Harold,

First off all we have no intentions of becoming a half-assed audio
company for the sake of being a kick-ass video company. We want to be
a kick-ass media tools company. Audio is only half of the equation.
I'm not going to argue with you that we've had to focus some serious
energy into getting our first video editing app out, but now that
we've got that core technology to build from we are much further
ahead of the game. Now we are free to re-focus on refining and
polishing the whole 'suite' of tools.

Rest assured that we aren't abandoning our loyal audio customers. We
are simply growing the potential number of people that can use our
tools.

I hope you will continue to be one of our loyal supporters.

Best Regards,
Caleb

Harold wrote:
>>Being a working audio professional I've been in studios
>>around the country this last month and have just caught up
>>on what's been happening in this forum.
>>I have a suggestion : Why dont you people finish the Vegas
>>Audio program before incorporating Video ?
>>When I called 6 months ago and asked tech support why there
>>was no provision for midi controllers I was told "If we had
>>waited to put that in it (Vegas) wouldn't be released yet"
>>Brilliant. So development on the audio program stops to
>>incorporate Video, no doubt to satisfy the companies newly
>>found uber-alles web media lust. Just look at your web page!
>>Two of the three items featured on the first page concern
>>stocks. What the fuck is that? Do you guys sell stocks ?
>>It sure looks like they are more important than your
>>audio programs. Where is 24bit Soundforge ? Vegas is a
>>wonderfull program but it still is not finished, or if it is
>>you can kiss your ass goodbye in todays market. As a work in
>>progress it is great, as is evidenced by the complaints
>>about having to pay for 2.0 upgrades - it really has the
>>feel of a good initial release, but as far as competing in
>>the marketplace - come on! I guess that would depend on your
>>target market: Your penetration into the professional audio
>>world is absolutely zero. Every studio I go to has Protools
>>and if they have any machines with vegas on them they are in
>>the back room as a pet project. I know because I ask for it.
>>I tried to rent a system here in New York this month -
>>impossible, so I brought mine from california. I happen to
>>think that Vegas has the raw metal in it to compete with
>>protools, and I prefer it, but it still needs a whole lot of
>>work, and at this point to charge people to upgrade a
>>product that is "just" functional is pretty sad. I would
>>really like to see this thing developed to a point where it
>>is hands down the best tool for audio but pulling the
>>development team off a partially completed task and having
>>them build video into it is not the way to do this. Yeah
>>yeah, I'm sure your newly found stockholders see the $$ in
>>their eyes if you can compete with avid and their grossly
>>overpriced systems, but nobody will buy half assed products
>>of any kind for long. In fact, in the high $ video market,
>>no one will buy half assed systems at all! Now you're
>>selling animation products! Cool!! What's next, Dishwashers,
>>Books and Pantyhose ? How about a McDonalds franchise?
>>Where's the next Vegas upgrade ? Obviously somebody there
>>has IPO fever and judging from some of the other trainwrecks
>>I've seen, if you guys keep this up you should be able to
>>sell the company to AOL soon, having disemboweled your
>>customer base by your lack of attention to their needs and
>>premium pricing for basic products, necessary to enable your
>>expansion into areas that are not your expertise and
>>therefore are destined to fail miserably in. Competing
>>with Adobe is not a position that an audio company with
>>three braincells would put itself in.
>>As a software customer I have used your products because
>>they were the most efficient tools to get my job done, and
>>because they were easier to use than some others. Now you
>>must build in the functionality that other programs have had
>>for years, because the learning curves for other products
>>that don't incorporate dead weight that I don't need (ie
>>Video) but have more functionality are looking more
>>appealing to me. Hey that's it, you guys are checking the
>>value of your stock options all day and don't have time to
>>do any programming.
>>I hate to say it but it looks like you guys are starting to
>>suck. The writing is on the wall.

Hey man, why are you so agressive?

Vegas Video, in my opinion, provides a very good alternative to Adobe
Premiere and similar products in the surrounding price range, except
that Vegas is notoriously better for audio. I'm a working audio
professional myself, and I can clearly imagine the line of thought
Sonic Foundry had with this product line: Let the user do with video
content what he can already do with audio content. The beta demo
release felt very promising on that part.

From what you're saying, Harold, you're looking for a Protools
product at a Vegas price. As a software developer I can sense the
contradiction; There's a reason Protools cost you a leg and an arm,
and also a reason software like Vegas still has a market. Everyone
doesn't need a program of Protools' magnitude. Some people just need
to layer a few audio or video clips together, apply a few effects and
be done with it. Vegas does that for me.

Harold wrote:
>>Being a working audio professional I've been in studios
>>around the country this last month and have just caught up
>>on what's been happening in this forum.
>>I have a suggestion : Why dont you people finish the Vegas
>>Audio program before incorporating Video ?
>>When I called 6 months ago and asked tech support why there
>>was no provision for midi controllers I was told "If we had
>>waited to put that in it (Vegas) wouldn't be released yet"
>>Brilliant. So development on the audio program stops to
>>incorporate Video, no doubt to satisfy the companies newly
>>found uber-alles web media lust. Just look at your web page!
>>Two of the three items featured on the first page concern
>>stocks. What the fuck is that? Do you guys sell stocks ?
>>It sure looks like they are more important than your
>>audio programs. Where is 24bit Soundforge ? Vegas is a
>>wonderfull program but it still is not finished, or if it is
>>you can kiss your ass goodbye in todays market. As a work in
>>progress it is great, as is evidenced by the complaints
>>about having to pay for 2.0 upgrades - it really has the
>>feel of a good initial release, but as far as competing in
>>the marketplace - come on! I guess that would depend on your
>>target market: Your penetration into the professional audio
>>world is absolutely zero. Every studio I go to has Protools
>>and if they have any machines with vegas on them they are in
>>the back room as a pet project. I know because I ask for it.
>>I tried to rent a system here in New York this month -
>>impossible, so I brought mine from california. I happen to
>>think that Vegas has the raw metal in it to compete with
>>protools, and I prefer it, but it still needs a whole lot of
>>work, and at this point to charge people to upgrade a
>>product that is "just" functional is pretty sad. I would
>>really like to see this thing developed to a point where it
>>is hands down the best tool for audio but pulling the
>>development team off a partially completed task and having
>>them build video into it is not the way to do this. Yeah
>>yeah, I'm sure your newly found stockholders see the $$ in
>>their eyes if you can compete with avid and their grossly
>>overpriced systems, but nobody will buy half assed products
>>of any kind for long. In fact, in the high $ video market,
>>no one will buy half assed systems at all! Now you're
>>selling animation products! Cool!! What's next, Dishwashers,
>>Books and Pantyhose ? How about a McDonalds franchise?
>>Where's the next Vegas upgrade ? Obviously somebody there
>>has IPO fever and judging from some of the other trainwrecks
>>I've seen, if you guys keep this up you should be able to
>>sell the company to AOL soon, having disemboweled your
>>customer base by your lack of attention to their needs and
>>premium pricing for basic products, necessary to enable your
>>expansion into areas that are not your expertise and
>>therefore are destined to fail miserably in. Competing
>>with Adobe is not a position that an audio company with
>>three braincells would put itself in.
>>As a software customer I have used your products because
>>they were the most efficient tools to get my job done, and
>>because they were easier to use than some others. Now you
>>must build in the functionality that other programs have had
>>for years, because the learning curves for other products
>>that don't incorporate dead weight that I don't need (ie
>>Video) but have more functionality are looking more
>>appealing to me. Hey that's it, you guys are checking the
>>value of your stock options all day and don't have time to
>>do any programming.
>>I hate to say it but it looks like you guys are starting to
>>suck. The writing is on the wall.

I think that when a product (and company) shows the promise that SF
has over the past few years, people root for it. Sound Forge's ease
of use was a blessing. It is useless, however, if you record 24 bit
into Vegas. So, by that observation alone, it made no sense to put
R&D dollars into VegasVideo before taking care of you #1 product. I
have to sell Wavelab to customers that want a 24bit editor. There is
no choice when that is their criteria for purchasing. It's not that I
don't like Wavelab, but the choice would be nice.

