VA 2.0 user wondering... why upgrade?

FP wrote on 4/16/2002, 4:37 PM
I've been off the forums for a long time now, but once was active here. I was lookign for news on VA 3 which I thought would be out by now.
I guessed I missed the, they'll NEVER be a VA 3 - just get VV 3 instead - for $169.

It seems like a useless upgrade for audio users as all the features worth mentioning are video upgrades - - oh yeah CD burning. Why do companies think this is an added feature AT THIS POINT? As a DAW user I've now got about 4 apps that all added value by giving me a feature I wasn't looking for.

I guess the only clear reason to upgrade is to stay in the loop for VV4. Sigh.

If some audio only user wants to sell me on the upgrade - please be my guest!

thanks,

Paul

Comments

pwppch wrote on 4/16/2002, 5:12 PM
What features where you looking for?

Peter
FP wrote on 4/16/2002, 5:53 PM
Peter,

Though you are responding to a question with a question (icky) I will say this - for the pro-sumer like me $169 is a fair amount of cash. If I'm not going to get something truly new - $169 will get me something else like a software synth, some other sample libraries, a new mic etc.

Some random ideas - SF's competitors are busy integrating DXi and VSTi instruments - which seems like a cool idea, though I have no idea how its working out. Then there's the ol' midi support thing - apparently happening in Acid but not yet in Vegas. Sigh. Maybe as an audio only user I should trade across to Acid? Seriously? If the future is 'video first' I might as well bail now.

Understand, I think VA 2 has been a great product for me and I don't truly have a complaint, I just honestly don't see the value in the upgrade for the audio user.
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/16/2002, 7:31 PM
vegas 3 gives you phase switches
FP wrote on 4/16/2002, 8:21 PM
OK - first, thanks for responding. I'm not a pro, I'm reminding people so I don't get flamed, but phase switches as they are implemtned in VV 3 will help me keep things from getting out of phase - and help me get them out of phase if I want that - right?

I realize that probably a nice feature, but I hope thats not all anybody can come up with.

I realize now why this upgrade is more than the Pro to VA2 upgrade was - they threw in the cash difference that Video users paid to go from V Pro to VV2... so now we've all paid the same thing to get to the same place. I guess thats "fair", but I miss the don't pay for what you don't want model.

Any takers on switching to Acid - a good idea?
MarkusH wrote on 4/17/2002, 12:54 AM
Not paying for the video features would be the best selling point IMHO (hence the demand for VA3).
And, out of curiosity, was the VA line discontinued for marketing reasons, due to Sonar?

-Markus
Chienworks wrote on 4/17/2002, 8:10 AM
If you switch to ACID, you lose the multitrack recording capabilities, as well as a lot of the ease of traditional sound editing. ACID is primarily for creating music, not for editing recordings.
FP wrote on 4/17/2002, 8:28 AM
WOW! Acid can only record one track at a time! How lame.
I guess they are still using different engines like they were back in the old days.
pelvis wrote on 4/17/2002, 8:52 AM
New audio features in Vegas 3 include:


Red Book audio CD mastering

CD audio extraction

Import CD Architect™ projects

Smooth audio envelopes

4 pan models

Project trimming/consolidation

Voice optimized timestretching

Mono and channel swap

Event and track phase invert


pwppch wrote on 4/17/2002, 9:00 AM
Vegas - Audio or Video - is not about MIDI. There is no sequencer in Vegas, so the idea of softsynths doesn't apply. I don't know what else I can say here.

(ACID has MIDI, and we are commited to improving and expanding its MIDI capabilities.)

We believe that the CDA type burning and the additional routing and audio editing features of Vegas 3.0 were significant. They also layed the groundwork for future developement. Whether a product has useful features for a particular user is up to the user.

Peter



pwppch wrote on 4/17/2002, 9:02 AM
I assure you that SONAR had nothing to do with it.

Peter
FP wrote on 4/17/2002, 9:25 AM
Peter,

I feel like you've missed half the point by getting somewhat defensive.

I was less than excited in the new model saleswise - but the other half of what I'm saying you are turning a tin ear to -

The SF web page does a poor job of selling the audio user on the upgrade.

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/PRODUCTS/NewShowProduct.asp?PID=612&FeatureID=5403

I literally asked for people to explain to me what I might be missing and so far I got "audio phase switch" and you're terse "improved routing capabilities" and the poorly veiled shot at me for picking on CD burning as a new feature. I'm guessing you don't work in sales.

If someone else wants to talk about the improved routing capabilities or any other improvement that made a difference to them I'd still welcome that.
SonyKSA wrote on 4/17/2002, 9:39 AM
Our Vegas Audio to Vegas Video 3.0 upgrade page might help answer some of your questions. I hope that helps!
FP wrote on 4/17/2002, 9:59 AM
Hey, a useful link! Thanks!
MarkusH wrote on 4/17/2002, 1:38 PM
Well it'd make sense when licensing the audio engine to cakewalk, to remove the audio standalone application from the market, especially when it can be done so painlessly in terms of development (with VA being VV without video anyway, so no development lost by discontinuing). That would have made sense in terms of making the license more attractive to a potential licensee. Which is why I asked ;)

-Markus
pwppch wrote on 4/17/2002, 4:41 PM
Licensed what? If you are talking about the ACID looping, CW didn't license this, they just copied the idea and hacked it. Took them two versions to get it almost right.

Just about every vendor out there is copying the concept of ACID in one way or another. IMHO, most miss the point of ACID and why and how it does things. This is why it will always be better at doing what it does than the what others try to force it to be. They have ACID type features, they don't have ACID functionality.

Sometimes is not about being orginal, but about haveing lots of bullet items on a box.

Peter


MarkusH wrote on 4/17/2002, 5:01 PM
Oh I thought when they can advertise "acid audio engine" (or something along those lines) they'd have to actually have licensed the technology from you. Really thought there were some official deal between SF and cakewalk.

-Markus
Geoff_Wood wrote on 4/22/2002, 2:15 AM
I vote for a VA3 - Why pay for the video stuff we don't use. I could do without even one video track !

Peter, reason for simple midi playback inclusion. One day DX plugs will be automatable, presumably via midi (existing control surfaces, etc). A lot of my work requires MIDI backing tracks. Just a facilty to play an existing track in synch without having to slave midi software via MTC would be SO great.