Mix Mag Review of Vegas Audio

karlc wrote on 1/14/2001, 3:42 PM
Good review of Vegas, overall ... although Vegas users will
immediately note that the author, perhaps understandably
so, did not really dig too deeply into the program.

IMO, the review glossed over some of the more elegeant
points of the Vegas interface. I believe that Vega's
remarkable adherence to Windows conventions makes it one of
the most intuitive and easy to use audio programs on the
market. This results in a relatively easy learning curve for new
personnel, and very efficient use and operation under commercial
conditions ... a key concern to those who must make a living, or
operate a business profitably, with programs of this type. (Perhaps
only those who have wrestled with interfaces on rival offerings, a la
Steinberg et al, appreciate this fact?)

The most notable shortcomings on which the author expounded
were the lack of punch-on-the-fly, and MMC and transport
control functions. The latter point, making it impossible
to integrate Vegas into an environment containing
professional hardware controllers, being well taken.

If I recall correctly, some mention was also made of the
inability to solo or mute "groups" without first assigning
them to a separate bus. I concur ... and, while on the
subject of grouping, I also admit that after some heavy use
the past six months, I still find the new "grouping"
methodolgy clumsy and not nearly as intuitive or as easy to
use as the previous grouping model in Vegas Pro. (I can't
tell you how many times I have reached up with the
intention of moving some previously "grouped" tracks en
masse to a new location, to have only the 'moused track'
move because an interim mouse click seems to have ungrouped
the group.)

On that note, is there a way to "slide" all the tracks in
a "group" at once? ... if there is a way to do this, I've
missed it. It would be nice to have, if not.

I was also glad to see Vegas' multimedia capabilities
mentioned, but not harped upon as the raison d'être for the
product. Why? For some reason, many professional audio
folks I know who have not worked with the product seem to
have been turned off Vegas from the outset by use of
marketing buzzwords like "multimedia", as if a product
pitched to that market was somehow unworthy of their
attention.

In any event, I thought the review put Vegas in a favorable
light in a professional trade magazine and will hopefully
nudge more professional audio folks into using it.

Now, if we can just get the fonts in this forum to be user
configurable, maybe some of us older farts will actually be able to
read the damn posts!

KAC ...

Comments

imac wrote on 1/18/2001, 4:57 PM
I often see people claiming the necessity of scsi drives
but I wonder how much practical research they have done
them selves. My experience with eide is sustained transfer
rates of 44 MB per second on a 90 GB partition (two 45 GB
drives on a raid).
DMA is essential, and with ATA 100 on most new MB's ide is
looking good.
I think ide is good for video where there are few streams
of large thru put. A modern scsi is more effective in audio
if there are lots of tracks because of faster access times,
and the excessive transfer rates like I can acheive are
meaningless because access time is the limiting factor.
If I can have three times more hard drive space for the
same cost, it makes it easy for me to choose....



Brian Franz wrote:
>>I just finished reading what took me 4 hours of some
worth
>>while reading and testing on SCSI vs. EIDE drives. If
>>anyone is interested visit WWW.PROREC.COM. I now have to
>>take everything back about SCSI being so much better than
>>IDE.
>>
>>When I first did a comparison of My IDE and SCSI hard
>>drives, a SEAGATE 7200 ATA66 EIDE BARRACUDA and a SEAGATE
>>10K SCSI CHEETAH, I was using Windows 95 and tested both
>>drives for Playback using my soundcards Event "Echo
>>Reporter" This test showed that the EIDE could playback
42
>>Simultaneous tracks and the SCSI could playback 56.
After
>>reading about DMA under Windows 98 and enabling it for
EIDE
>>drives I redid this test. This same EIDE drive under
>>windows 98 with DMA enabled, tested out at 218 Tracks of
>>playback. The SCSI Tested out at 72. I disabled the DMA
>>on the EIDE and it only tested out at 81 Tracks...still
>>faster than the SCSI, but half as fast with DMA enabled.
>>At this website they also had a hard drive track test
>>software, which I also tested on both drives. EIDE=125
>>Tracks SCSI=92 Tracks. Both system test software, the
SCSI
>>lost...and it's spinning at 10k compared to 7200rpm. I'm
>>having a hard time believing it, because I've always
>>prefered SCSI over IDE, but after reading the info at
that
>>website and doing some tweaks and tests, I think I'm a
born
>>again IDE user. Of course the true test will be the
first
>>project I do recording on an EIDE drive, but I highly
>>recommend anyone who is an audio geek like me to read
that
>>informative article and do the tests on your own
system...I
>>just happen to have IDE and SCSI on the same system and
was
>>amazed at the results.
>>
>>Oh they did mention one advantage of SCSI over IDE and
that
>>is you can put 16 devices on the SCSI buss and only use 1
>>IRQ, where IDE you only get 2 devices per IRQ....so I
guess
>>I'm not too mad since I just purchased 3 Plextor SCSI
Cdrs.
>>
>>Standing corrected,
>>Brian Franz