Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID -ACID Product Family

ACID Product Family

Subject:Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Posted by: Jacose Date:7/15/2002 9:11:54 PM Lets face it, Acid is the king of looping. With SX or Sonar, it an annoying process trying to get loops to work. This is my idea... you know how you have in vegas or acid, when you clik on the left area, it says "insert video track, insert, audio track" or whatever? Make it so that in acid, you get these options: Insert LOOPING track Insert AUDIO RECORDING (vegas style) track Insert MIDI track Insert Automation track Insert Video track I dont think ACID should run multiple video tracks, leave that to Vegas. But I DO THINK THAT ON AN AUDIO RECORDING TRACK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECORD MORE THAN ONE THING WITHIN THE TRACK!!!! and you should make the tracks more similar to vegas. As far as a looping track, you should leave that for the loops, make it so any thing in that track loops to the tempo and is affected by tempo changes, just like acid. EDIT::::(one loop per track) MIDI tracks should be nice and easy to use, similar to fruity,double clikc on it and the MIDI editor opens up, nice controller automation. AND VSTi and REWIRE are a must.!!! (well at least vst and vsti) however, this puts alot on SoFo's plate, and I doubt we're gonna see it in one release........but it would be nice to be surepirsed by a software company for once (besides Imageline) I really hope this is gonna happpen, cause I cant stand working in all these seperate applications, and fruity vsti is making me lean towards cubase SX BUT I DONT WANNA LEARN HOW TO LOOP IN THAT PROGRAM!!!!! I like yours. EDIT: basically Im looking to do OVERDUBS!!! on the same track.. hopefully youll listen someday!!! ----jk
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: bartchilders Date:7/17/2002 9:55:40 AM I dont think ACID should run multiple video tracks, leave that to Vegas. But I DO THINK THAT ON AN AUDIO RECORDING TRACK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECORD MORE THAN ONE THING WITHIN THE TRACK!!!! and you should make the tracks more similar to vegas HERE HERE! If I had to pick one new feature for ACID 4.0 - that would be it.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/17/2002 1:45:03 PM Even tho the release is probably finished...PLEASE PUT THIS IN THERE!! LOL LOL
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/24/2002 9:25:00 AM so what does anyone else think about this???
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/24/2002 9:54:47 AM Acid 4.0 should only enhance what the original spirit of Acid is intended to do - create via loops. Acid is not (and has never been) useful as a multitrack app - adding audio multitrack to this app will just further bog it down and introduce a whole new set of bug issues. If you want real multitrack - stick with Vegas. There is no substitute. Acid didn't get to be #1 by piling on all kinds of extra un-needed code. In my workflow - I actually like prepping my loop structures in Acid and then dumping the whole thing over to Vegas to finish up. Also - from a pure marketing angle - Sonic Foundry offers a three pronged media toolbox (SoundForge, Acid and Vegas) for a number of reasons: 1. Financial - 3 affordable apps will obviously count for more revenue than one expensive one(if they wanted to pile everything into one app, SF would offer a mess like Sonar) 2. Workflow - most folks have specific tasks they need to perform and they would like a choice. Me - I don't want to buy any functionality that I don't need. If you are primarily an editor - go to Forge....if you create...go to Acid and to wrap it all together - bring it into Vegas for fit, finish and assembly. 3. Development ease - having all the code for one giant app in one pot would be a programming nightmare. Keeping 3 apps that perform specific tasks allows for faster and cleaner dev, better service updates and overall a more solid product. Modularity is critical in any software development task. Just a few thoughts... Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Chienworks Date:7/24/2002 12:37:18 PM The one problem with having multiple sources in a single track is that it destroys the simple paintbrush interface that makes ACID such a breeze to use. It would be most annoying to have to specify which source you were painting with each time. As it is now, if you paint in the acoustic guitar track, you know you're getting acoustic guitar. This is what ACID is for.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jessariah Date:7/24/2002 1:40:09 PM I agree with Kelly. The more you try to make a single app do, the more watered-down everything is going to be. I would much rather pay to have specific tools for a task than have one app that tries to "do it all." It hurts us all in the long run, because those of us who might benefit from VEGACIFORGE 1.0 would probably not see 2.0 for several years, because the demand wouldn't be as great -- all the "loop only," "video only" and "edit only" users out there would switch to something else, rather than pay for features they don't want.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: bartchilders Date:7/24/2002 4:47:01 PM I dunno. This really isn't asking for much. What this request boils down to is: being able to have different WAV files in a single ONE-SHOT track. This isn't a huge leap of functionality to add. This is a very small, incremental feature that I would wager would be enormously useful to a significant portion of ACID users. It would not diminish or impede any other function within ACID. I'm sure this is all moot anyway.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: zendar Date:7/24/2002 5:32:49 PM i agree with cuzinB
