them
by a
>>greedy, arrogant company like SonicFoundry.
>>Now, if I wanted to use software in an illegal manner, I could. But
>>I'm a lucky musician making enough money that I can THINK and act
on
>>my own.
>>It is not like I'm not aware of piracy on the internet. Did you
know
>>that there's a 5 day-old cracked version of Vegas Video on the
>>internet as we speak? I could even give you a link. But I won't
>>download it, because I don't believe in making money without the
>>developer profitting also. However, if I were a hobbyst like you, I
>>would probably download it...
>>
>>"And, on a personal level, I still think you suck, Victor..."
>>
>>I said it before, and I will say it now: You don't have to like me.
If
>>you want other men you can find attractive, go to your local gay
bar.
>>
>>
>>Victor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>Victor:
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more features
to
>>>>Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would
be a
>>>>wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-
thumb
>>in
>>>>the software development business, and while I doubt you agree
with
>>>>me, at least you can agree with logic. Hence, no VST or ASIO for
the
>>>>time being. No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works
perfectly
>>>>fine. Read that last sentence again.
>>>>
>>>>As a professional I know that a majority of users have very shady
>>>>concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency
is
>>>>to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
>>>>imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it
was
>>>>not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with
a
>>>>chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw.
It's
>>>>just the user being stupid.
>>>>
>>>>I think Peter and the guys deserve a lot of credit for being able
to
>>>>single out people with good ideas from jerks who only like the
sound
>>>>of their own opinions. It has made Vegas the tight, solid-
purpose,
>>>>non-destructive multimedia editing tool that it is today.
>>>>
>>>>If you want Nuendo, then go buy (yes, I used the forbidden word)
>>>>Nuendo. Don't try to make Vegas into Nuendo, that would serve no
>>one.
>>>>Vegas has a unique work flow which I have found in no other
>>software,
>>>>and that's why I started using it a year ago, and that's why I
still
>>>>use and support it.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>And, on a personal level, I still think you suck, Victor. Can't
help
>>>>it, you've made a fool out of yourself too many times for me to
be
>>>>able to respect your attitude. I know better than to mix my
personal
>>>>feelings for that attitude with my professional opinions of a
piece
>>>>of software, though.

David:
While I see the point of your post (no more arguing, please), I must
disagree on several points:

Quote:

"There is really nothing being accomplished by this.Just confusing
others,not educating them because neither of you have known
credentials either as a software developer or an engineer who has
weathered 3 major label records..."

I dont know about you or Johan, but if it comes down to a matter of
credentials, I have them. The legitimacy of my posts is backed up by
the knowledge and experience of working on more than a dozen MAJOR
label releases, and countless others that never went anywhere. Ever
heard of Tito Puente, Shakira, Marc Anthony, George Lamont, Son by4,
etc? ALL BILLBOARD CHARTS.
But we can't get too caught up in "name dropping". Remember the fact
about the recording industry: Not everything is what it seems. Toni
Braxton sold more than 80 MILLION DOLLARS worth of music and pleaded
bankruptcy (spare me the details, we all know them), Ricky Martin's
drummer until a year ago is totally broke, most software reviewers in
trade magazines are struggling to make a living and QTip was, until a
year ago, just "another" to many people who kiss his ass
today! !!!!!!!!
!!!!
Almost everybody has been a side musician to Eric Clapton at some
point in their career!!! !!!!!!!!
!!

"When I use pro tools it is no diff than any thing else
really..."

Really? Is ProTools the same as Vegas Pro, or Nuendo, or CoolEditPro?
(on a slightly off-topic bent: have you noticed how the word "pro"
has
devalued to the point most of the time the label "pro" is a warning
that the software may not be "pro" at all?. Very similar to the word
"Quality", which means "cheap" when attached to a product!!!!!!
Quality
car, quality construction, etc.)
This is the type of statement that perpetuates ignorance. How can it
be the same to track and mix with ProTools than it is with Vegas? You
must be kidding.
As much as I like Nuendo, it is NOT the same as ProTools. Let's not
try to fool anyone here...

