PipelineAudio and CDM - Question:

H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 9:39 AM
I realize that absolutely zero time was spent developing audio features for this release of Vegas. But, one question I've always had, which has not been answered in repeated questions to SONY, is: What is the story with the changed routing in version 5 and 6? Why was this changed? Was it intended for a reason, and is it not considered a flaw? Obviously the earliest this would ever be fixed would now be version 7. But, is it even considered by SONY to be a problem.

Since you are beta testers, I am asking you. I'm sure that you must have discussed it during the testing and must have more information than the rest of us. SONY will not even discuss it other than to say "that's the way it is now".

Thanks for satisfying my curiousity!


CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:01 AM
can you tell me what routing issue you're referring to?
H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:17 AM
"can you tell me what routing issue you're referring to?"

You are not aware that the audio signal routing was changed in version 5? The position of the "pan" was changed in the signal path. It is no longer possible to pan a send from a track. Oh, unless of course you use a "pan" plugin.

In other words, all sends are now effectively "mono" unless you use a plugin or unless the track is stereo to begin with.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised that a beta tester would be so out of touch with the current state of the program. Then again, looking at this update maybe I shouldn't be.
CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:23 AM
I should have said "which" not "what". I know there are routing issues. Just didn't know which you were talking about.

so now you're going to antagonize me?
H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:33 AM
Sorry for being a little pissy, but I am a little pissed about it. It certainly wasn't directed at you, but I can see how you might take offence.

But, I did jump the gun and assume... Perhaps I didn't realize there was more than one routing issue that was changed in version 5.
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:36 AM
H2000 - how is the routing different in version 6? Are you saying is IS indeed different then it was in ver 5?
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:37 AM
"Are you saying is IS indeed different then it was in ver 5?"

Sorry, that should read:

"Are you saying it IS indeed different then it was in ver 5?"
CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:41 AM
I think he's saying that it changed from 4 to 5 and hasn't changed in 6.
H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:43 AM
James, the routing in v6 is the same as v5. The routing changed from v4 to v5.
H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:45 AM
Yes, that's correct.
Again, sorry if you felt I offended you CDM. But, do you know anything about the whys and whatnot from my original post?
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:50 AM
I dont know what we are and arent allowed to talk about, but Im sure you know, I have been kicking and screaming about a lot of issues, just like I always do.

If you think about it, as was said here, it follows the routing of a real console now.

However, that is useless to us, isnt it?

In the real world, you can feed two different auxes to an effect unit. In the DX/VST world, you can either feed one mono aux or one stereo aux to a bus, you just cant split it up like in the real world, so we need it back the way it was

Plus now its broken our old projects. Maybe we can get the video guys up in arms about it
H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:54 AM
Thanks Pipeline. But the real question I have is WHY.

From your post it sounds like you know but don't want to say.

Was it to facilitate another audio feature? Or, video feature?
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:54 AM
Well if I recall correctly, when I first discovered the pan plug-in I was actually pretty fond of it and liked the change. I mean, it does add some flexibility in how you sent up pans and whatnot. It's not a whole lot of work to convert over v1-v4 projects to utilize the plugin. The only issue I had was that the plugin won't behave in different modes, like "Constent Behaviour"/"Add channels"/etc...

In other words, I don't think it was ever looked at by Sony as a "Bug" The obviously changed it on purpose, maybe for the added flexibility and maybe because it was some part of the code that was interfering with something else and that was the 'solution'...

Sorry, I'm not Pipe or CDM, but those are my thoughts on the subject...
CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:58 AM
I want to check this out some more in a project.

I'll get back to you.

no offense taken. I understand your frustration, believe me.
H2000 wrote on 4/19/2005, 12:05 PM
It's not the end of the world. But when something as fundamental as the audio routing changes without som much as a word about it, I just like to know what the thinking behind it is. Is there some benefit beyond the flexibility that James mentions, or was that just a side-effect?

It is a bit of a pain to have to already have the track panned, then to add another pan plugin to duplicate the pan. Also, as stated there is no way to choose panning law in the plugin. And, wouldn't it have been nicer to just have it integrated with a selectable option?

