P.S. We sure must have not alot of recoding time going on for here we
sit bickering about things that do not pertain to music.Hmmmmmmmm....
Maybe we should get to recording and enjoy our talents,and that of
others.Hey...I found myself posting alot latley as well.....I am
guilty.hahahaha.:-)
Rock on!

paul wrote:
>>Irvin,
>>
>>You are completely wrong on this issue.
>>
>>Many companies charge more 'direct' becuase they have agreements
with
>>retailers to not undercut them on price. Why make such an agreement?
>>
>>Even in the Internet era shelf space at stores is considered VERY
>>valuable to companies that make software.
>>
>>try a little more humility next time.
>>
>>
>>fp
>>
>>

It is a toss up for me.Waves stuff is great,Pigs on cpu though!!, as
well as the sonic foundry goods that come with vegas video;soon to be
included in our vegas audio upgrade paths!!!YEAH!!The plugs alone
would cost at least $150!!.I will pay $99 thanx.
Hyperprism never been to keen on.Vst stuff?Oh yes there is alot of
good things out there.Becareful of the Freeverb plug.There is alot of
talk now of problems with it making you assume it is your software at
fault.Antime in doubt with a prob,revert back to the last pluins you
installed and uninstall then try to see if problem arises again.
I hope this info helps.Also what ever plugs your ears say sound good.
There is a diff in plugs.Have a listen.
:-)
David W. Ruby

Thomas Kay wrote:
>>I'm familiar with the obvious ones, SF, Waves. But I was
>>wondering if anyone had any favorites that were on caliber
>>of Waves.
>>
>>Also, is it RAM plus CPU that allows for the quantity of DX
>>efx and:
>>
>>Wouldn't reverbs be written for CPU power if that were the
>>case. For instance, would there be some reverbs that
>>respond differently to a dual 700 verses a single PII 450?
>>Smoother tails?

David W. Ruby wrote:
>>P.S. We sure must have not alot of recoding time going on for here
we
>>sit bickering about things that do not pertain to
music.Hmmmmmmmm....
>>Maybe we should get to recording and enjoy our talents,and that of
>>others.Hey...I found myself posting alot latley as well.....I am
>>guilty.hahahaha.:-)
>>Rock on!
>>
>>paul wrote:
>>>>Irvin,
>>>>
>>>>You are completely wrong on this issue.
>>>>
>>>>Many companies charge more 'direct' becuase they have agreements
>>with
>>>>retailers to not undercut them on price. Why make such an
agreement?
>>>>
>>>>Even in the Internet era shelf space at stores is considered VERY
>>>>valuable to companies that make software.
>>>>
>>>>try a little more humility next time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>fp
>>>>
>>>>

You are right,David.
The way I budget my time is by coming to this site on my breaks from
recording, and reply to the regular attack with a "snappy"
answer...find it very relaxing.


sincerely,

irvin

paul wrote:
>>Irvin,
>>
>>You are completely wrong on this issue.
>>
>>Many companies charge more 'direct' becuase they have agreements
with
>>retailers to not undercut them on price. Why make such an agreement?
>>
>>Even in the Internet era shelf space at stores is considered VERY
>>valuable to companies that make software.
>>
>>try a little more humility next time.
>>
>>
>>fp
>>
>>

Dear Paul:

I'm pretty shure the guy who paid $600.00 for Vegas Pro is in total
agreement with you...

More humility? You are a little confused:
YOU be humble. I'll continue being autonomous...

Irvin,

"There's no justification for this, other than PURE GREED."
(emphasis yours)

You can blame SF if you want for its direct price, but thats a lot of
BS, as companies either -

1. Have no 'direct' sales (like Steinberg with VST) and thus deny a
way for people to get their software quickly who don't have price as
a big concern but maybe can't walk into a store (or use a search
engine). We've already heard from one such person on this debate.

2. Do what SF, Syntrillium and Cakewalk for example do. Already
covered that.

3. Do what companies like IQS and Gadgetlabs do and focus almost
exclusively on direct sales - 'best price always direct'. This has
the reverse effect of option #1 because it all but completely
precludes getting shelf space, and thus increasing product awareness
to the non-Internet shopper. You can get a great price this way
though.

Each option has an up and a downside for the customer and the company
selling. I would accuse none of them of being based on greed - though
I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think any company exists to
serve benevolent causes and sell their products for as little as
possible! This is why your statement on SF's pricing structure struck
me as uniformed and as such not fair representation.

You can still rail against it all as a business model, but you're
taking on an industry wide issue better left to business school
professors IMO than audio engineers.