Also, the quality of the music and the technical requirements for
recording that music are very different things. It takes the same
amount of functionality for any software multitracker to record
Britney Spears than to record Mr. Nobody's album. Isn't this true?
You
are a little confused here, David.

"Never buy into a product that is in it's infancy is what we have
always been told. Nuendo is too new,we would never use
it on any label stuff.."

If the level of functionalty exhibited by Nuendo in its infancy is
not
enough to buy it, then why did you buy Vegas Pro as an ABORTION?
And I must believe that you can't use Nuendo on any "label stuff",
but
you would use Vegas? ?? Yeah, right......... BTW, do you
record "label stuff"
and "non-label stuff" on different systems? Do your clients know
about
this?? Why do you do it, if you do it? And if you don't do it, the
why
do you imply it? What "major label stuff" have you tracked and mixed
with Vegas? How much Billboard "major label stuff" has been done with
VegasPro?
Neither Vegas, nor Nuendo, nor Cakewalk, etc., is a COMPLETE
recording
solution. We can't lie to ourselves.


But I still appreciate your overall point.


Victor.






David W. Ruby wrote:
>>There is really nothing being accomplished by this.Just confusing
>>others,not educating them because neither of you have known
>>credentials either as a software developer or an engineer who has
>>weathered 3 major label records.We really need to help others
>>learn.When I use pro tools it is no diff than any thing else
>>really.Vegas is still going to grow like they all do.That is why
>>there is nuendo;it took a long time to get there for them but a
>>friend in the know has told me that it is not being sold in canada
>>and that they are having major probs with the software.This is out
of
>>the horses mouth no names mentioned.But I will mention a friend of
>>mine who just finished Motley Crues digital editng,good record
check
>>it out.Look for Rail Rogut for credits.He worked with Mr. Clink who
>>is a hell of a producer!!!Also clapton has come to mind Ansley
>>Dusbar, ry cooder,etc.
>>SO WHAT!!! these are people we work with on a reg basis.This
software
>>is only our tools.We do not live in it we just use it like when we
>>were using 8tracks.Creativity is what makes the music not all the
>>damn bells and whistles.If your editing 2 trax get
>>soundforge,wavelab,etc.If doing multitrack get Vegas,Pro
>>TOOLs,SAWPRO, etc.Never buy into a product that is in it's infancy
is
>>what we have always been told.Nuendo is too new,we would never use
it
>>on any label stuff.Vegas is coming close to what we like just need
to
>>work on the punch in abit more;already been there I know.Templates
>>good idea and a few other things that I agree with from
>>Aaron.Industry is still using 2 inch tape to track then edit in
>>fairlights or protools.The future of using no outboard gear is upon
>>us.But the INDUSTRY still does not see this is viable yet.Just
>>because they say so does not make it GOD'S WORD!!!
>>I will be honest ,it is going to be a great work like acid after a
>>few tweaks,I can only hope that there will be more updates SOONER.
>>Also phase is a must.See victor is not totally off.He has the idea
he
>>just has a short temper.Passion of musicians.I do understand.Name
>>calling though?HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL.I would hate to track Axl Rose!!!
>>hahaha
>>I respect everyones thoughts and opinions as well as my
clients.Hang
>>tight guys it only gets better on the upgrade ride!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>Dear Johan Assholff:
>>>>
>>>>Have you noticed how my points are NEVER refuted? The reason
>>escapes
>>>>your understanding, because you have never done professional
audio
>>>>work. If that were the case, you would have a different opinion.
>>>>But let's go into a little detail here:
>>>>
>>>>"Wouldn't you agree that instead of introducing even more
features
>>to
>>>>Vegas, optimizing and improving already existent features would
be
>>a
>>>>wise course for the Vegas team? This is a well-known rule-of-
thumb
>>>>in the software development business..."
>>>>
>>>>Well, I don't think that's a "well-known rule of thumb in the
>>software
>>>>development business". Improving any product implies the additon
>>>>(sometimes substraction) of features, PLUS the refinement of
>>existing
>>>>ones. Vegas needs several additions if it is to compete with more
>>>>mature software. But that's SonicFoundry's decision. I just point
>>out
>>>>the facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>>>fine..."
>>>>See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same Peter
>>>>Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER
>>AUTOMATION
>>>>can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such
stupid
>>>>statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can
they "work
>>>>perfectly fine" when you can't do what you're supposed to do?
>>>>Take your time with the answer. You're going to need it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"As a professional I know that a majority of users have very
shady
>>>>concepts of what makes out a good piece of software. The tendency
>>is
>>>>to totally ignore the path of usage the developers themselves
>>>>imagined, and try to bend the tool into a purpose for which it
was
>>>>not designed. It's like trying to open a can of corned beef with
a
>>>>chainsaw; it's neither the fault of the can nor the chainsaw.
It's
>>>>just the user being stupid."
>>>>
>>>>As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
>>>>experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would
understand
>>>>the issues. Who's trying to do spreadsheet work wit