Johan, I don't feel that Harold was being too harsh. The only reason
that Pro Tools cost so much has nothing to do with the functionality
of the Software. You can buy the exact same software- minus some
posting features- for $500 plus a cheap card.

ProTools is hardware based- over priced converters plus DSP power in
a professional environment where they have a virtual monopoly. No one
is going to knock off that mountain. However, Vegas has an
opportunity to do well in a market that clearly could use some
competetion.

What Pro Tools does have is that the software works well. It has to
be functional because the professional musician and studio will not
accept less. Too much hourly money is riding on it. It's
functionality as a software is unmatched. But Vegas was the first to
show that it could be done. I switched from Cubase to Vegas and
almost cried at how uncluttered it was. That does not mean that
improvements can not be made- swiftly, in a manner of speaking, to
compete for the pro recording market.

I, nor Harold, have ownership in SF. SF is free to follow whatever
path they choose. But if they continue to stray, they will- as Harold
states- lose any hope of the audio market. Johan, maybe you need to
paste home movies with your music. That's cool. And that is the
market it looks as though SF is targeting.

I pray I'm wrong. And I take it on faith that SF will prove me wrong.
And I will continue to sing it's praises for what it does well. But
other companies- Steinberg- are going to crush it for recording if
they don't wake up and stop chasing- or seemingly chasing- their
stockholders wishes for an all incompasing media empire. This must be
new management.

Please prove me wrong, SF.

Peace

Johan Althoff wrote:
>>Hey man, why are you so agressive?
>>
>>Vegas Video, in my opinion, provides a very good alternative to
Adobe
>>Premiere and similar products in the surrounding price range,
except
>>that Vegas is notoriously better for audio. I'm a working audio
>>professional myself, and I can clearly imagine the line of thought
>>Sonic Foundry had with this product line: Let the user do with
video
>>content what he can already do with audio content. The beta demo
>>release felt very promising on that part.
>>
>>From what you're saying, Harold, you're looking for a Protools
>>product at a Vegas price. As a software developer I can sense the
>>contradiction; There's a reason Protools cost you a leg and an arm,
>>and also a reason software like Vegas still has a market. Everyone
>>doesn't need a program of Protools' magnitude. Some people just
need
>>to layer a few audio or video clips together, apply a few effects
and
>>be done with it. Vegas does that for me.
>>
>>Harold wrote:
>>>>Being a working audio professional I've been in studios
>>>>around the country this last month and have just caught up
>>>>on what's been happening in this forum.
>>>>I have a suggestion : Why dont you people finish the Vegas
>>>>Audio program before incorporating Video ?
>>>>When I called 6 months ago and asked tech support why there
>>>>was no provision for midi controllers I was told "If we had
>>>>waited to put that in it (Vegas) wouldn't be released yet"
>>>>Brilliant. So development on the audio program stops to
>>>>incorporate Video, no doubt to satisfy the companies newly
>>>>found uber-alles web media lust. Just look at your web page!
>>>>Two of the three items featured on the first page concern
>>>>stocks. What the fuck is that? Do you guys sell stocks ?
>>>>It sure looks like they are more important than your
>>>>audio programs. Where is 24bit Soundforge ? Vegas is a
>>>>wonderfull program but it still is not finished, or if it is
>>>>you can kiss your ass goodbye in todays market. As a work in
>>>>progress it is great, as is evidenced by the complaints
>>>>about having to pay for 2.0 upgrades - it really has the
>>>>feel of a good initial release, but as far as competing in
>>>>the marketplace - come on! I guess that would depend on your
>>>>target market: Your penetration into the professional audio
>>>>world is absolutely zero. Every studio I go to has Protools
>>>>and if they have any machines with vegas on them they are in
>>>>the back room as a pet project. I know because I ask for it.
>>>>I tried to rent a system here in New York this month -
>>>>impossible, so I brought mine from california. I happen to
>>>>think that Vegas has the raw metal in it to compete with
>>>>protools, and I prefer it, but it still needs a whole lot of
>>>>work, and at this point to charge people to upgrade a
>>>>product that is "just" functional is pretty sad. I would
>>>>really like to see this thing developed to a point where it
>>>>is hands down the best tool for audio but pulling the
>>>>development team off a partially completed task and having
>>>>them build video into it is not the way to do this. Yeah
>>>>yeah, I'm sure your newly found stockholders see the $$ in
>>>>their eyes if you can compete with avid and their grossly
>>>>overpriced systems, but nobody will buy half assed products
>>>>of any kind for long. In fact, in the high $ video market,
>>>>no one will buy half assed systems at all! Now you're
>>>>selling animation products! Cool!! What's next, Dishwashers,
>>>>Books and Pantyhose ? How about a McDonalds franchise?
>>>>Where's the next Vegas upgrade ? Obviously somebody there
>>>>has IPO fever and judging from some of the other trainwrecks
>>>>I've seen, if you guys keep this up you should be able to
>>>>sell the company to AOL soon, having disemboweled your
>>>>customer base by your lack of attention to their needs and
>>>>premium pricing for basic products, necessary to enable your
>>>>expansion into areas that are not your expertise and
>>>>therefore are destined to fail miserably in. Competing
>>>>with Adobe is not a position that an audio company with
>>>>three braincells would put itself in.
>>>>As a software customer I have used your products because
>>>>they were the most efficient tools to get my job done, and
>>>>because they were easier to use than some others. Now you
>>>>must build in the functionality that other programs have had
>>>>for years, because the learning curves for other products
>>>>that don't incorporate dead weight that I don't need (ie
>>>>Video) but have more functionality are looking more
>>>>appealing to me. Hey that's it, you guys are checking the
>>>>value of your stock options all day and don't have time to
>>>>do any programming.
>>>>I hate to say it but it looks like you guys are starting to
>>>>suck. The writing is on the wall.

I have read this thread, and see the opinions one way and the other.
I guess the thing that I havn't seen is what is
missing/wrong/limiting in Vegas?

Lots of blather about "professional software". Lots of sweeping
general statements along this line. Very little specifics. Lots of
long winded statements, but little constructive content. Threats
abound about our demise and other such nonsense. Yawn...

Professional software is not tied to any one thing specifically, as
this is a matter of opinion and is thrown around like some slam when
one wants any software company to change something. Doesn't
float.Professional means you make money doing what you do with the
tools in your kit. A hammer is a professional tool if used by a
professional. Using a hammer does not make one a professional. If you
use Notepad or MediaPlayer in your business - no matter how
incidentaly - it makes them, by definition, professional tools.

The non-musical comments I have heard before, but I have yet to have
someone explain to me what they mean by this. Please, elaborate.

You shouldn't need our software to tell me what "musical" means from
the perspective of a DAW. The term is used as if it is a general
defining feature of DAW software?

What is musical about what a DAW attempts to replace - i.e. Tape,
Mixer, external FX units? I have these things. There is nothing
musical about them. The performance of a musician is musical. They
can be used to enhance/change/destroy a musical performance.

When does something become musical? ACID is "musical" because it
permits you to create music/content. Vegas is a mixer/editor for a
performance of any kind. It produces nothing unless you put something
into it.

To me, the sign of a good DAW is something that stays out of your
way. I hate software - any software - that makes you jump through
hoops to get the basic stuff done.

I guess I am missing something...but I am beginning to blather on,
so...

Being a software engineer for SF, and wanting Vegas to be what users
want - though it is unrealistic for us to be everything to everybody -
I ask again:

What is wrong with Vegas?

Is it the details that are missing?

Some global functionality?

Something done just plain wrong?

(Not talking about bugs that we are aware of here...)

An aside...

Spare me the ASIO and VST stuff. Yawn. We have heard these before. We
have chosen to work with open standards.

So please, elaborate and tell us what is wrong. We are all ears...

Peter

PS: Same management. Just a broader vision of what we do. A broader
vision is a good thing for a company. It means revenue and R&D and
engineering dollars. If a product line is to evolve, one needs not
only a large R&D effort, but products to support each other.

