drbam wrote on 3/13/2002, 3:56 PM
Well now that there is only one product (V V 3) for both video and audio . . but yes, ABSOULTELY there should be separate forums in my opinion. If one is doing both audio and video then you can view both forums depending on your need or inquiry, much the way I (and many other SoFo audio only folks) need to work the Acid, Sound Forge, forums, etc. This seems a "no brainer" to me.
RevF wrote on 3/13/2002, 4:16 PM
Sure - but not VV3 and VA2 - Just Audio and Video use. Some of us just have VV3 for the CDA capability (When it works with the new Plextor drives at some point in the future) for instance.
wvg wrote on 3/13/2002, 7:18 PM
Not that half-a.. arguement again...

There is ONE application. It happens to do BOTH audio and video. Very well. Endless division of forums into seperate forums for different versions and features would be counterproductive. What next, seperate forums for version 1, then more for versions 4-5-6 when they come out?

I have a much simpler solution. Skip over posts that don't interest you.
SHTUNOT wrote on 3/13/2002, 8:10 PM
I really have to chime in on this one...I think that having to separate forums for audio or video is a great idea. For some reason it always ends up where there are tons of video questions being asked at a time.When someone asks a audio question if it isn't answered immediately it moves to the 30-50 region on to oblivion. At least on a audio forum it gets to hangout in the same position and can get some type of response sooner or later. I asked for some tips resently on using assignable fx and got no response what so ever. By the time I checked on it got to number 35. I just gave up because I honestly feel that anyone using the audio side of vegas feels the same way now...that it has become video friendly. And besides get rid of the CD architect board,Soft encode,etc...Isn't the DX board the same as soundforge board in a sense. I just think that if it were left to just audio,just video, a better dialog would open up for both and this debate will stop bothering wvg for that matter also!

And besides...SOFO market Vegas Video 3 with a slogan thats like "If you use only audio,then hide the video features from view and you have a audio program. If you want both then...Go Ahead..."[I got something like that in a email recently...baddly quoteing it by the way.] Well thats what I would like to do...Hide the video side of things and only view it when I feel like it. It won't kill me to go to another forum to check out video topics and then zoom over to audio. Christ how much of your life would you be wasting anyway.

I feel that the reason in part that there really isn't much of a choice of audio topics for vegas is because of the "lack of audio features"[It works though]. You have enough to get you by[well for that matter]but not in terms of a Sonar product. You give me Sonar 2.0[NEWEST VERSION]with a video factory 1.0 enhancement and we'll see how busy the video topics would be on that .02cents. Later.
jbrazier wrote on 3/14/2002, 9:12 AM
So, it is official, VV3 is considered the 'replacement' for VA2???

Personally, my business relies strictly upon audio. That's what I do, and that's what my studio is known for. I don't want to spend additional money (an extra $140 mind you...) on a product and use half of it's capabilities just because they 'happen to be there.'

When was the last time someone said "here, we're going to sell you a big-screen tv," when all you really want is a stereo. Sure, the TV has audio inputs, it'll play your audio....but that's not what it was explicitly made for. I mean, you'll have to pay more, and you'll have this big screen-thing, but don't worry about can still use it for audio, because it 'happens to be there' too. Ignore what you don't need, but pay us for everything. Crap.

So, if things were split into audio and video forums...I'd be okay with that. But if VV3 really is the replacement for VA2, then I question the ability of Sonic Foundry to maintain their vision and what made them successful to begin with. Audio my friends, audio.....
pup wrote on 3/14/2002, 10:21 AM
Exactly, jbrazier. I was shocked not to find any mention of Sonic Foundry products (either in an advertisement or article)in my current batch of audio related magazines. What happened to SF in the audio race?

As for the forum, I'd love to see them split. I have VV 3.0, but I'm strictly an audio user. Scanning for audio tips and issues has become quite a pain.


- pup
doctorfish wrote on 3/14/2002, 12:23 PM
I agree. I only use audio and it seems to be about a 10 to 1 ratio of video to
audio posts. I used to enjoy this forum, but it's getting to the point for me
where it feels like a video magazine with a few postscripts for audio.
Separate. Separate.

JTelles wrote on 3/14/2002, 1:42 PM
I couldn't agree more... Those, like me, mostly interested in audio will benefit and the video people will certainly not suffer. We all profit from the separation, one can post or check based on the general (A or V) subject....
VU-1 wrote on 3/14/2002, 1:46 PM
Agreed. It would actually be faster to get to the info you are looking for if the audio & video forums were split.

