Sleeping SONY?

Dre_Duygulu wrote on 5/26/2004, 10:03 AM
Hi ,first of all sorry 4 my english.

I'm using Vegas,Acid,SoundForge since from the first versions.But now I dont want to update or buy the new versions , b'coz they dont give me what I want.

Sony change the version numbers, Vegas 4 , Vegas 5 but in reality that can only be Vegas 2b,c,d,e.

What's changed from Vegas 2 & Vegas 5 for Audio ? Nothing , just Surround options,some ICONS , little fixes vs vs ...

I dont want to use Nuendo , Cubase SX , Logic or any other Multitrack program.I want to use VEGAS , b'coz when it's first released it was the King , it can give everything to a musician , sound engineer.

Look to Cubase , they put everything that they can.In every version you can find new options , new comforts.Steinberg wants to rule PC Audio&Music industry and he is going well.

Finally , I want to say that we want to see NEW & REVOLUTIONARY changes for VEGAS.I'm a studio engineer , and I use VEGAS for AUDIO.I dont use VIDEO and I dont want to use.

Why are you putting Video&Audio together? Yes its a good thing but when it comes to Proffessional works , I want to use VEGAS in my DAW.

Dont you have any ideas? (except changing the icons) If you wanna put 2 programs together , dont put Vegas Video&Audio , Put ACID & VEGAS together.

Now I "MUST" use Cubase or Nuendo with my projects , b'coz there are a lot of VST FX.I cant use them with Vegas.And the Adapter plugins arent so good , flexible. Cant you add a VST Option to VEGAS?

I have more things to say but my english is not enough.But you guys the VEGAS users , if you feel the same with me , write here....

Thanks , Dre Duygulu from Istanbul


Caiwyn wrote on 5/26/2004, 12:46 PM
Well, some might argue that a lot more has improved in the audio part of Vegas, but in terms of major features you're right -- not much has changed since Vegas 2.0. Unfortunately, that is probably how it will always be. Sony's made it clear that Vegas is meant for video editing, not music creation. The audio portion of Vegas that does exist is stellar, particularly in the UI, but it is far too limited.

Which means that Sony currently has no competitive music production solution.

However, were they to add the multitracking and audio features of Vegas to the next version of ACID whilst maintaining the UI that has served both apps so well, they could have a very serious contender. ACID already has ASIO, VSTi, and Rewire... if the audio features in ACID were as capable as Vegas, and the midi editing a little more fleshed out, I can guarantee you they'd have the hottest selling DAW. The question is, is Sony even interested in competing with the likes of Cubase, Logic and Sonar? Personally, I hope so.

I expect that we'll see ACID 5, or at least some news about it, during the summer NAMM show. That will probably be the moment of truth.
PipelineAudio wrote on 5/26/2004, 1:32 PM
I sure as hell hope acid doesnt become the multitracker. Vegas is and vegas was and vegas shall ever be. I hope

Lets see what was added to Vegas audiowise since version 1, and I agree this really should probably be called Vegas 2 and not 5, but so what...

1. Buss to buss routing

2. Plugin automation

3. Phase switches

4. Reverse switches

5. Rudimentary, home user style input monitoring

6. Auto input for the software input monitoring


8. Control surface support

9. Drastic improvements in the quality of the pitch timestretch

10. Drastic steps backwards in the UI of the pitch/timestretch

11. Buss tracks

Im sure there's a bunch more stuff
Rednroll wrote on 5/26/2004, 2:06 PM
There's been a couple features added on the audio side since v2.0

1-Project trimming/media consolidation
2-Dynamic RAM previews
3-Create and edit Windows Media 8 (.wmv, wma) files, with Web metadata including closed captioning
4-On-the-fly metadata arrangement (import existing script copy and place command markers during playback)
5-Edit Web command templates in XML database format
6-Video CD and multimedia CD burning
7-Red Book CD layout and burning, complete with printable ISRC and UPC codes. Import existing CD Architect projects.
8-Autosave/crash recovery tools
9-CD audio extraction
10-JKL keyboard scrub, and linear timeline scrub
11-Enhanced event grouping
12-Extended control over default track properties
13-Smooth audio and video track envelopes, crossfades, and event envelopes: a whole new sound and look
14-Five audio panning modes, including constant power balance
15-Audio channel control for stereo audio files
16-Invert audio phase for events and tracks
17-Voice-optimized time stretching