There may be companies that charge only as much as the stores and no
more and offer this same price on their web site to boot, but I
haven't heard of them. If they really exist they should be
congratulated for getting such a good deal out of the retail stores
that carry their stuff.

Lastly, Given that there are also many other avenues on the Internet
to buy anything, including Vegas, the '$600 guy' whom you can't stop
martyring didn't look very hard - or at all. I too bought it online
but for $400 the day it shipped to market.

Irvin -
Since you are not a registered owner of Vegas and probably haven't
had the time or patience to play with the demo, here is an
explanation of punching in and out techniques:
No, there is no punching on the fly (nor is this claimed by SF) and I
know for a fact that they are aware that this would be very cool. I'm
sure you'll see it in a future version. HOWEVER -
Vegas offers VERY POWERFUL punching in features - so flexible that I
don't even really see the need for "punching on the fly" except in
the case of recording something more open-ended, like a book-on-tape.
As illustrated in an earlier post by David, Vegas allows you to
select a portion of events, on multiple tracks that you want to punch
into. Then, by simply highlighting those events and creating a pre-
roll and post-roll time using a visual tool (not numbers) called the
loop selector (or something like that), you can assign where Vegas
starts playback from, into what events or selections you want it to
record - giving you the "switch to inputs" you were talking about -
and the point at which you want it to stop. You can even tell it to
loop the recording so that the performer can do multiple takes of a
punch. Say you want to re-recrod the background vocals and rather
than recording once, listening back and recording again, you want to
just have them do three in a row right away, so they really get a
sense of the groove and pitch. Just loop the record area and, voila,
3 takes of each track from which you can choose. This gives you an
enormous amount of flexibility in terms of the zero-cross point and,
in the case that the singers start too early or end after the
selected punch area, you still actually have access to the whole area
that you selected in the pre-roll and post-roll. You simply have
to "uncover" the early or late recording by dragging the edges of the
events out.
Vegas adds the recorded passes as "take" layers into the chosen
selections. With the "t" key (in 2.0) you can toggle between the
various takes. You can rename each take, remove them, clean the media
pool, etc. How much more flexibility could you want for recording?
Wiht most Sonic Foundry products I think the motto should be - "look
and ye shall find" because there is a wealth of goodies under the
hood of these products. Granted, it shouldn't be hard to find these
things, but that's not necessarily the fault of the manual. 90% of
the time you don't find things until you need them, nor would you
even get what it was in the manual until you needed to implement it.
Manuals and guides are funny that way.
I plan to post a more extensive Tips and Tricks soon, or maybe I'll
wait and send one in to EQ and Mix...

Maybe this will help clarify at least one issue for you, since you're
so fond of answers. It frustrates me to read such uninformed posts,
so I had to respond.

cheers.