It doesn't seem like this is alot to ask of a major update to the program. Especially in light of the fact that there really weren't many audio features updated anyway.
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/19/2005, 1:15 PM
Ask Peter himself

the main issue here that we can bug sony about isnt that we audio users are getting nailed, they wont care about that as much I dont think

the thing we can say is

"now all our V4 and earlier projects are TOAST"
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 1:31 PM
They may be, or will most likely be - without any work of course.

It would help me to know if there is any pan plugin out there that can behave like the built-in pan feature (with the selectable modes) because if there is such a thing, then all your v4 and earlier are NOT toast, but mearly need some work to get them performing the exact same way as they do in v5 and later - whereas before (well, actually, now, without such a plug) you basically need to do gain changes to try and match things up, which is helluvalot of work for some.
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 2:07 PM
"I realize that absolutely zero time was spent developing audio features for this release of Vegas."

As much as I hate to get all nit-picky about things, I have to say that I really think alot was done on their part. They had to get VST working for one. And some of us may be thinking "Oh, it's in other programs so they just plugged it in" I don't believe this is likely the case. Every program is different and Vegas is likely to be built in such a way that seemingly simple programming issues and add-ons may be particularly difficult or taxing on the overall program performance. It's often not such a simple case. I'm not THE programmer, and I imagine there isn't one single programmer that has worked on it soley through Vegas' life. In fact, I believe this to be the main reason why alot of other seemingly easy additions/fixes are taking so long.
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/19/2005, 2:21 PM
Spending needless time clicking away on your customers' dime is certainly the definition of toast for me
CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 2:28 PM
also, don't forget that .aaf is a big audio feature as well. This is a great cross-platform compatibility tool. It allows people to bring studios who use Vegas projects that originated in Pro Tools. And vice versa. This is quite a big addition to those of us who like to be able to say "yes" to any job, no matter where it started.
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 3:33 PM
" Spending needless time clicking away on your customers' dime is certainly the definition of toast for me"

Can you not just stick to one version of software after you've started working with a client, until the time you are finished with the project? :) :)

kind regards
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 3:35 PM
sorry, to clerify my post, and probably all the posts I make... maybe that is what Sony figures!?
drbam wrote on 4/19/2005, 3:45 PM
"Can you not just stick to one version of software after you've started working with a client, until the time you are finished with the project? :) :)"

Have you ever had to open a project you finished a year or two ago to do some tweaking, remixing, perhaps a new surround version? Would you consider still using Vegas 2 on a project (originally done in Vegas 2) today? I sure wouldn't. In fact, I don't even have Vegas 2 on my system anymore.

Ben  wrote on 4/19/2005, 4:12 PM
Sorry, Charles, but I'm more than a little narked off about this. The pan to busses issue has been much talked about in these forums since Vegas 5 was released - it's a real problem. A senseless change too.

There have been *many* threads here on the issue, but most alarmingly you actually posted a few months ago asking about Vegas 5 bugs - in retrospect now I realise that this was because you were beta-ing 6. But what's shocking is that I clearly mentioned the pan behaviour 'bug'; you didn't respond to my post, and clearly ignored the information! The thread is here:


The main thread about the pan/bus problem is here:


I think that many of us feel that, as audio-people beta-ing the software, you might have looked after our interests a little better, at least in respect to existing issues.


Rednroll wrote on 4/19/2005, 4:20 PM
Did I mention, I'm so glad I didn't get invited to this beta team? You guys are so anxious to be able to tear a Sony guy apart at the limbs in these forums for this release, that you're now looking for the closest best thing, a beta tester. Ahhhhh....yes, us audio users have sunken to an all time low. Thank you Sony!!!!

I bet you wish you would have remained in the closet now, huh Charles? Oh the joy :-)

It's even sadder, that it's a user like Charles, is the only support speaking up and interested into further looking into the problem. I'm sure Peter's in there working hard for the audio side regarding this issue.....oh wait, he wasn't even part of the Vegas audio side development for V6 now was he?