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: MacMoney Date:7/24/2002 6:01:12 PM >i agree with cuzinB. I second that. George Ware
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Iacobus Date:7/26/2002 12:53:23 PM I concur as well. Iacobus
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/27/2002 1:09:22 AM this is ridiculous! Its not that complicated. you could have different KINDS of trax... you dont even HAVE to use the Audio-track of you dont want to. The paintbrush interface would still work EXCEPT with the AUdiotrack. All I want is integration. it is truly retarded to have to go and render in fruity, render in acid, then put it in Vegas. It should all be in ACID. the vsti support for fruity, and the multitracking opf vegas. and maybe keep that one track video support. I dont think you people understand me.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/27/2002 10:47:09 AM Jacose, No - I think we understand you quite clearly - you want Acid to do it all. If that's what you want - don't bother with Acid - just move to Sonar and be done with it. One more time - I love Acid for what it does now and I hope that 4.0 just elevates it to a whole new level. I don't want Acid to be a multitracker and I don't want to pay for a pile of "extras" that will either: a) Force more bugs to appear b) Slow down the app anymore than it already is c) Impede my (and many others) SF integrated workflow by trying to be a "super" app. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: zendar Date:7/27/2002 12:26:53 PM at the risk of repeating myself... :)
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: MacMoney Date:7/27/2002 9:46:54 PM Same
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/27/2002 11:56:41 PM nah you dont understand. one little option is not going to drastically alter the code of Acids audio engine, im no programmer but that is ridiculous. youre saying that the OPTION (READ: O P T I O N ) of being able to record more than one thing in a track (a different KIND of track, jesus theres already 3 kinds as it is!!!!) will CRASH THE WHOLE THING!!>>>>!?!?!??! thats ignorant IMHO. BTW.. sonar sucks. and cubase sucks. I dont wanna learn them. I want to record, and compose. Sonic foundry has always added on new features (MIDI,Automation,etc...) WITHOUT ruining the system. to say that such a simple feature added on to a program such as this would crash it is not innovative, and the only viable upgrade for acid would be rewire/Vsti support.. But WAIT!! wouldnt this just be TOO complex????? Look, I have seen you people on this board as I browse and I think you are pretty intelligent people and I have respect for you. But I totally disagree with this opinion and feel it flies in the face of logic. I have trusted S.F. as a reliable company making reliable products that are COMPLEX yet simple to use, with innovative features and yet a great GUI. a simple plug and play solution, you could say, you plug in the input, and record! Adding a stinkin audio track option is the gnat compared to the camel that sonic foundry has already metaphorically gulped down, IMO. ----whatever.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/28/2002 8:05:24 AM Jacose, I think you are getting a little carried away with your "suggestion". There is nothing wrong with making a suggestion - maybe SF will in fact read it and do something about it, however...this... "I dont think ACID should run multiple video tracks, leave that to Vegas. But I DO THINK THAT ON AN AUDIO RECORDING TRACK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECORD MORE THAN ONE THING WITHIN THE TRACK!!!! and you should make the tracks more similar to vegas." With all kinds of caps and shouting doesn't help. Also - back to your suggestion (after much head scratching from me)I hope I have this straight - For example - You would like Acid to be able to have a bass guitar note, a piano stab, a synth line and a drum hit all to fall within a single "audio" track as a series of one shots - right? So - given the design of Acid (which is right on the money), how the hell am I going to mix this mess? If they all go onto one "audio" track as you suggest, then I will only get one fader to control it all? I (and probably everyone else the least bit serious about their mix) want granular control of all aspects of the recording. In this example, I want/need 4 faders to control each individual one shot for mixdown or render to take to Vegas or Cubase SX or something. Acid already does this just like I want it, thank you. And Vegas operates the same way. I guess you could pile up a bunch of one shots on a Vegas track but why - it would just ruin the mix possibility. In my world, every single sound or passage need a separate track. Again - don't mean any disrespect but your request (If i understand it correctly) would probably not enhance Acid, it would just confuse it further. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/28/2002 5:04:19 PM You would like Acid to be able to have a bass guitar note, a piano stab, a synth line and a drum hit all to fall within a single "audio" track as a series of one shots - right? WRONG (excuse the caps) for loops,EDIT-Or one shots fo that matter) the normal type of Acid track is truly best. putting different loops in the same track would indeed be a mixing nitemare. But for RECORDING AUDIO, a vegas Style Track is better, since you can so easy overdubs and stuff like that. I was just saying you should be able to drop a vegas style track in ACID. I am pushing for integration. Fruityloops and reason have both taken steps toward integration thru synchronization. (Vsti, rewire) I think it would be ultimately great if I could have my ENTIRE arrangement (loops and Fruity vsti) alongside my recorded tracks. better mixing and composing would surely result. And there would be less wasted time. I strongly URGE sofo to use this feature. Now I know my suggestion was misunderstood, likely my fault. sorry.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/28/2002 6:45:36 PM Jacose, "But for RECORDING AUDIO, a vegas Style Track is better, since you can so easy overdubs and stuff like that. I was just saying you should be able to drop a vegas style track in ACID." You can already do this - by dumping your project over to Vegas. That's the way I do it. Are you saying you don't want to buy Vegas or are you saying your time is much too valuable that you need Acid to include all the functionality of the rest of the Sonic Foundry family of fine products? Which takes us right back to the "super-app" concept which will never happen. As far as integration goes - I love all three apps and I am not bothered by rendering and importing tracks. My music matters and I will take the whatever time is required to do it right no matter where I am in the SF chain of applications. Saving a few seconds here and there due to some half baked intergration is not going to make a huge difference to me in the end. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: SHTUNOT Date:7/29/2002 1:14:12 AM So then what would YOU like to see happen in the next version of acid? With all this VIDEO crap being thrown in do you think that THAT isn't mucking up the works for a Looping program? A guy asks for a AUDIO feature enhancement and thats "CRAZY" but I bet you there will be some more video crap introduced into version4 that you all will think is sweet.If sofo wants my upgrade money it better be worth it...I passed on version 2. I thought that version 3 finally gave me a reason to do it. I'm fine if acid stays "just a looping app". If I ever needed to use anything else I just pop into my copy of Sonar 2.0XL and finish my project using whatever sofo decided NOT to add to Acid or Vegas[DX automation,dxi's,rewire support,hardware controller support,omf,etc...]. Later.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: zendar Date:7/29/2002 7:05:38 AM yes, but so far i've always been able to just turn off the video "features", and sf always refines the interface between whole number revisions. there was a huge wishlist thread a while back that covered basic wishes such as reverse and pitch envelopes, plus newer thoughts about beat chopping and sequencing. these are the areas that i think acid should be looking at - to me no matter what sonar steals it'll never do it as well - acid is like its own little world and the link with sound forge and vegas is the right way to work for me. I agree that there could be more options on project export between acid and vegas, but mashing the app styles together would be a mess I reckon.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/29/2002 7:52:29 AM ITS ONE TINY FRIGGING FEATURE!!!! lol I dont understand you people. youre so weird! (BTW..im not too lazy to export, Ive already done it many many MANYT MANY times./... thats the point!!! you have to remiz, export, change and eq remix export, IT would be SO much easier to have it SIDE BY SIDE!!!!!!!! that you can change!!!)
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Spirit Date:7/29/2002 8:50:05 AM I'm with you Jacose, I'd like to give Fruity the flick and be able to program VSTi instruments direct in Acid. I find it tedious to compose drum tracks and VSTi bassliness in Fruity then render, dump them in Acid and then think: "Oh, I'd better go back and render another with a bit more X". Why should I use two apps for something so simple ? And the suggestion to "go and use Sonar" is mighty strange: aren't we all talking about Acid and what we'd like it to do ? It's one thing for Acid to remain true to its original concept. And I agree that you don't want to choke a great app with lots of junk and useless chrome, but Acid is not the supreme app it once was. Software and hardware keep advancing. All audio apps whether they be Logic, Fruity, VST, Orion or Sonar have all had huge improvements and additions made to their functionality. This has not destroyed them, it has enhanced them. It has kept them competitive. If all people want is some slightly tweaked version of Acid without further major functional advances, then why even bother talking about version 4 ? Perhaps just a bug-free 3.2 is what you're after ? Fair enough too, if that's what you want. It's a valid idea to make Acid simply the world's best, slimmest and most stable looping audio app. But I want version 4. I want VSTi and Dxi and ASIO and true MIDI functionality and a drum grid and some good instruments thrown in as well. And that's just for starters. I want AcidPro4 to be a valid alternative to VST and Logic. I don't want Acid to remain a simple audio looping app, but neither do I want AcidForge or AcidVideo. Hell, I've got great faith in SoFo, surely they're not so frightened of tinkering with the precious purity of Acid that they're incapable of stepping up. It'll be interesting to see which way SoFo goes: the super audio looper or the VST MIDI app.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/29/2002 9:30:13 AM thank you for listening!