David W. Ruby wrote:
>>If you dig into the manual,You will find that you can punch in.It
is
>>diff from what irvin and probably most of us are use to.It is more
>>towards really digging in to the edit and adjusting a pre roll to
>>record in the section.I have used it many times on vocal takes
under
>>extreme situations with artists and it works flawless.I must admit
I
>>like it better than the on the fly punches I have done on other
>>products.Reasoning?Most of the on the fly punches if not met by a
>>zero crossing will leave a glitch at the punch in point.This is a
>>drag to go back and fix all the time.Vegas just simply adds the
fades
>>so you have no clue if the zero crossing was met or not.This is
>>handy!!Try it I think you will understand.It is a diff beast than
>>others but that is what makes buying software fun.If everything was
>>designed the same,it would be pretty boring to mix and enjoy
>>it.Lastly this is why I use 2 diff products.One day the mood might
be
>>for one screen design, the next another.Just painting pictures.
>>I see everyones points.Opinions are good!
>>Let us hear some mp3s of what you guys are doing musically.That
would
>>be great!!
>>Software is only as Proffessional as the engineer using it.:-)
>>
>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>So, wouldn't you agree that comparing Vegas to Nuendo would be
>>apples
>>>>to oranges, considering the price? I can't find it, but I don't
>>>>believe SF even claims to be such a recording product that would
>>>>punch on the fly- not that it wouldn't be nice. Maybe it's that
SF
>>>>has never really specified anything beyond multimedia.
>>>>
>>>>"A man that (and this is YOUR OWN ADMISSION) thinks he owns a big
>>>>company like SonicFoundry"
>>>>
>>>>What I believe I wrote was that I did not own SF. What I meant
was
>>>>that my emotion is wasted on something that I have very little
>>input
>>>>into.
>>>>
>>>>"The $600.00 price is just a couple of clicks away at
>>>>www.sonicfoundry.com "
>>>>
>>>>Again, it's $400. $100 if you buy the Delta 66 and $50 along with
>>the
>>>>1010. Both good deals.
>>>>
>>>>And by recording at home, I mean that- as far as the recording
>>>>process is concered, I'm fine with it. I can't punch myself in on
>>the
>>>>fly and I like to set it up anyway so I can pay attention to the
>>song
>>>>instead of the punch in. Same goes when I have recorded others. I
>>>>would rather be focusing on the performance.
>>>>
>>>>So, like it or not, many people feel like they are getting their
>>>>moneys worth. Maybe not the guy who paid $600.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>>>>>I have never seen Vegas in a store for more than $430. It is
>>now
>>>>at
>>>>>>>>$400. Isn't Nuendo at least $1000 list? Which would put it at
>>>>>>around
>>>>>>>>$850 or so. Double, at least.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So far I'm okay with the first release of Vegas (I don't do
>>this
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>a living, I just make music at home) But my whole album will
be
>>>>>>>>tracked completely on Vegas. I like it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cubase 5 will be a $150 upgrade to VST 24 users. It looks
worth
>>>>it
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>me if you use that program. If SF has that much of an upgrade
>>(I
>>>>>>>>haven't checked), then that would be worth it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In my opinion, both companies are doing extremely well. I've
>>had
>>>>my
>>>>>>>>questions about SF's direction. But then I remembered that I
>>>>don't
>>>>>>>>own SF and my energy might be served better towards my album.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"But I want to thank you for deeming my combacks "snappy".
Hope
>>>>you
>>>>>>>>enjoyed some of them as much as I did."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A little humilty, Irvin. Agression does not equal good
writing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Irvin. Please hear me out a little.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Your points concerning Vegas have all been made very
clear.
>>>>You
>>>>>>>>>>>>dislike SF's product policy, SF charges too much for too
>>>>>>little,
>>>>>>>>SF
>>>>>>>>>>>>customers are stupid people who don't know their own
best.
>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>stop me if I'm wrong somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Now, I could understand if you had topics of discussion
to
>>>>>>bring
>>>>>>>>up
>>>>>>>>>>>>concerning Vegas functionality or design. It's all in the
>>eye
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>beholder. And I agree that you have a right to express
>>>>opinions
>>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>>>>>>though you don't own a registered copy of Vegas. It's
what
>>>>>>these
>>>>>>>>>>>>forums are all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>But PLEASE, cut the insults and the snappy comebacks. I
beg
>>>>>>you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's keep this at a moderately mature level. I don't
mind
>>>>>>>>friendly
>>>>>>>>>>>>little bites

Charles de Montebello wrote:
>>Irvin -
>>Since you are not a registered owner of Vegas and probably haven't
>>had the time or patience to play with the demo, here is an
>>explanation of punching in and out techniques:
>>No, there is no punching on the fly (nor is this claimed by SF) and
I
>>know for a fact that they are aware that this would be very cool.
I'm
>>sure you'll see it in a future version. HOWEVER... -


ANSWER:

Thank you for echoing my post:
THERE'S NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY.
YOUR OWN ADMISSION: "It would be cool... SonicFoundry is aware of
it... maybe in a future version..."

Then, of course, you go thru the usual contortions to prove what I
know very well: Yes, you can record, but with a LOT OF PAIN.
Is this "Pro" (as in Vegas"Pro")software?

Bottom line: I am right. NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY...


---------------


>>Vegas offers VERY POWERFUL punching in features - so flexible that
I
don't even really see the need for "punching on the fly" except in
the case of recording something more open-ended, like a book-on-tape.
As illustrated in an earlier post by David, Vegas allows you to
select a portion of events, on multiple tracks that you want to punch
into. Then, by simply highlighting those events and creating a pre-
roll and post-roll time using a visual tool (not numbers) called the
loop selector (or something like that), you can assign where Vegas
starts playback from, into what events or selections you want it to
record - giving you the "switch to inputs" you were talking about -
and the point at which you want it to stop...

ANSWER:

Is THAT better than THIS (called PUNCH IN/OUT ON THE FLY):

Select CHANNEL/S. 2.Hit PLAY. 3.PRESS RECORD, 4. HIT PLAY and GO ON
WITH YOUR RECORDING...
REPEAT IF PERFORMANCE BY ARTIST SUCKS....

BTW, "except in the case of recording something more open-ended, like
a book-on-tape..."
"More open-ended" than what? What does all that mean?



----------------------



>>Maybe this will help clarify at least one issue for you, since
you're
>>so fond of answers. It frustrates me to read such uninformed posts,
>>so I had to respond...