Victor Harriman wrote:

>>your understanding, because you have never done professional audio
>>work. If that were the case, you would have a different opinion.

How tiresome. What do you know of my work?

>>"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>fine..."
>>See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same Peter
>>Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER
AUTOMATION
>>can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such stupid
>>statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can they "work

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/products/NewShowProduct.asp?PID=169

claims:

"We designed Vegas Pro with one thing in mind: to give you a more
efficient and versatile audio production environment."

DirectX technology is efficient in what it does. It plays back sound.
It supports nearly any soundcard available, being developed by one of
the most powerful and quality-minded software developers in the
world, it has a huge development base and is continously evolving
into what will probably be the only standard left in audio processing
technology before the end of this decade. Where is the stupidity in
this? Steinberg runs its own race, they are competitors to Sonic
Foundry in many aspects. On these grounds, I still think SF does the
right thing in choosing DirectX over VST.

But I agree with a lot of posts in this forum. This bickering leads
nowhere. We will never convince each other. I just wish you could
stop being so arrogant in your arguments. I can't see where calling
me a moron gives you credibility.

I merely wanted to point out that Sonic Foundry does the right thing
in focusing their development on one audio playback standard. I don't
think SF products would really benefit from the implementation of
Steinberg technology, as they would continously be one step behind in
development, always relying on competing developers to set the
conditions. Microsoft have yet to enter the professional audio/video
market, and are as of today only interested in having as many
programs as possible running smoothly on their platforms. The choice
seems obvious to me. I don't know how long you've been into audio
software, but I remember Soundforge to be one of the first programs
with support for DirectX plugins, and I've gotten the impression that
they have made a great impression on the rest of the market.
Therefore, I trust them to make the right decisions.

>>As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
>>experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would understand
>>the issues.

I have, and I do. I'm merely trying to point out to you, that Vegas
would never benefit from the features you're yelling about. There are
several different branches of professional audio work, and I happen
to represent one that does not actually *require* punch in / out on
the fly to pursue my work. Effect parameter automatization would be
great, I've requested that very feature myself a few months ago, but
I also, on the same technical grounds Peter Haller tried to point out
to you, accepted the fact that it is not possible to make it perfect
with current DirectX standards.

>>suggested that Vegas should do what Photoshop does? All people in
this
>>forum want is a product that works as advertised (ie. TO

Oh, I've been meaning to ask you this for a long time: Where is that
advertisement? Would you please show me?

>>Did you know
>>that there's a 5 day-old cracked version of Vegas Video on the
>>internet as we speak? I could even give you a link. But I won't

Hey, go ahead. Post the FTP addy. See what happens.

>>download it, because I don't believe in making money without the
>>developer profitting also. However, if I were a hobbyst like you, I
>>would probably download it...

Victor, I still don't see what you're trying to prove with personal
insults. I am no hobbyist, and you know it.