1-5.1 surround mixing tools
2-DirectX® plug-in effect automation
3-Over 30 real-time DirectX® effects
4-ASIO audio driver support
5-Recording input monitoring
6-Master, auxiliary, and assignable effects audio bus tracks
7-Enhanced audio time stretching
8-Improved effects bypass
9-Enhanced ripple editing model
10-Keyboard event trimming
11-Event shuffling
12-Split-screen effect bypass and clipboard previews
13-Split-screen A/B previewing when slip-trimming
14-Pre/post toggle for video event effects
15-Enhanced audio/video scrub speeds
16-Media markers and regions in events
17-Expanded scrub range
18-Preview the cursor position with pre-/post-roll
19-Joystick control of faders, surround panning, and the color wheel controls in the color corrector plug-ins
20-Select events that refer to a specific file in the Media Pool
21-Drag-and-drop transfer of bins between open copies of Vegas
22-AC-3 encoding (requires the Sony Pictures Digital AC-3 Encoder)
23-Application scripting
24-Windows Media 9 support, including surround encoding
25-RealMedia 9
26-Improved CD extraction, burning, and drive support

1-Support for control surfaces including the Mackie Control Universal.
2-Envelope automation recording.
3-Envelope point thinning.
4-Improved punch-in recording with automatic input monitoring.
5-Improved audio time stretching.
6-ACID loop support on the timeline.
7-ACID time stretching for ACIDized loops.
8-Support for 5.1-channel audio plug-ins on the master bus.
9-Film-style 5.1 surround panning.
10-Downmix monitoring so you can test your 5.1 surround project in different listening environments.
11-Pre/post volume for busses routed to hardware outputs.
12-Bus-to-bus routing.
13-Enhanced interface, including Windows XP theme support.
14-Multiple docking windows.
15-User configurable window layout.
16-Customizable keyboard shortcuts.
17-Subclip creation.
18-Real-time audio/video event reverse.
19-You can now drag the edit cursor to change its position in the timeline and Trimmer window when the Allow edit cursor to be dragged check box on the General tab of the Preferences dialog is selected.
20-A marker tool that you can use to move or delete multiple selected markers.
21-Automation recording for track envelopes and keyframes.
22-Audio volume/opacity event envelope changes are applied to all selected events.
23-Networked rendering.
24-Enhanced application scripting.

Plus, much more enhancements and unlisted features.

Not enough to make everyone completely happy, but there's been a couple things added since Vegas 2.0 on the audio side.

1-Rewire support
2-Midi sequencing/editing..etc.
3-Tempo changeable based grids/timelines
5- Additional DVD file format rendering (MLP, DTS,PLII)
6-Additional ACID functionality Master Tempo/key signature
7-Open Acid Project
8-Embeded project tracks (ie the ability to put other Vegas projects on a track)
9-Basic DVD audio Disc creation like CD architecture features, only for DVD. With selectable file format (MLP,DTS,AC3,PLII)
10-DTS CD creation
11- PLII compatible downmix
12-Open/save as standard midi file
13-CD Text
14- Realtime output to (DTS,AC3,PLII) bitstreams via digital out.
15-Import/Export project type (ie EDL Convert Pro)
16-DX amp modeling and distortion modeling plugins
17-World Peace

ohhh...that's what I would like anyways.
Caiwyn wrote on 5/27/2004, 10:08 PM
I'd like to see those features in Vegas 6 too, Red, but I don't think it'll happen, and seeing how long it took between versions 4 and 5, it's not something I'm willing to wait to see.

Besides which, you've basically proved my point -- look at the features you're suggesting for version 6: Rewire, Midi sequencing, VSTi, etc. -- these features are major functions that don't even have foundations built in Vegas, whereas many of the features added in previous versions are extensions and enhancements to the audio engine that offer more flexibility to features already in use. The only feature that even comes close to adding such drastic new functionality is the ASIO driver support that was added in version 4.0.

My argument still stands: Sony has NO competitive audio production solution right now. ACID seems to be designed with similarities to Vegas's UI in mind, if not actually built on similar code foundations. That's why I'm hoping that much of the audio functionality in Vegas will be leveraged to turn ACID into a full-fledged music production suite in the next version.

