musicvid - thanks for the short tute! - Much appreciated.

"Pretty neat feature, huh? It's almost TOO intuitive. Copy and Paste is SO Microsoft..... . ." You think this is intuitive? ... perhaps this means something else where you live . .. . But yes, I do understand that the V<>SF options does get "sections/files" backwards and forwards between the two packages, but just wanting to work on say only a small event section from Vegas - could be 4 or 5 seconds long - I was really wanting hoping and expecting to use the Copy/Paste option to do a quickie . .. yeah?

Grazie

" I was really wanting hoping and expecting to use the Copy/Paste option to do a quickie"

Never tried it, but I'll play with it and get back to you. (most of my audio work is long, discrete tracks)

YOU LITTLE STAR - Thank you . .. if we could crack it, it would be a real boon! - Nothing discreet about your "Grazie"! - I especially liked the Pencil correction tool in SF. I call it my Tippex tool . . he he he . . !

TIA

Grazie

Grazie,
I think the problem with copy / paste would be trying to get the thing sample accurate. For what you're doing that may not be a big issue but for others it sure would be.
The other thing if you haven't noticed is SF can do nice things like snap to zero crossing or match positive and negative going waves at zero crossing, now there's no way to just copy a bit of audio like that into SF and bring it back again hence the whole track approach. Of course you can make an intelligent selection in Vegas, copy that to a new track and then have SF work on that.
One of the few things I'd disagree with SPOT about is the notion that audio and video are the same thing. I used to tout that like a mantra myself but the more I've thought about it the less I believe it. The granularity is so different, heck sample boundaries don't even line up with frame boundaries. So trying to treat them all the same I feel is risking little nasties creeping into your work.
And speaking of nasties, damn stuff I'm working on now has 16/48 audio cut with 12/32K, can't even imagine how the guy did it. Just noticed it looking at the display from the DSR-11. No wonder last time I worked on this guys stuff I thought some of the audio was real dodgy.

Bob.

One thing that drives me nuts about this whole vegas to sf and back again thing is that vegas won't seem to replace the audio file with the new version from sf if I save the copy in sf as anything new. This drives me nuts as I like to save my versions with a description of what I've done to it. This helps me 1- Find the new version quickly if I ever need to do with another program or a new vegas project, and 2) apply the same changes to new audio files that have similar problems to fix, etc. All of this is very handy if you ever have to leave a project and come back to it later.
I haven't heard anyone else complain, so maybe I'm alone here. One more quick tip, you can press 't' on your keyboard to toggle through the versions you've made in sf if you don't name them like I like to. That is very handy.

Didn't know anyone ever used the 12/32k option. Thought was was a majoy no-no.

Bob - Yes, I do understand what you are driving at. And I appreciate your depth of understanding on matters digital. That being said, it IS digital stuff. That's why we are here and that's why we do this stuff. It is easy and that which isn't, is possibly do-able. Until someone opens their gob/mouth nobody will know. That's also why I'm posting this and it is also why - maybe - musman feels that the simple thing he is wanting improved, " . . vegas won't seem to replace the audio file with the new version from sf if I save the copy in sf as anything new. "

Until I/we speak up and maybe start a "lobby" for improvements, maybe they wont happen! So Bob, knowing the problems and taking on board that which maybe the "brickwall" doesn't mean that I should not take a sledge/jack hammer to that wall - yeah? I'll leave the "technical" detail to others whose specialisms are just that. My value, I believe, is reflecting/saying when something is hurting.

I'm prespared to display my lack of knowledge . . . I'm also prepared to apologise if I've lost the plot on something . . .. I'm also prepared to speak up if I come across what I feel is a rather silly and awkward process . . . I hope others can put up with me doing this . .. yeah?

Best regards,

Grazie

Grazie,
digital, despite what Bill would have us believe isn't magic. I guess I just see too many red flags with the cut and paste thing. I've worked with some horrid audio edited on who knows what but whatever it was it didn't understand audio. Just about every cut had a glitch in it.
Look at times Word drives me nuts, I keep forgetting it's a word processor not a type setting program. So there's certain restrictions on what you can do, then you start mixing pictures with text in a Word document and things start to get messy cause they're different kinds of beast. Sure it all ends up as ink on a page so one could say it's all the same thing and they can both be represented digitally. But how and where you put them on the page is very different.

But back to your problem, I'm pretty certain you can select a region of audio in Vegas, copy it to the clipboard and open SF and past it in there. You should be able to do the reverse as well. But the question that just comes to mind is what do you want Vegas to do with it when you paste it back? Insert it as a take, replace whats there or mix it with what's there? This is where I get muddled in SF, you can do many things that you'd never want to do with video and at first I thought what a dumb program. Until I read a lot more about audio editing, as in dialogue and ADR type stuff. Then I could see why someone doing that kind of work where he'd make hundreds of edits in a few minutes of audio wants a tool that works that way.

Bob.