Peter,

I'm mixed on the comments so far.

Here's my two cents on how to keep the user base a little happier.

Even though we've already been told Vegas 2 Audio is just a stripped
down version of Vegas Video - users feel - and not unjustly - that
they are not being given equal treatment. For me this has nothing to
do with actual code per se. I've been using Vegas since beta 2 and
bought it at the release date. I think its great. However, I haven't
even touched the Video beta becuase I saw it and at a gut level
thought, "This is not for me." I, and many other users of Vegas, here
and at other forums, could care less about its video features. For
those who want them - great. Its a valuable addition to a solid, user
friendly app. For those of us that don't we would've appreciated a
non-Video beta.

Silly? Sentimental? Not really - for all the work it wouldn't have
been, 'audio only' users would've felt they were still as valuable a
part of your marketshare as the potentially increased video user
base. This is doubly important given the mythical nature of a 24 bit
Sound Forge.

I call all this a marketing and sales failure more than a technical
error. I have a lot of faith in the people who do the coding at SF -
just not the people who schedule their time. I'd also be willing to
bet some of the bitter posts recently seen would've never come up in
the first place had 2.0 been handled this way.

The only feature missing from Vegas that deeply bothers me is the
ability to open projects started in Acid. This would not be
cannabilizng your own software or revenue stream. All I want it the
ability to do what I need to do in Acid then in one step move the
project into Vegas. I don't care if Acid can open Vegas projects. I
wouldn't expect Vegas to important drawn in events or fx - the simple
migration of .wav file's placement, its track levels and panning
would be a great help!

I use these two products in one direction only as many others do -
Acid for the tempo and loop features on rythmn tracks, then into
Vegas for the mixing, recording and deeper editing of everything else.


thanks.

Paul

Maybe you make a good point, Peter. I'm just going to concentrate on
my album and just use this forum for asking questions about what I
don't understand. That would be a better use of my time.

Peace

Peter Haller wrote:
>>I have read this thread, and see the opinions one way and the
other.
>>I guess the thing that I havn't seen is what is
>>missing/wrong/limiting in Vegas?
>>
>>Lots of blather about "professional software". Lots of sweeping
>>general statements along this line. Very little specifics. Lots of
>>long winded statements, but little constructive content. Threats
>>abound about our demise and other such nonsense. Yawn...
>>
>>Professional software is not tied to any one thing specifically, as
>>this is a matter of opinion and is thrown around like some slam
when
>>one wants any software company to change something. Doesn't
>>float.Professional means you make money doing what you do with the
>>tools in your kit. A hammer is a professional tool if used by a
>>professional. Using a hammer does not make one a professional. If
you
>>use Notepad or MediaPlayer in your business - no matter how
>>incidentaly - it makes them, by definition, professional tools.
>>
>>The non-musical comments I have heard before, but I have yet to
have
>>someone explain to me what they mean by this. Please, elaborate.
>>
>>You shouldn't need our software to tell me what "musical" means
from
>>the perspective of a DAW. The term is used as if it is a general
>>defining feature of DAW software?
>>
>>What is musical about what a DAW attempts to replace - i.e. Tape,
>>Mixer, external FX units? I have these things. There is nothing
>>musical about them. The performance of a musician is musical. They
>>can be used to enhance/change/destroy a musical performance.
>>
>>When does something become musical? ACID is "musical" because it
>>permits you to create music/content. Vegas is a mixer/editor for a
>>performance of any kind. It produces nothing unless you put
something
>>into it.
>>
>>To me, the sign of a good DAW is something that stays out of your
>>way. I hate software - any software - that makes you jump through
>>hoops to get the basic stuff done.
>>
>>I guess I am missing something...but I am beginning to blather on,
>>so...
>>
>>Being a software engineer for SF, and wanting Vegas to be what
users
>>want - though it is unrealistic for us to be everything to
everybody -
>> I ask again:
>>
>>What is wrong with Vegas?
>>
>>Is it the details that are missing?
>>
>>Some global functionality?
>>
>>Something done just plain wrong?
>>
>>(Not talking about bugs that we are aware of here...)
>>
>>An aside...
>>
>>Spare me the ASIO and VST stuff. Yawn. We have heard these before.
We
>>have chosen to work with open standards.
>>
>>So please, elaborate and tell us what is wrong. We are all ears...
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>PS: Same management. Just a broader vision of what we do. A broader
>>vision is a good thing for a company. It means revenue and R&D and
>>engineering dollars. If a product line is to evolve, one needs not
>>only a large R&D effort, but products to support each other.
>>
>>

>> What is wrong with Vegas?

Nothing.

>> Is it the details that are missing?

Hmm. The envelope editing functions seem to raise a few opinions now
and then; hide instead of disable, lock to audio clips (can't really
figure out how to do that in terms of design, but I can see the use
for it), copy, paste and stuff. I for one have found times when the
envelopes are a bit tricky to handle.

Also, speaking of envelopes, is there some way of assigning envelopes
to direct-x plugin parameters? You guys would simply be the first in
the world with that a marvellous feature. One concrete example in my
line of work would be to do credible changes to a sound as it pass by
the camera (space ship flyby's and such), involving changing the EQ,
reverb charactheristics and a delay-and-filter-based doppler effect.
Now I have to hardcode those changes into the wav using LFO's, and
that can not always provide the result you're after. So, envelope
controlled Direct-X-plugins is a great wish from my part.

>> Some global functionality?

Naah, nothing that would really suit the profile that Vegas has, in
my opinion. With multi-track video editing you've more or less
covered my demand from a complete digital media workstation. And
since you forbid us to mention VST plugs I won't =)

Only thing would be the topic I just covered; more direct control of
plug-in settings.

>> Something done just plain wrong?

Absolutely not. I've worked a lot inside Emagic products, Steinberg
stuff (I sample and rough-cut some stuff in Vegas for a few obscure
reasons) and I must say, as for speed, intuitive use and general
feel, Vegas and Soundforge gets my absolute vote. You make good
software, no one can question that.

And hey. Being in the software business I fully respect the make-
quick-bucks-fast pressure you have from investors and stockholders,
and I for one can't say you've gotten cash hungry yet. Can't even off
the top of my head mention a single multibuck company that has its
developers actually asking their users for features. That's rare, and
no matter what other people in this forum claims, that's the sign of
a good company with a genuine interest of pleasing it's customers.

Keep it up, Peter. You rock.

I'm not sure why SF doesn't just shut these forums down. Sure, they
respond to specific tech questions, "maybe in the next
version", "there's a work-around", "why do you want it to do
that???", but when questioned about their basic design choices, they
only pretend to be interested. After all, who knows more about music
than a software engineer?

You CLAIM you want specifics, so here are just a few:

What's professional? According to you, if you use a piece of
driftwood at your job it's a professional tool. Sure, somebody could
hammer together a cheesy little audio utility, and if someone else
used it, I guess you could call it professional. However, we all know
that when someone uses the term "professional" it's regarding
caliber. If your software has the power to enable professionals to
create professional work, it deserves the title. Who, and how many
people actually use it is also a factor.

Musical software? You're right, this is a tough one, it's very
subjective. You're also right that software should stay out of the
way of the creative process as much as possible. Ultimately what you
want, is a simple interface for a complex program, not, a simple
program.

You asked me to give you some specifics about why I think Pro Tools
is more musical than some other software i've used, so here goes...

First, is the visual nature of a Pro Tools session. Being free to
define a region and drag or copy it anywhere, on any track in the
session, is the most natural way to work. If you're doing post
production, a single reel can contain hundreds of separate elements.
The ability to quickly manipulate them in an open, flexible, and
visual environment is key, both locally and in the "big picture". Pro
Tool's design excels at this.
Just because a program lets you apply 70 processes (most of which
I'll never use) to a waveform, it doesn't make it a good audio
editor. One of the things that I hate about some audio programs (like
Sound Forge) is "hidden audio". If I want to move or copy a piece of
audio somewhere else, I don't want it disappearing to a clipboard,
positioning a cursor, and crossing my fingers as I paste. That's Undo
city. I want to see where it's going and how it's going to fit, you
know, VISUAL editing! Both ACID and Vegas are decent in this regard,
but still feel stiff compared to Pro Tools.