If not, then no matter how good Vegas's UI is, there is no reason to buy a Sony product as an audio recording solution when other vendors offer more competitive feature sets.
adowrx wrote on 5/27/2004, 10:47 PM
2 Words


sorry, 4 words,
cubase and nuendo
PipelineAudio wrote on 5/28/2004, 12:39 AM
the problem for me is, no matter how awesome some of the features, the editing in the other apps just plain SUCKS...terrible once youve been spoiled by vegas
VegUser wrote on 5/28/2004, 12:53 AM
true...and you'd think that would be reason enough FOR SONY\SF TO START COMPETING. lazy or complacent? You decide.

Hmm, all these suggestion and it's starting to sound like a melding of acid and vegas is just what you could use. Wow, what was my crazy a$$ thinking long ago when ranting for this OBVIOUS idea. Vegas, dvd arch, cd arch and acid should be one app. F'n period! Sony would kick perverbial a$$ if this target was reached.
Until then, you get complacency...r ya happy?


Newf wrote on 5/28/2004, 1:58 AM
I upgraded from V2 to V5 recently having forgone V3 and V4. The stark reality is that much has changed as documented above. Vegas can even now be used as a stand alone effects unit by preforming musicians when sticking to basic effects like reverbs,delays, and chorus(haven't experimented with all of them)but not pitch shifting and I suspect not acoustic mirror. Asio preforms exceptionally well and is representative of the whole new package. So if you go for the upgrade from V2 as I did you will be pleasantly surprised and the price cannot be beat compared to what the competition has to offer. As well, get yourself a DV camera with the money you save Dre and put video to your sound creations-the Video features in Vegas themselves are worth the price of the upgrade and I hear Istanbul is a great looking city. Also until rewire comes to Vegas if you have soundcard that allows it a rewire scenario can be achieved by being a little creative. V2 is good but V5 is great!
Rednroll wrote on 5/28/2004, 7:04 AM
"look at the features you're suggesting for version 6: Rewire, Midi sequencing, VSTi, etc. -- these features are major functions that don't even have foundations built in Vegas"

The truth of the matter is of all those suggested features, these are probably the ones I want the least. I believe they could prove to be useful for me, but think they mainly need to be there for a compettive standpoint, because users have just grown to expect it. For me personally, I already have a solution for rewire, Vsti's and midi and it works well with my workflow. I use Acid for VSTi and Rewire and use Studio Vision for my midi needs. If Acid's midi features improve, I can see myself not using Vision any longer. So I'm not saying these features aren't necessary to users, just not on my priority list of "must have's". I would actually rather have all the DVD audio features I listed for my workflow. It seems like the only one that offers these features in software is Minnetoka and the price is pretty expensive. So if I could get those in Vegas I would be extremely happy, because currently I don't have an affordable work around, like I do for the others..
lineout wrote on 5/28/2004, 7:08 AM
Don't most of us have sequensers or a linked second computer that we are doing our midi with and allowing Vegas to run without the CPU and harddrive demandthat the midi would bring. Yeah it would be nice to have on one system but not essential. No way I'm moving over to nuen-dont. It's not effiecient with my time. I'm always upgrading my computers and the second always makes a great VSTI platform.
Rednroll wrote on 5/28/2004, 9:25 AM
"Don't most of us have sequensers or a linked second computer that we are doing our midi with and allowing Vegas to run without the CPU and harddrive demandthat the midi would bring."

I think you and I are the only ones Lineout. Everyone else hasn't figured out how to do this yet. I'm with you on all points, everytime my DAW get's an upgrade so does my midi machine, because my old DAW get's to be my new midi PC.
Caiwyn wrote on 5/29/2004, 7:06 AM
While I do say that the editing in Vegas is indeed better than that of Cubase or Sonar, it is not so astronomically better as to force anyone to use Vegas -- at least part of your own experience is surely due to the fact that once you get used to one app, another seems counter-intuitive, especially if you really like that first app. Sonar and Cubase have very usable editing features, enough to still compete with Vegas, and they beat the pants off Vegas in terms of pure audio functionality.

My point is that Sony should not expect their UI and ease of use factor to keep them in sales with audio folks. They need to either add midi/rewire to Vegas or they need to add Vegas's audio features to ACID in order to remain competitive.
Caiwyn wrote on 5/29/2004, 7:14 AM
Well, um... I'm not so sure. Sony would indeed benefit from keeping Vegas and ACID separate were ACID a fully-featured DAW. If Vegas is meant to be a video editing solution, then you don't want too many audio features. Midi and Rewire do, in fact, get in the way, causing confusion for the customers who are more concerned with video editing. Midi and Rewire just isn't really a big part of what they do, if it's even a part at all. By the same token,we don't really need a bunch of video editing features getting in our way, do we?

