Youn wrote on 11/17/2004, 8:10 AM
I'd rather Sony just fix what's wronge with 5.0 and then release 5.5... after that is stable THEN IMO they should be thinking of adding new features.
TubeLover wrote on 11/17/2004, 9:23 AM
It would be nice to have 5.0c at least?!?!?! I thought I remember hearing a mention of that in the thread shortly after b's release??I have this site set as my homepage and everyday I cross my fingers praying for an update from B to C anyone else?
PipelineAudio wrote on 11/17/2004, 10:07 AM
ASIO DM would make a lot of my bug issues non issues, but unfortunately, maybe add more :)
klyon wrote on 11/17/2004, 10:56 AM
ASIO DM would be a big one. All that effort going into the perpetual-motion-machine snake-oil cold-fusion-in-a-mayonaisse-jar of software monitoring when there's a perectly good hardware solution lurking unused in almost everyone's audio hardware is just silly.
DouglasClark wrote on 11/17/2004, 11:30 AM
On Mackie Controller: exclusive solo (solo current track and un-solo all other tracks). Equivalent to Ctrl-click solo icon on track header, or shift-x keyboard shortcut. Could this be done using MC's "control" button together with the solo button?
PipelineAudio wrote on 11/17/2004, 1:01 PM
"So instead you use RME's TotalMix, which by the way is a computer program emulating a mixer, giving you the above. "

Point VERY well taken, which spells out the ridiculousness of this whole deal. Since vegas 1 we have been asking for true throughput and something akin to a patchbay. Vegas 2 with the user's input could have been a PT killer for all time,. now we are looking at vegas 6, and still the basics have not been covered

Pray for asio dm, totalmix and the other asio dm apps would be under vegas' control, the incredible way they are in samplitude

PeterVred wrote on 11/17/2004, 1:40 PM
INPUT MONITOR that works first time, last time, everytime.
bgc wrote on 11/18/2004, 12:00 PM
Regarding MrPhil's post below... I don't want ANYTHING that looks ANYTHING like any of those. I can feel my workflow crawling to a stop just looking at them ;)

As opposed to this: Nuendo
that all just looks like the hardware interface from a studio mixer.
alk3997 wrote on 11/18/2004, 1:00 PM
Two audio-related items I wish would be added:

1) Fix the AC3 encoder issue with files where all channels are muted for a time between sections with sound. The AC3 encoder currently chokes with that scenario.

2) Add an option for a DTS-ES encoder.

3) Add a sixth (rear center) channel location for either DD-EX or DTS-ES.
MrPhil wrote on 11/19/2004, 4:30 AM
woo... you mean your workflow is THAT vulnerable?
Wouldn't wanna put u in an analog studio... ;>)
Rednroll wrote on 11/19/2004, 11:24 AM
"Wouldn't wanna put u in an analog studio"

I work in a studio with an external mixer and outboard gear, and have been doing that for the past 10 years and I too would not like to see that mixer section in Vegas. This is one of the reasons why I chose to use Vegas over apps like Sonar and Nuendo. It's because the Vegas UI does not clutter the screen with a large mixer section, seperate input, output,master, and channel sections like in Cubase/Nuendo. There is a continous method of thinking when the track fader is right inline with the track audio, and adding that seperate track mixer section breaks that continuity. I don't have to do double scrolling on windows, like if I do some editing on track 22 and that track is in my track view in Vegas, then I don't have to do additional horizontal scrolling on a seperate mixer section to bring track 22 into view so that I can make fader and other adjustments in the mixer section. This while all the time the mixer view keeps getting in the way of my track editing, and I have to keep telling the app to show my mixer section after I click in the track view. Sure it looks pretty when it's up on screen, but the prettiness gets pretty ugly when it's getting in the way of other things I'm trying to work on.

I've done work on SSL,Neve, Mackie, API,Soundcraft, and Yamaha mixers to name a few. So no, I have no problem in understanding the workflow with a virtual mixer section. I have a problem with that mixer section getting in the way of my workflow, when I'm trying to go back forth between editing/recording audio and making mixer adjustments. Analog mixers didn't have audio tracks in the same UI as the mixer. This is the difference between software and hardware and Sonic Foundry/Sony is one of the few companies that got it right so the two are able to integrate nicely in one UI without cluttering each other.

Vegas already has a master mixer section, and if you want to, you can set Vegas up to function with a horizontal mixer, by putting multiple buses in the mixer section and routing each track to it's own bus. Therefore your feature suggestion is already in Vegas. The buses in the Vegas mixer section have inserts, solo,mutes,automation, output routing, fader sliders, a pan control and peak meters, just like those large UI mixers you've shown from those other apps, except Vegas let's you resize it's mixer section and keeps them nicely docked at the bottom of the screen or allows you to undock it and make it a seperate window that can be dragged to another monitor screen. So basically Vegas already has what you're looking for, except it has a lot more versatility, you just need to set it up to work that way if that's the way you wish to work.

