-
DVD Architecton 4/1/2003
Adobe Encore DVD
Unfortunately, it looks like the feature set will far surpass DVDA. I thought about getting DVDA, but I think for now I'll stick with my DVDIt LE until Encore comes out. I'll probably still get Vegas+DVD just to get the AC-3 encoder though.
-
Videoon 12/18/2000
Next version of Vegas?
I think I'll probably go with Mixtreme. My only hesitation is it's use of TDIF. I think that's a soon to be dead format. I just have to find a converter that doesn't cost so much. Thanks, Brett Sherman
-
Videoon 12/18/2000
Next version of Vegas?
You're missing one option. Abandon Vegas in favor of Cubase or Nuendo. Fortunately for SF I'm quite attached to Vegas. I just wish they'd get their hardware act together. So I'm returning the Delta 1010. Brett Sherman Karl Caillouet wrote: >>Your choice is pretty straight forward, look for alternate >>hardware, or use a different OS. >> >>Also see Peter Haller's post # 3792 back in early November >>regarding the WDM issue. >>
-
Videoon 12/17/2000
Next version of Vegas?
This is the official word from "M-Audio". "This is a fact that any non ASIO application unless specifically written for Windows 2000 will only get 1 stereo input and output. You can contact Sonic Foundry and they will give you the same answer. Currently only Cubase 5. 0 and Nuendo (ASIO programs) work correctly in windows 2000." I wish someone from SF would answer. And also say when their software will work fully with Windows 2000. Thanks, Brett
-
Videoon 12/16/2000
Next version of Vegas?
Is there any hardware that works with Windows 2000 and Vegas? Please inform me if there is. I'm having quite a difficult time finding it. At first I had a Gadget 824, now Delta 1010. Everyone claims it will work, but no one has delivered yet. Thanks, Brett
-
Videoon 12/15/2000
Next version of Vegas?
According to Delta the issue is Vegas and Windows 2000. They have drivers that work in Win2000 with Cubase. Also Channels 1 & 2 work in Vegas with Win2000. You just can't access all the channels. Of course it's hard to know for sure. Everyone seems to blame everyone else. The one thing for sure is that Microsoft did a very poor job with Windows 2000 as far as audio workstations are concerned. Brett
-
Videoon 12/14/2000
Vegas hangs when recording more than 13 tracks
Just because it works in Win2000 and not in 98 is not an implication of Vegas. It could be an OS/hardware problem. In other words, you're probably running into a bottleneck with your hardware. But Win2000 handles disk access a little better. Clearly others are able to record 13 or more tracks in Win98. So it has to be something particular to your system. Brett Sherman
-
Videoon 8/31/2000
TO SF techs: MAJOR BUG FOUND - PLEASE ADDRESS THIS SF
It states on the system requirements that Vegas Audio requires Windows 98 Second Edition (SE). If you're trying to run it on an older version of Win98, that may be part of the problem. There are some fundamental system differences between Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition. Karl Caillouet wrote: >>Absolutely ... Vegas Video (we just use the audio portion)is ROCK >>solid on our new DAW running Win2k ... said machine put together >>because we couldn't get VV to run reliably on our old Win98 box, for >>whatever reason. >> >>One caveat with the Delta's drivers for Win2k ... they do NOT work >>with machines with dual processors at this time. >> >>KAC ... >> >>George Marrero wrote: >> >>>>PS. Is anyone out there using WIN2K and has it been worth it? >>>> >>>>My system: >>>>P3-700 - 128meg ram - maudio Delta 66 - SBlive - Viper Ultra 770 - >>>>SCSI HD and ATA/66 HD - WIN98SE >>
-
Videoon 8/31/2000
A few serious bugs in Vegas 2.0a
Did you have the same problems with 1.0b? Just wondering whether I should wait to upgrade. Corrupt .veg files are a real problem. Chester Hull wrote: >>Yes, I sure have! Not so much the first one, but definitely the >>second. *.veg edit files becoming corrupted is something we deal with >>on a daily basis. Tech support has had no ideas for us. The only way >>we have of fixing it, is renaming the folder where the source files >>are stored, and then letting Vegas find the new files one by one. >>This works ok, but is only a temporary fix. We have had the "fixed" >>files crach again and again. >> >>The other problems we have had are missing codecs in the NTSC DV >>format, therefore disabling us from rendering projects, slow frame >>rates, even though