ANSWER:

How can you call my post "UNINFORMED" when YOU ADMITTED I AM RIGHT?
Did I make a false claim?
C'mon, Charlie. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. You can do
much better than this...

As to your "frustration", it is the natural result of trying to cover
the sun with a finger...

Sincerely,

irvin

Well, I guess there really is no getting through to you, Irvin. You
want answers and when you get them, it's like you're not really
listening. It's like you ignored the whole rest of my post. I really
don't want to labor on it because I was really writing that to help
both you and maybe others who haven't explored this to see what kind
of power you have over your material with Vegas. We all know it
doesn't punch on the fly. I've never used a multitrack (software
under, say $1000) that did that well. And, the point you seem to be
missing is that SF never claimed Vegas could punch on the fly. So I
don't see why you harp on this. Yeah, yeah, you think that because it
doesn't that makes it somehow "unprofessional". Come on. My post was
to show that you can do far MORE powerful things in some ways than
punching on the fly. I'm not here to try to get you to buy Vegas, but
what I hate is when I see people referring to things they haven't
fully explored. So, mine was just an FYI. I see it made no
difference. So, let's drop it. I have work to do.

cdm.

irvin gomez wrote:
>>
>>
>>Charles de Montebello wrote:
>>>>Irvin -
>>>>Since you are not a registered owner of Vegas and probably
haven't
>>>>had the time or patience to play with the demo, here is an
>>>>explanation of punching in and out techniques:
>>>>No, there is no punching on the fly (nor is this claimed by SF)
and
>>I
>>>>know for a fact that they are aware that this would be very cool.
>>I'm
>>>>sure you'll see it in a future version. HOWEVER... -
>>
>>
>>ANSWER:
>>
>>Thank you for echoing my post:
>>THERE'S NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY.
>>YOUR OWN ADMISSION: "It would be cool... SonicFoundry is aware of
>>it... maybe in a future version..."
>>
>>Then, of course, you go thru the usual contortions to prove what I
>>know very well: Yes, you can record, but with a LOT OF PAIN.
>>Is this "Pro" (as in Vegas"Pro")software?
>>
>>Bottom line: I am right. NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY...
>>
>>---------------
>>>>Maybe this will help clarify at least one issue for you, since
>>you're
>>>>so fond of answers. It frustrates me to read such uninformed
posts,
>>>>so I had to respond...
>>
>>ANSWER:
>>
>>How can you call my post "UNINFORMED" when YOU ADMITTED I AM RIGHT?
>>Did I make a false claim?
>>C'mon, Charles. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. You can do
>>much better than this...
>>
>>As to your "frustration", it is the natural result of trying to
cover
>>the sun with a finger...
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>irvin
>>

Charles de Montebello wrote:
>>Well, I guess there really is no getting through to you, Irvin. You
>>want answers and when you get them, it's like you're not really
>>listening. It's like you ignored the whole rest of my post. I
really
>>don't want to labor on it because I was really writing that to help
>>both you and maybe others who haven't explored this to see what
kind
>>of power you have over your material with Vegas. We all know it
>>doesn't punch on the fly. I've never used a multitrack (software
>>under, say $1000) that did that well. And, the point you seem to be
>>missing is that SF never claimed Vegas could punch on the fly. So I
>>don't see why you harp on this. Yeah, yeah, you think that because
it
>>doesn't that makes it somehow "unprofessional". Come on. My post
was
>>to show that you can do far MORE powerful things in some ways than
>>punching on the fly. I'm not here to try to get you to buy Vegas,
but
>>what I hate is when I see people referring to things they haven't
>>fully explored. So, mine was just an FYI. I see it made no
>>difference. So, let's drop it. I have work to do.
>>
>>cdm.
>>
>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Charles de Montebello wrote:
>>>>>>Irvin -
>>>>>>Since you are not a registered owner of Vegas and probably
>>haven't
>>>>>>had the time or patience to play with the demo, here is an
>>>>>>explanation of punching in and out techniques:
>>>>>>No, there is no punching on the fly (nor is this claimed by SF)
>>and
>>>>I
>>>>>>know for a fact that they are aware that this would be very
cool.
>>>>I'm
>>>>>>sure you'll see it in a future version. HOWEVER... -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ANSWER:
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for echoing my post:
>>>>THERE'S NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY.
>>>>YOUR OWN ADMISSION: "It would be cool... SonicFoundry is aware of
>>>>it... maybe in a future version..."
>>>>
>>>>Then, of course, you go thru the usual contortions to prove what
I
>>>>know very well: Yes, you can record, but with a LOT OF PAIN.
>>>>Is this "Pro" (as in Vegas"Pro")software?
>>>>
>>>>Bottom line: I am right. NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY...
>>>>
>>>>---------------
>>>>>>Maybe this will help clarify at least one issue for you, since
>>>>you're
>>>>>>so fond of answers. It frustrates me to read such uninformed
>>posts,
>>>>>>so I had to respond...
>>>>
>>>>ANSWER:
>>>>
>>>>How can you call my post "UNINFORMED" when YOU ADMITTED I AM
RIGHT?
>>>>Did I make a false claim?
>>>>C'mon, Charles. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. You can
do
>>>>much better than this...
>>>>
>>>>As to your "frustration", it is the natural result of trying to
>>cover
>>>>the sun with a finger...
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>>irvin
>>>>


