Disappointment With CDA5

John_Logan wrote on 10/16/2002, 6:12 PM
I would have liked to have seen full backwards compatibility with cda4. The inability to drag tracks together and create your own segues is a real downer. As a frequent poster to this forum I would have liked to have been involved in the development of cda5. Cda4 was elegantly simple and very intuitive as to its use. Cda5 is certainly something else. I deleted my post from yesterday because it was sent off without enough thinking on my part. I don't mean to be so negative but this program reminds me too much of Vegas. Who wants to do audio work with a video program? As someone who spent money on sound forge 4.5, cda 4.0, Vegas, and both versions of noise reduction I believe that I'm certainly entitled to my opinions. There are a lot of us that continually lamented the loss of cda4 and posted frequently to this forum. We are the ones that could have made this product truly the finest mastering program ever written. I wonder how much input was sought from the people who actually use cda.


Geoff_Wood wrote on 10/16/2002, 6:20 PM
I find your 'dissappointment' is out of scale with the actual fact of having a CDA app live again, as opposed to none. However, I would also like everything to be right, first time around.

There is no reason they can't have individual track volume envelopes if there proves to be a demand - which there obviously is - I would like to see this feature return too.

sreams wrote on 10/16/2002, 6:36 PM
I agree with you regarding custom crossfades (I've been posing about it quite a bit), but I wouldn't freak out over it. I think it is reasonable at this point to request that per-clip envelopes be added... and then to expect that they will be. Everything else about 5.0, at least in my opinion, is superior to 4.0. With the addition of clip envelopes, we have something that CDA4 could never offer (track envelopes, slip fades and crossfades, per-clip plugins, etc). It's still beta... and it is well, well on its way to blowing away 4.x.

SHTUNOT wrote on 10/16/2002, 9:37 PM
Sofo has a way of "missing the mark" by just a little...custom crossfades+cd-text would "well round" the release IMHO. I'm still getting it nomatter what. Plus the web "buzz" on the return of CDA has blown me away. I never realized how "missed" it was. Now if we can get them back on track with "Vegas Audio 4" then we'll be in business.[ie:include ALL the audio enhancements to acid 4 plus additional "wishlist" ideas stated recently] Later.
SonyDennis wrote on 10/17/2002, 12:03 AM

Please define "slip fade" for me.

SonyDennis wrote on 10/17/2002, 12:05 AM

Help us not miss the mark with Vegas 4 -- what if it was just called "Vegas 4", assuming it got both audio and video improvements? Would the audio folks still think is was a "video" program?

Geoff_Wood wrote on 10/17/2002, 1:33 AM
"Vegas 4' is just fine by me ;-)

astral_supreme wrote on 10/17/2002, 4:33 AM
"Would the audio folks still think it was a "video" program?"

I was; and I am still confused. I was always under the impression that you used acid to record, mix and make loop based music that you later burned to cd. You used vegas video for its superior movie making abilities and ease of adding soundeffects via multitrack audio capable. Somehow I always thought acid was a multitrack recording tool and was shocked to find in reading some posts that vegas is instead. With all the editing stuff you can do in vegas and acid I am still wondering why to bye soundforge?

This is the impression I am under now to have a somewhat professional music studio ran from my home computer:

1. Record live instruments/keyboards/drummachines/lyrics with my waveterminal 192m at a sample rate of 192khz.

2. Put all my recordings into acid pro 4.0b with it set to 192khz and begin to align them and loop my recordings into a song format.(do volume levels..etc

3. Edit tracks as needed in soundforge6 and add my plugins (keeping soundforge set to 192khz.

4. Get my entire finished composition out of acid 4.0b and somehow into a Model Two Hdcd processor. The processor then lets me make high defintion cd quality masters (24bit 192khz) from wich millions of copies will one day be burned from.

The above Sounds easy but I am sure I am missing where does cd arhctiect come into play?...does it support high definition ?(I mean for the novice like me what is redbook cd authoring for highquality masters mean?)I figured out from reading it is good for getting your entire cd to one volume level but is it good for anything else?

Also with a setup like this; unless I am making movies it appears to me I can do highdefintion cd creating work without using vegas video/audio or whatever...I dont know...I will admit.......I am lost.(any one is welcome to "break it all down" for me.

Can any one else recommend a better studio algorithm for making highdefinition (24bit, 192khz)demo cds, and high quality masters?

Chienworks wrote on 10/17/2002, 7:32 AM
Astral supreme, i'm curious as to what you do with your high definition cd masters. They won't play in audio CD players. You can only get about 12 minutes worth of music on one of them.

CD Architect produces CDs in the same format that standard audio CDs use: 44.1KHz, 16 bit stereo.
sreams wrote on 10/17/2002, 1:03 PM
It's the fade created when you drag the upper corner of a waveform. Vegas and CDA5 both do this already. You guys probably use a different term for it.

astral_supreme wrote on 10/17/2002, 6:26 PM
To: Chienworks

My high definition cd masters will be sent to the places that do professional cd mastering where they will be converted to 16bit 44khz and burn millions of cds for when you go "triple" platinum.

By converting from high definition to cd quality you have excellant sound ensuring each cd made from my master is the best quality available. Also when that dvd movie comes out my song will already be mastered for the dvd movie soundtrack if they include it on there dvd. And finally it can be used in any high defintion media (the 10000+dollars tv sets, there high defintion satelite radio broadcast ready).

In other words there the best quality they need to be so you dont have to worry about quality loss if you have to change media or resample.

Anyway Im only a pro thanks to sonic foundrys products making it happen.

so to better answer why you would need high defintion and have to get a model two hdcd processor goto http://www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/products.html

After checking out what a model two hdcd processor (fully supported by microsoft) can do for you and the world of audio and video sound ......you will quickly see why I make masters like this.

P.S. Your website is very cool and useful however I couldnt find much stuff on vegas video; is there any tips/tricks or anything there?
Chienworks wrote on 10/17/2002, 7:14 PM
Astral supreme: thanks for the explanation. Considering that info, i would say that CD Architect probably has very little place in your studio since it's purpose is to create standard RedBook audio CDs. This is a task you obviously leave to a production house. I'm presuming then that your masters are not audio CDs at all, but rather .wav files burned to a data disc. Is this correct? If so, the data CD burning software you currently use has all the functionality you need. ACID and SoundForge are both capable of making track-at-once and Vegas can produce disk-at-once audio Cds for the occasional sample disc you want to send out.

Thanks also for your compliments on the site. I hadn't really planned on offering any tips/tricks for SonicFoundry products since there's already so much here and at places like CreativeCOW. I'm a fan of centralized repositories so that people don't have to search all over the place to find stuff. However, there is some discussion going on in the Vegas forum about having a place for users to upload sample projects and tutorials. I may get involved in that.
SHTUNOT wrote on 10/18/2002, 9:47 PM

1. You call it "Vegas 4" and I'll do my part in keeping the "word of mouth" here in NYC strong.

2. Thats ofcourse going to be measured by the number of notable audio enhancements in 4.0. Remember what we got in 3.0? You give me something to work with and we'll ALL run with it.

Thanks for the response. Later.
slr wrote on 10/19/2002, 12:42 AM
Hello Dennis,

I'm supprised no one has recommended this as a product name for Vegas, but how about "Vegas AV"? It's both a supurb audio and video editor, so why not say so in the product name? I'd suggest that either this approach or a pure brand name (ie - "Vegas" without any video or audio connotations) would be better than Vegas Video.

Just my 0.02. In any case, I personally have no problem with the name as I don't have customers to worry about and I know exactly how great this product really is. But if you want to increase your customer base significantly, this is probably worth looking at.