Second, is the way audio is treated. When I first encountered the
Region list in Pro Tools, I didn't really dig the way it added new
regions to the list every time I made a cut. However, I quickly
realized that it was a boon in terms of audio reuse. What's great
about Pro Tools is how much it's about making new audio objects out
of pre-existing audio. If you need to do this a lot, it helps to have
easy access to all those pieces, even if they where deleted from the
session window. Also, because you can drag them to any open spot, on
any group of tracks, it makes it easy to do "scratch pad" work before
moving the result to it's final destination in the session. Audio in
Pro Tools feels like taffy, you can pull it and stretch it, cut off a
piece and pull it some more, VERY MUSICAL! ACID and Vegas are much
more "track oriented".

Third, Pro Tools is a comprehensive platform. With the exception of
printing cue sheets, all the tools I need to get the job done are
contained in one program. Sonic Foundry wants you to use six programs
to do what others do in one (gee I wonder why? $$$). And don't get me
started about plugins! Also, what the fuck is the deal with midi? I
don't care if you don't support midi editing in your program, but no
playback? And please, don't try to use the price of a Pro Tools
workstation to make excuses for your program's shortcomings. The
editing features I've mentioned in this post are all available
in "Power mix", a software only version of Pro Tools for $270. I
could go on and on, but you didn't really want me to respond in the
first place, did you? I'll be sure to tell all my friends here in
Hollywood what I think of Vegas. You may not care what I think, but
they do.



Peter Haller wrote:
>>I have read this thread, and see the opinions one way and the
other.
>>I guess the thing that I havn't seen is what is
>>missing/wrong/limiting in Vegas?
>>
>>Lots of blather about "professional software". Lots of sweeping
>>general statements along this line. Very little specifics. Lots of
>>long winded statements, but little constructive content. Threats
>>abound about our demise and other such nonsense. Yawn...
>>
>>Professional software is not tied to any one thing specifically, as
>>this is a matter of opinion and is thrown around like some slam
when
>>one wants any software company to change something. Doesn't
>>float.Professional means you make money doing what you do with the
>>tools in your kit. A hammer is a professional tool if used by a
>>professional. Using a hammer does not make one a professional. If
you
>>use Notepad or MediaPlayer in your business - no matter how
>>incidentaly - it makes them, by definition, professional tools.
>>
>>The non-musical comments I have heard before, but I have yet to
have
>>someone explain to me what they mean by this. Please, elaborate.
>>
>>You shouldn't need our software to tell me what "musical" means
from
>>the perspective of a DAW. The term is used as if it is a general
>>defining feature of DAW software?
>>
>>What is musical about what a DAW attempts to replace - i.e. Tape,
>>Mixer, external FX units? I have these things. There is nothing
>>musical about them. The performance of a musician is musical. They
>>can be used to enhance/change/destroy a musical performance.
>>
>>When does something become musical? ACID is "musical" because it
>>permits you to create music/content. Vegas is a mixer/editor for a
>>performance of any kind. It produces nothing unless you put
something
>>into it.
>>
>>To me, the sign of a good DAW is something that stays out of your
>>way. I hate software - any software - that makes you jump through
>>hoops to get the basic stuff done.
>>
>>I guess I am missing something...but I am beginning to blather on,
>>so...
>>
>>Being a software engineer for SF, and wanting Vegas to be what
users
>>want - though it is unrealistic for us to be everything to
everybody -
>> I ask again:
>>
>>What is wrong with Vegas?
>>
>>Is it the details that are missing?
>>
>>Some global functionality?
>>
>>Something done just plain wrong?
>>
>>(Not talking about bugs that we are aware of here...)
>>
>>An aside...
>>
>>Spare me the ASIO and VST stuff. Yawn. We have heard these before.
We
>>have chosen to work with open standards.
>>
>>So please, elaborate and tell us what is wrong. We are all ears...
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>PS: Same management. Just a broader vision of what we do. A broader
>>vision is a good thing for a company. It means revenue and R&D and
>>engineering dollars. If a product line is to evolve, one needs not
>>only a large R&D effort, but products to support each other.
>>
>>

This place is starting to sound like the Cubase for Windows User Forum. Never have I seen so many people getting bent out of shape! Vegas is still an awesome application. I think that a lot of the tension we are experiencing of late is due to a certain lack of communication regarding the direction of SF's audio software. A mole in SF tells me that the company is shifting a lot of its energy to web/video encoding technologies. In this dot com oriented market, SF would be foolish not to cash in on the internet boom. However, being a web programmer by trade (I don't have the good luck of being an audio professional), I know that the production of good web technologies and audio production technologies don't have much to do with each other. While web encoding technologies are shrinking the size of media files, professional audio production has seen its media files enlarged from 16 to 20 and now to 24 bit. These are two totally different operating philosophies. That is what worries me about SFs direction. Believe me, I work for a dot com and dot coms do not always make the most rational decisions regarding customer loyalty. Instead they are driven forward, always paranoid about being first to market and inflating their stock price before the bubble bursts. I hope that SF makes the right choice. I have nothing but complete faith in Peter and all of SFs development staff: It's the corporate vision that worries me. As far as features that I would like in Vegas Audio 2.0: 1) metronome (I'm sick of importing a loop streched to my project tempo) 2) Convert Acid project to Vegas project utility would be really cool. 3) I'd love to see a decent midi sequencer implemented with Vegas Audio (I can live without midi though if it sucks) 4) More effects out of the box! I really would like a good filter effect, being able to control effects via an external midi controller in real time would be cool too. That's my two cents, and let's not kill anyone in here. It just isn't worth it folks. -Tad target="external">www.peepstudios.com
Bruce Swanson wrote:
>> I'm not sure why SF doesn't just shut these forums down. Sure, they
>>respond to specific tech questions, "maybe in the next
>>version", "there's a work-around", "why do you want it to do
>>that???", but when questioned about their basic design choices, they
>>only pretend to be interested. After all, who knows more about music
>>than a software engineer?
>>
>>You CLAIM you want specifics, so here are just a few:
>>
>> What's professional? According to you, if you use a piece of
>>driftwood at your job it's a professional tool. Sure, somebody could
>>hammer together a cheesy little audio utility, and if someone else
>>used it, I guess you could call it professional. However, we all
know
>>that when someone uses the term "professional" it's regarding
>>caliber. If your software has the power to enable professionals to
>>create professional work, it deserves the title. Who, and how many
>>people actually use it is also a factor.
>>
>>Musical software? You're right, this is a tough one, it's very
>>subjective. You're also right that software should stay out of the
>>way of the creative process as much as possible. Ultimately what you
>>want, is a simple interface for a complex program, not, a simple
>>program.
>>
>> You asked me to give you some specifics about why I think Pro Tools
>>is more musical than some other software i've used, so here goes...
>>
>> First, is the visual nature of a Pro Tools session. Being free to
>>define a region and drag or copy it anywhere, on any track in the
>>session, is the most natural way to work. If you're doing post
>>production, a single reel can contain hundreds of separate elements.
>>The ability to quickly manipulate them in an open, flexible, and
>>visual environment is key, both locally and in the "big picture".
Pro
>>Tool's design excels at this.
>> Just because a program lets you apply 70 processes (most of which
>>I'll never use) to a waveform, it doesn't make it a good audio
>>editor. One of the things that I hate about some audio programs
(like
>>Sound Forge) is "hidden audio". If I want to move or copy a piece of
>>audio somewhere else, I don't want it disappearing to a clipboard,
>>positioning a cursor, and crossing my fingers as I paste. That's
Undo
>>city. I want to see where it's going and how it's going to fit, you
>>know, VISUAL editing! Both ACID and Vegas are decent in this regard,
>>but still feel stiff compared to Pro Tools.
>>
>> Second, is the way audio is treated. When I first encountered the
>>Region list in Pro Tools, I didn't really dig the way it added new
>>regions to the list every time I made a cut. However, I quickly
>>realized that it was a boon in terms of audio reuse. What's great
>>about Pro Tools is how much it's about making new audio objects out
>>of pre-existing audio. If you need to do this a lot, it helps to
have
>>easy access to all those pieces, even if they where deleted from the
>>session window. Also, because you can drag them to any open spot, on
>>any group of tracks, it makes it easy to do "scratch pad" work
before
>>moving the result to it's final destination in the session. Audio in
>>Pro Tools feels like taffy, you can pull it and stretch it, cut off
a
>>piece and pull it some more, VERY MUSICAL! ACID and Vegas are much
>>more "track oriented".
>>
>>Third, Pro Tools is a comprehensive platform. With the exception of
>>printing cue sheets, all the tools I need to get the job done are
>>contained in one program. Sonic Foundry wants you to use six
programs
>>to do what others do in one (gee I wonder why? $$$). And don't get
me
>>started about plugins! Also, what the fuck is the deal with midi? I
>>don't care if you don't support midi editing in your program, but no
>>playback? And please, don't try to use the price of a Pro Tools
>>workstation to make excuses for your program's shortcomings. The
>>editing features I've mentioned in this post are all available
>>in "Power mix", a software only version of Pro Tools for $270. I
>>could go on and on, but you didn't really want me to respond in the
>>first place, did you? I'll be sure to tell all my friends here in
>>Hollywood what I think of Vegas. You may not care what I think, but
>>they do.
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>I have read this thread, and see the opinions one way and the
>>other.
>>>>I guess the thing that I havn't seen is what is
>>>>missing/wrong/limiting in Vegas?
>>>>
>>>>Lots of blather about "professional software". Lots of sweeping
>>>>general statements along this line. Very little specifics. Lots of
>>>>long winded statements, but little constructive content. Threats
>>>>abound about our demise and other such nonsense. Yawn...
>>>>
>>>>Professional software is not tied to any one thing specifically,
as
>>>>this is a matter of opinion and is thrown around like some slam
>>when
>>>>one wants any software company to change something. Doesn't
>>>>float.Professional means you make money doing what you do with the
>>>>tools in your kit. A hammer is a professional tool if used by a
>>>>professional. Using a hammer does not make one a professional. If
>>you
>>>>use Notepad or MediaPlayer in your business - no matter how
>>>>incidentaly - it makes them, by definition, professional tools.
>>>>
>>>>The non-musical comments I have heard before, but I have yet to
>>have
>>>>someone explain to me what they mean by this. Please, elaborate.
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't need our software to tell me what "musical" means
>>from
>>>>the perspective of a DAW. The term is used as if it is a general
>>>>defining fea

