Vegas 5 first impressions

Ben wrote on 4/19/2004, 11:42 AM

Well, I think the audio feature set is pretty impressive. A lot of work's clearly gone into this and hats off to Peter and the Sony team. Haven't really put it through it's paces yet but just had a quick play with the new automation and it's awesome. Can't wait to get it hooked up to my 03D - hopefully a template will be released for this soon to make it even easier.

A few other points spring to mind:

- The new interface look. A big yuck from me I'm afraid. I don't know if it's because I work in XP Classic mode, but it just looks horrible. Too washed out and pasty and the white track and mixer faders are particularly nasty. Sony - fine if you want to do this, but you need to make it a lot more customizable or skinable, or at least have the option to retain something more like the old V4 look. I hate to say it, but it terms of look, the words toy-like spring to mind.

(Edit: I think number one in the weirdness department looks-wise is the very bright, white mute icons. They stand out too much. I've played with the saturation controls in options and they don't tone it down enough for me. Well, certain thinks tone down ok, other icons all but disappear. There's no getting away from the fact that the overall look feels very messy. V4 just felt cleaner. This is a direction in interface look that fortunately under Sonic Foundry, the products never went in. Can anyone say Sonar?)

- Bearing in mind how beautiful the new automation is, I think Vegas is now crying out more than ever for the choice of using a tradition vertical mixer paradigm. Be nice to be able to choose between that and the way of working at the moment. Currently, mixing 50+ tracks by having to scroll down for miles on the timeline is a little clumsy.

- Linked to the above - we desperately need track grouping! Even something as simple as right clicking on a load of selected tracks and being able to call them A or B, etc and they move together. Would be a lifesaver. Needed very much for mixing (yes I know about busses), and also for group muting, soloing, etc. Again, this would link very nicely with the new automation.

- What the hell happened to midi implementation? If this is not going to happen, ok, but then you've got to make Vegas rewire-able, so we can link it with the (hopefully soon improved) midi in ACID. This seemed to be one of the, if not the, most popular request on Peter's "what do you want in Vegas 5" thread a while back. It's absolutely crazy to not have rewire, especially because it's now in ACID. Sony - surely it makes sense to implement Rewire in Vegas 5? Maybe the idea is to add it to a later V5 release, as you did with Acid. Let's hope so.

Ok, there we are for the time being. I love all the new stuff and haven't even scratched the surface! But, do feel the above points seem like a bit of a missed opportunity. What'd you all think?

Ben

Back to post

Comments

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 6:09 AM

<<<<<<<<<<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?>>>>>>>>>

Input Monitor>ON should mean specifically that:

The selected channel is monitoring the assigned input ONLY

... you should NOT hear the events on the selected track playing back when the "Input Monitor. ON" is selected and you are rolling.

When "Input Monitor>ON is selected the only thing routed should be the channel's input source.

That's how ALL multitracks work.

Arnar wrote on 4/21/2004, 6:22 AM

Im a bit surprised that you still cannot rearrange the busses, very surprised in fact.
I was sure they had fixed that , oh well.>*

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 7:30 AM

Arnar,

I too am confused about the concept of the buss to buss routing and the benefits of this as released in V5.... The signal flow concept, in my opinion, is correct ... but without master defeat capability, it seems a little bit moot.

pwppch wrote on 4/21/2004, 9:44 AM

>>master defeat capability,
I will need this one defined as well. Looked in all my hardware and recording tomes and came up empty.

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 10:39 AM

<<<<<>>master defeat capability,
I will need this one defined as well. Looked in all my hardware and recording tomes and came up empty>>>>>>>

Okay, defeating any assignment of the buss' output to master while maintaining input to the DX chain and only allowing signal throughput of the DX processor's output to the master...

Also pre/post fader capabilities on the buss' fader would make this buss to buss routing a lot more worthy of real world buss to buss routing needs.

I'm still very curious as to what application the current buss to buss routing configuration can be useful for when you don't have pre/post fader capability for the FX portion of the buss.

The post fader functionality only allows the effects to continue at unity to the master, but the fader on the buss still defeats the input to the plugin when turned all the way down...

What if I wanted to continue feeding input to the effect DX plug chain and vary the level of the dry portion or vise versa?... I'd have to write an automatable effects envelope for each of my plugs that would vary the mix of dry and effect and none of these would be consistant with a chain relative concept.

Arnar wrote on 4/21/2004, 11:32 AM

I agree , there should be a an option to route to another buss pre fader.
Right now it pretty much will just function as a master fader for several busses.

Although what i meant with rearranging busses then i was referring to being able to move them around or sort them so to speak.

edit..about the" lock to stretch " function then it can be made to default by going into preferences/ editing and untickiing " preserve pitch while stretching"

PipelineAudio wrote on 4/21/2004, 12:15 PM

this kinda thing came up a few years ago with the original busses. Im having pretty good luck using buss to buss routing as a pretty handy feature tho. It would be nice to reorder them

Rednroll wrote on 4/21/2004, 12:21 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?>>>>>>>>>

Input Monitor>ON should mean specifically that:

The selected channel is monitoring the assigned input ONLY

... you should NOT hear the events on the selected track playing back when the "Input Monitor. ON" is selected and you are rolling.