I am financially capable of purchasing the software I use, which I
have done ever since I bought Vegas Pro a little over a year ago. I
recently purchased the upgrade to Vegas Video since I needed it in my
professional line of work, and just having gotten off a 13-hour
streak of EQ:ing and effecting little over 600 sound effects for our
game-going-gold, I'm perfectly content with Vegas Video.

Johan:


Sorry about not responding to your post. Has too many errors in it.
Mixed info, etc. If you write it again in a readable way, with
appropriate quotations, then I'll address your points.

Victor.

PS: Must give you credit for the sly way of asking for link to cracked
version of Vegas Video, but as I said before, I don't engage in
piracy. My mission is not, has never been, to damage SonicFoundry
in any way.
Thanks to my own effort, today I'm a PROUD, INDEPENDENT, FREE-THINKING
musician who doesn't need to kiss ass or steal...





Johan Althoff wrote:
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>
>>>>your understanding, because you have never done professional audio
>>>>work. If that were the case, you would have a different opinion.
>>
>>How tiresome. What do you know of my work?
>>
>>>>"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>>>fine..."
>>>>See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same Peter
>>>>Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER
>>AUTOMATION
>>>>can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such stupid
>>>>statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can they "work
>>
>>http://www.sonicfoundry.com/products/NewShowProduct.asp?PID=169
>>
>>claims:
>>
>>"We designed Vegas Pro with one thing in mind: to give you a more
>>efficient and versatile audio production environment."
>>
>>DirectX technology is efficient in what it does. It plays back
sound.
>>It supports nearly any soundcard available, being developed by one
of
>>the most powerful and quality-minded software developers in the
>>world, it has a huge development base and is continously evolving
>>into what will probably be the only standard left in audio
processing
>>technology before the end of this decade. Where is the stupidity in
>>this? Steinberg runs its own race, they are competitors to Sonic
>>Foundry in many aspects. On these grounds, I still think SF does the
>>right thing in choosing DirectX over VST.
>>
>>But I agree with a lot of posts in this forum. This bickering leads
>>nowhere. We will never convince each other. I just wish you could
>>stop being so arrogant in your arguments. I can't see where calling
>>me a moron gives you credibility.
>>
>>I merely wanted to point out that Sonic Foundry does the right thing
>>in focusing their development on one audio playback standard. I
don't
>>think SF products would really benefit from the implementation of
>>Steinberg technology, as they would continously be one step behind
in
>>development, always relying on competing developers to set the
>>conditions. Microsoft have yet to enter the professional audio/video
>>market, and are as of today only interested in having as many
>>programs as possible running smoothly on their platforms. The choice
>>seems obvious to me. I don't know how long you've been into audio
>>software, but I remember Soundforge to be one of the first programs
>>with support for DirectX plugins, and I've gotten the impression
that
>>they have made a great impression on the rest of the market.
>>Therefore, I trust them to make the right decisions.
>>
>>>>As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
>>>>experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would
understand
>>>>the issues.
>>
>>I have, and I do. I'm merely trying to point out to you, that Vegas
>>would never benefit from the features you're yelling about. There
are
>>several different branches of professional audio work, and I happen
>>to represent one that does not actually *require* punch in / out on
>>the fly to pursue my work. Effect parameter automatization would be
>>great, I've requested that very feature myself a few months ago, but
>>I also, on the same technical grounds Peter Haller tried to point
out
>>to you, accepted the fact that it is not possible to make it perfect
>>with current DirectX standards.
>>
>>>>suggested that Vegas should do what Photoshop does? All people in
>>this
>>>>forum want is a product that works as advertised (ie. TO
>>
>>Oh, I've been meaning to ask you this for a long time: Where is that
>>advertisement? Would you please show me?
>>
>>>>Did you know
>>>>that there's a 5 day-old cracked version of Vegas Video on the
>>>>internet as we speak? I could even give you a link. But I won't
>>
>>Hey, go ahead. Post the FTP addy. See what happens.
>>
>>>>download it, because I don't believe in making money without the
>>>>developer profitting also. However, if I were a hobbyst like you,
I
>>>>would probably download it...
>>
>>Victor, I still don't see what you're trying to prove with personal
>>insults. I am no hobbyist, and you know it.
>>
>>I am financially capable of purchasing the software I use, which I
>>have done ever since I bought Vegas Pro a little over a year ago. I
>>recently purchased the upgrade to Vegas Video since I needed it in
my
>>professional line of work, and just having gotten off a 13-hour
>>streak of EQ:ing and effecting little over 600 sound effects for our
>>game-going-gold, I'm perfectly content with Vegas Video.

