Considering switching to Premiere Pro

jeff92k7 wrote on 2/21/2015, 11:37 AM
Basically...Convince me to stay with Vegas.

I currently have Vegas Pro 11. Previously used Vegas Pro 10, 9, and before that, Studio platinum 8. However, lately I find myself more and more frustrated with Vegas. My big complaint is the constant crashes. I have gotten in the habit of hitting CTRL + S after ever single edit. EVERY SINGLE EDIT! because I never know when Vegas is going to crash. I upgraded from 9 to 10 because of it crashing. I upgraded from 10 to 11 because of it crashing. I'm not willing to keep paying money for crappy software. For example, I cannot render a video after making ANY edits without Vegas crashing. I HAVE to close Vegas, then reopen it, reopen the project, and then immediately render or Vegas will crash. If I make preference changes, I have to close Vegas and then reopen it before working on a project with the new preferences or else Vegas will crash.

I like editing video in Vegas Pro because its easy to do and I can get good results pretty quickly (except for the constant crashing), but I'm to the point where I'm looking to upgrade my software and I'm not convinced I want to stay with Vegas.

So here are my questions:
1. Is Vegas Pro Edit 13 any more stable than previous versions of Vegas Pro?
2. Should I just give up on Vegas and switch to Adobe Premiere Pro?

In case it matters, I don't do much audio editing in Vegas at all. I do all my heavy audio work in Cubase, and then render a wave file to dump into Vegas and mix with on camera audio (if needed). Basically, all I want is a good, reliable video editor.


Steve_Rhoden wrote on 2/21/2015, 1:53 PM
Vegas 11 was the worst, most unstable version of Vegas that has ever built.
So i highly recommend you upgrade to Vegas 13 instead, which is a lot more
Oh, and I'm not here to convince you from switching, Any tool can be used to
get the job done. But just keep in mind that the grass is not any greener on the
other side.
OldSmoke wrote on 2/21/2015, 1:53 PM
So... you upgraded from 9 to 10 because of crashing and then to 11 for the same reason and you still thing it is a software problem?

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

farss wrote on 2/21/2015, 1:58 PM
It's true that all version of Vegas between 9 and 13 had serious issues.
I paid for all those upgrades but only used 10 under protest for when I needed OFX plugins.

So far 13 seems very stable, certainly worth a trial.

PPro is a different beast to Vegas. For elbow editing it's way better than Vegas but for what I mostly do Vegas is a better fit which is why I've stuck with it.

set wrote on 2/21/2015, 2:08 PM
I know how you feel, I will be frustrated as well on this.

For me in my computer System #1 (click my name above to see), Vegas Pro 12 and 13 are more stable than previous version.
You may want to share your computer system as well.

Something I keep in mind to keep Vegas Pro as stable as possible now, I reinstall whole system, Windows OS, install only the needed applications.
In Vegas Pro, I set dynamic RAM (Preferences>Video tab) to 0 (zero), because it is one of the culprit.
Turn Windows update off, especially the driver, including video driver - if possible, whether you are using Nvidia or ATI, find out the best driver version, keep with it.
After making sure whole system working and I got all required application installed, I backup and create image of this Windows system, so I can restore the system back if the system gone frustrating again later.

You may want to try download VegasPro 13 trial and see how it goes in your current system before you decide to move to Premiere Pro...


Setiawan Kartawidjaja
Bandung, West Java, Indonesia (UTC+7 Time Area)

Personal FB | Personal IG | Personal YT Channel
Chungs Video FB | Chungs Video IG | Chungs Video YT Channel
Personal Portfolios YouTube Playlist
Pond5 page: My Stock Footage of Bandung city


System 5-2021:
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700 CPU @ 2.90GHz   2.90 GHz
Video Card1: Intel UHD Graphics 630 (Driver (Feb 1 2024 Release date))
Video Card2: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB GDDR6 (Driver Version 551.23 Studio Driver (Jan 24 2024 Release Date))
RAM: 32.0 GB
OS: Windows 10 Pro Version 22H2 OS Build 19045.3693
Drive OS: SSD 240GB
Drive Working: NVMe 1TB
Drive Storage: 4TB+2TB


System 2-2018:
ASUS ROG Strix Hero II GL504GM Gaming Laptop
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 8750H CPU @2.20GHz 2.21 GHz
Video Card 1: Intel(R) UHD Graphics 630 (Driver
Video Card 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB GDDR5 VRAM (Driver Version 537.58)
OS: Win11 Home 64-bit Version 22H2 OS Build 22621.2428
Storage: M.2 NVMe PCIe 256GB SSD & 2.5" 5400rpm 1TB SSHD


* I don't work for VEGAS Creative Software Team. I'm just Voluntary Moderator in this forum.

riredale wrote on 2/21/2015, 2:10 PM
Okay, I'll bite. What is elbow editing?