When "Input Monitor>ON is selected the only thing routed should be the channel's input source.

That's how ALL multitracks work."

Tmrpro,
Yes you are correct. And in ALL multitracks when you select "Input" monitor, you usually are not playing back the multi-track at this time, which is the way it will function in Vegas. There is something you're overlooking though that having this is useful. During a vocal overdub session, there is a lot of times where you are playing the track back for the talent and it's nice to have the input enabled so you can hear the talent in the vocal booth, or if they would like to hear themselves and the track at the same time so they can warm up to their past performance. During this scenario, I would usually goto my hardware mixer and route the microphone input signal to the monitor bus, so if the vocalist noticed something during the playback, they could talk to me in the control room and could also hear themselves in the headphones and sing along with their previously recorded track. Haven't you ever had the scenario where if you had it in auto-input and when you stop playback the talent screams, "hey I couldn't hear myself and I was trying to get your attention because I noticed something I'ld like to change back at the first verse, but you had my mic turned off. "? Happens all the time and I've gotten in a habit during a playback situation to temporarily route the mic input signal to the monitors, so I could hear the playback of the previously recorded track and the talent in the vocal booth. Having this feature in Vegas, you can do the same thing without having a hardware mixer connected in your studio. The "Auto-input" gives you what you where looking for. While YES, no other DAW routes the the input and track to the same output, I think this is a feature enhancement that the others have overlooked, and makes Vegas unique for thinking outside of the box. While I would not use this all the time in this mode, but if I didn't have the versatility of an external hardware mixer, I would love to have this feature, just for the reasons I outlined. So I can hear the talent in the vocal booth, while listening to the playback track at the same time, so when they scream "stop", because they noticed something, then I can hear them and stop or if the talent wants to warm up and remember how they sang a particular part they did a month ago, then I have this versatility too. It sure beats the heck out of locating the part after the fact, because you couldn't hear them during playback, and they have to describe too you the position they heard something. For the scenario you're looking for there's a pretty easy work around. Right click on the event and select the "mute" switch.

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 12:49 PM

Although I think this is a little strange, ...I like it!

...Sweeeet...

I wasn't told about the mute thing during testing when I brought this anomaly up.

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 12:52 PM

>>>>>>>>>Im having pretty good luck using buss to buss routing as a pretty handy feature tho<<<<<<<<<<

How?

Please tell me how this feature can be beneficial.... are you using external routing to outboard processing? If so, I can see how this would be beneficial....

pwppch wrote on 4/21/2004, 12:54 PM

>>Also pre/post fader capabilities on the buss' fader would make this buss to buss routing a lot more worthy of real world buss to buss routing needs.
<<
Pre/post is there. Right click on a bus's fader.

PipelineAudio wrote on 4/21/2004, 1:14 PM

Ill stick my "3 mic drums" on one buss. These are kina under-overheads, splitting the distance between the snare but pretty much close to the two furthest outside toms. Also in this is the third, a mic kinda lining thru the kick and the snare splkitting the toms, and kinda in front of the kick drum

then Ill have a toms buss for the close mics

then sometimes snare and kick busses

then all these will go into a final drums buss

VERY handy

I tried to do this with vocals and bgv's but for exactly the problem you are describing I cant get it to "feel" right

Rednroll wrote on 4/21/2004, 1:14 PM

Yes, I agree it is a bit odd. And if you tested the first beta builds, you would have seen their was no "auto-input" feature yet and just this dual monitor function. I paniced and jumped on them for this one, because I didn't want to have to hear you and pipe screaming for the next year that they f**ked up the whole auto-input functionality. Basically, they told me to relax, that part wasn't completed yet. Before, then I started to wonder why you would want both, and started to think of those scenarios I outlined above. I'm sure even the programmers over look some of the features and their uses within Vegas, thus why they never thought of the mute event, which really allows the best of both worlds with the dual monitor input monitor functionality. Heck, I don't even think they realized there was a way to use the Sound Forge Volume Fader in Vegas 4, until I pointed it out to them.

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 1:26 PM

>>>>>>>>.>>Also pre/post fader capabilities on the buss' fader would make this buss to buss routing a lot more worthy of real world buss to buss routing needs.
<<
Pre/post is there. Right click on a bus's fader. <<<<<<<<<<

Yes Peter it is there, but the problem is:

When in post fader mode, the buss' fader lowers the output of the processing chain equally with the buss mix.

When in pre fader mode, the the output of the processing chain remains up, but the input to the processing chains reduces. This is why I said there is aneed to have the ability to "defeat" the buss' unprocessed level to master, while still providing signal to the processing chain.

pwppch wrote on 4/21/2004, 1:43 PM

>>This is why I said there is aneed to have the ability to "defeat" the buss' unprocessed level to master, while still providing signal to the processing chain.
<<
It sounds like you want a send vs insert model on the sub buses.