Since you have been a nice guy trying to inform me and possibly
others, I'll return the favor:

There's such software:
1.ProTools LE with Digi001 for W98 at under a thousand.
2. Steinberg's Nuendo for Win98/NT/2000. Also under a thousand.
SamAsh at 48th Street has a nice demo...

Both HAVE all the features missing in VegasPro...

paul wrote:
>>Irvin,
>>
>>"There's no justification for this, other than PURE GREED."
>>(emphasis yours)
>>
>>You can blame SF if you want for its direct price, but thats a lot
of
>>BS, as companies either -
>>
>>1. Have no 'direct' sales (like Steinberg with VST) and thus deny a
>>way for people to get their software quickly who don't have price
as
>>a big concern but maybe can't walk into a store (or use a search
>>engine). We've already heard from one such person on this debate.
>>
>>2. Do what SF, Syntrillium and Cakewalk for example do. Already
>>covered that.
>>
>>3. Do what companies like IQS and Gadgetlabs do and focus almost
>>exclusively on direct sales - 'best price always direct'. This has
>>the reverse effect of option #1 because it all but completely
>>precludes getting shelf space, and thus increasing product
awareness
>>to the non-Internet shopper. You can get a great price this way
>>though.
>>
>>Each option has an up and a downside for the customer and the
company
>>selling. I would accuse none of them of being based on greed -
though
>>I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think any company exists
to
>>serve benevolent causes and sell their products for as little as
>>possible! This is why your statement on SF's pricing structure
struck
>>me as uniformed and as such not fair representation.
>>
>>You can still rail against it all as a business model, but you're
>>taking on an industry wide issue better left to business school
>>professors IMO than audio engineers.
>>
>>There may be companies that charge only as much as the stores and
no
>>more and offer this same price on their web site to boot, but I
>>haven't heard of them. If they really exist they should be
>>congratulated for getting such a good deal out of the retail stores
>>that carry their stuff.
>>
>>Lastly, Given that there are also many other avenues on the
Internet
>>to buy anything, including Vegas, the '$600 guy' whom you can't
stop
>>martyring didn't look very hard - or at all. I too bought it online
>>but for $400 the day it shipped to market.
>>
>>

Dear Fred:

I apologize for not noticing that the only reason SonicFoundry
charges $200.00 extra at their website is SOLELY as a service "for
people to get their software quickly who don't have price as
a big concern but maybe can't walk into a store..."

How many of these "people who don't have price as a big concern but
maybe can't walk into a store" do you know?

This is not one of your best days when it comes to denying the
obvious, Fred.

You don't need "business school professors" to realize that the
$600.00 guy just got screwed good. But according to you, he deserves
it for not "looking very hard" or for not "looking at all"!

Lastly:

Uninformed? Uninformed is the poor guy trying to come up with excuses
to justify a bad, $400.00 decision...


Happy returns...


irvin.

Then I guess you've found the products for you.
Good luck.

Charles.