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/29/2002 9:50:16 AM Jacose/Spirit, It's not that the rest of us are not listening and I am not saying that I do not want some additional functionality (Spirit) - I am just being realistic. If adding "Vegas-Style" functionality to Acid was so easy, don't you think that SF would have addressed this already? Do you honestly think that you are the first person to come up with this idea? Do you honest believe that SF would make Acid a "super-app" so their user base would abandon the rest of their products? I don't think you understand the business side of these offerings. SF already upset a good chunk of the user base by removing CD Architect intergration with SoundForge and moved a subset of it over to VV3. It would be ridiculous for them to move a subset of Vegas over to Acid...what would we need Vegas for? And to address VSTi...one more time - this is a Steinberg technology. If SF could swing something license-wise with VST, we probably would have seen it already. If 4.0 does have it - count on paying for it bigtime - DXi is a better possibility. I hope they do not tinker with the precious purity of this app to the point where it becomes another useless MIDI or DXi instrument. I have enough of those already. Finally - now that I think about it - I would pay actually pay extra for a totally bugfree 3.2 :) Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: spiral_scratch Date:7/29/2002 11:33:35 AM I guess we will all find out for certain soon...but when I think about what could be in Acid 4 I keep going back to the announcement that Yamaha made about their OPT (open plug technology), currently endorsed by Sonic Foundry and....Cakewalk. Apparently Sonar is OPT compliant. Funnily enough, in Japan Yamaha box a sequencer that looks very much like an OEM Sonar. They also throw a Japanese version of Acid into some of their tone generator boxes. It's not outside the realms of possibility Yamaha have talked to these 2 vendors and that if Acid 4.0 is enabled with OPT, a SONAR user could hook straight into it. You would then have all the midi-editing and softsynth benefits that SONAR could give you, with all the kool loop-handling characteristics of Acid. The development team wouldn't have to then continually play catch-up and bolt on to get some sort of half decent midi implementation going with Acid. Sooooo...my bet is for no rewire, no vst in Acid 4.0 - but yes to OPT and yes to DXi. Anyone running a book on what 4.0 will bring?
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: spesimen Date:7/29/2002 12:02:28 PM for the record, i agree with jacose's suggestion. if you're comping a take together it would be helpful to have the ability to collapse it down to one track rather than having a bunch of tracks all with identical mixer settings and duplicates of all the insert effects. i also agree it should be a different track type for clarity. maybe it just needs to be like a 'folder track' from some of the other apps. in a way it is just encapsulating the buss behavior to work like an insert and simplify the arrangement process after editing has been done. as far as VST goes, although it is a steinberg standard, i don't think you have to pay anything to license it. i'm not 100% positive but when i looked at the developer docs for it some time ago i seem to recall that they pretty much just require you to mention their copyrights in the about screens or whatever. unfortunately for non-steinberg companies VST instruments have totally taken off but DXi is still an emerging standard. even in sonar most people are using the vst adpater to get DXi since there are dozens of cool vstis out there but only the biggest packages make DXi versions of their products..most of the shareware and user-made vsti's don't have a DXi version unfortunately..
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/29/2002 1:35:41 PM see, the GREAT thing about sonic foundry is that they have managed to make iEASY to use apps, with great features and a dang SIMPLE interface!!!! thats why I would like ACID to be my final solution, just by adding one little feature. I wonder if someone form sonic foundry could reply to this and see if it would be a big deal to add something like this, they dont have to say YES or NO to it, but im curious if its really that big of a deal.!!!!
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/29/2002 1:49:03 PM what I dont understand: (and thes caps are not for shouting, thats dumb.. there for making thisngs stick out as I dont know how to do BOLD letters) 1.ACID ALREADY RECORDS AUDIO. 2.ACID ALREADY HAS 4 DIFFRENT TYPES OF TRACKS. (midi,loop,beatmapped,oneshot.) so why cant it just add one simple new track, the only SMALL tiny difference with this track is you can record more than one thing in the track, Like vegas video. People Like cuzin B or Macmoney dont even need to get stressed about this becasue you wouldnt HAVE to use it!!!! lol
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: SonicJG Date:7/29/2002 3:38:19 PM You've got a point there. As far as whether it would be a big deal, it would indeed be a very big deal. Having a track that can contain multiple media files would change the ACID way of doing things, and might make the app more of an uber app that's more difficult to use. We don't want that. How would recording work? Would it only be allowed on the new track type, or would there be two separate recording interfaces? As far as development time to make this happen, this would be a major commitment to do it right. That (and the uber-app thing) is why it hasn't happened. BTW, bold is bold text , except use <> instead of []. :) Joel
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/29/2002 3:51:54 PM Jacose, I am very happy that someone from SF has checked in and basically told you what I already did. How would recording work? And this is still perplexing me - "the only SMALL tiny difference with this track is you can record more than one thing in the track, Like vegas video" Just what the hell are you talking about? When I record in Vegas, only one "thing" goes on each track in my copy of Vegas. Am I am really missing something here or is there a secret switch I forgot to flip? Please explain this to me very, very, very clearly from your perspective so I can understand you. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Chienworks Date:7/29/2002 4:26:29 PM CuzinB: you can record multiple events on a single track in Vegas. Cue the cursor to where you want the new event to start, arm for recording, and start recording. You can have unlimited events in each track.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/29/2002 5:54:41 PM Chein - okay I get it now...but why would I ever want to do this? I could just record on a separate track like the rest of the world does and have complete control during the mix...yes? No? Cuzin B