However, though this line of thinking keeps Vegas easy to use and navigate for video professionals, it leaves Sony in the lurch in terms of a music creation solution. So the only way to keep Vegas clean and focused on its primary purpose (i.e., video editing) while still providing a fully featured DAW solution to audio professionals is to build up ACID with audio features from Vegas. Provided they've done a good job keeping Vegas's code clean and readable, this might not be too hard, especially if both apps are built on the same foundations.

Building CD arch into ACID and DVD arch into Vegas does make sense... although it also makes sense to leave those as separate products -- if not everyone needs DVD authoring,why should they buy it? Hence, you have the Vegas/DVD arch bundle, for those who want both.
Caiwyn wrote on 5/29/2004, 7:27 AM
It's not a matter of figuring out how, Red. It's a matter of cost and efficiency. You're talking about how great the editing and UI of Vegas is and then suggesting that we use two separate systems for audio and midi? That's FAR more counter-intuitive than just using Cubase/Nuendo, or Sonar, or Samplitude.

The idea that we use two separate systems, or even two separate applications, runs counter to the argument that Vegas is more efficient -- the advantages of Vegas's UI and ease-of-use are entirely lost in that scenario, so why do it? What's more, you're talking about doubling the costs. If I need even just Vegas and ACID, I'm looking at a grand for a system that is STILL not integrated. For that price, I could just buy Samplitude. For half that, Cubase SX. Either one of those will do the job in one software system (allowing me to mix midi and audio tracks side-by-side) on one computer. So how is your system better?
tmrpro wrote on 5/29/2004, 8:31 AM
Everyone else hasn't figured out how to do this yet. I'm with you on all points, everytime my DAW get's an upgrade so does my midi machine, because my old DAW get's to be my new midi PC.

Why would you do this in today's world where this is completely unnecessary and totally inefficient?

I think everyone USE to do it this way and realized that using applications that are designed to run both midi and audio in a single DAW is the proper and most efficient way to accomplish these tasks and ultimately results in better results all the way around.

I still say that I don't believe that is part of the Vegas model, otherwise Sony would have implemented it already.

Vegas is a smokin' Video Editor and Audio (without midi) application. Acid is the most comprehensive and powerful loop based and midi implemented software around.

Frankly, I think that Acid needs to have the multitracking capabilities that Vegas has (w/direct monitoring), and a stronger MIDI editing and utilization interface. Then guys like us; who do audio only, could put Vegas in the closet and use it as we need the Video capabilities and stick solely to using ACID.
Rednroll wrote on 5/29/2004, 8:39 AM
"The idea that we use two separate systems, or even two separate applications, runs counter to the argument that Vegas is more efficient "

Caiwyn, I wish you could read your posts and see the same contridictions that I do. In one aspect you say, Vegas becomes not as effecient, because video features are in an audio app....then say midi and rewire features need to be put in that app to make it more effecient. So I suppose for users that do video with audio work, they would tend to disagree, that they belong together to be more effecient, yet have no need for midi or rewire. That's the beauty of Vegas,, that they both can exist together without interferring. I use Veaas for audio purposes and not once has the video features gotten in the way of my work. You further say that DVD tools are better suited for DVD Architect and not Vegas, then also say it's not effecient to have features spread out between 2 apps.....huh?? Can't you see your viewpoint is centered around the way YOU want to work, and not the entire Vegas user base? That's fine, but you need to realize that not everyone uses Vegas for creating music, there's plenty of other audio editing that is not music related...probably even more than music creation, and a lot of those fields include video in their work. Even after you contradict yourself about an uber app and seperate app argument, you tell me by having midi in a seperate app is not as effecient. I find the opposite, so again that is your viewpoint. I find it more effecient not to have a cluttered work space where I have to scroll through audio tracks and midi tracks. To me midi and audio are really 2 seperate animals that I work with differently and like to keep each seperate and organized in it's own areea. I have all my midi tracks on a seperate PC, with a seperater monitor, running on a sepreate PC, which doesn't interfere with my audio processing. Midi and audio tracks are always seperated and both my audio and midi apps are specialized in their respective area. I've used this analogy in the past, If I want to do brain surgery, then I use a scalpel, because that tool is specialized for that task. I could use a swiss army knife to do brain surgery, and possibly get the same results with enough time and effort. So again, it's just your preference as far as effeciency. My preference is seperated and specialized, it's a no win argument and just boils down to how each person likes to work. If I had what I wanted, it would be for Sony to make an entire seperate midi application, that could be used as a stand alone sequencer and also be rewired together with Vegas.
lineout wrote on 5/29/2004, 1:47 PM
"and they beat the pants off Vegas in terms of pure audio functionality."