I do agree with you on your icon points and have made the same comments in the past. While they could be made to be a bit more polished compared to the other apps, they do function the same none the less. In fact, what makes the other apps icons so special? All of them are a button with a letter on them, M=Mute, S=Solo, R=Read, W=write, e=enable....what's so special about that now? They're all grouped together also...why would you group together an automation write enable button with a mute button, where you could easily put a fader in Write status mode, when what you really wanted to do is press the Mute button. Look at those stupid 1 bar lines for a pan control. I thought you said it's an emmulation of a hardware mixer? I have never used a hardware mixer, with a narrow line for an adjustment pan control. Oh I see they tried to put 10lbs of sh*t in a 5 lb bag, so they had to cram things together, so they couldn't put a real slider or knob for the pan control. My hardware mixer SSL had it spelled out on the buttons "Cut", and "Solo", but again they had to make a sacrafice to squeeze that 10lbs of sh*t into that bag. Give me the choice of either a fully custumizable UI or pretty buttons, I'll take the customizable UI everytime. Others are impressed by the eye candy and the pretty knobs FX send knobs all exposed at once. Not me, I prefer a compact mixer GUI, so that it doesn't get in the way of my workflow and when I want to adjust an FX send, then I click on the FX insert button and do so. I don't need it staring me in the face when I don't want to use it and covering up my track view. Not to mention those floating transports in those other apps that keep disappearing behind all that mess of UI windows and I have to go dig for it everytime I want to hit play.
MrPhil wrote on 11/22/2004, 6:26 AM
"I too would not like to see that mixer section in Vegas. This is one of the reasons why I chose to use Vegas over apps like Sonar and Nuendo. It's because the Vegas UI does not clutter the screen with a large mixer section"

Hey Red, whenever I don't feel like seeing something in the way of my view, I just close that window. ;>)
And as I use two monitors beside eachother I have plenty of room for both.
About the buttons: it's nothing special or fancy about buttons that say S, M, R or E.
But they are easier to understand for someone new to Vegas that has basic knowledge of sound engineering. You wouldn't dream of creating an icon looking like a banana when you can write EQ instead.
As for the mixer bus system in Vegas, yes, you can route every track to a single bus. But then you have latency problems when signing effects to the busses and all kinds of extra work involved.
I want a mixer that gives me instant overview of all in and out, fx sends, inserts, pan, vol, levels etc. When the arrangement of the song is ready, the need for looking at the soundwaves is not there for me. Then I would like to concentrate on the mix only, and as Pipe said, be able to route to outside hardware and back again would be great.
You, on the other hand could go on working the way you like best. Just don't open the mixer window.
PipelineAudio wrote on 11/22/2004, 9:42 AM
If there were to be any hidden/exposable windows in Vegas, I'd like to see a patchbay, rather than a mixer. In the real world, I rarely serial route ANYTHING with mixer controls, I do it by physically patching the signal where I want it to go. ASIO DM already has the functionality to do this for the input and output, and it would also be cool internally, for fixing the dx fx problem of not being able to use different fx sends to different inputs of a dx plug ( yeah it can be done sort of with some panning trickery, but you know what I mean ).

I dont see a mixer emulation like nuendo's with that same exact restriction helping any.
MrPhil wrote on 11/24/2004, 12:21 AM
"I dont see a mixer emulation like nuendo's with that same exact restriction helping any"

I don't see any point in building in those same restrictions.
drbam wrote on 11/24/2004, 6:24 AM
>>"I dont see a mixer emulation like nuendo's with that same exact restriction helping any"

I don't see any point in building in those same restrictions.<<

If I were a Sony tech following this thread, I would have moved on when this discussion took a typical dead-end run, this time debating the merits of certain features (especially with its current tone), rather than offering "suggestions" as the original topic requested. I can't help that we as users are sabotaging ourselves when this happens. And if a thread runs long enough, it ALWAYS happens with two or more people locked into a proving who's "right" position. Too bad. . .

Rednroll wrote on 11/24/2004, 7:09 AM
I disagree. It's like the saying goes "one man's meat is another man's poison." So if someone comes in and expresses their viewpoint for a feature and they feel this is their "meat", then great, that is their right to do so. If others who feel that the other persons meat would get in the way of their current workflow need to express their opinion on that also. That way when considering a feature Sony can look at both sides of an opinion and develop something that can work for both sides. It makes for better implementation of the GUI, where you can have your cake and eat it too. It's not really an argument of who's right or wrong. It's something that 2 opinions don't agree upon, and if you hear only one side's opinion, then Sony is only getting half the story.
drbam wrote on 11/24/2004, 8:22 AM

It appears I didn't make my point clear enough. I was referring to the threads that tend to go off into what I think is a different topic and therefore dilute or degrade the effectiveness of the primary objective of the particular thread. This thread was asking for suggestions only – not a debate about the of various viewpoints. As you point out, and I agree, such debates can be extememly useful, (kind of like brainstorming) but I think they would prove much more beneficial for all involved (Sony and users) if, as in this case, a separate thread was started for the debate issue or whatever the off-topic issue happened to become. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way but I doubt it. Anyway, I'm not interested in debating the debate – only trying to clarify my point. Besides I need to go the the store and pick up a turkey! ;-)

Rednroll wrote on 11/24/2004, 9:05 AM
I understand what you're saying now. Maybe it would be cool, if there was a forum layout, where if you're doing a Reply to someone elses post, as a side discussion, then it would create like a subfolder, where the side topic discussion could happen. That way, when you first look at the thread, you see only the on topic posts and none of the side topic debates that go along with them. Then if you want to read the further responses to a specific post, then you go into the subdirectory and you see the posts that where discussed on that root post. Basically, it works just like windows when viewing folders, where on topic posts are in a root folder, and comments to that specific message, could then be in a subfolder within that root folder.

I have to go buy my turkey too, hopefully it will be thawed out by tommorow when I have to cook it. :-)
adowrx wrote on 11/24/2004, 11:02 AM
"it works just like windows when viewing folders, where on topic posts are in a root folder, and comments to that specific message, could then be in a subfolder within that root folder".

C'MON! :grin: folders for the forum before Vegas gets 'em. Not to mention the redundancy of this entire thread.