Subject:OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: TheDraggon Date:7/29/2002 9:58:13 PM Jacose is absolutely, positively right...ACID does need to have support for multiple wav files in one track. Instead of arguing with each unfounded objection brought up, in some of these replies..think about this... Software development and design is about giving people what they need too get work done more easily, and with less headaches, not about commercial red tape. That is how ACID got to be king in the first place, it supplied features that no other program could do, and it did it in an extremely stable and user friendly way. No program developer can rest on his laurels, though...many other designers have caught on, and if SF doesnt keep up theyll be out! Integration is essential to seamless creation. As Jacose mentioned, SX and Sonar have the edge now, but german software has always been quirky to use, and Sonar is messy because all Cakewalk programs have been messier than SF, not because they have a few extra features... CuzinB, if you actually knew about software code, you'd know that adding a simple "recording track" feature would be no weightier than adding the "beatmapper" in the last release, it's all in the execution and cleanliness of the code. You mean to tell me that one single track with a few waves in it, would be less stable than running 15 separate beatmapped tracks, all with track EQ and Compression running, just so that you can lay some vocals in and have the flexibility of changing the song structure later without changing apps? Oh, yeah looks like you're too late too complain about VSTi support requests...it's already in ACID 4! All I can say to sum up, is if you like staying in the past, stick with ACID 1.0 on your Pentium 200mhz , but if you want to keep up with the future of electronic music, don't be afraid of letting SF push the envelope a little, is't that what creation is all about? To SF, thanks for all the wonderful software so far, I can't wait to see what the future holds!! (hint, hint) TheDraggon
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/29/2002 11:06:37 PM Draggon, So - here's where the personal attacks start up...sigh.... "CuzinB, if you actually knew about software code, you'd know that adding a simple "recording track" feature would be no weightier than adding the "beatmapper" in the last release, it's all in the execution and cleanliness of the code. You mean to tell me that one single track with a few waves in it, would be less stable than running 15 separate beatmapped tracks, all with track EQ and Compression running, just so that you can lay some vocals in and have the flexibility of changing the song structure later without changing apps?" Well - considering that I am software developer during the day, I won't even justify the first bit of commentary...secondly, since apparently you cannot read - I will paste this in just for you direct from SF: "As far as whether it would be a big deal, it would indeed be a very big deal. Having a track that can contain multiple media files would change the ACID way of doing things, and might make the app more of an uber app that's more difficult to use. We don't want that. How would recording work?" So - who has the answer here? How would recording work? Why can't anyone explain to me why I would ever want to record multiple wav's into a single audio track (in ANY app - nevermind ACID) so I can completely lose control of the mix of those wavs? Currently, I can have as many tracks as I want in Acid - why not just open up a new track and retain control of everything? Or better yet - just continue to do want I do - build up my framework in ACID, render and move it over to Vegas where I can really do the good stuff. This suggestion is the same as setting up 24 mics and recording a band into one mono track hoping that it sounds good. Sorry - but I just don't see the point to this request. And after today's announcement, I am very happy to eat humble pie on the VSTi inclusion in 4.0. Never thought this would ever be included. Good one SF. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:18:33 AM well, at least we can record at all in Acid 4 ;) VSTI YES MAN!!!
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:21:09 AM personal attacks? I think not, and as far as sonicJG's comment, I still dont agree. Im sorry, but from version 1.0 there are a number of DRASTIC changes, that sonic foundry has dealt with in a great way. I expect this is one more thing they will deal with and make it the ultimate music software of the future. Until then, well, It lookks so good I may just be using tones of seperate trax!!!
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:33:18 AM thank you for seeing my suggestion in a non-confrontational, honest light. the main reason I ask is because of the tons of complicated, ugly audio programs out there. I definetly DO NOT want Acid to become this. But I feel that acid will be slighting itself if it does not have some sort of provision for recording in this way, at least as an option, not a standard. I dont know anyhting about programming, and you know what? I dont give a rat's behind, because I've already seen what amazing things sonic foundry has pulled off (as well as imageline) and I really doubt this being beyond your R&D capability. so you can add ALL of this in version 4: New in ACID PRO 4.0 -Plug-In effects automation -ASIO driver support -5.1 surround mixing -MIDI piano roll editing -Yamaha OPT support -VSTi support -Alternate time signatures -Master, auxiliary, and effects bus tracks -MIDI event list editing and step recording But some still think that my suggestion is hogwash? Im sorry, I dont understand. I will say tho, the whole point of me suggestin this is that I dont want to use the complicated and problematic appz, namely, SONAR and Cubase (logic would be here too, but I wouldnt get into that anyway for its doomed on Windows) .. .. .. .. It would be sad if ACID 4.5 or 5.0 joined the ranks of these appz...... Thanks! and thank you very much for these awesome updates!!!!!!! I love you guyS!