It seems to me that editing with my elbows is certainly possible but it would really slow down my workflow.

Aside from all that, I think that if you had crashing with V9 then something else is going on. I use V9 and it is very stable.
SecondWind-SK wrote on 2/21/2015, 2:15 PM
Elbow editing? Me, too. Want to know.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/21/2015, 2:23 PM
I've never had crash issues with 10. Unless something was wrong with the system/OS. Besides that, it's never been a Vegas issue.
farss wrote on 2/21/2015, 2:59 PM
[I]"Elbow editing?"[/I]

I'm certain it means different things to different editors. To me it means going through many, many hours of already edited footage shot by others, finding all the bits that might be useful to then cut together to make a punchy promo that's only a few minutes long. The biggest part of the task is just elbow work, finding and cataloguing clips before you even start assembling the final cut(s).

xberk wrote on 2/21/2015, 6:32 PM
Can you open multiple instances of Premiere Pro at the same time like Vegas? .. To me that is the best way of dealing with a large volumes of footage.

Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

Jedman wrote on 2/21/2015, 7:27 PM
With PP, you just open a new Sequence which gives you a new timeline.
All of your sequences and assets are visible in your Project window.

What is very cool is that say you have an edited Sequence that you want to apply CC to in one go, you nest it in a new Sequence and apply your CC to the whole sequence.
You can then open that Sequence in a new (or existing) larger sequence and still dive back in at any time and make changes to you edit and or CC and have them reflected immediately in your master project.
So what, you say, we can do that with nested vegs in Vegas.... True, but every time you update a veg and go back to your master project in Vegas you have to wait for an sfap file to be built which can hold you up from a min to sometimes 5min or more for a 2hr project. Maddening when in a hurry.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/21/2015, 7:52 PM
But with PP if it crashes you loose ALL your sequences. With multiple instances of Vegas, if one crashes the other keep going and going and going....

Each program has it's advantages and I've got a workflow that favors multiple instances. Might be because for over a decade multiple instances was a standard with software and I got used to it.
JackW wrote on 2/21/2015, 7:58 PM
I've been using 13 since it came out, 8 for many years before that. I have had one crash in 13, and that because I did something dumb when saving my project and exiting the program. It appears to be rock solid, even with multiple instances running simultaneously.

jeff92k7 wrote on 2/21/2015, 8:16 PM
Thanks for the replies. In response to questions: I haven't run all these versions on the same computer. I've run them on different computers with some overlap. Right now, I've got it installed on two computers, my main workstation and my laptop for "coffee shop" editing.

The main reason for updating is because they stopped supporting previous versions and I hoped the next version would be more stable. However, I did go from 10 to 11 because of the supposedly better cuda rendering (which has its own problems).

My main machine right now is an HP z15 workstation on my desk. It's an i7, 16gb ram, ssd for OS and another 7200 HD for media files. It also has an nvidia quadro k2100m 2gb video card. It's also pushing 3 other monitors for all my various editing windows

My laptop is a Lenovo w530 with similar specs but a k2000m graphics card

I will check out the dynamic ram. I know i had upped it to try to prevent crashes. Never thought of disabling it.

I will also check out the demo of v13 to see if it is any better.
NickHope wrote on 2/21/2015, 11:57 PM
"1. Is Vegas Pro Edit 13 any more stable than previous versions of Vegas Pro?"

For me, Vegas Pro 13 is still a little less solid than Vegas Pro 12 build 770, but most of the issues are fairly specific rather than general instability (closed captions, crashes when renaming files, frameserver issues etc.). So glad I bought a licence for 12 while I could, and that VP13 projects are backwards-compatible to VP12. I generally find myself opening VP12 rather than VP13 for my day-to-day work.

Based on following the forum, rather than using it, VP11 was the low point, mainly because of GPU-related issues. I'm confident that VP13 is more stable than VP11.

VP10 was mostly stable but had the "replaced media" horror bug.
Spectralis wrote on 2/22/2015, 6:16 AM
To the OP, if the VP13 trial crashes on your system then don't upgrade and move over to Premiere if that's more stable and you can work with the interface. I don't believe in hanging on to software that doesn't work on my system. Fortunately VP 13 pretty stable for me.
astar wrote on 2/22/2015, 7:14 AM
The card on that HP laptop is slower than the minimum recommended Hd 5700. Try vegas on a system that exceeds Vegas's system specs, and see if that is better for you. Something like a Gen4 i7, 32GB RAM (non overclocked), SSD, and a R9 290x, then see if vegas still sucks for you. 13 has been one of the most stable builds of vegas I have used in several versions.
jeff92k7 wrote on 2/22/2015, 9:38 AM
@astar, I'm not seeing that graphics card recommendation on the Vegas pro system requirements. Based on the minimum system requirements on sony's site, my computers both far exceed the minimum required.