I also am among those who are primarily an audio-oriented service. I held out against VV3 as long as I could, but finally broke down (just to get its 24/96 capability - my VA version would only do 16 bit).

At this time, I'm not really concerned about the video capabilities (although I do have one client who is asking if I can do some very light video editing for him - heck, I don't even have a video interface! Any ideas?).

Anyway, glad someone finally posed the question; I have noted the need for quite some time.
Wayne wrote on 3/14/2002, 5:41 PM
I am both a Video and a Multi-track audio user. I was looking for a multi-track audio editor at the time SF was adding the video functionality. I was also looking into setting up a video NLE. It was perfect for me to have one application to do both.
I would prefer to see seperate video and audio sections for VV.

On the comments about having to pay for both functions when only one is needed I think can be done by SF very easily by use of the activation code. If you only want audio, a reduced cost could be charged with the functionallity to create video tracks turned off, and vise versa, if you only wanted video, the number of audio tracks which could be created could be limited to 1 or 2. The unique activaction codes which SF supplies could be used to turn on either audio, video or both audio and video functionality.
MacMoney wrote on 3/14/2002, 5:49 PM
I would REALLY like to see a Vegas Audio Forum. So I don't have to swim through all the video stuff.

George Ware
troven wrote on 3/15/2002, 9:58 AM
i'll chime in and cast a vote for separation!

CDM wrote on 3/15/2002, 12:39 PM
even though I do both audio and video, I'd also like to see separate forums.
Chienworks wrote on 3/15/2002, 4:02 PM
Wayne: that was exactly how it was done prior to Vegas 3. Vegas Audio 2 was exactly the same software as Vegas Video 2, and depending on which activation code you paid for it would unlock or not unlock the video features. My guess is that Vegas 3 is set up exactly the same way, but Sonic Foundry chose to not make audio-only activation codes available.
SHTUNOT wrote on 3/15/2002, 5:31 PM

Exactly...the time and money going into the R&D of VV line of products would be best utilized that way. Thats why I posted my comment on only win2k/XP support. Not to get into anymore arguments over this but ...all the extra cash that I see that they'll save from not worrying about win98se could go to an extra feature or two...if anything more beta testing for bugs/stability[even easier to do because of one less os to worry about!].
And again my vote for a separate audio forum :).Later.

jbrazier wrote on 3/18/2002, 10:05 AM
Sounds like the majority of us are in agreement on the separation issue...
zendar wrote on 3/21/2002, 6:57 AM

FuTz wrote on 3/21/2002, 7:09 AM
Reminds me of politics here in Quebec... hahaha!
But, after reading a few forums on/around the subject, I think it would be a good idea to separate. Mostly for audio-only people who got to make twice the efforts to have answers to their questions. And it's no big deal for video-people to go to an Audio forum to have tips or answers regarding audio. In fact, it seems to be easier for video-people to go to a separate forum than to get audio-only-answers on this forum.
So I vote: YES! Split it!!!
SHTUNOT wrote on 3/21/2002, 12:28 PM
3rd day in a row I have to fight my Vegas audio post to try and get a answer. It keeps getting pushed to the 30's and I don't think that people view say 50 post per page like I do...really annoying. Please separate the video from audio so we can please focus on topics to discuss. Later.
doctorfish wrote on 3/21/2002, 7:22 PM
I vote (again) in favor of separation.
This is not the Union.

jbrazier wrote on 4/4/2002, 3:40 PM
Now, if we could only get someone from SF to recognize our unofficial technopolitical viewpoints and split the groups, please....
JoeD wrote on 4/4/2002, 7:51 PM
SF takes more time deleting trite expletives from posts rather than DO THE OBVIOUS AND RIGHT. THAT says a LOT about the state of SF.
As if this is a place one would take their children to (???? whaaa???....understand the message SF...not the "word"..the entire message!!!)

Does it matter anyway? These people are so busy shooting themselves in the foot...while other apps run technological audio circles around's only a matter of time where SF is now just catering to the video market.

Example 1: do you see an sf rep post here?

Jacose wrote on 4/9/2002, 8:49 AM
what better way to get users to upgrade than always wave the features of the higher cost product in there face... even if they DONT like video!!!!
SonyKSA wrote on 4/12/2002, 10:10 AM
In the past we've seen quite a few people who wanted the Vegas forum to remain as one forum, but it seems that the tides have turned. Due to the increased use of this forum, we have now opened a Vegas - Audio Topics forum.

This forum is now the Vegas - Video Topics forum, though some older audio posts will remain here.