they are listed as 29.97. This causes audio and >>video to be out of sync. >> >>Transitions that disappear. >> >>Missing or corrupted audio in rendered files. >> >>System Specs: PIII/450 with 256MB Ram, 13GB system drive, 18GB audio >>drive, 60GB Medea SCSI RAID video drive. >>Pyro OHCI 1394 card >>Matrox 400 DualHead video card >> >>As of now, we have a project completed and due for delivery next >>week, but are unable to render it at all! We are waiting for someone >>from Sound Forge to call us back with any kind of suggestions as to >>what to try next. We have used SF products for several years, and >>like them, but we are beginning to wonder with the bugs in Vegas >>Video 2.0a. >> >>If anyone here has any ideas, please post them or email them to me. >>Thanks! >> >>Chester Hull >>Production Manager >>Pro Sound Productions >>chester@prosoundproductions.com >>Glen Chambers wrote: >>>>Has anybody experienced.... >>>>a) Random crashes after recording a take, but not getting >>>>the opportunity to save it (Sound Forge's recovery feature >>>>would be lovely here) >>>> >>>>b) This is SERIOUS... .veg edit files becoming mysteriously >>>>corrupted and unopenable >>>> >>>>c) Moving the window sizes during playback causes stutter >>>>of sound (NEVER a problem with Vegas Pro 1.0b) >>>> >>>>This is a lovely piece of engineering, but these bugs >>>>(particular a + b) are heartburners...
-
Videoon 8/31/2000
wave form while recording in 2,0a
Hmmm. I have a G400 with version 1.0. It displays the waveform fine. Aaron Carey wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>>> I Tryed to record a track in vegas video and vegas audio >>>>>>>>2.0a but the waveforms doesn't show in the track event >>>>>>>>while recording, the opition DISPLAY WAVEFORM WHILE RECORDING >>is >> >> >>I never had that problem in win2k, until I put in a matrox g400, now >>I get the empty waveform view too...oh well, I LOVE this video card!!! >>Thanks Karl! >>small price to pay for no more IRQ conflicts and hopefully it will be >>fixed in the next update anyhow >>
-
Videoon 8/1/2000
You need new forum software
>>Good idea. Only drawback is: list of complaints may scare >>potential buyers... I'm always impressed with companies that are willing to discuss their bugs and faults. That's why I like SF. I'm leery of companies that don't have support forums or deny that bugs exist. I bought an After Effects plug-in a month ago that wouldn't work. Tech support claimed that no one had ever experienced the problem I had. Yesterday I got an email from them taughting release 2.2 that fixed the exact bug I described. They weren't being up front to begin with. I've used some other audio programs (Cakewalk) and quite frankly I don't think SF has anything to worry about as far as complaints go. Their stuff is so much more solid and useable. >> >>>>My suggestions: >>>>1. Hide all the responses to the original post and just put >>>>a number beside the post indicating how many responses >>>>there are. It is totally unneccesary to list the responses >>>>individually. >>Good, but not "enforceable", for reasons expressed above. I still think this is a good idea. I don't know why it's not "enforceable" >>Set preferences to 50 entries. Thanks for the tip. Never saw that before.
-
Videoon 7/31/2000
Where the ?#^!@ is 0db!
I'm surprised no one from Sonic Foundry has answered my question. This is the bottom line. I'm using only one stereo buss. I have a number of songs, I set them all so they peak at 0 db. I export to wave files. I open them up in Sound Forge XP. Now if Vegas were doing it's job properly, if I Normalize the file, it should remain unchanged because the peak is already at 0db. But guess what, Normalize increases the volume of the file. This means that Vegas is not saving 0db at 0db. What makes things worse is that the peaks of the different songs are at different levels. It seems like the more tracks a song has, the lower the volume. What is going on here? Certainly there has to be a reliable way in Vegas of knowing what the wave output is going to be. It's a problem because if the wave files come out quiet and I have to normalize them, then I've lost dynamic range and added noise. I want to be able to save a clean, full volume file from Vegas but can't seem to accomplish that. Could someone from SF please explain how Vegas sets the level when you save to a Wave file. Also is there a workaround so that I can get a full volume Wave file out of Vegas.
