Message for SF admins

me_arnold wrote on 4/17/2002, 8:22 AM
I'm using Vegas Video 3.0 for strictly Audio right now. Where should I be posting my questions?

On the new Audio forum or the Video Forum?

Thanks,

Craig

PS. VV3 blows Cakewalk out of the water! It's easy to use and it doesn't "dropout". Sonar is just as bad as any of the previous versions. You must have to be Ray Charles to use it without it crashing! I love you Ray but Sonar blows the big one!

Comments

SonyKSA wrote on 4/17/2002, 9:32 AM
This forum is intended to be used by any Vegas Pro, Vegas Audio, or Vegas Video user who would like to post an Audio topic. So, you've come to the right place. Enjoy!

P.S. Thanks for your kind words.
JoeD wrote on 4/20/2002, 9:22 PM
Yeah, I gotta agree with ya me_arnold.
I still use Vegas due to it's stability and great UI in getting work done and getting it out (which is the goal).

I do have some other beefs with it of course as you'll see, which may even relay more to corporate longevity (and for good reason), but the stability and UI are great.

But..
I have to agree with the many users who know how important a role the soft synth/samp will play in the future. It's important for SF to see this...or you may just see VV4 just pass with any audio features.
I think the smartest move for the first start would be to provide DAO in SF6 (as it is in VV3). It "might" justify it's upgrade.

JoeD
EArrigotti wrote on 4/21/2002, 5:50 PM
I agree that Sonar can be buggy, and takes some tweaking to get it to work well, but once I got it together, I prefer it for Audio over VV3. Of course VV3 is my app of choice by far for video. The trouble is that VV3 doesn't incorporate looping like Acid. If VV3 and Acid were one product, I'd probably switch over because I too believe that VV3 is far more stable than Sonar and quite a bit less buggy. They also have much better tech support.

I am not sure, but I think that VV3 does not work at a true 96k/24bit, but I could be wrong.
pwppch wrote on 4/22/2002, 8:43 PM
Vegas fully supports 24/96.

However, there is a bug in Win2000 that will prevent you from recording at this rate/bitdepth.

Peter
jbrooks wrote on 4/23/2002, 12:52 PM
so whats the fix, winxp?

I know several tapers who are running 24/96 with other windows recording sofware under w2k.
pwppch wrote on 4/23/2002, 5:24 PM
>>so whats the fix, winxp?
XP does fix the bug in the KMixer. MS has a fix, it will be part of SP4 (or is it SP5).

>I know several tapers who are running 24/96 with other windows recording sofware >under w2k.
It has nothing to do with the software, but the drivers. Our apps use Wave drivers. The bug is related to the KMixer in Win2000 and its use of WDM drivers. Windows and, in part, the kmixer, emulate Wave drivers for WDM based drivers. Since our apps are dependent on Wave drivers, we are prone to any problems introduced by Windows and the kmixer.
SHTUNOT wrote on 4/23/2002, 11:37 PM
Since our apps are dependent on Wave drivers, we are prone to any problems introduced by Windows and the kmixer.

So will your next upgrade of vegas have WDM compatibility? If not, why?