irvin gomez wrote:
>>
>>
>>Charles de Montebello wrote:
>>>>Well, I guess there really is no getting through to you, Irvin.
You
>>>>want answers and when you get them, it's like you're not really
>>>>listening. It's like you ignored the whole rest of my post. I
>>really
>>>>don't want to labor on it because I was really writing that to
help
>>>>both you and maybe others who haven't explored this to see what
>>kind
>>>>of power you have over your material with Vegas. We all know it
>>>>doesn't punch on the fly. I've never used a multitrack (software
>>>>under, say $1000) that did that well. And, the point you seem to
be
>>>>missing is that SF never claimed Vegas could punch on the fly. So
I
>>>>don't see why you harp on this. Yeah, yeah, you think that
because
>>it
>>>>doesn't that makes it somehow "unprofessional". Come on. My post
>>was
>>>>to show that you can do far MORE powerful things in some ways
than
>>>>punching on the fly. I'm not here to try to get you to buy Vegas,
>>but
>>>>what I hate is when I see people referring to things they haven't
>>>>fully explored. So, mine was just an FYI. I see it made no
>>>>difference. So, let's drop it. I have work to do.
>>>>
>>>>cdm.
>>>>
>>>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Charles de Montebello wrote:
>>>>>>>>Irvin -
>>>>>>>>Since you are not a registered owner of Vegas and probably
>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>had the time or patience to play with the demo, here is an
>>>>>>>>explanation of punching in and out techniques:
>>>>>>>>No, there is no punching on the fly (nor is this claimed by
SF)
>>>>and
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>know for a fact that they are aware that this would be very
>>cool.
>>>>>>I'm
>>>>>>>>sure you'll see it in a future version. HOWEVER... -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ANSWER:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you for echoing my post:
>>>>>>THERE'S NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY.
>>>>>>YOUR OWN ADMISSION: "It would be cool... SonicFoundry is aware
of
>>>>>>it... maybe in a future version..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then, of course, you go thru the usual contortions to prove
what
>>I
>>>>>>know very well: Yes, you can record, but with a LOT OF PAIN.
>>>>>>Is this "Pro" (as in Vegas"Pro")software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bottom line: I am right. NO PUNCH-IN/OUT ON THE FLY...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---------------
>>>>>>>>Maybe this will help clarify at least one issue for you,
since
>>>>>>you're
>>>>>>>>so fond of answers. It frustrates me to read such uninformed
>>>>posts,
>>>>>>>>so I had to respond...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ANSWER:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How can you call my post "UNINFORMED" when YOU ADMITTED I AM
>>RIGHT?
>>>>>>Did I make a false claim?
>>>>>>C'mon, Charles. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. You can
>>do
>>>>>>much better than this...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As to your "frustration", it is the natural result of trying to
>>>>cover
>>>>>>the sun with a finger...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>irvin
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>Since you have been a nice guy trying to inform me and possibly
>>others, I'll return the favor:
>>
>>There's such software:
>>1.ProTools LE with Digi001 for W98 at under a thousand.
>>2. Steinberg's Nuendo for Win98/NT/2000. Also under a thousand.
>>SamAsh at 48th Street has a nice demo...
>>
>>Both HAVE all the features missing in VegasPro...
>>
>>
>>

Many manufacturers of products in this country do not sell their
products at retail and, if they do - as appears to be the case with
Sonic Foundry - they are generally forced, by contractual obligations
with any retail distributors, to charge ONLY MSRP (Manufacturer's
Suggested Retail Price) to customers purchasing directly.

This is done for a number of reasons, one of which is to not undercut
the retail outlets ability to offer discounts and/or sale prices.
There are provisions in most Distributor's contracts that REQUIRE
this practice and it would be most usual to find that this is indeed
the case here.

Judging from all previous examples in this forum you will undoubtably
attempt the last word on this issue. Nonetheless, there is no valid
argument that can be made that will change the situation ... and
while it may be unusual where you come from, it is a very common and
very accepted practice in this country, so get used to it.

KAC ...


irvin gomez wrote:

>>I apologize for not noticing that the only reason SonicFoundry
>>charges $200.00 extra at their website is SOLELY as a service "for
>>people to get their software quickly who don't have price as
>>a big concern but maybe can't walk into a store..."

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Many manufacturers of products in this country do not sell their
>>products at retail and, if they do - as appears to be the case with
>>Sonic Foundry - they are generally forced, by contractual
obligations
>>with any retail distributors, to charge ONLY MSRP (Manufacturer's
>>Suggested Retail Price) to customers purchasing directly.
>>
>>This is done for a number of reasons, one of which is to not
undercut
>>the retail outlets ability to offer discounts and/or sale prices.
>>There are provisions in most Distributor's contracts that REQUIRE
>>this practice and it would be most usual to find that this is
indeed
>>the case here.
>>
>>Judging from all previous examples in this forum you will
undoubtably
>>attempt the last word on this issue. Nonetheless, there is no valid
>>argument that can be made that will change the situation ... and
>>while it may be unusual where you come from, it is a very common
and
>>very accepted practice in this country, so get used to it.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>
>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>
>>>>I apologize for not noticing that the only reason SonicFoundry
>>>>charges $200.00 extra at their website is SOLELY as a
service "for
>>>>people to get their software quickly who don't have price as
>>>>a big concern but maybe can't walk into a store..."
>>

Dear Karl:

Aren't we getting a little xenophobic and offensive here?
HONESTY & DECENCY may be alien (no pun intended) concepts to you, but
it doesn't change the simple fact that the $600.00 guy was royally
screwed!