-
Videoon 7/24/2000
Bug reporting
I have version 1.0 build 133 installed from a CD. Charles de Montebello wrote: >>actually this may have been fixed in 1.0b... I can't remember since I >>took it off my system and use 2.0 now. >> >>Brett Sherman wrote: >>>>Is there any process for reporting of bugs in Vegas? >>>> >>>>I have a relatively minor one that I'll mention here, but >>>>there may be a more effecient process I'm not aware of. >>>> >>>>Basically, you can not use any slashes in a trackname >>>>because it will crash on recording. The reason it crashes >>>>is because it automatically names the wave file for >>>>whatever you name the track. This creates an illegal >>>>filename for windows and crashes the program. >>>> >>>>Pretty minor, but it took me a good long while to figure >>>>that one out. >>>> >>>>Brett Sherman
-
Videoon 7/15/2000
How come my butt hurts whenever I visit this forum?
to shame all of the RTAS, Soundscape,VST, and DSP farm companies into coding their plugs for direct-x, or even vegas only.>> It seems like there would be a lot of money to be made by a company porting their plug-ins to DirectX. If it is as easy as SF suggests I would think they'd be trying a lot harder. If indeed Digidesign/Avid is pulling the strings that could be a problem. Avid has a long history of nasty monopolistic practices with video editing systems, so it wouldn't really suprise me if they're up to the same old tricks. I really like the way Vegas works, but unfortunately if the professional plug-ins aren't developed I may have to jump ship. So, note to SF, you're Vegas's survival is VERY dependent on getting 3rd party plug-in writers to support you. Clearly, you need to take a more proactive role or you will let Digidesign control the marketplace.
-
Videoon 5/5/2000
Vegas 2.0
About the track settings. In addition to being able to copy track settings from project to project, it would be great to be able to store various settings within the project. For clarification purposes I'll call this feature "mixer settings" For example, let's say the vocalist likes a certain mix when he records. I set up the faders how he likes them. Then after that I record the bass player who likes a different mix, so I alter the mix. Now lets say we want to go back and record the vocals again. Now I have to remember how the vocalist wanted it and adjust all the levels again. Also this way you could try out different mixes very easily. Burn each one off to CD and send it out for feedback. Then go back and select the best one. This is how I'd do it. At the top, beside the icons I'd put a pull down menu. Put a "create icon" beside it. If you want to create a new mixer setting you click that icon. You name it and it goes in the list in the pull down menu. If that setting is selected any alterations to levels, pan, aux busses, bus assignments, Track Effects, etc. are stored in that setting. You would also add a checkbox list of the things you wanted to store. if for example you only wanted the volume levels to change you would just check "Volume". So each parameter would have a global setting too. So if an item is not checked such as "Track Effects" and you alter it in one mixer setting the change would be applied to all "mixer settings" that don't have that item checked. It may sound confusing, but it's clear in my head at least. These are the settings I'd put on a checkbox list: Volume Volume Envelopes Pan Pan Envelopes Levels for FX1, FX2, etc. FX Envelopes AuxA, AuxB, etc. Aux Envelopes Track FX (this would mean all track FX) Mixer levels (the sliders in the mixer window) Buss Effects (any effects applied to a buss or FX or AUX) Window Positions (are the tracks expanded or collapsed, how big is the track window, etc.)
-
Videoon 2/24/2000
Which Os?
Testify, brother. I couldn't agree more. Lack of NT/2000 support with audio hardware manufacturers is a huge problem. The first one that comes up affordable hardware with solid drivers is going to get a lot of sales. Here I am I want to buy hardware, but have nowhere to spend my money. Basically, it's a lost sale for now. >>If companies would get off thier developing >>arses and start getting well-written (I stress well-written) drivers >>for NT, I don't think there would be any issues. There's also a wide >>range of supported HW for NT (RAID controlelrs, video cards, etc.), >>which will give it the edge. .
-
Videoon 2/20/2000
Your ideal computer?