PipelineAudio wrote on 4/21/2004, 1:48 PM

I know that now we are asking for feedback insanity, but like you say, fx sends/aux sends from the busses would be a pretty nifty setup

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 2:18 PM

>>>>>>>>Q: You were on the beta. Just read through all of your email sent to the beta alias. You brought up none of this. Just wonder why you present it now?<<<<<<<<

A: Maybe because I asked and I wasn't answered...

Here's what I sent to internal on Monday, March 22nd at 8:21PM CST:

"I'm curious how you guys would suggest to process a 5.1 master? I had an expectation that there would be individual master channel processing capabilities. I think that was what people were talking about with buss to buss routing or maybe I misunderstood. Having the plugin option on the master channel in 5.1 doesn't make much sense if you can't use it."

I won't get into the other details of this communication, but my main question in this document was dismissed and you followed up with an email telling me to install the latest release.

Rednroll wrote on 4/21/2004, 2:27 PM

This is a all a little confusing as to what Tmrpro is looking for to me. From what I do I understand and please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't there a solution, to just put a volume fader within the plugin chain of the bus? Doing it this way you could have a pre(input) and post(output) FX volume level adjustment.

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 2:59 PM

I've never used the simple volume fader plug and yes.....this is an answer to my needs and specific uses of buss to buss routing options...

It is an automatable effect as well...

Very interesting....

pwppch wrote on 4/21/2004, 5:12 PM

>>"OT> I'm curious how you guys would suggest to process a 5.1 master? I had an expectation that there would be individual master channel processing capabilities. I think that was what people were talking about with buss to buss routing or maybe I misunderstood. Having the plugin option on the master channel in 5.1 doesn't make much sense if you can't use it."
<<
I don't see how this applies to the discussion, and I read through this request and don't see any further elaboration on what you are looking for.
I won't get into the other details of this communication, but my main question in this document was dismissed and you followed up with an email telling me to install the latest release.
The response was in regard to the part of the email you didn't include.

tmrpro wrote on 4/21/2004, 5:57 PM

What don't you understand Peter?

I asked the question:

I'm curious how you guys would suggest to process a 5.1 master?

Which was NOT answered in a response by you or anyone else..... I went on to say that I was under the impression that this is what people were referring to concerning "BUSS TO BUSS" routing....

If it wasn't, then maybe a more specific answer from internal to my first question would have avoided the confusion I was suffering from regarding B2B routing...

Red already addressed my concern and answered my question with a solution in an earlier post...

rmack350 wrote on 4/21/2004, 9:30 PM

Hi Peter,

I thought I'd chime in on nested timelines. It's kind of a progression of ideas.

First, as Nat says, you would want to be able to include other projects within your project. Veg files in the media pool. From there you can take a veg file and put it on a track where it can be treated just like any other event. You can move it, set envelopes, effects, etc. You can also change the start and end points as well as drag it out to loop it.

There are several potentially nice things about this. The inner workings of the nested veg file are essentially locked unless you open it up and edit it. Because it is a fairly static event on the timeline it (the nested Veg) can be prerendered in the background. When you move the nested veg the prerender follows it. So, you get locking, background prerenders, and more robust prerender that don't break when you move them. You also get a region that could be unlocked and edited if you need to.

So we have existing Veg files being used as timeline events. Now suppose we also provide for selecting a range from your project and converting it to a nested veg. Now you've taken a part of the project, put it into a new veg sitting on the current timeline, locked off and ready to prerender. You don't have to think about it for a while and you can just move on.

The things Vegas has to take into account in this case are dealing with transitions if the new veg's borders cut them, and maybe asking how much extra head and tail you want to include. You mark out an area, select "Convert region to nested project", Are warned that the region border intersects transitions, Asked whether to include or exclude the transition, preview the result if the region borders have to change, and choose okay, back, or cancel.

When you open the nested veg for editing a range should be automatically but temporarily set to show you the area that appears on the parent timeline.

Okay then. Let's add a final idea here. Not only do you get to nest other Veg files in the timeline, you also get to nest Acid projects in the timeline. Honestly, since I don't use Acid I don't know what this would entail except that this is beginning to sound like OLE objects. Again though, Vegas probaly would background render the nested Acid project (If that's what one does with them)

Hope this sheds more light from a new angle without creating a glare.

Rob Mack

vitamin_D wrote on 4/22/2004, 9:50 AM

Come on Ivan, any way you guys can sort this out in the next release update? Either tone-down the nastiness, or make it a <lot> more customizable or skinable.

This is exactly my position, and I'm thankful that others are saying it, too. I'd shut up about the look of Vegas 5 if only I were given a choice to revert it back to the V4 icons, or change the style and color of the icons my way. I want brushed metals, charcoal greys and blacks. I'd like it if the icons didn't look like after dinner mints and Playschool dials. Is that so much to ask?

And in the future -- if you're going to make a change like you've done with the UI, please put it at the bottom of the list behind media management, say :D

- jim

Nat wrote on 4/22/2004, 10:02 AM

jim : charcoal gray, did you see my setup screenshots ?