HAHAHAHAHA you're incredible =)

Peace, brother. I give up. Happy tracking. I've got a game to finish.

Victor Harriman wrote:
>>Johan:
>>
>>
>>Sorry about not responding to your post. Has too many errors in it.
>>Mixed info, etc. If you write it again in a readable way, with
>>appropriate quotations, then I'll address your points.
>>
>>Victor.
>>
>>PS: Must give you credit for the sly way of asking for link to
cracked
>>version of Vegas Video, but as I said before, I don't engage in
>>piracy. And my mission is not (has never been) to damage
SonicFoundry
>>in any way.
>>Thanks to my own effort, today I'm a PROUD, INDEPENDENT, FREE-
THINKING
>>musician who doesn't need to kiss ass or steal...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>your understanding, because you have never done professional
audio
>>>>>>work. If that were the case, you would have a different opinion.
>>>>
>>>>How tiresome. What do you know of my work?
>>>>
>>>>>>"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>>>>>fine..."
>>>>>>See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same
Peter
>>>>>>Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER
>>>>AUTOMATION
>>>>>>can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such
stupid
>>>>>>statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can
they "work
>>>>
>>>>http://www.sonicfoundry.com/products/NewShowProduct.asp?PID=169
>>>>
>>>>claims:
>>>>
>>>>"We designed Vegas Pro with one thing in mind: to give you a more
>>>>efficient and versatile audio production environment."
>>>>
>>>>DirectX technology is efficient in what it does. It plays back
>>sound.
>>>>It supports nearly any soundcard available, being developed by
one
>>of
>>>>the most powerful and quality-minded software developers in the
>>>>world, it has a huge development base and is continously evolving
>>>>into what will probably be the only standard left in audio
>>processing
>>>>technology before the end of this decade. Where is the stupidity
in
>>>>this? Steinberg runs its own race, they are competitors to Sonic
>>>>Foundry in many aspects. On these grounds, I still think SF does
the
>>>>right thing in choosing DirectX over VST.
>>>>
>>>>But I agree with a lot of posts in this forum. This bickering
leads
>>>>nowhere. We will never convince each other. I just wish you could
>>>>stop being so arrogant in your arguments. I can't see where
calling
>>>>me a moron gives you credibility.
>>>>
>>>>I merely wanted to point out that Sonic Foundry does the right
thing
>>>>in focusing their development on one audio playback standard. I
>>don't
>>>>think SF products would really benefit from the implementation of
>>>>Steinberg technology, as they would continously be one step
behind
>>in
>>>>development, always relying on competing developers to set the
>>>>conditions. Microsoft have yet to enter the professional
audio/video
>>>>market, and are as of today only interested in having as many
>>>>programs as possible running smoothly on their platforms. The
choice
>>>>seems obvious to me. I don't know how long you've been into audio
>>>>software, but I remember Soundforge to be one of the first
programs
>>>>with support for DirectX plugins, and I've gotten the impression
>>that
>>>>they have made a great impression on the rest of the market.
>>>>Therefore, I trust them to make the right decisions.
>>>>
>>>>>>As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
>>>>>>experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would
>>understand
>>>>>>the issues.
>>>>
>>>>I have, and I do. I'm merely trying to point out to you, that
Vegas
>>>>would never benefit from the features you're yelling about. There
>>are
>>>>several different branches of professional audio work, and I
happen
>>>>to represent one that does not actually *require* punch in / out
on
>>>>the fly to pursue my work. Effect parameter automatization would
be
>>>>great, I've requested that very feature myself a few months ago,
but
>>>>I also, on the same technical grounds Peter Haller tried to point
>>out
>>>>to you, accepted the fact that it is not possible to make it
perfect
>>>>with current DirectX standards.
>>>>
>>>>>>suggested that Vegas should do what Photoshop does? All people
in
>>>>this
>>>>>>forum want is a product that works as advertised (ie. TO
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I've been meaning to ask you this for a long time: Where is
that
>>>>advertisement? Would you please show me?
>>>>
>>>>>>Did you know
>>>>>>that there's a 5 day-old cracked version of Vegas Video on the
>>>>>>internet as we speak? I could even give you a link. But I won't
>>>>
>>>>Hey, go ahead. Post the FTP addy. See what happens.
>>>>
>>>>>>download it, because I don't believe in making money without
the
>>>>>>developer profitting also. However, if I were a hobbyst like
you,
>>I
>>>>>>would probably download it...
>>>>
>>>>Victor, I still don't see what you're trying to prove with
personal
>>>>insults. I am no hobbyist, and you know it.
>>>>
>>>>I am financially capable of purchasing the software I use, which
I
>>>>have done ever since I bought Vegas Pro a little over a year ago.
I
>>>>recently purchased the upgrade to Vegas Video since I needed it
in
>>my
>>>>professional line of work, and just having gotten off a 13-hour
>>>>streak of EQ:ing and effecting little over 600 sound effects for
our
>>>>game-going-gold, I'm perfectly content with Vegas Video.