Let me echo some thoughts here as well as add my own. Definitely get a custom-built computer. You have many more options. The number PCI slots in name brand computers are severly limiting. They often cut corners on their motherboards. Also their customization options are limited. I'd recommend Windows 2000 also except for this caveat. The audio hardware manufacturers are very slow in embracing the new OS. I've been searching in vain for some affordable multi-track audio hardware that can run under Windows 2000. But they'll get there sooner or later. Someone also mentioned UltraSCSI. UltraSCSI is great, but very pricey. As an alternative look at setting up an IDE RAID 0 system. The throughput is slightly faster than a single UltraSCSI drive, but a lot less expensive. Go to www.promise.com for more info Get dual monitors!!! I can't stress this one enough. You'll work twice as fast. Plus, it is actually cheaper to get two 17" monitors than one 21". Vegas Pro is also designed for it. The only card I know that supports two monitors is the Matrox G400. I just purchased a new system, but haven't gotten it yet. I let you know when it comes in. But, here are the specs. AMD Athlon 650mhz processor 128 mb RAM (more is preferable, but RAM is very expensive right now, I'll upgrade later) Promise Fastrack IDE Raid 0 with 2 20 Gig Ultra DMA drives Matrox G400 dual monitor card Windows 2000 CD-R with 8x record 2 NEC FE700 monitors. (they are great monitors at about $250 each) Of course I also got a modem, sound card, etc. The whole system (minus the monitors) was 2027.00. I ordered it from Polywell Computers. www.polywell.com. Brett Sherman
-
Videoon 2/20/2000
DirectX FX as Track Inserts
Your suggestions are good as workarounds, but it's not the same as what I was suggesting. When you export to Sound Forge it doesn't export your settings for TrackFX does it? So you have to recreate those. Now let's say, you want to change one of your trackFX later. With the way I'm suggesting you would just move a slider in your trackFX and the clip would become unrendered with everything still intact. You could render it again or opt to leave it real-time. With the way you're suggesting I'd have to find the old track wav file. Insert in a new track. Open it in Sound Forge and recreate all my trackFX settings. That seems like a lot of work to move an EQ point. Brett Sherman jimm wrote: >>To use off-time processing; right click your track and open it in >>Sound Forge, when you "save" the changes appear back in Vegas. I >>duplicate (drag off) my tracks in Sound Forge so as to not loose the >>original track. That way you can always go back if you later don't >>like the changes. >> >>For rendering sub-mixes; solo the tracks you want, click on 'Tools' >>and choose 'Mix to new track'. >>
-
Videoon 2/20/2000
DirectX FX as Track Inserts
Unfortunately, I don't have Sound Forge. It's becoming clear that to really use Vegas you have to have Sound Forge too. This ups the price from a $500 piece of software, to a $900 piece of software. It seems that Sonic Foundry ought to bundle the two together for a more affordable price. If I have to have both programs for it to work well why wouldn't I just go out and get a Digidesign Digi 001 system? For the same price I can also get the hardware. Believe me I'm thinking about it hard. Sorry to knock SF, but they need to compete or risk losing business. If I had the money from buying Vegas Pro back again. I would be buying Digidesign's Digi 001. More value for the money. Bottom-line. The subtext is that I think SF needs to lower their prices. Especially Sound Forge. I think this program should be more in the $150-200 range for what it does. And it should be packaged with Vegas Pro for an additional $100. The other option would be to make Vegas Pro function better on its own, so you don't have to buy another piece of software. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm just being honest. Brett Sherman jimm wrote: >>To use off-time processing; right click your track and open it in >>Sound Forge, when you "save" the changes appear back in Vegas. I >>duplicate (drag off) my tracks in Sound Forge so as to not loose the >>original track. That way you can always go back if you later don't >>like the changes. >> >>For rendering sub-mixes; solo the tracks you want, click on 'Tools' >>and choose 'Mix to new track'. >> >> >>Brett Sherman wrote: >>>>This is the paradox: >>>> >>>>Users say, "We want all directX effects available as >>>>inserts" >>>> >>>>Sonic Foundry says, "To maintain real-time processing only >>>>certain effects will work" >>>> >>>>There is a solution. Who says all processing has to be real- >>>>time. If the processor can't handle the throughput a user >>>>should be able to selectively render an effect. This is a >>>>feature that Sonic Foundry has overlooked. It would also >>>>allow users to control CPU bottlenecks. If you can't get as >>>>many tracks as you want, simply render some of the effects >>>>and viola, more tracks. This feature could also be >>>>implemented to create sub-mixes. >>>> >>>>Yes this would all require more disk space and some file >>>>management on Vegas Pro's part. I suspect the latter is why >>>>the feature is not there. Sure it's a pain in the ass to do >>>>file management and probably would take a lot of effort to >>>>design it so it works well. But, the power of such a >>>>feature would be well worth it. >>>> >>>>I agree with most people on this thread that not being able >>>>to put any directX effect as a track effect is SEVERELY >>>>limiting. I just bought XFX 2 which has some really cool >>>>compression effects. Guess what, they are practically >>>>useless because none of them can be used as track FX. >>>>Clearly this is an issue that Sonic Foundry must address. >>>>Using Aux sends is not an elegant solution and is a stop >>>>gap measure at best. >>>> >>>>Damn good version 1.0 software though. Keep working and >>>>it'll be the best audio software out there. >>>>
-
Videoon 2/7/2000
Merge Project Files?