If all you have is a hammer, then a hammer is what you use when you need to use a tool. I have owned almost all currently authored music software. Maybe the same way we use different mic's for different voices.I try to use other apps to see what I can do with them. Vegas is such a time saver when editing a bad drummer I do not want an ubber app. I would LOVE the old sound forge people to really learn midi. They have painted a masterpiece on canvas and say they can't paint the doghouse. Sell me another piece of software with the fresh eye that gave us vegas 2. I am not entirely happy with any software for sequencing midi. They are either clumsy or outright bad. Because sony would be looking at from a new perspective, they would have a huge chance to get things right.

I will still run this from my second system.
Like Rednroll said, in a simpler form,

I work in audio.
I work in midi.
I do not work in midi at the same time I work in audio.
Two different jobs, two computers, one desk-- pretty effecient for me.
pwppch wrote on 5/29/2004, 7:29 PM
>>and they beat the pants off Vegas in terms of pure audio functionality

If you mean in terms of making MUSIC where music requires MIDI, then sure, I will say there are many tools better suited for this particular application.

As far as audio (not MIDI) features I respectifully disagree as Vegas is far superior in its audio editing (aspects.) I don't believe any of the other mainstream DAWs can touch Vegas' ease of use or direct approach to recording, editing, and mixing audio.

Yes it would be nice to have hardware based monitoring, but if you LOOK at the tools out there, only products that have direct control of the hardware support this. All other tools use either software based input monitoring or some hybrid approach of external tools or hardware.

(I disagree with tmrpro's assumption that software based input monitoring is unaccetable. In fact until he was forced to switch to a higher sample frame size in Vegas he was saying how good input monitoring in Vegas was. It was so good in fact, that he even implied here, on this forum, that it was hardware based not software based. Yes, there are limitations, and these limitations can make software based input monitoring inneffective, but I don't by into the elitist notion that it is "unnacceptable". Many users of Vegas and other products use software based input monitoring with out any problems.)

>they need to add Vegas's audio features to ACID in order to remain competitive
Competative in what market space?

If you are looking for a DAW (which has ome to mean Audio + MIDI + Softsynths) then, yes to be competative as a DAW, ACID could use some more "DAW" like features.

However, ACID is not a DAW. It is a loop sequencer. There is a big difference.

ACID is competitive with its targeted audiance.

There are as many ACID users that want ACID to be a SONAR or Cubase. The are just as many that want us to leave it alone and focus on the Loop based composition tool that it is.

If MIDI is part of your production techniques, then you have to look for alternatives. Red has a work flow that works for him. I have one as well that is similar.


Caiwyn wrote on 5/30/2004, 1:00 AM
Red, if I could find a coherent sentence in your post, I'd probably respond to it point by point, but since I can't, and you obviously haven't answered my question, I will reiterate:

How is using two apps that cannot be linked together directly (Vegas and ACID, for example) somehow better than using one app that does it all, or even two apps linked together with Rewire or some similar method?

It's a simple question, and one that even Sony fails to grasp. The minute I need to start sequencing midi, Vegas becomes useless to me -- because not only does Vegas not offer midi sequencing, it cannot be linked directly (via Rewire or similar methods) to a program that does. The minute I have to deal with exporting from another program and importing into Vegas, then Vegas loses its ease-of-use advantage. It doesn't matter how good the editing is, or how nice the UI is, or how intuitive the workflow is, because, with the sole exception of ACID (whose midi editing features are lackluster at best), it is an absolute pain to move data between apps. It is also particularly inefficient to not be able to mix your midi tracks side-by-side with your audio tracks.