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:35:15 AM if you're comping a take together it would be helpful to have the ability to collapse it down to one track rather than having a bunch of tracks all with identical mixer settings and duplicates of all the insert effects I couldnt have said it better myself!!!
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:38:51 AM "CuzinB, if you actually knew about software code, you'd know that adding a simple "recording track" feature would be no weightier than adding the "beatmapper" in the last release, it's all in the execution and cleanliness of the code. You mean to tell me that one single track with a few waves in it, would be less stable than running 15 separate beatmapped tracks, all with track EQ and Compression running, just so that you can lay some vocals in and have the flexibility of changing the song structure later without changing apps?" Well - considering that I am software developer during the day, I won't even justify the first bit of commentary So, would you mind explaining your opinion to use laypeople of Audio software?? really, Im not trying to be sarcastic, Im very curious as to why this is SO complicated. (sorry If Im being annoying)
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:46:47 AM Stuff in bold is quoted from SonicJG As far as whether it would be a big deal, it would indeed be a very big deal. Having a track that can contain multiple media files would change the ACID way of doing things, and might make the app more of an uber app (whats an uber app?) that's more difficult to use. We don't want that. me neither, thats the point, mate! :) How would recording work? Would it only be allowed on the new track type, or would there be two separate recording interfaces? -- well actually, put that way, it does sound complicated, in code. I sort of pictured the ONLY recording interface, the only recording TRACK to be the type with multiple files.... I dont know if I could see a need for doing otherwise... Let me ask a question, and I am not trying to be rude or sound accusing, but I really hope that the reason its not in ACID is so you can sell ACID as well as VEGAS. I would understand, you need to make your money, and Im not a software delveloper, but I would make vegas even more suited for video, aim towards that more,(even tho Im not sure how you could, from what I hear its the best out there!!!) and ACID toward all type of audio. youve already done it with loops and now MIDI, truly, the next step is recording audio a little more efficiently. now, Im sure youre familiar with imagelines "Fruityloops" it is a drum machine style Sequencer that really goes beyond its original purpose.. but honestly, the way that it is designed, Im sorry, Its audio engine just would not be able to work with long recorded waves.... Acid tho seems likke its practically there!! its late, sorry if Im rambling!
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:57:39 AM something I thought applies to this: FEATURES OF ACID 3! Beatmapper™ remixing tool Video Scoring Track Chopper™ editing tool 12 New DirectX Audio Plug-Ins CD Ripping MIDI Record and Playback MIDI File Support DLS Sound File Support Powerful new effects model Master, track, and assignable audio effects Attack, Sustain, and Release (ASR) envelopes Track envelopes lock to events New Import and Export Formats wow.... then you look at the features of 4, big change!!!! so I ask again: new recording interface... big deal? I know I know sonicJG already said it would be, but I just dont understand how!!!?!??! sorry for so many posts ;)
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/30/2002 8:58:45 AM Jacose, "So,would you mind explaining your opinion to use laypeople of Audio software?? really, Im not trying to be sarcastic, Im very curious as to why this is SO complicated.(sorry If Im being annoying)" Not sure what you are getting at here. I simply wanted to inform Draggon that his comment on my "code knowledge" was a bit out of line. The best way I can explain my thoughts to "laypeople" is to use the previously mentioned 24 track example - Who would ever want to pile everything on one track? That completely goes against the beauty of multitrack. We have all this flexibility and tracks galore. Does anyone remember 4 track cassette? Do you know how many times I wished I had a ton of tracks to play with and now you guys want to: "collapse it down to one track rather than having a bunch of tracks all with identical mixer settings and duplicates of all the insert effects" - I have already have a name for this...it's called MIXDOWN! And your item - "Well actually, put that way, it does sound complicated, in code. I sort of pictured the ONLY recording interface, the only recording TRACK to be the type with multiple files...." This is what I am getting at - your suggestion may be possible but you are looking at it purely from an interface angle. You are not thinking about the potential issues with development and what already exists in the Acid subsystems. After the SF commentary, sounds to me like their subsystems have a very specific way of operating and your suggestion just may not fit into their plans for how the program operates. That's really all I am saying. Your suggestion is great - all suggestions for improvement are great. But when one or more suggestions begin to alter the basic operation of a program that works so well...well...as a satisfied and longtime user - I don't want Acid to become Sonar or anything else thank you very much. The 4.0 announcement sounds very exciting and I am looking forward to the enhancements. So far it looks like they have done exactly what I wanted - added in some long requested items without altering the basic premise of the program. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 9:21:31 AM Who would ever want to pile everything on one track? I have done this SO many times.... when you record a vocal track, you set the compression just right, and a little reverb, but theres one part of the track you didnt get right..... with vegas you can go into that track and record an oberdub, and your compression and track settings remain the same, no need for new compressor or anyhting... although having bus sends will definetly help that cause... The 4.0 announcement sounds very exciting and I am looking forward to the enhancements. So far it looks like they have done exactly what I wanted - added in some long requested items without altering the basic premise of the program you know what? I agree.... Im always amazed at what sofo puts out...acid 4 will continue to be king of loops in my eyes... people say youre missing out by not learning Sonar or SX, but I dont get it.... My workflow is always great using ACID, or Vegas, and I hope I dont sound like Im complaining!!!! I love this product and I cant wait to try ACID 4!!! I don't want Acid to become Sonar or anything else thank you very much praise the lord for this... lol
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/30/2002 10:25:26 AM Jacose, Okay - I think I am coming around to your way of thinking: "I have done this SO many times.... when you record a vocal track, you set the compression just right, and a little reverb, but theres one part of the track you didnt get right..... with vegas you can go into that track and record an oberdub, and your compression and track settings remain the same, no need for new compressor or anyhting... although having bus sends will definetly help that cause..." This is really about overdubs? Why didn't ya just say so? The way you phrased this before sounded like you wanted to ability to drop all kinds of different sounds/items onto one track. There's where my confusion was coming in - If it's an overdub - yeah, cool. That would be great. I would definitely use that feature. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Jessariah Date:7/30/2002 10:31:46 AM First of all, "thinking outside the box" is one of those ridculous modern-speak phrases that some marketing team came up with, but means absolutely nothing. You want your whites cleaner, you separate them from the colors, dump in a load of bleach and use hot water. You wash your colors in cold water with detergent. You try to do it all at once, and nothing comes out as good as it can. If you want to have more than one wave file on a track, use Vegas. Like I've said before, Vegaciforge 1.0 may seem like a great concept, but it would hurt everyone in the long run.
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/30/2002 11:05:33 AM Jess, Here here! It's just too bad it took 46 posts to finally realize all Jacose wanted was overdub capability. Me - I would just keep using Vegas. Better, stronger, faster - kinda like the 6 Million Dollar Man!. Cheers, Cuzin B
Subject:AcidPro4 Reply by: Spirit Date:7/30/2002 11:18:26 AM I have two wishes left . . . I used my first one about a day ago when I listed all the things I wanted in AcidPro4 (see post above) and not even a day later I get just about everything I asked for. Now for my next two wishes . . . .
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:40:54 PM Integration!!!! you need integration,...rendering and reopening is not the way to do it...
Subject:What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 12:42:39 PM qutoed from cuzin B This is really about overdubs? Why didn't ya just say so? The way you phrased this before sounded like you wanted to ability to drop all kinds of different sounds/items onto one track. There's where my confusion was coming in - If it's an overdub - yeah, cool. That would be great. I would definitely use that feature. --sorry I was unclear, I thought it was pretty easy to understand... this is what I mean tho.... What about this sonicjg???
Subject:RE: What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Spirit Date:7/30/2002 6:25:06 PM Overdubs ? Then use a MIDI track and fiddle to your heart's content.
Subject:RE: What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 6:49:48 PM what do you mean? Audio overdubs using a MIDI track?
Subject:RE: What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Spirit Date:7/30/2002 8:52:08 PM What I mean is, why record immediately as audio if you suspect that you'll want to overdub ? Just make it a MIDI track and then modify whatever you want. Obviously this suggestion is irrelevant if you're talking about vocals or live instruments . . .
Subject:RE: What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Jacose Date:7/30/2002 11:39:56 PM Obviously this suggestion is irrelevant if you're talking about vocals or live instruments . . . which is exactly what I want to do, but thanks for the suggestion ;)
Subject:RE: What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Spirit Date:7/31/2002 12:16:24 AM At the risk of exhausting you with tedium, I suppose you could just record a new track and then render the old track and new track together. You'd probably want to take a duplicate of the original track before applying effects so you had a clean track to merge render. Otherwise the effects could live on a buss rather than the track. But thinking of this in multitrck tape terms you'd want your overdubs on tape onto a new track wouldn't you ? So isn't this the same as recording your live instrument or vocal onto a separate Acid track anyway ? When you "bounced" your tape tracks together to make a single stereo 2-track this is exactly the same the same as rendering to a stereo wav. I mean you wouldn't want to record directly on top of your original audio track would you ? Am I missing something obvious or are we now just going round in a big circle again ?
