I like the Matrox G400 Dual Head. It is fast card and only takes up
one slot. Windows seems to like it and it has NT support.

This is not a SF endorsement, but what I use.

Peter


Thomas Kay wrote:
>>Does anyone have the optimal suggestion for running two
>>monitors? I'm not looking to go cheap here- both value and
>>reliability would be nice, though.

I'm also using a Matrox G400 Dual Head. I've never had any problems
whatsoever. One head can be a TV out if you feel so inclined, it
comes with a cabled adapter to do this.

Peter Haller wrote:
>>I like the Matrox G400 Dual Head. It is fast card and only takes up
>>one slot. Windows seems to like it and it has NT support.
>>
>>This is not a SF endorsement, but what I use.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>Does anyone have the optimal suggestion for running two
>>>>monitors? I'm not looking to go cheap here- both value and
>>>>reliability would be nice, though.

This question is probably why they don't make endorsements ... is
there any sense in going over the default 16 MB G400 in a standalone,
strictly audio DAW running Vegas?

I've waited long enough, I am going to order one from Matrox's online
outlet as soon as I hear back. :)

KAC...

Andrew Linhart wrote:
>>I'm also using a Matrox G400 Dual Head. I've never had any
problems

I have the 32MB version mainly because all my programmer buddies
wanted to see how well it runs Unreal Tournament ;>. It stands to
reason though that the more you can buffer on the card the better. i
have been able to have ACID, DSPFX windows, Vegas, and LUI all on
screen at the same time while laying 8 tracks and playing 16 in Vegas
+ 10 or more loops in ACID w/out a hiccup :)!!!!!!

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>This question is probably why they don't make endorsements ... is
>>there any sense in going over the default 16 MB G400 in a
standalone,
>>strictly audio DAW running Vegas?
>>
>>I've waited long enough, I am going to order one from Matrox's
online
>>outlet as soon as I hear back. :)
>>
>>KAC...

I have the 32 meg version. Just what I have. I always believed the
more memory the more colors. With running two 19" displays at the
highest resolution and deepest bit depth, it would seem the more
memory the better.

Considering the performance that I get from this card, the price is
dirt cheap. (I remember when I paid almost $1000 for a TIGA card when
true color was a dream, and 1024x768 was considered hi res. Remember
when you could actually see the cards fall when you won at Solitiare?
) Look at CDW, the price is pretty low vs the Matrox site. Peter Karl Caillouet wrote: >>This question is probably why they don't make endorsements ... is >>there any sense in going over the default 16 MB G400 in a standalone, >>strictly audio DAW running Vegas? >> >>I've waited long enough, I am going to order one from Matrox's online >>outlet as soon as I hear back. :) >> >>KAC... >> >>Andrew Linhart wrote: >>>>I'm also using a Matrox G400 Dual Head. I've never had any >>problems

Thanks, Peter and Andrew ..

The CDW price with shipping was the same price as the Matrox without.
The card is on the way ... I'll let you guys know how it goes.

KAC....

Peter Haller wrote:
>>
>>I have the 32 meg version. Just what I have. I always believed the
>>more memory the more colors. With running two 19" displays at the
>>highest resolution and deepest bit depth, it would seem the more
>>memory the better.

Please let me know. I am really curious how you find the performance
on this card. I have seen dramatic improvements in the way Vegas
tracks multiple inputs as well as over all better UI responsivness
during playback and tracking.

Peter


Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Thanks, Peter and Andrew ..
>>
>>The CDW price with shipping was the same price as the Matrox
without.
>>The card is on the way ... I'll let you guys know how it goes.
>>
>>KAC....
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I have the 32 meg version. Just what I have. I always believed
the
>>>>more memory the more colors. With running two 19" displays at the
>>>>highest resolution and deepest bit depth, it would seem the more
>>>>memory the better.
>>

Greetings Peter,

UPDATE: The Matrox G400 Dual Head/32MB video card is installed and
the improvement in Vegas is, as you say, DRAMATIC.

No more pops and clicks induced into the audio files while recording
and minnimizing the screen is no longer a necessity to get clean
recordings.

AAMOF, I tried pretty hard to get Vegas to barf or induce the old
clicks and pops in recorded audio by changing tracks sizes and screen
lengths, and clicking on various tracks, all while recording 24
tracks at once ... to no avail.

Vegas now runs and responds much more smoothly to GUI interaction
than previously ... and I know that this has got to be psychosomatic,
but damned if it doesn't also *sound* better ... just kidding. ;)

All in all, I would say that the overall improvement is worth triple
the price of the card.

Thanks for the suggestion. It has made Vegas even more of a pleasure
to work with ... and it further proves our original contention that
our particular problem was a video/display issue all along because
of the fact that minnimizing Vegas during recording was previously
the only way to get clean audio when recording even one or two tracks.

FWIW ... the card that came out of the DAW was a PCI bus Daytona 8MB
S3 Virge.

KAC ...

Peter Haller wrote:

>>Please let me know. I am really curious how you find the
performance on this card. I have seen dramatic improvements in the
way Vegas tracks multiple inputs as well as over all better UI
responsivness during playback and tracking.

Very cool. This is exactly what I found when I switched. Doesn't mean
we aren't looking for ways to optmize Vegas for other cards, but it
is dramatic isn't it.

I forget, what audio hardware are you using?

Thanks
Peter


Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Greetings Peter,
>>
>>UPDATE: The Matrox G400 Dual Head/32MB video card is installed and
>>the improvement in Vegas is, as you say, DRAMATIC.
>>
>>No more pops and clicks induced into the audio files while
recording
>>and minnimizing the screen is no longer a necessity to get clean
>>recordings.
>>
>>AAMOF, I tried pretty hard to get Vegas to barf or induce the old
>>clicks and pops in recorded audio by changing tracks sizes and
screen
>>lengths, and clicking on various tracks, all while recording 24
>>tracks at once ... to no avail.
>>
>>Vegas now runs and responds much more smoothly to GUI interaction
>>than previously ... and I know that this has got to be
psychosomatic,
>>but damned if it doesn't also *sound* better ... just kidding. ;)
>>
>>All in all, I would say that the overall improvement is worth
triple
>>the price of the card.
>>
>>Thanks for the suggestion. It has made Vegas even more of a
pleasure
>>to work with ... and it further proves our original contention that
>>our particular problem was a video/display issue all along because
>>of the fact that minnimizing Vegas during recording was previously
>>the only way to get clean audio when recording even one or two
tracks.
>>
>>FWIW ... the card that came out of the DAW was a PCI bus Daytona
8MB
>>S3 Virge.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>
>>>>Please let me know. I am really curious how you find the
>>performance on this card. I have seen dramatic improvements in the
>>way Vegas tracks multiple inputs as well as over all better UI
>>responsivness during playback and tracking. >>