Vegas 5 first impressions


Rednroll wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:03 PM
"When Input Monitor is in "ON" position, you should not ear the track and the input when you roll. "

Exactly, and that's what does happen. This was the first thing I checked and made sure it functions this way. What's wrong is that you have input monitoring set to "on". What you should have it set too is "auto-input". Try that out and see if it works a little better for you.
ZAZKUASH wrote on 4/20/2004, 2:45 AM
I was post this:

Date: 12/8/2003 1:14:44 AM

4)Integrate multiple MIDI-compatible control surfaces (Mackie, CM Labs, HUI,TASCAM,YAMAHA& **THE NEW SONY VEGAS CONTROL SURFACE**)



zendar wrote on 4/20/2004, 3:36 AM
can i have user opinions of the ACID features in vegas 5?
Weevil wrote on 4/20/2004, 7:20 AM
Okay, the good, the bad and the ugly from a weevil’s point of view.

The good:

A couple of things I requested actually made it into the program this year. Wow, that’s the first time in a long time.

I’m sure it had nothing to do with me but the media subclip stuff was pretty much exactly how I requested it. The active take information in events is also much appreciated.

Really terrific job with the automation.

The ACID implementation is...interesting...It’s great being able to control-click-and-drag the edge of a loop event. But it’s kinda clunky in some other respects.

The Bad:

I’m bitterly, bitterly disappointed at the lack of on screen tempo and grid spacing controls.

...I feel like I get penalised for trying to make music in a way that Sony doesn’t approve. (Actually I think it’s personal, I think PH enjoys nothing more than flipping me the bird every year).

If someone could sit poor weevil down at some point and explain to him why almost every item in the options menu is allowed to have an icon except Grid Spacing he would very much appreciate it.

Half my toolbar just sits there empty...Would the whole application implode if one of the available toolbar buttons was a simple spinbox that displayed the project tempo?

I suppose I just don’t understand why we are not even allowed to have easy access to aspects of the program that some of us use all the time.

Anywho enough ranting...

The ugly:

Can’t help but feel the interface is a backwards step. Makes the program look less professional and more like a toy to me. I find it hard to distinguish many of the icons, a lot of them just look like fuzzy blobs.

Overall I still wish we didn’t have to compete with the bad guys for attention. It’s a pretty good job given the amount of dollars they had to spend on us.
pwppch wrote on 4/20/2004, 8:28 AM
>>...I feel like I get penalised for trying to make music in a way that Sony doesn’t approve. (Actually I think it’s personal, I think PH enjoys nothing more than flipping me the bird every year).
I hope I am not PH! There is no approved Sony way. We expose the tools as it fits the paradigm of Vegas. Nothing nefarious is occurring here.
Rednroll wrote on 4/20/2004, 9:20 AM
"Bad guys == Video users?"

Alright, I have to apologize, I coined that phrase and it's starting to spread among the Vegas audio forum family. It just all stems, from when Vegas took on the Video features and the audio users started to feel like they where getting jipped on needed audio features, due to the resources devoted to the video stuff. You know, if you're mainly an audio user then you feel like, why do I need all those 3D compositioning tools when, what I could really use is some rewire features? Then if you're primarily a video user, you ask yourself, why do I need all those envelope automation recording features, when I could import Photoshop files with the layers intact? The only guy who's not complaining is the one who does both with Vegas. I'm happy for the Video features in Vegas, because one day I plan on getting into this more heavily and hopefully I won't find any limitations when I reach that point. But then the other side of me is currently part of the crowd saying, "why the f**k do I need those 3D video compositioning tools and those keyframable bezier masks?" I don't even have any idea what they are, although I hear they're great from the Vegas Video users, but I sure would like rewire support instead.

The thing we ALL need to realize is like I said in the past, "Rome wasn't built in one day". By having the video features, it expands the market of Vegas. By having the audio features, it again expands the market in that area. By having both in 1 app with the same intuitive interface, it expands the market in users who do both. So we're all winners in that respect, because Vegas appeals to a wider audience instead of a single niche market, which keeps the program alive and well for all of us. We lose in the respect that it could have every audio feature like some other app, or it could have every video feature like an Avid on Steroids, but it doesn't. It does get pretty damn close on both sides though. I think this is a great release and the Sony team has done a tremendous job on this app and we ALL need to thank you for the hard work. If Vegas doesn't do EVERYTHING that your heart desires and it probably never will, then you need to look into purchasing one of those $100,000 Avid systems or a $50,000 Protools system, and be that much more disappointed and have a lot less cash in your pocket, giving you something else to complain about.

So I'ld just like to give a big shout out and say, THANKS DAVE, THANKS DENNIS, THANKS PETER, THANKS IVAN,THANKS MATT, THANKS CALEB and Thanks to the rest of the Sony/Vegas Team. Keep up the great work!!!!
Nat wrote on 4/20/2004, 9:58 AM
"Go read the Video forum. They are complaining that we did nothing to advance the video side."