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Jacose Date:7/31/2002 8:42:05 AM what would we need Vegas for? we would still need it for video scoring and CD layout and burning (extrememyl important in my case), the final processes where it is indeed viable to have to render an entire AUDIO project and work on it as a whole entity, AFTER it has been mixed and effected. Vegas would still be such a valuable toool.
Subject:RE: What about this sonicJG??? Reply by: Jacose Date:7/31/2002 9:17:14 AM I mean you wouldn't want to record directly on top of your original audio track would you ? Oh yeah definetly~~1!!! in vegas, you can record directly over an old track, and then peel back the sections you dont want, and the parts of the old track that you still want are still there, cause its digital, not tape, apples and oranges (except digital is better, but I wont start another debate ;) ) Likke, lets say youre singing "come together" by the beatles... Here come old flattop he come groovin up slowly he got Lets say you sing "flattop" wrong but the rest of the sentence was sung well...actually, the rest of a sentece has a one-take feel to it that you defiently do NOT want to kill. So, you press the red record button on that track, put the cursor far enough in front of the phrase you want to overdub, and start singing. The old files will stay on long enough for you to get the singin on track. after you sing "flattop" you press stop. as you look at the track, it seems as though the section you recorded REPLACED the original track (oh no!) But of course, were in the digital realm here, and all you have to do is peel back the two ends of your recently recorded file and trim it down to the word "flattop" and there you have it! instant overdub!! same track setting, same everything, and easy placement. (if by any chance you still hear the old file, you must simply cut away the old occurence of the word "flattop" underneath it.) So, sorry it took so long, but do you see what I mean? I think I have talent with my music, but everyone needs overdubs, its not just for people who cant play there instument!!! At the risk of exhausting you with tedium No exhausting here, I love talking about digital audio, and even debating... it helps me develop new ideas on how to do things. I am always open to others' sugg4estions and appreciate them. thanks!
Subject:RE: OK PEOPLE>>LETS THINK OUTSIDE THE BLOODY BOX!!! Reply by: Jacose Date:7/31/2002 9:18:43 AM First of all, "thinking outside the box" is one of those ridculous modern-speak phrases that some marketing team came up with, but means absolutely nothing. actually, I heard it on the disney channel last nite!!!!! lol
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/31/2002 9:29:47 AM Jacose, Acid is cool for getting a quick framework up and running for music beds etc but the real magic happens in a multitrack app where the flexibility is unlimited. The way I work is still very old school...almost like the old tape based world...where everything is boiled down to individual audio clips and then assembled. I use Acid as really a rhythm section tool...drums, bass...stuff like that...and then the fileset goes over to either Vegas (Audio only overdubbing) or Cubase SX (MIDI/Vsti/Audio overdubs) to add additional elements. Acid lacks too many Vegas/Forge specific tools to make any kind of audio tracking possible. Even with some kind of overdub possibility, I wouldn't bother tracking in Acid. Not when I have these other great tools at my disposal. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Spirit Date:7/31/2002 9:54:02 AM Well everyone works differently, and why not with all the great tools around now? But personally I dislike flipping from one sequencing app to another. I like to put my efforts into sound creation and song composition and it helps if I can do this all in one place. I also prefer to get to know one app absolutely thoroughly than three or four in pieces. And I have enough software to fill my head with using Absynth, Kontakt and various Creamware devices. Dividing my attention and splitting the song up among multiple sequencing packages would do me in! I use AcidPro3 with 30 - 40 audio tracks including many looong tracks and have never had it choke yet: huge one shots, wav loops, audio recording, chopper craziness - it handles everything with no problem. I also own VV3 and am ready to use that for audio but have never found the need. So it's my hope that AcidPro 4 with its MIDI and VSTi specs will become my primary composition app and that during composition I can stay entirely within it. I'll use SF6 for pre-production sampling and post-production mastering. On the issue of "flexability", I really can't imagine anything more flexable and friendly than this. I want to make things more simple, not add more apps! So 'tis a very happy little world I contemplate :)
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: bartchilders Date:7/31/2002 10:01:54 AM How would recording work? How about exactly like it does today. Have an option to aggregate different one-shots onto a single track. So I could build a single vocal or guitar comp track from multiple takes without each segment being forced onto a seperate track with duplicated FX settings etc. That is what I was looking for. Maybe next release.
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Vocalpoint Date:7/31/2002 10:23:32 AM Spirit, Yep - you are right - everyone works differently and that's the beauty of these tools. You bought Vegas and have never used it?. You should really fire it up - ya don't know what you are missing. Cuzin B
Subject:RE: Heres the idea I would like to see implemented in a future ACID Reply by: Spirit Date:7/31/2002 10:31:16 AM Funnily enough I use Vegas for video editing - just a bit of fun ! I'm just too addicted to Acid to move my audio over - and now with MIDI and VSTi it looks like I'm camped there for good.

Go Back