It's fine and dandy that you don't need MIDI sequencing, but there are a lot of folks who do -- this is not a fringe group we're talking about here.
Caiwyn wrote on 5/30/2004, 1:10 AM
You are right, ACID is not a DAW. But neither is Vegas, by the assertions of Sony staff on these very boards. What's more, the two cannot be connected via Rewire, a move that would allow the two apps to function as a DAW. So, to reinforce my point, Sony has no competitive DAW solution.

So yes, I agree with you. I am simply lamenting Sony's refusal to make either Vegas or ACID competitive as a DAW, because it would obviously be superior to most of the competition, if not all. If Vegas isn't suitable for this, why not ACID? If not ACID, why not another product similar to Vegas but geared toward music production?

Thank you for answering, btw... if I read between the lines, it looks to me like Sony has no intention of turning ACID into a full-featured DAW, so there's no sense in waiting around for it to happen. I will take your advice to "look for alternatives," and continue on with Cubase, since Sony cannot currently meet my needs in terms of music production, and is unlikely to do so in the near future -- I don't mean this to be rude, just matter-of-fact.
Rednroll wrote on 5/30/2004, 8:04 AM
"How is using two apps that cannot be linked together directly (Vegas and ACID, for example) somehow better than using one app that does it all"

I think I've answered that and also Lineout has and lineout seems to have understood my post completely. You've pretty much proven the point that hardly anyone understands how to do it, yet it's been in there since Vegas v1.0. We use 2 seperate computers, although this is really not necessary, it could be done on one computer. I personally use 2 computers, to have one screen dedicated to my midi workflow, and one screen for my audio workflow. When it comes time to record midi tracks as audio tracks, both screens are open at the same time so I don't have to keep switching between apps, or scrolling to find a particular track. These 2 programs on 2 seperate computers, are synced together midi beat clock or midi timecode. Now just because, you are not familiar with doing this, this does not mean my sentences are incoherent. Work has been done this way in an effecient manor before Audio/midi combination programs ever existed. In my opinion audio/midi combination programs where developed for people who couldn't understand how to sync things together. I find having midi and audio tracks seperate from each other is much more effecient in my workflow. That's why I suggest Sony develop a dedicated midi sequencer, that has Vsti abilities, and can be synced together with Vegas either via rewire or midi beat clock. If I would want imidi/audio on 2 seperate PC's, I would sync them together via midi beat clock. If I want them on the same PC, yet have a dual monitor configuration so they're still seperate, I would then sync them together via rewire.

"It's fine and dandy that you don't need MIDI sequencing, but there are a lot of folks who do -- this is not a fringe group we're talking about here."

I have midi tracks, and run them with Vegas at the sametime, I can't help it if you are technology challanged.
Rednroll wrote on 5/30/2004, 8:17 AM
"Many users of Vegas and other products use software based input monitoring with out any problems.)"

Peter, can't you see what you're saying? These other people are not "professionals", any "professional" knows you must have hardware direct monitoring and "any latency" is unexceptable in a monitoring situation. Obviously, you've never done any hardware monitoring, because you have never owned any hardware in your lifetime......I won't go on any further, you've heard all the contradictive hot air before. :-)
gjn wrote on 5/30/2004, 8:53 AM
the strategy of Sony is clear. ¶

¶végas it is a software for the video with a good audio tool of mastering. but samplitude, nuendo are now quite higher in audio. ¶

¶acidpro is a superb tracker.¶
¶but live 3, miracle , are more ergonomic and real time now. ¶

¶here is the problem. ¶

¶it is for that that we wish to draw your attention Mr SONY. ¶

¶we like its programs… but it is necessary that they misses "comfort today"…

¶look at accoustic mirror? ¶

¶not advanced since its débust.i was remarquable.mais I bought wave I like the convolution "in time reel". ¶

¶let us stop feeding from discussed if Sony made "just survive its audio softwares".. ¶

Caiwyn wrote on 5/30/2004, 9:11 AM
Again you fail to get it, Red. I didn't ask you how to use beat clock or timecode. I didn't ask you "how" to do anything, because I already know how. I asked you "why." Why is using such an arcane, unintuitive system somehow better than using a single app like Cubase that can do everything at once? Why is futzing with midi timecode better than being able to mix within the same app? And doesn't being forced to use solutions like that rob Vegas of the only competitive advantage it has -- its supposed ease-of-use factor? You STILL haven't been able to answer that.