Sigh...

You are really trying to make this personal, aren't you. I mean talk
about trying to bait me!

[I had some really snappy counters to all of your little digs, but I
decided it would be better if I restrained myself - for the most
part.]

>> I'm not sure why SF doesn't just shut these forums down. Sure,
they
>>respond to specific tech questions, "maybe in the next
>>version", "there's a work-around", "why do you want it to do
>>that???", but when questioned about their basic design choices,
they
>>only pretend to be interested. After all, who knows more about
music
>>than a software engineer?
>>

Seems like you are getting a lot of mileage out of our forums.

I may be a software engineer, but I have been a musician for a longer
time. I may not be a great musician, but I can hold my own. Even have
spent sometime in a studio. I may not be a pro, but I know my way
around. I believe I know what sounds good and what is crap as well,
but again, this too is subjective. Consider me a wannabe, but I do
actually create music as well as help create the tools. I will admit
that I am a gear head first though. I love the audio toys.

There are many more software engineers at the Foundry that are very
experiances in the studio and are great musicians. Not just some
nerds that pound out code making it a point to totally miss the
point. Just some nerds that have writing solid and usefull code as
the point because we couldn't become rock-stars. (We chose to live
vicariously through guys like you.)

I can't solve every problem in an instant. I can take what is
presented to me when I am working on the products.

Enough personal garbage. On to your constructive comments....

>> First, is the visual nature of a Pro Tools session. Being free to
>>define a region and drag or copy it anywhere, on any track in the
>>session, is the most natural way to work. If you're doing post
>>production, a single reel can contain hundreds of separate
elements.
>>The ability to quickly manipulate them in an open, flexible, and
>>visual environment is key, both locally and in the "big picture".
Pro
>>Tool's design excels at this.

I couldn't agree more on this one. Having a central media pool from
which to draw from is a very powerful feature. Media managment in
general is one area that users have asked for improvement.

With Vegas 2.0, we are getting closer to this. I can't say it is on
par or even similar with PT, but we are aware of this limitation in
Vegas.

>> Just because a program lets you apply 70 processes (most of which
>>I'll never use) to a waveform, it doesn't make it a good audio
>>editor.

I agree. The advent of the plug-in has allowed the user to go FX
crazy. I get so many user that want to apply 10 different FXs to a
single 15 sec clip of audio - all over the place. Then they want
automation on this. What ever happened to a little compression and
EQ. Maybe a touch of room.

If the audio is that bad to need that much tweaking, redo it for gods
sake. If you can't reproduce it, fix it in Forge and then use it.

I can say that this approach seems to be wearing off. Creativity is
how you use the tool, not whether you can.

>>One of the things that I hate about some audio programs (like
>>Sound Forge) is "hidden audio". If I want to move or copy a piece
of
>>audio somewhere else, I don't want it disappearing to a clipboard,
>>positioning a cursor, and crossing my fingers as I paste. That's
Undo
>>city. I want to see where it's going and how it's going to fit, you
>>know, VISUAL editing! Both ACID and Vegas are decent in this
regard,
>>but still feel stiff compared to Pro Tools.

Forge is a destructive editor. Its power is its processing. Being
destuctive means it can be slow in cut and paste editing. Nature of
the beast.

Whether Forge gets any of the non-destructive features of Vegas/ACID
remains to be seen. It does require a certain amount of precision
when working with it. A lot of user really love this aspect of it.

There are ways in Forge to avoid this. A workaround as you would say,
but really just the way Forge was designed to work. I don't think it
is a bad design. (I didn't design it.) Can it be improved? Make it
non-destructive - a stereo only Vegas if you will?

Why be redundant? This is what Vegas is for. Short of the 24 bit
thing (we know, we know!), Forge and Vegas compliment each other.
There could be some cross over - and in Vegas 2, there is!

ACID is another story completely.

Nothing that I know of does what ACID does - PT or otherwise. (If PT
did what ACID does, then why are there so many Mac PT users begging
us to port ACID to the Mac?) Integrating ACID features into Vegas
would be very cool.

>> Second, is the way audio is treated. When I first encountered the
>>Region list in Pro Tools, I didn't really dig the way it added new
>>regions to the list every time I made a cut. However, I quickly
>>realized that it was a boon in terms of audio reuse. What's great
>>about Pro Tools is how much it's about making new audio objects out
>>of pre-existing audio. If you need to do this a lot, it helps to
have
>>easy access to all those pieces, even if they where deleted from
the
>>session window. Also, because you can drag them to any open spot,
on
>>any group of tracks, it makes it easy to do "scratch pad" work
before
>>moving the result to it's final destination in the session. Audio
in
>>Pro Tools feels like taffy, you can pull it and stretch it, cut off
a
>>piece and pull it some more, VERY MUSICAL! ACID and Vegas are much
>>more "track oriented".
>>

Again, this have everything to do with media managment. The time line
manipulation is not that different from what I remember of PT. I will
have to relook at this aspect of PT.