Now, if having the last word is of paramount importance to you, then
I am willing to pretend your argument is a valid one.

Yes, the $600.00 guy is wrong in feeling abused.
Vegas' sync is rock-solid.
Yes, you can have Fx on individual tracks.
There are no known bugs.
Vegas is IN NO WAY related to AcidPro.
Punch-in/out on the fly is possible.
Latency is not an issue.

My apologies to you for being in a position of intellectual autonomy.

Happy father's day...


irvin


PS: Has it ever ocurred to you that fluency in more than one
language is not an indicator of nationality, but rather a sign of
HAVING AN EDUCATION?

Hell, our studio janitor has no education and exhibits fluency in
more than one language ... but he is also civil, keeps his ignorance
to himself, and is always considerate of the other man's opinion ...
so, judging from your output thus far in this forum, No, I wouldn't
bet the farm on it.

KAC

irvin gomez wrote:

>>PS: Has it ever ocurred to you that fluency in more than one
>>language is not an indicator of nationality, but rather a sign of
>>HAVING AN EDUCATION?

OK, against better judgement...

>>Yes, the $600.00 guy is wrong in feeling abused.

Did anyone force him to buy the product online?


>>Vegas' sync is rock-solid.

You need rock-solid? Buy a $10,000 Protools system. I'm pretty amazed
at the prestanda and stability SF managed to squeeze out it already.

As a game developer I know what a drag developing media software for
the Windows platform can be, so I never rush into the conclusion that
the application developer is to blame, which is rather common among
people with limited computer knowledge.


>>Yes, you can have Fx on individual tracks.

I'd really like you to elaborate on this issue, as I think you've
gotten something very wrong here. FX on tracks is totally possible.
I've used it since day #1.

>>There are no known bugs.

You're being ridiculous. Who claimed this?


>>Vegas is IN NO WAY related to AcidPro.

Uh, who claimed THIS?! They have similar interfaces, probably share
some audio engine code (I could be wrong though) and they both deal
with multiple tracks, but... Please, explain "related".


>>Punch-in/out on the fly is possible.

Never claimed by anyone. You're the only one who keeps bringing it
up. Why is it so important to you?


>>Latency is not an issue.

Huh?! Latency is, again, a matter of hardware, drivers, operating
system, harddrive performance, and a number of other issues. You
can't expect Vegas to show the same performance on an Event Gina as a
shitty Soundblaster AWE64. It's like saying a F1 car and a Lada
should run equally well on jet fuel.


There, I've added my $2. I eagerly await your reply on this one. This
discussion has quickly turned into the #1 coffeebreak pastime at the
office.

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Hell, our studio janitor has no education and exhibits fluency in
>>more than one language ... but he is also civil, keeps his
ignorance
>>to himself, and is always considerate of the other man's
opinion ...
>>so, judging from your output thus far in this forum, No, I wouldn't
>>bet the farm on it.
>>
>>KAC
>>
>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>
>>>>PS: Has it ever ocurred to you that fluency in more than one
>>>>language is not an indicator of nationality, but rather a sign of
>>>>HAVING AN EDUCATION?
>>
>>

Dear Karl:

Most likely your "studio janitor" (a person you obviously look down
on)
HAS AN EDUCATION, otherwise he wouldn't be FLUENT in several
languages.
But you wouldn't notice it, Karl. You are to busy trying to cover the
sky with a finger...

Why are you so angry at me, anyway? I am not the one that took your
money and has you working unnecesarily hard (PUNCH IN/OUT on the fly,
a perfect example), in total denial of the fact that TRULY
PROFESSIONAL software is available for Windows that DOES EXACTLY
what VegasPro ONLY PROMISES to do....

If you have any doubts, go and check out Steinberg's Nuendo &
Digidesign's Digi001.


Perhaps if you secretly switch to one of these (something MANY are
doing as we speak), and cut your losses short, you wouldn't be so
stressed out...

Sincerely,


A friend in dis-chord...

