Hello, Peter! I'm from the video forum--just looking around. I noticed this thread on BWF.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not complaining. I'm very pleased with the upgrade! I'm just curious. I use a Marantz recorder that records BWF, among other things. Could you explain why BWF support didn't make into Vegas 5? More than anything, I'd be interested in learning more about the selection process.

Thanks!

J--

>>Could you explain why BWF support didn't make into Vegas 5?
Time and resources available given our deadlines.

Thank you, Peter! That makes a great deal of sense to me. I truly appreciate you taking the time to explain that. Much appreciated!

J--

See the OMF or Broadcast Wave File Support posting I have refreshed.

Any way I can convince you to offer this as a patch to vegas 5.
I really want to buy Vegas 5, but I cannot justify the purchase without
this feature being enabled. Cakewalk Sonar XL 2.2 and 3 have this feature, and I am thinking about buying that instead of Vegas only because it has that feature. If Vegas has that feature then I will buy vegas instead. Consider the sale pending on that feature. I have a company I consult for who is thinking about upgrading, and is deciding whether to do this or not. They want to buy 10-20 copies. I don't care if it is buggy, I still need the feature.
Thanks!

"Cakewalk Sonar XL 2.2 and 3 have this feature, and I am thinking about buying that instead of Vegas only because it has that feature. If Vegas has that feature then I will buy vegas instead."

That is so lame and obviously Peter's post must have went in one ear and out the other. I am so tired of hearing that kind of stuff. What do you think? The lack of Sony getting your $500 is going to make them spend $10,000 worth of resource time? There's other programs already available that will do what you are asking for and work in conjunction with Vegas's EDL support. I would consider that option or get Sonar 3.0 because it already does it. Why don't you tell us what Sonar doesn't have in comparison to Vegas, I get tired of hearing the 1 or 2 features it does have over Vegas.

>>Any way I can convince you to offer this as a patch to vegas 5.
Not my call and not likely to happen, but I will make sure it is discussed.

Ok, that is the threadI read before I responded.

We considered it, but it didn't make it in.

No promises - as we would get called on it if we did.


Peter

Dumb question here. Could someone give me a real world example of BWF? ProTools does not use this, do they? Where would my studio need this feature on a regular basis?

Thanks,

Thomas

I'm taking a good guess and saying BWF is similar to OMF format. Basically a standard format that will save the majority of your work, that is supported by multiple applications to allow you to transfer projects from one work station using Vegas, to another work station with another NLE/DAW editor installed. V5 has increased it's EDL support functionality which does the same type of thing, from what I understand not enough to include all the video aspects to do a transfer at this time. That's why I mentioned there is other tools that allow you to convert from EDL to OMF, and OMF to EDL, and EDL to BWF..etc.

Relax, guy --
There are about a million good features of Vegas 4 and DVD-Architect,
My only point is there is no need to upgrade for MY own purposes just yet.
One feature that I am thinking about is the import from ACID pro.
That might be worth the upgrade. I love vegas and I use it all the time. It is my favorite program next to photoshop and wavelab. I just want it to have one of the features of Inferior software such as cakewalk. Vegas is way better than cakewalk, and much more stable, and easier to use, etc... the list goes on.....But I REALLY want it to have just that one feature, BWF, and I am getting impatient, and tired of using cakewalk to do something Vegas should be able to do. I don't like working in Cakealk as much as Vegas.
Does that clarify things.....?

OMF is for pro tools import and export. I don't have pro tools
Broadcast Wave File is for MAckie HDD recorders, and several other
audio editing programs. A BWF is basically a SMPTE timestamped wave file. The time stamp aligns the audio perfectly with each other. One of the reasons is I am working on a movie on film (also some on video) and the audio is already recorded on the mackie, synced to the other cameras (one film one video) which have SMPTE on them. I would like to dump the hours of footage (audio) automatically into the computer VIA a USB data dump. Then I want ot align the audio automatically by importing it and aligning it to the timestamp. Also I use it for multichannel audio recorded by a band. I can automate the process of dumping by having vegas import them and line the tracks up....

"Relax, guy --"
I am relaxed. And I actually agree with you that it would be nice to have it in Vegas. Just like it would be nice to have Midi tracks, Rewire support, VSTi support, VST, TDM, RTA plugin support, Dolby Pro Logic II surround downmix features, OMF import/export, Nested Timelines...etc..etc..etc..But if you look at Peter's reply and understand it, there's a reason it's not in there. It's not that they're not listening and don't want it in there or haven't considered it, but there's a lot of features that users want and decisions have to be made in development of time and resources and the amount of users feeling limited by not having this in Vegas. I don't see what you're not understanding about that simple explaination and you act like if you're not going to spend your $500 on the program then that's going to make one bit of a difference if it gets in there in an update. Get real and come back to Earth.