>>Third, Pro Tools is a comprehensive platform. With the exception of
>>printing cue sheets, all the tools I need to get the job done are
>>contained in one program. Sonic Foundry wants you to use six
programs
>>to do what others do in one (gee I wonder why? $$$). And don't get
me
>>started about plugins! Also, what the fuck is the deal with midi? I
>>don't care if you don't support midi editing in your program, but
no
>>playback? And please, don't try to use the price of a Pro Tools
>>workstation to make excuses for your program's shortcomings. The
>>editing features I've mentioned in this post are all available
>>in "Power mix", a software only version of Pro Tools for $270.

We chose to draw lines between our applications. This is a design
choice. If we integrated all of our tools into a single product I
believe that we would be cluttering our UI. Things would become very
modal. It is not because we missed the concept, but rather that we
looked at the ramifications.

I am sure that integration will come, but today we are where we are.
Some consider it a blessing, others want everything under one roof.

The bar is very high for MIDI sequencers. If we only provided
playback, we would get crucified. If we attempted basic editing, we
would be held to playing catch up with the sequencers that are at 3.4
and 9.0 revs. You mention weaknesses in our audio editing. Having a
weak MIDI sequencer would bother others as much as our audio short
commings seem to bother you.

We added video because this was where we saw the larger demand and
potential. If we would have skipped the video features in favor of
MIDI, the video users would have been on our backs.

>>I could go on and on, but you didn't really want me to respond in
>> the first place, did you?

There you go again, trying to bait me...

How can you say I didn't want you to respond? From what you said, you
don't even have a license of Vegas. If I didn't care and didn't want
you to respon

Amen.


Thomas Kay wrote:
>>Maybe you make a good point, Peter. I'm just going to concentrate
on
>>my album and just use this forum for asking questions about what I
>>don't understand. That would be a better use of my time.
>>
>>Peace

Peter, hey man what can I say, the monster got out of the box. Don't
take it personally, it's a mental problem :P Anyway, you handled it
better than I would have. Sorry about the hysterical bitch act. Carry
on.

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Sigh...
>>
>>You are really trying to make this personal, aren't you. I mean
talk
>>about trying to bait me!
>>
>>[I had some really snappy counters to all of your little digs, but
I
>>decided it would be better if I restrained myself - for the most
>>part.]
>>
>>>> I'm not sure why SF doesn't just shut these forums down. Sure,
>>they
>>>>respond to specific tech questions, "maybe in the next
>>>>version", "there's a work-around", "why do you want it to do
>>>>that???", but when questioned about their basic design choices,
>>they
>>>>only pretend to be interested. After all, who knows more about
>>music
>>>>than a software engineer?
>>>>
>>
>>Seems like you are getting a lot of mileage out of our forums.
>>
>>I may be a software engineer, but I have been a musician for a
longer
>>time. I may not be a great musician, but I can hold my own. Even
have
>>spent sometime in a studio. I may not be a pro, but I know my way
>>around. I believe I know what sounds good and what is crap as well,
>>but again, this too is subjective. Consider me a wannabe, but I do
>>actually create music as well as help create the tools. I will
admit
>>that I am a gear head first though. I love the audio toys.
>>
>>There are many more software engineers at the Foundry that are very
>>experiances in the studio and are great musicians. Not just some
>>nerds that pound out code making it a point to totally miss the
>>point. Just some nerds that have writing solid and usefull code as
>>the point because we couldn't become rock-stars. (We chose to live
>>vicariously through guys like you.)
>>
>>I can't solve every problem in an instant. I can take what is
>>presented to me when I am working on the products.
>>
>>Enough personal garbage. On to your constructive comments....
>>
>>>> First, is the visual nature of a Pro Tools session. Being free
to
>>>>define a region and drag or copy it anywhere, on any track in the
>>>>session, is the most natural way to work. If you're doing post
>>>>production, a single reel can contain hundreds of separate
>>elements.
>>>>The ability to quickly manipulate them in an open, flexible, and
>>>>visual environment is key, both locally and in the "big picture".
>>Pro
>>>>Tool's design excels at this.
>>
>>I couldn't agree more on this one. Having a central media pool from
>>which to draw from is a very powerful feature. Media managment in
>>general is one area that users have asked for improvement.
>>
>>With Vegas 2.0, we are getting closer to this. I can't say it is on
>>par or even similar with PT, but we are aware of this limitation in
>>Vegas.
>>
>>>> Just because a program lets you apply 70 processes (most of
which
>>>>I'll never use) to a waveform, it doesn't make it a good audio
>>>>editor.
>>
>>I agree. The advent of the plug-in has allowed the user to go FX
>>crazy. I get so many user that want to apply 10 different FXs to a
>>single 15 sec clip of audio - all over the place. Then they want
>>automation on this. What ever happened to a little compression and
>>EQ. Maybe a touch of room.
>>
>>If the audio is that bad to need that much tweaking, redo it for
gods
>>sake. If you can't reproduce it, fix it in Forge and then use it.
>>
>>I can say that this approach seems to be wearing off. Creativity is
>>how you use the tool, not whether you can.
>>
>>>>One of the things that I hate about some audio programs (like
>>>>Sound Forge) is "hidden audio". If I want to move or copy a piece
>>of
>>>>audio somewhere else, I don't want it disappearing to a
clipboard,
>>>>positioning a cursor, and crossing my fingers as I paste. That's
>>Undo
>>>>city. I want to see where it's going and how it's going to fit,
you
>>>>know, VISUAL editing! Both ACID and Vegas are decent in this
>>regard,
>>>>but still feel stiff compared to Pro Tools.
>>
>>Forge is a destructive editor. Its power is its processing. Being
>>destuctive means it can be slow in cut and paste editing. Nature of
>>the beast.
>>
>>Whether Forge gets any of the non-destructive features of
Vegas/ACID
>>remains to be seen. It does require a certain amount of precision
>>when working with it. A lot of user really love this aspect of it.
>>
>>There are ways in Forge to avoid this. A workaround as you would
say,
>>but really just the way Forge was designed to work. I don't think
it
>>is a bad design. (I didn't design it.) Can it be improved? Make it
>>non-destructive - a stereo only Vegas if you will?
>>
>>Why be redundant? This is what Vegas is for. Short of the 24 bit
>>thing (we know, we know!), Forge and Vegas compliment each other.
>>There could be some cross over - and in Vegas 2, there is!
>>
>>ACID is another story completely.
>>
>>Nothing that I know of does what ACID does - PT or otherwise. (If
PT
>>did what ACID does, then why are there so many Mac PT users begging
>>us to port ACID to the Mac?) Integrating ACID features into Vegas
>>would be very cool.
>>
>>>> Second, is the way audio is treated. When I first encountered
the
>>>>Region list in Pro Tools, I didn't really dig the way it added
new
>>>>regions to the list every time I made a cut. However, I quickly
>>>>realized that it was a boon in terms of audio reuse. What's great
>>>>about Pro Tools is how much it's about making new audio objects
out
>>>>of pre-existing audio. If you need to do this a lot, it helps to
>>have
>>>>easy access to all those pieces, even if they where deleted from
>>the
>>>>session window. Also, because you can drag them to any open spot,
>>on
>>>>any group of tracks, it makes it easy to do "scratch pad" work
>>before
>>>>moving the result to it's final destination in the session. Audio
>>in
>>>>Pro Tools feels like taffy, you can pull it and stretch it, cut
off
>>a
>>>>piece and pull it some more, VERY MUSICAL! ACID and Vegas are
much
>>>>more "track oriented".
>>>>
>>
>>Again, this have everything to do with media managment. The time
line
>>manipulation is not that different from what I remember of PT. I
will
>>have to relook at this aspect of PT.
>>
>>>>Third, Pro Tools is a comprehensive platform. With the exception
of
>>>>printing cue sheets, all the tools I need to get the job done are
>>>>contained in one program. Sonic Foundry wants you to use six
>>programs
>>>>to do what others do in one (gee I wonder why? $$$). And don't
get
>>me
>>>>started about plugins! Also, what the fuck is the deal with midi?
I
>>>>don't care if you don't support midi editing in your program, but
>>no
>>>>playback? And please, don't try to use the price of a Pro Tools
>>>>workstation to make excuses for your program's shortcomings. The
>>>>editing features I've mentioned in this post are all available
>>>>in "Power mix", a software only version of Pro Tools for $270.
>>
>>We chose to draw lines between our applications. This is a design
>>choice. If we integrated all of our tools into a single product I
>>believe that we would be cluttering our UI. Things would become
very
>>modal. It is not because we missed the concept, but rather that we
>>looked at the ramifications.
>>
>>I am sure that integration will come, but today we are where we
are.
>>Some consider it a blessing, others want everything under one roof.
>>
>>The bar is very high for MIDI sequencers. If we only provided
>>playback, we would get crucified. If we attempted basic editing, we
>>would be held to playing catch up with the sequencers that are at
3.4
>>and 9.0 revs. You mention weaknesses in our au