Peace.





Johan Althoff wrote:
>>HAHAHAHAHA you're incredible =)
>>
>>Peace, brother. I give up. Happy tracking. I've got a game to
finish.
>>
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>Johan:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry about not responding to your post. Has too many errors in
it.
>>>>Mixed info, etc. If you write it again in a readable way, with
>>>>appropriate quotations, then I'll address your points.
>>>>
>>>>Victor.
>>>>
>>>>PS: Must give you credit for the sly way of asking for link to
>>cracked
>>>>version of Vegas Video, but as I said before, I don't engage in
>>>>piracy. And my mission is not (has never been) to damage
>>SonicFoundry
>>>>in any way.
>>>>Thanks to my own effort, today I'm a PROUD, INDEPENDENT, FREE-
>>THINKING
>>>>musician who doesn't need to kiss ass or steal...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>your understanding, because you have never done professional
>>audio
>>>>>>>>work. If that were the case, you would have a different
opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How tiresome. What do you know of my work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"No need, as DirectSound and DirectShow works perfectly
>>>>>>>>fine..."
>>>>>>>>See why I consider you a moron? Here's Peter (yes, the same
>>Peter
>>>>>>>>Heller you're trying to defend) admitting PLUGIN PARAMETER
>>>>>>AUTOMATION
>>>>>>>>can't be implemented RIGHT now and you come out making such
>>stupid
>>>>>>>>statement. That's the topic of this discussion. How can
>>they "work
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.sonicfoundry.com/products/NewShowProduct.asp?PID=169
>>>>>>
>>>>>>claims:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"We designed Vegas Pro with one thing in mind: to give you a
more
>>>>>>efficient and versatile audio production environment."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DirectX technology is efficient in what it does. It plays back
>>>>sound.
>>>>>>It supports nearly any soundcard available, being developed by
>>one
>>>>of
>>>>>>the most powerful and quality-minded software developers in the
>>>>>>world, it has a huge development base and is continously
evolving
>>>>>>into what will probably be the only standard left in audio
>>>>processing
>>>>>>technology before the end of this decade. Where is the stupidity
>>in
>>>>>>this? Steinberg runs its own race, they are competitors to Sonic
>>>>>>Foundry in many aspects. On these grounds, I still think SF does
>>the
>>>>>>right thing in choosing DirectX over VST.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I agree with a lot of posts in this forum. This bickering
>>leads
>>>>>>nowhere. We will never convince each other. I just wish you
could
>>>>>>stop being so arrogant in your arguments. I can't see where
>>calling
>>>>>>me a moron gives you credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I merely wanted to point out that Sonic Foundry does the right
>>thing
>>>>>>in focusing their development on one audio playback standard. I
>>>>don't
>>>>>>think SF products would really benefit from the implementation
of
>>>>>>Steinberg technology, as they would continously be one step
>>behind
>>>>in
>>>>>>development, always relying on competing developers to set the
>>>>>>conditions. Microsoft have yet to enter the professional
>>audio/video
>>>>>>market, and are as of today only interested in having as many
>>>>>>programs as possible running smoothly on their platforms. The
>>choice
>>>>>>seems obvious to me. I don't know how long you've been into
audio
>>>>>>software, but I remember Soundforge to be one of the first
>>programs
>>>>>>with support for DirectX plugins, and I've gotten the impression
>>>>that