Red,
now that i know what BWF format is I think you'll find that there's more than HIS $500 at stake here. This is always the problem with these forums. It's not what we want that really matters, we're mostly already commited to the product, its what those who aren't here need that needs to be addressed.
Take the issue of control surface. Perhaps very few people here wanted them. That doesn't mean they're not a mighty fine thing to have. Reason why, maybe not many people here didn't ask for them is because those who want them went elsewhere.
I'd add as a video guy they never got me that excited until we had them. Now that we have them and see what we can do with them many of the video guys are pretty excited about them.
You're right on the money though about people needing to realise why somethings do get done and some don't. At some point in time product has to go out the door so money can come in the door. One of the biggest causes of software companies going bust is ignoring that simple fact.
To go back to the BWF support issue, OK yes it'd be great to have but I suspect it's main appeal would be at the top end of this business, says film production, from what I can gather the kit that uses it is pretty damn expensive. So adding that feature in would mena Vegas may have appeal to those working there but presumably those guys have already got tools to get the job done. So to gain any sales from the development work you've not only got to have the feature set that they need, you've got to convince them to switch their toolset. As I'm sure you know, trying to get a pro in any field, be it media or woodworking to change from a tool that he's used for years to do a job is extremely difficult.

"I am working on a movie on film (also some on video) and the audio is already recorded on the mackie, synced to the other cameras (one film one video) which have SMPTE on them. I would like to dump the hours of footage (audio) automatically into the computer VIA a USB data dump. Then I want ot align the audio automatically by importing it and aligning it to the timestamp."

This makes sense to me. I'm working with MIDI via Cubase/Nuendo - which has BWF. And although I like those programs, they still don't crossfade like Vegas does. So for me, it will be a marriage between the two synced together.

"Also I use it for multichannel audio recorded by a band. I can automate the process of dumping by having vegas import them and line the tracks up...."

Again, I get this. But I don't think this is a strong argument for you. The Mackie hard disk recorder (to my knowledge) did not sell like gangbusters, so it's not going to weigh heavy in the decision making process. Important for you, I hear you.

I would hope that Sony gets and stays excited about Vegas and how well it does for being basically a two-headed monster. The fact that they haven't dropped out of the audio race is amazing to me. I'm glad they haven't. I have to crossfade....

There are many good reasons to add BWF support to Vegas. It would not only permit the import of time arranged media from hardware devices like the Mackie but even from other hosts with out the need for a EDL type script. It would also permit Vegas to export its tracks - sans crossfade information - to be used in other hosts.

peter

But then you have to manually line up the audio via the imprinted code, right? Regardless, if it is a good idea, hopefully it (along with other wishes) will find it's way into the program.

I have stopped relying on any (one) program to cure all my ills. Not to sound like a lunatic, but I was sure that Cubase/Nuendo would copy the ability to crossfade like Vegas does. I mean, to me, it seemed obvious. Now I go to the boards on the Nuendo site only to find out that their programs are actually creating clicks and pops as a result of crossfading. What to do? Pretty fundamental wrong in my (and obviously others) book. And no fix in sight.

So my mind starts to rationalize the move back to Vegas. Lo and behold, a new release! Now we can punch on the fly. That is necessary (and overdue). So I'll upgrade and support what I hope will continue to do good things, albeit a little slower than other programs.

One other thing that is telling:
"No other NLE provides as robust an audio feature set as Vegas software."

That statement alone tells you what Sony looks at Vegas as - an NLE. And yet they still R&D for the audio side. Hope that doesn't stop.

>>But then you have to manually line up the audio via the imprinted code,
right?

No. That is the whole point of using the timestamped audio. It will import to the point on the time line that it is stamped to.

>>"No other NLE provides as robust an audio feature set as Vegas software."

NAB centric speak. For a VERY long time, the video jocks of the world treated audio like the ugly step child that lives under the stairs. One guy for Video, one for audio. This is changing as users from both sides are beginning to learn and do what the others are doing and adopting it into their work flow. Still, being a good audio guy does not transfer into being a good video guy or visa versa.

"No. That is the whole point of using the timestamped audio. It will import to the point on the time line that it is stamped to."

Well then, although I do not plan on jumping on a wagon to complain about not having it, it seems like a nice feature to have. So that means that I could record BWF in Cubase and xfer that over to another DAW that uses BWF and not have to worry about the session file or re-rendering each track to start from zero? Am I right?

Yes, you are correct and I agree this is a great feature. Now we just need all the DAW software to agree upon a common format to make all of them compatible with each other.

YES!!! Exactly my point!!
This IS the common format, if everyone supported BWF then this would be a "common" format. You could work in cakewalk for midi stuff, vegas for audio stuff, and several other programs like pro tools and also Cubase / Nuendo, switching between these at will. All by implementing just this one single small feature. Pretty cool huh? What a great idea.

Sorry to butt in, I'd been reading this for some time and being mostly a video guy didn't see much need to get excited about BWF but yesterday I was looking at the Fostex FR2 field recorder and discovered it records in BWF with an option to record timecode so I can see the ability to import BWF being of interest to both the audio and the video folk.

Bob.