Hey Tad -
There is a metronome in 2.0... download the demo. There's some very
cool new features...

tad wrote:
>> >> >>This place is starting to sound like the Cubase for Windows User >>Forum. Never have I seen so many people getting bent out of shape! >>Vegas is still an awesome application. I think that a lot of the >>tension we are experiencing of late is due to a certain lack of >>communication regarding the direction of SF's audio software. A mole >>in SF tells me that the company is shifting a lot of its energy to >>web/video encoding technologies. In this dot com oriented market, SF >>would be foolish not to cash in on the internet boom. However, being >>a web programmer by trade (I don't have the good luck of being an >>audio professional), I know that the production of good web >>technologies and audio production technologies don't have much to do >>with each other. While web encoding technologies are shrinking the >>size of media files, professional audio production has seen its media >>files enlarged from 16 to 20 and now to 24 bit. These are two totally >>different operating philosophies. That is what worries me about SFs >>direction. Believe me, I work for a dot com and dot coms do not >>always make the most rational decisions regarding customer loyalty. >>Instead they are driven forward, always paranoid about being first to >>market and inflating their stock price before the bubble bursts. >> >>I hope that SF makes the right choice. I have nothing but complete >>faith in Peter and all of SFs development staff: It's the corporate >>vision that worries me. >> >>As far as features that I would like in Vegas Audio 2.0: >> >>1) metronome (I'm sick of importing a loop streched to my project >>tempo) >>2) Convert Acid project to Vegas project utility would be really cool. >>3) I'd love to see a decent midi sequencer implemented with Vegas >>Audio (I can live without midi though if it sucks) >>4) More effects out of the box! I really would like a good filter >>effect, being able to control effects via an external midi controller >>in real time would be cool too. >> >> >>That's my two cents, and let's not kill anyone in here. It just isn't >>worth it folks. >> >>-Tad >> >> >>target="external">www.peepstudios.com >> >>
>>Bruce Swanson wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure why SF doesn't just shut these forums down. Sure,
they
>>>>respond to specific tech questions, "maybe in the next
>>>>version", "there's a work-around", "why do you want it to do
>>>>that???", but when questioned about their basic design choices,
they
>>>>only pretend to be interested. After all, who knows more about
music
>>>>than a software engineer?
>>>>
>>>>You CLAIM you want specifics, so here are just a few:
>>>>
>>>> What's professional? According to you, if you use a piece of
>>>>driftwood at your job it's a professional tool. Sure, somebody
could
>>>>hammer together a cheesy little audio utility, and if someone
else
>>>>used it, I guess you could call it professional. However, we all
>>know
>>>>that when someone uses the term "professional" it's regarding
>>>>caliber. If your software has the power to enable professionals
to
>>>>create professional work, it deserves the title. Who, and how
many
>>>>people actually use it is also a factor.
>>>>
>>>>Musical software? You're right, this is a tough one, it's very
>>>>subjective. You're also right that software should stay out of
the
>>>>way of the creative process as much as possible. Ultimately what
you
>>>>want, is a simple interface for a complex program, not, a simple
>>>>program.
>>>>
>>>> You asked me to give you some specifics about why I think Pro
Tools
>>>>is more musical than some other software i've used, so here
goes...
>>>>
>>>> First, is the visual nature of a Pro Tools session. Being free
to
>>>>define a region and drag or copy it anywhere, on any track in the
>>>>session, is the most natural way to work. If you're doing post
>>>>production, a single reel can contain hundreds of separate
elements.
>>>>The ability to quickly manipulate them in an open, flexible, and
>>>>visual environment is key, both locally and in the "big picture".
>>Pro
>>>>Tool's design excels at this.
>>>> Just because a program lets you apply 70 processes (most of
which
>>>>I'll never use) to a waveform, it doesn't make it a good audio
>>>>editor. One of the things that I hate about some audio programs
>>(like
>>>>Sound Forge) is "hidden audio". If I want to move or copy a piece
of
>>>>audio somewhere else, I don't want it disappearing to a
clipboard,
>>>>positioning a cursor, and crossing my fingers as I paste. That's
>>Undo
>>>>city. I want to see where it's going and how it's going to fit,
you
>>>>know, VISUAL editing! Both ACID and Vegas are decent in this
regard,
>>>>but still feel stiff compared to Pro Tools.
>>>>
>>>> Second, is the way audio is treated. When I first encountered
the
>>>>Region list in Pro Tools, I didn't really dig the way it added
new
>>>>regions to the list every time I made a cut. However, I quickly
>>>>realized that it was a boon in terms of audio reuse. What's great
>>>>about Pro Tools is how much it's about making new audio objects
out
>>>>of pre-existing audio. If you need to do this a lot, it helps to
>>have
>>>>easy access to all those pieces, even if they where deleted from
the
>>>>session window. Also, because you can drag them to any open spot,
on
>>>>any group of tracks, it makes it easy to do "scratch pad" work
>>before
>>>>moving the result to it's final destination in the session. Audio
in
>>>>Pro Tools feels like taffy, you can pull it and stretch it, cut
off
>>a
>>>>piece and pull it some more, VERY MUSICAL! ACID and Vegas are
much
>>>>more "track oriented".
>>>>
>>>>Third, Pro Tools is a comprehensive platform. With the exception
of
>>>>printing cue sheets, all the tools I need to get the job done are
>>>>contained in one program. Sonic Foundry wants you to use six
>>programs
>>>>to do what others do in one (gee I wonder why? $$$). And don't
get
>>me
>>>>started about plugins! Also, what the fuck is the deal with midi?
I
>>>>don't care if you don't support midi editing in your program, but
no
>>>>playback? And please, don't try to use the price of a Pro Tools
>>>>workstation to make excuses for your program's shortcomings. The
>>>>editing features I've mentioned in this post are all available
>>>>in "Power mix", a software only version of Pro Tools for $270. I
>>>>could go on and on, but you didn't really want me to respond in
the
>>>>first place, did you? I'll be sure to tell all my friends here in
>>>>Hollywood what I think of Vegas. You may not care what I think,
but
>>>>they do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>I have read this thread, and see the opinions one way and the
>>>>other.
>>>>>>I guess the thing that I havn't seen is what is
>>>>>>missing/wrong/limiting in Vegas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lots of blather about "professional software". Lots of sweeping
>>>>>>general statements along this line. Very little specifics. Lots
of
>>>>>>long winded statements, but little constructive content.
Threats
>>>>>>abound about our demise and other such nonsense. Yawn...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Professional software is not tied to any one thing
specifically,
>>as
>>>>>>this is a matter of opinion and is thrown around like some slam
>>>>when
>>>>>>one wants any software company to change something. Doesn't
>>>>>>float.Professional means you make money doing what you do with
the
>>>>>>tools in your kit. A hammer is a professional tool if used by a
>>>>>>professional. Using a

Hi Peter,
How about being able to change the color of the FX envelopes
(something other than green or make them "3D" or something). The
bright green works great... as long as the audio isn't green.
Plus having all of the FX the same color is a pain... they're all
green and it's not intuitive when doing a lot of editing.
Also... how about an FX envelope "Bring to Front" option.
If I have a lot of FX envelopes and they're mostly at 0 dB it's
a pain to hide everything except the one I want and edit this
(too much time). How about a right click menu that lists all and
lets me bring one of many to the top?