Don't be too hard Peter :) While some users are not happy (we're all unhappy about something or another) I still think Vegas made a great step forward in Video... Most people wanted nested timelines, I'd rather wait for version 6 and have something very solid. (I guess that must be one of the hardest thing to code). Subclips are a good step in that dirrection. (hey, I can now change the loop point of a file without rendering :) )
pwppch wrote on 4/20/2004, 11:43 AM
Nested timelines:

I keep hearing about this and have a general idea what users are talking about, but I want to open the discussion up a bit.

Nat, give me your take and an application (the more detail the better) of what this buys and how you would use it.

Nat wrote on 4/20/2004, 12:32 PM
Sure !

I see this feature as more useful for video but it could be used for audio.

In programs like Final Cut and Premiere, you can create sequences. A sequence will apear in your media pool and contain other events with edits. You can take this sequence and bring it in another sequence, it will then appear as a big block. You can have multiple sequences opened and they will appear under different tabs. So let's say you edit a movie with 8 scenes, you can have each scene as a separate sequence and assemble those 8 scenes in a 9th sequence. You could do something similar in vegas, have 1 vegas project for each scene, render uncompressed the 8 projects and assemble them in a new project. This is the step i'd like to see removed, rendering.

Now nesting has 2 advantages, it will help you better organize the events both vertically and horizontally. Vegas is a strong compositor, I can end up with 10 tracks to make a complex 10 seconds intro. Let's say the rest of my project only needs 3 tracks, I'd be glad to nest my 10 track composite into one big block and have it on one track. The way you would do it now is to have a copy of vegas open for compositng and another to assemble the stuff. This works fine but requires rendering. It will also helo organize horizontally, like in my example where you edit a movie with 8 scenes.

The way I see it for Vegas is like this :

One of the strenght of Vegas is the ability to work with multiple copies of Vegas at the same time. This works fine, and it's great. My idea is to enchance this workflow. I have absolutely no idea how hard this would be to implement, probably not that easy, but in my opinion it would be the best implementation of nested timelines in Vegas.

Here we go : Basically, you can have .veg files in the media pool. So you can take a veg file from the media pool and drag it to the timeline where it would appear as a block on one track. You could then cut and edit this block, create subclips of this sub timeline. If you need to edit the parts inside the block, you right click and choose Open timeline in new vegas window. This would open a new copy of vegas with the desired timeline.

So in my movie example with 8 scenes, the workflow is very similar, I edit each scene as a separate veg file and I have a master veg file where I embed all the 8 veg files. If I need to modify something, I can open the blocks in another instance of Vegas and do a modification, without rerendering. Of course it would also be possible to have a veg file in a veg file in a veg file...

Does all of this make sense at all ?
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/20/2004, 1:07 PM
is this something like nuendo's folder tracks?
Nat wrote on 4/20/2004, 1:14 PM
Not really, it's more complex than that, folder tracks are a way to group several track under one track, but the tracks are still there, just hidden. Nesting implies that you have a project embedded in another project.

Folder tracks woud also be nice.
Rednroll wrote on 4/20/2004, 1:57 PM
This sounds a lot like Opcode's Visions midi sequencing abilities and exactly what Vegas needs if it ever gets midi tracks and I can also see how it could work just as well with audio and video like Nat described. In Vision you can create seperate sequences like you describe. So in Vision you create an INTRO Sequence, a Verse Sequence, a Chorus Sequence...etc. Then you create a new Sequence and do a "Step Record", where you record onto 1 track, all these individual sequences pasted together and they appear as blocks on one track along the timeline. If you need to edit something within the block, you double click on it, and it opens that sequence window, just like you described like another Vegas track view window, with it's own timeline. For now I'ld like to see this type of functionality in the next Acid release and I'ld move away from Vision and use Acid exclusively for midi.

I love it!!!
Newf wrote on 4/20/2004, 2:24 PM
This sounds like incorporating an advanced version of Visualflow software operating within vegas but I may be way off the mark.
imac wrote on 4/20/2004, 4:47 PM
"fundamentally a NLE for audio and video"

How can a midi player track not be a fundamental part of a NLE ?
I long to be able to use midi not for music but control of external devices.
After that it is playing an external VSTi.

All creation and editing of midi is done in another app, but the play has to be in the vegas environment.
Syncing MTC to anothe midi app while a pain does work, until, you "insert time" into the vegas arrangement etc, then it all becomes impossibly complicated to keep duplicating all vegas moves into the other apps
pwppch wrote on 4/20/2004, 5:10 PM
Ok, I will buy that simple playback of MIDI could be part of the NLE/DAW paradigm. It would be rather lame though as you would still have to create, compose, and "sequence" external. This is just not a good approach.

MIDI is about sequencing, and sequencing is much more than editing events as the Vegas editor or any NLE provides. The granular and musical nature of MIDI - yes, I know it can be used for more than just that - is a completely different solution set. MIDI is the slipper slope. It has been around so long that there are HUGE expectations.

We did simple MIDI playback and "arrangment" in ACID 3. We were screamed at, called names, etc, etc because you could not edit the MIDI. We added editing to ACID 4 and we were screamed at for the level or simplicity of of our editing paradigm.

Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in all things MIDI. However, simple playback and "MIDI chunk" manipulation is not what will make the majority happy.

If MIDI becomes part of Vegas, it will have to meet the same standards that we put on our Audio and Video manipulation and integration.


Nat wrote on 4/20/2004, 5:49 PM
And what do you think about nested timelines (nothing related to midi here)
Arnar wrote on 4/20/2004, 5:52 PM
"If MIDI becomes part of Vegas, it will have to meet the same standards that we put on our Audio and Video manipulation and integration"

which is why we are all excited that you get on it...:)

I just want to point out the fact that while you said that Vegas was strictly for recording and editing and not creation then you are both right and wrong at the same time.
To me making music isnt strictly about recording, sequencing, midi or whatever, its about getting an idea and being able to produce it quickly, being spontaneus,experimenting,workflow and intuitive interfaces that don´t get in the way of the creative process and that is exactly where vegas excells even though the creators of the program dont seem to realise it fully.

im sure you have no idea how many people are using vegas to CREATE music.....

Just pointing this out :=)
Ben  wrote on 4/20/2004, 6:53 PM
Agreed Arnar. The way I create music is as much about arranging audio (in Vegas) as it is to do with actually sequencing the midi. It's when the midi is rendered to audio that I start playing around with ideas and tracks can take on a completely new shape this way. In other words, the line between midi recording and arranging audio is very much blurred.
tmrpro wrote on 4/20/2004, 7:39 PM
*********"When Input Monitor is in the "ON" position, you should not hear the track and the input when you roll. "

Exactly, and that's what does happen. <<<<<This was the first thing I checked and made sure it functions this way.>>>>> What's wrong is that you have input monitoring set to "on". What you should have it set too is "auto-input". Try that out and see if it works a little better for you.*********

Okay, I see what's wrong here ..... it's kinda designed like a Kenwood Multitrack..... lol...

Yeah Doc, I've been using the Auto Input function on V5 for about 5 weeks now.... but .... what's "wrong" is the way that two sources (input source and recorded track) both playback through the same channel when you have selected Input Monitor>ON

... No multitrack I have ever worked on does that ... and if you can name just one mulittrack that does operate this way, I'll share my Fritos with ya.
pwppch wrote on 4/20/2004, 7:48 PM
Still thinking about it - and installing the latest Premiere...

pwppch wrote on 4/20/2004, 7:51 PM
Yep. The aspect of editing is a creative process. (Many a terrible band/artist has been made great by the creativity of the editor/producer.)

What I really meant was that it is not great on creating "content". It manipulates content and this manipulation is creation, but from a different perspective.

It is a very subjective thing. I just want to see how we can go to the next levels with Vegas and ACID.

Nat wrote on 4/20/2004, 7:51 PM
Good luck ;)

Edit : With premiere :)
pwppch wrote on 4/20/2004, 7:54 PM
what's "wrong" is the way that two sources (input source and recorded track) both playback through the same channel when you have selected Input Monitor>ON
Where would you have it routed to then?
Weevil wrote on 4/21/2004, 1:44 AM
I hope I am not PH! There is no approved Sony way. We expose the tools as it fits the paradigm of Vegas. Nothing nefarious is occurring here.

Of course you are PH!

I was feeling frustrated but it was just a funny image I thought of while writing.

holds up hands...Dude, you do know that I don’t actually think you enjoy flipping me the bird every year... :-)

...I do ever so slightly get the feeling that my tongue in cheek style can be a wee bit lost on this forum sometimes.

...I fully appreciate and agree with nearly everything you have written


Tempo timelines and better tempo 'integration' are not something we are ignoring, but the short answer is it is complicated as hell to do right. If we spent the time in the Vegas 5 dev schedule on complete tempo integration, we would have had to sacrifice other features. I can hear it now: "All we get is a tempo map! "

My point is however that you didn’t at all have to -right now- offer us “complete tempo integration”

It’s that all-or-nothing approach that is the killer. It means that someone in my situation has to literally wait years for (what is to me) a big issue to be addressed. I remember being very surprised that V3 didn’t tackle the tempo stuff... it looks like I’m heading into my fourth year of waiting for anything to happen...

..I know some guys have been waiting just as long for stuff like auto input... I don’t want to take that away from them. I fully realise the program has a massive range of users to cover and I am just one of them.

All I was saying is that two simple icons (for already existing features) in the toolbar would have made Vegas instantly -way- more musical for me.

The interface:

Yeah I am a classic mode kid from way back. I tried all the combinations with the colours. I honestly do find it difficult to distinguish what they are pictures of. Like I said they all look like shapeless fuzzy blobs to me, I can hardly tell one from the other. Sorry.

Bad guys == Video users?

I’m totally taking the’s my adopted nickname (cheers red) for video users...I’m thinking about calling Sony employees Martians. :-)

In the ideal world everything would happen in one release and we'd be able to focus on innovations 100%. Vegas is a very mature product with many, many different types of users. It can never be everything to everybody at all times.

I can really clearly see that you spent your cookies in a structured and well thought out way...I just wish ‘someone’ would give you (a lot) more cookies to start with.