Glad to hear that everyone thinks that v13 is more stable. It still stinks that Vegas wont fix old versions and wants people to pay more money to fix problems (buying upgrades).
Jerry K wrote on 2/22/2015, 12:00 PM
I'm on Vegas 13 it crashes every now and then but nothing to really complain about.

When I first bought my computer I ordered it overclocked, Vegas was crashing every few minutes. I called the company that I bought the computer from and found out how to reset the computer back to normal settings, that
fixed the problem.

I then tried playing around overclocking ram and the more I over clocked ram the more Vegas crashed.

From my experience keeping my motherboard CPU and RAM clockied at normal settings fixed my crashes for the most part.

Hope this might be of help.

Jerry K.
astar wrote on 2/22/2015, 2:44 PM

Sony used to publish rated cards for vegas 11 or 12, back then they specified the AMD 5700 for general use, and the V5800 for the 30bit color pipeline. That info appears to have been taken down. Compare the compute configuration, and performance specs of the k2100m to even the lowly specs back in 2009, you will see where that quadro card fails.

That quadro is a mobile chip which is gimped from the start for heat and power reasons. That card is pretty much a color accurate photoshop card.

The following video is from AMD showcasing w9000 editing 4k on Vegas

If you do some deductive reasoning, you will see that Sony used to recommend an AMD Juniper XT chip with 12 compute units. AMD has now showcased Sony editing 4K on a Tahiti XT chip with 32 compute units, and newest flagship Firepro w9100 processor is a Hawaii XT chip with 44 compute units. The R9 290x runs an Hawaii XT chip with almost the same compute, memory bandwidth, and pixel rate performance as the w9100. The R9 290x is basically the same hardware minus pro display port hardware, some pro end latency feature, and maybe Geometry Boost. The quadro k2100m is mobile chip, only has 7 compute units, and almost half the memory bandwidth of the 2009 standard. The k2100m is GK106 chip that is equivalent to GeForce 660, which the 600 series chip is considered the "skip it" chip from NVidia and go for the 700 series.

Here is an excel spreadsheet that I pulled together while researching the topic:!81891&authkey=!ANhFm9zQ0FzUNwc&ithint=file%2cxlsx

I do not really care beyond this post. Both AMD and NVidia make it really hard to decipher video card marketing BS. Premiere is optimized for NVidia and so given the system specs you have it might be better choice. The k2100m hardware in that laptop might be gimped even under Premiere standards. You do not get compute power and system optimization because a system has a quadro or workstation label.
jeff92k7 wrote on 2/22/2015, 6:29 PM

Thanks for the informative reply. I appreciate it.

While I agree that there are much better graphics cards out there, changing the graphics card in a laptop is pretty near impossible, so I'm pretty much stuck with what I have. Buying a whole new desktop system just to get a nicer video card isn't in the budget. I haven't noticed any real performance lag with the NVIDIA Quadro cards that I have. Even the K2000M (about half the performance of the K2100M) in my Lenovo laptop runs fine with Vegas. I've run GPU monitors to see real time GPU load and rarely is it ever pegged when using Vegas. I would bet that the primary benefit to a beefier graphics card would be render speed. I'm not doing any 4K stuff and have no plans to any time soon. I'm mainly doing full HD stuff from my DSLR and Camcorder for various personal/family/school (kids) projects.

You're right about the Photoshop influence on those cards. In fact, Photoshop was a big reason I bought the Lenovo. That machine also has the fancy color balanced screen and it works great for photo editing as well as color grading in Vegas. besides, the HP is a company machine, so I really can't complain about the hardware.

My main concern is the stability of Vegas and not so much the performance/speed. NVIDIA seems to make good drivers and I don't think I have a graphics driver issue causing the instability. I keep pretty close tabs on drivers and I never install drivers until other people have had a chance to use them and report on any possible stability issues.
ushere wrote on 2/22/2015, 8:55 PM
simply dl the trial and give it a whirl.... if it works, jolly good, if not hello ppro.

i've found 13 very stable. gpu is still a mess, but hey, with a reasonable cpu it's no big deal turning off gpu forever (imho).

Geoff_Wood wrote on 2/23/2015, 12:23 AM
... and if PPro crashes, then set about fixing your system. And once that's done, give V another whirl !

JJKizak wrote on 2/23/2015, 8:24 AM
The only thing I remember that worked well in Premiere was the credit roll. Otherwise 5 times slower. Maybe more than that.
Laurence wrote on 2/23/2015, 2:39 PM
My I suggest sticking with Vegas and sponsoring maybe four children in some developing country. They need the money more, and with the time you save in editing, you can write to them.