Why don't you guys put that nice pitch shift without time stretch
functionality (and vice-versa) from ACID into Vegas? I hate
bringing a loop into ACID to only change the key or timing and then
render it to another loop for importing into Vegas.

And track FX: The ones that come with Vegas are "OK" but what about
some really, really top notch ones. Even just EQ and Compression
would be great.

And 24 bit Sound Forge. You don't have to change anything else
in the program, just give me 24 bit support. I won't use any
other editor and lack of 24 bit support is a real bummer.

And get Vegas Audio 2.0 out tomorrow. I know that the Beta demo
is available but to be honest having a 7 day timer running drives
me absolutely crazy. I have enough to worry about without having
to remember that my demo is about to expire and oh, by the way
I have to leave the studio (which doesn't have a high speed
connection) and download a new 7 day demo. Yuck.

Ease of transport of mixes from machine to machine would be nice too.
Is there a way to store the FX preset name with the mix? If I have
a plug-in on two machines and move the mix, the parameters are all
set but the name is gone and it's confusing. Probably a pain in
the ass with Direct X but maybe there's something that can be done.

Brett

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Amen.
>>
>>
>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>Maybe you make a good point, Peter. I'm just going to concentrate
>>on
>>>>my album and just use this forum for asking questions about what
I
>>>>don't understand. That would be a better use of my time.
>>>>
>>>>Peace
>>

I think I can answer one of your questions...
There is a new feature in 2.0 which does allow time-stretching as
well as pitch stretch. You have to select the Time Compress feature
in the Switches menu. Then, when you ctrl-drag you will have time
compression/expansion. Otherwise, it's pitch shift...

I agree about the envelopes and the different colors...


Brett Crockett wrote:
>>Hi Peter,
>>How about being able to change the color of the FX envelopes
>>(something other than green or make them "3D" or something). The
>>bright green works great... as long as the audio isn't green.
>>Plus having all of the FX the same color is a pain... they're all
>>green and it's not intuitive when doing a lot of editing.
>>Also... how about an FX envelope "Bring to Front" option.
>>If I have a lot of FX envelopes and they're mostly at 0 dB it's
>>a pain to hide everything except the one I want and edit this
>>(too much time). How about a right click menu that lists all and
>>lets me bring one of many to the top?
>>
>>Why don't you guys put that nice pitch shift without time stretch
>>functionality (and vice-versa) from ACID into Vegas? I hate
>>bringing a loop into ACID to only change the key or timing and then
>>render it to another loop for importing into Vegas.
>>
>>And track FX: The ones that come with Vegas are "OK" but what about
>>some really, really top notch ones. Even just EQ and Compression
>>would be great.
>>
>>And 24 bit Sound Forge. You don't have to change anything else
>>in the program, just give me 24 bit support. I won't use any
>>other editor and lack of 24 bit support is a real bummer.
>>
>>And get Vegas Audio 2.0 out tomorrow. I know that the Beta demo
>>is available but to be honest having a 7 day timer running drives
>>me absolutely crazy. I have enough to worry about without having
>>to remember that my demo is about to expire and oh, by the way
>>I have to leave the studio (which doesn't have a high speed
>>connection) and download a new 7 day demo. Yuck.
>>
>>Ease of transport of mixes from machine to machine would be nice
too.
>>Is there a way to store the FX preset name with the mix? If I have
>>a plug-in on two machines and move the mix, the parameters are all
>>set but the name is gone and it's confusing. Probably a pain in
>>the ass with Direct X but maybe there's something that can be done.
>>
>>Brett
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>Amen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>>>Maybe you make a good point, Peter. I'm just going to
concentrate
>>>>on
>>>>>>my album and just use this forum for asking questions about
what
>>I
>>>>>>don't understand. That would be a better use of my time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peace
>>>>

We've done a lot of experimenting with this and have come to the
conclusion that we can't quite do it right...yet. Why?

Well, Vegas isn't the problem, the plugins are.

DirectX plugins do not expose their parameter sets, at least not in a
generically useable way. So the plugins themselves must be modified
to specify what can be automated and how to do it. That means a new
interface on top of the existing DirectShow architecture.

We had a partial spec for this before I even started working here
that we passed around to the development community (I'm pretty sure
one of our competitors is using a variation on it in their lastest
rev, ahem). We decided that we'd much prefer it if Microsoft defined
this new interface instead of us (hindsight case in point, note how
un-interested the plugin developers were about the Vegas TrackFX
interface we published). Then we'd have a better chance of other
plugin vendors picking it up and it would remain a thoroughly open
standard.

The other issue is that even if this spec existed, many plugins
simply don't behave the way you'd expect. Pick your favorite plugin
and slam the controls a little, you probably get pauses, zipper
noise, gronks, and from some plugins (not ours, of course ), even crashes! Should your EQ filters get reset or should you risk them going unstable with old data and new parameters? Do you want your delay to reproduce the pitch shifting that a stomp-box does when you crank the feedback knob back and forth? Should your reverbs keep their old tails when you're dropping the decay or start over? It is not that these things are really difficult, its just that the time varying behavior for any given plugin must be clearly defined and then implemented if it doesn't fall out of the existing algorithm. We've looked at this carefully and are definately keeping it on the feature list. I just wanted to clarify that the scope of the problem is a little larger than it first appears. Regards, Jason. >>Also, speaking of envelopes, is there some way of assigning envelopes >>to direct-x plugin parameters? You guys would simply be the first in >>the world with that a marvellous feature. One concrete example in my >>line of work would be to do credible changes to a sound as it pass by >>the camera (space ship flyby's and such), involving changing the EQ, >>reverb charactheristics and a delay-and-filter-based doppler effect. >>Now I have to hardcode those changes into the wav using LFO's, and >>that can not always provide the result you're after. So, envelope >>controlled Direct-X-plugins is a great wish from my part. >>

>> Jason VandeKieft wrote:

>> We've done a lot of experimenting with this and have come to the
>> conclusion that we can't quite do it right...yet. Why?

>> Well, Vegas isn't the problem, the plugins are.

Obviously =)

>> DirectX plugins do not expose their parameter sets, (...) That
means a new interface on top of the existing DirectShow
architecture.

Hmm, I see what you mean. My thoughts were that since you could save
plugin states in Vegas, the leap towards automation didn't appear too
long.

>> We decided that we'd much prefer it if Microsoft defined this
new interface instead of us (...) Then we'd have a better chance of
other plugin vendors picking it up and it would remain a thoroughly
open standard.

Obviously, as they have a massive impact on developers. I guess the
problem would be calling their attention to it. But please, tell me
I'm not the only one asking for this?

>> The other issue is that even if this spec existed, many plugins
simply don't behave the way you'd expect. (...) The time varying
behavior for any given plugin must be clearly defined and then
implemented if it doesn't fall out of the existing algorithm.

Hey, I'd be happy just to see those funky sliders move! I guess,
though, that making the feature thorough and "pro" is important.

>> We've looked at this carefully and are definately keeping it on
the feature list. I just wanted to clarify that the scope of the
problem is a little larger than it first appears.

Thanks! I really enjoyed reading an elaborate reply on this, since
I've considered it a very logical next step in Vegas. As I mentioned
earlier, I work in a very tightly keyframed domain, where LFO's
and "hard rendered" samples aren't always enough. The flexibility of
an automated plugin system would strike anyone withing my field of
work as stunning, and I'm quite positive professionals in other areas
might see the benefit of it aswell.

Hope you get Microsoft's attention on this!

And hey!

When will we get the Foundry version of the Microsoft Office
Assistant? I've been imagining this funky little 4-color-animated-
microphone-guy-newbie-helper that pops up, taps your monitor and says
like:

"Hi! I'm Mr. Vegas! I notice you get distorted peaks in your audio.
Maybe you should consider lowering your gain a little?"

or

"Hi! Your dynamic range seems to be fluctuating. Would you like some
help on applying the Sonic Foundry Track Compressor?"

How about it? Huh? Huh? =)