Always looking for ways to improve the program. But, how about being able to open two projects within one Vegas Program. It might be difficult because of the way the interface is set up. The program timeline would have to be in its own window. Just a thought. Dave Hill wrote: >>Merging multiple projects is pretty easy- open Vegas 2 times, (two >>copies of Vegas running simultaneously). >> >>You can open projects, make selections, and copy/paste whatever you >>want between the two running apps. As long as you aren't playing back >>in both simultaneously, you won't get much (if any) performance hit. >> >>A simple method for merging your scenes into a master project would >>be to create a new project in Vegas copy1, then open your existing >>projects one at a time in Vegas copy2, /selecting/copying/pasting >>your edited scenes in the right order in Vegas copy1. It might be >>helpful to drop in some markers so you know where the pre-edited >>scenes begin/end. Depending on how the tracks were laid out in your >>existing pre-merged projects, you may or may not want to create new >>tracks when you paste into copy1. Save the new composited project and >>you're there.
-
Videoon 2/7/2000
multiple hard drives
RAID setups technically record on multiple drives. But, it acts as one logical drive. With RAID 0 you get double throughput, but no redundancy. I plan to set up my new system this way to double disk throughput. With RAID 1 and higher you get redundancy so if one of your drives crash you still have all the information. It doesn't improve performance much. Karl Caillouet wrote: >>You would likely need a RAID setup and controller in order to do >>this ... and, even then, you would most likely be limited to your >>current RAID configuration with regard to which drives were recorded >>to ... IOW, you probably wouldn't have a great deal of choice in the >>matter. >> >>I am sure that you have a valid reason for wanting to do this ... but >>it sure escapes me at the moment. :) >> >>KAC...
-
Videoon 2/5/2000
DirectX in Track FX?
This is the paradox: Users say, "We want all directX effects available as inserts" Sonic Foundry says, "To maintain real-time processing only certain effects will work" There is a solution. Who says all processing has to be real-time. If the processor can't handle the throughput a user should be able to selectively render an effect. This is a feature that Sonic Foundry has overlooked. It would also allow users to control CPU bottlenecks. If you can't get as many tracks as you want, simply render some of the effects and viola, more tracks. This feature could also be implemented to create sub-mixes. Yes this would all require more disk space and some file management on Vegas Pro's part, but power of such a feature would be well worth it. I agree with most people on this thread that not being able to put any directX effect as a track effect is SEVERELY limiting. I just bought XFX 2 which has some really cool compression effects. Guess what, they are practically useless because none of them can be used as track FX. Clearly this is an issue that Sonic Foundry must address. Using Aux sends is not an elegant solution and is a stop gap measure at best. Tony Chamberlist wrote: >>I don't think it's that ridiculous...users want LOTS of tracks, and I >>think SF just wanted to make the program as efficient as possible...I >>mean, I make it work great on an AMD k2 400 for gawd's sake! Let the >>plug in makers (Waves etc) build products that are efficient enough >>to meet this special criteria so the program continues to work well. >>By the way Ty, I took your advice..went with the Motu 2408. Can't >>wait to get my PIII rocking! >>By the way Ty, do you fiddle with virtual memory settings in Windows >>or do you leave them alone?
brettsherman
Offline, Member since 2/2/2001