Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[OTR-jkl]

Todd Wilcox wrote on Tue, 09 November 2004 22:17

Also, I've just recently had some major rendering problems where the live playback did not match the render at all. I can't really figure out why that would be, since when rendering it should have all the time in the world to get it right, but I was VERY disappointed. Todd Wilcox

EXACTLY why I switched over to Samplitude7.

I can get a project out of Samp in at least 3 different ways and they all null with the original...

[ROUGHMIX1]

Interesting reading some comments about Vegas 5 and 4. I do know that SF (now Sony) DVD lowers the level considerably when I render to AC3. I love Vegas 4 and need some tall convincing to go to 5. But I hate the mouse mix for most stuff, and just love analog. Also hate fumbling on those such as Ramsa DA-7. Just added another Motu 828 (now 16 in and out) and going to try A to D (16 tracks) to A stereo mix to D, (with wonderful analog mixing pots, limiting, eq and hands on) back to D. Any comments on going back to analog? Lots of restoration at Sony came out in this manner (A to D to A to D). No one seemed to know or care. After all, aren't we listening to the mix in analog? Or am I just crazy? Or is it Me?
ROUGHMIX1
Don Meehan
donmeehan@cox.net

[brandondrury]

I'm still using Vegas 3.  I never saw much of a reason to upgrade.  The bus to bus routing is something I've always wanted, but not worth the price of Vegas 5 (as it would be the only reason I would "upgrade").

Everytime I've read a debates about the mixing algorithms, one guy will say that Vegas' algorithm sucks, the next guy will say that Pro Tools isn't that good, and another guy will say to use a summing bus.  No one agrees and when that is the case, the differences can't be that different.

Brandon