Johan Althoff wrote:
>>OK, against better judgement...
>>
>>>>Yes, the $600.00 guy is wrong in feeling abused.
>>
>>Did anyone force him to buy the product online?
>>
>>
>>>>Vegas' sync is rock-solid.
>>
>>You need rock-solid? Buy a $10,000 Protools system. I'm pretty
amazed
>>at the prestanda and stability SF managed to squeeze out it already.
>>
>>As a game developer I know what a drag developing media software
for
>>the Windows platform can be, so I never rush into the conclusion
that
>>the application developer is to blame, which is rather common among
>>people with limited computer knowledge.
>>
>>
>>>>Yes, you can have Fx on individual tracks.
>>
>>I'd really like you to elaborate on this issue, as I think you've
>>gotten something very wrong here. FX on tracks is totally possible.
>>I've used it since day #1.
>>
>>>>There are no known bugs.
>>
>>You're being ridiculous. Who claimed this?
>>
>>
>>>>Vegas is IN NO WAY related to AcidPro.
>>
>>Uh, who claimed THIS?! They have similar interfaces, probably share
>>some audio engine code (I could be wrong though) and they both deal
>>with multiple tracks, but... Please, explain "related".
>>
>>
>>>>Punch-in/out on the fly is possible.
>>
>>Never claimed by anyone. You're the only one who keeps bringing it
>>up. Why is it so important to you?
>>
>>
>>>>Latency is not an issue.
>>
>>Huh?! Latency is, again, a matter of hardware, drivers, operating
>>system, harddrive performance, and a number of other issues. You
>>can't expect Vegas to show the same performance on an Event Gina as
a
>>shitty Soundblaster AWE64. It's like saying a F1 car and a Lada
>>should run equally well on jet fuel.
>>
>>
>>There, I've added my $2. I eagerly await your reply on this one.
This
>>discussion has quickly turned into the #1 coffeebreak pastime at
the
>>office.


Dear Johan:

I'm glad you are finally starting to get the idea... This discussion
does make for a most entertaining coffee break.

A short answer to all your worries about VegasPro, and the seemingly
impossible (from a monetary standpoint)task of getting professional
recording software for Windows, can be best put like this:
IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO SPEND $10.000 on a ProTools system in
order to get ALL THE FEATURES MISSING IN VEGAS PRO!!!!

How?

Digidesign's Digi001 with PROTOOLS LE (Yes, THAT's ProTools)

Steinberg's Nuendo.

Both under $1000.00 (as in LESS THAN A THOUSAND).

Let me know if I can be of any help to you in deciding what system
might be better for your purposes. After all, the object of this
forum is to inform and help our fellow musicians in their quest for a
better tomorrow...


Sincerely,

irvin

Don't flatter yourself, gomez. It's amusing just pushing your button
occasionally to watch you dance to the same old tune.

irvin gomez wrote:

>>Why are you so angry at me, anyway?

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Don't flatter yourself, gomez. It's amusing just pushing your
button
>>occasionally to watch you dance to the same old tune.
>>
>>irvin gomez wrote:
>>
>>>>Why are you so angry at me, anyway?


Dear Karl:

Are you sure? I don't seem to be the angry one here...
Never had to put down a poor janitor in order to make my point.
I think a little bit of relaxation would do you good, Karl.

Time to switch to less stressful software?

Let me know. In spite of all our differences, I would be willing to
help you make a smooth transition to a more powerful system like
Nuendo or DigiDesign's Digi 001 with ProtoolsLE.

Let me know, Karl.


Sincerely,


Irvin.

>>Yes, the $600.00 guy is wrong in feeling abused.

Read msg 1622 in this forum. Not much more we can do than this....

Peter

OK, Irvin. You claimed answers, you got them, you ignored them. Now I
crave some answers out of you:

Who claimed the following facts that you keep repeating:

* Vegas cannot have FX on individual tracks
(You can, I can, everone can. This is a plain lie)

* There are no known bugs [sic]
(No company have ever claimed this since the beginning of the modern
age. Neither SF)

* Punch in / out on the fly is possible
(God, have we worn that old horse down! No one have ever claimed this)

* Latency is not an issue
(A very confusing statement, but no one at SF has ever written it
where I've seen it. Maybe the phrase was "latency is not an issue of
sofware alone, but one of careful choice of hardware and operating
platform")

Now, Irvin.

Who claimed these facts? Where did you read them? Why do you
contiuously put false statements in the mouth of Sonic Foundry?

Oh, and about your holy quest for Nuendo: If the little I've
experienced of Steinberg's sloppy customer support and non-existent
direct feedback to developers is a general company policy, they won't
get me as a customer even should pigs fly outside my window a bright
summer morning. Steinberg is not an alternative to Sonic Foundry in
that aspect.

Besides, I would never base my consumer opinion on a guy spending his
time trying to bring an AAA class product down the drain with plain
bullshit and false rumours. Your credibility is nil.

Hello Peter and others,
What is the current upgrade path from Vegas Pro to Vegas Video
or Vegas Audio? I've only seen pricing for buying it first time.
I'm interested in owning the full on product and want to know
what my options are (I'm a registered Vegas Pro user).
Brett

Peter Haller wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, the $600.00 guy is wrong in feeling abused.
>>
>>Read msg 1622 in this forum. Not much more we can do than this....
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>