>>>>>>they have made a great impression on the rest of the market.
>>>>>>Therefore, I trust them to make the right decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As a professional what? Professional groupie? If you had any
>>>>>>>>experience doing PROFESSIONAL audio recording, you would
>>>>understand
>>>>>>>>the issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have, and I do. I'm merely trying to point out to you, that
>>Vegas
>>>>>>would never benefit from the features you're yelling about.
There
>>>>are
>>>>>>several different branches of professional audio work, and I
>>happen
>>>>>>to represent one that does not actually *require* punch in / out
>>on
>>>>>>the fly to pursue my work. Effect parameter automatization would
>>be
>>>>>>great, I've requested that very feature myself a few months ago,
>>but
>>>>>>I also, on the same technical grounds Peter Haller tried to
point
>>>>out
>>>>>>to you, accepted the fact that it is not possible to make it
>>perfect
>>>>>>with current DirectX standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>suggested that Vegas should do what Photoshop does? All people
>>in
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>forum want is a product that works as advertised (ie. TO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, I've been meaning to ask you this for a long time: Where is
>>that
>>>>>>advertisement? Would you please show me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did you know
>>>>>>>>that there's a 5 day-old cracked version of Vegas Video on
the
>>>>>>>>internet as we speak? I could even give you a link. But I
won't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey, go ahead. Post the FTP addy. See what happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>download it, because I don't believe in making money without
>>the
>>>>>>>>developer profitting also. However, if I were a hobbyst like
>>you,
>>>>I
>>>>>>>>would probably download it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Victor, I still don't see what you're trying to prove with
>>personal
>>>>>>insults. I am no hobbyist, and you know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am financially capable of purchasing the software I use, which
>>I
>>>>>>have done ever since I bought Vegas Pro a little over a year
ago.
>>I
>>>>>>recently purchased the upgrade to Vegas Video since I needed it
>>in
>>>>my
>>>>>>professional line of work, and just having gotten off a 13-hour
>>>>>>streak of EQ:ing and effecting little over 600 sound effects for
>>our
>>>>>>game-going-gold, I'm perfectly content with Vegas Video.

I hate to correct one of my supporters, but I have to...

Sonic Foundry products don't use DirectSound for audio streaming. We
use the Wave API. We use the DirectShow technologies of DirectX for
plugins and a number of video related technologies.

Victor, don't be too harsh....

Peter

Victor Harriman wrote:
>>PS: Must give you credit for the sly way of asking for link to
cracked
>>version of Vegas Video,

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ok that was FUNNY

>> but as I said before, I don't engage in
>>piracy. My mission is not, has never been, to damage SonicFoundry
>>in any way.
>>Thanks to my own effort, today I'm a PROUD, INDEPENDENT, FREE-
THINKING
>>musician who doesn't need to kiss ass or steal...

Oh I see. Guess there was some confusion there at my end. Howcome you
don't, btw?

Peter Haller wrote:
>>I hate to correct one of my supporters, but I have to...
>>
>>Sonic Foundry products don't use DirectSound for audio streaming.
We
>>use the Wave API. We use the DirectShow technologies of DirectX for
>>plugins and a number of video related technologies.
>>
>>Victor, don't be too harsh....
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>