Comments

drbam wrote on 11/7/2004, 4:11 PM
If you're referring to the Vegas Video forum, video and audio were originally combined as one forum. Audio only folks had to weed through tons of posts that had absolutely nothing to do with our interests and finally enough folks complained and we got them separated. It was incredibly frustrating. For me personally, separating the forums was like a dream come true and it had nothing to do with people not getting along. I disagree that the posts here are of interest to "all Vegas users." If I were to have a primary video question I would simply post on the appropriate forum just like many of the video people post here when they want some audio assistance. I think this format keeps things a lot cleaner and way more efficient.

drbam
familysauce wrote on 11/7/2004, 4:24 PM
i pretty much am just interested in the audio features. peace,kb
musicvid10 wrote on 11/7/2004, 8:56 PM
I've actually started hanging out here more because I am a musician and do live sound and recording in addition to video. The Vegas Video board moves so fast that lots of issues get either glossed over or passed over. I kind of like the peace and quiet here and on the SoundForge board, just to research the audio issues raised here. I think there is a need for both . . .
On another note, I responded to a recent post of yours here because my response would have been drowned out by the posts suggesting higher-end solutions on the other board.
JMO
farss wrote on 11/8/2004, 12:54 AM
I agree, lets please keep them separate.
In fact I'd even like to see Vegas itself split in to two applications. I've always felt that there's some issues on both sides of the fence that'll never get resolved because of the conflicting requirements of video and audio. I'm wondering if anyone else shares this view?

Bob.
MrPhil wrote on 11/8/2004, 6:12 AM
I agree totally, keep it separated.
drbam wrote on 11/8/2004, 6:35 AM
>>I've always felt that there's some issues on both sides of the fence that'll never get resolved because of the conflicting requirements of video and audio. I'm wondering if anyone else shares this view?<<

I think it'd be a safe bet to say that virtually ALL audio-only Vegas users would agree. I certainly share this view. One would think that only Sony knows for sure but I think this would be an erroneous assumption because they are obviously very attached to their integrated video-audio model. If a model/format *appears* to be showing a profit, nothing short of pending bankruptcy will motivate a company to change something as significant as separating these 2 apps.

drbam

Caruso wrote on 11/17/2004, 11:44 PM
I do both audio work and video work. I had no problem when the boards were combined. Now that they're separate, I simply visit both boards to take in all the helpful info posted.

As for splitting the Vegas application - well, it used to be split - Vegas Audio and Vegas Video - way back when. If I recall, Audio allowed video only on one track as a tool by which one could sync audio to a completed video track.

Other than that "limitation" in the audio ap, the two applications were identical.

I'm not conversant with those issues that remained unsolved because of compromises inherent in having combined audio/video functions so competently within a single application - but, I will say that Vegas, as a video application, initially caught my eye because of the high marks it received for its audio capabilities.

Personally, I think Sonic Foundry, in producing an ap so capable in both audio and video, produced a product that is unique in the marketplace. Others are still catching up and continue to lag in one area or the other in their aps at this level (Adobe, Pinnacle [LE on the video side, and the recently acquired Steinberg Wavelab on the audio side that now includes limited video not unlike the old Vegas Audio product]).

For all appearances, it appeared that SF simply disabled most of the video capabilities to come up with their old audio-only ap. I'd hate to see Sony return to that strategy.

Just my opinion, of course,

Caruso
farss wrote on 11/18/2004, 5:33 AM
I've thought about my suggestion a bit more. No, I don't want Sony to sell two different apps, that'd sound way to much like a marketing grab for dollars.
I do use it for both mixing audio and editing video. However I find that I'm forced to follow a fairly logical workflow, lock down the video, render that out and then bring that into another project to work on the audio.
To my perhaps feeble mind having several tracks of video (or sometime MANY tracks of video) and many tracks of audio is just unworkable. I go to split a video event and oops, I've split all my audio tracks as well or I turn off QTF to work on audio, forget and screw up a video edit.
What's further frustrating is Vegas treats ALL audio tracks the same, including the ones embedded in AVI files from cameras, sure it's very usefull being able to unsync the A/V for several reasons but it's WAY too easy to have this happen when you don't want it to.
I'm sure you guys over here can think of a few more gripes about how the video stuff gets in your way.
Maybe the answer is quite simple, a big switch, one position locks ALL audio, the other locks ALL video, third position unlocks the lot. Or perhaps a track lock feature, I seem to recall Premiere as having this feature.
Bob.
drbam wrote on 11/18/2004, 6:47 AM
I think separating the apps would be a good marketing strategy for the audio folks. Only those of us who actually use Vegas for audio can speak about its power and professional features and how it compares to the other well known apps like PT, Logic, Cubase, etc. The rest of the non-Vegas audio world (which is obviously the vast majority) believe Vegas to be primarily a VIDEO app. Without some serious changes related to this area by Sony (which would obviously involve aggressive marketing), this will certainly remain the case. A few hit records or an occasional popular film score done with Vegas won't ever be enough to change this public perception.

drbam