|
Subject:Vegas vs Acid
Posted by: sfx70
Date:5/6/2003 1:14:04 PM
Hi there I'm just wondering if anybody can give me an insightful review on Acid vs Vegas from the point of view of multitrack audio (recording). Why would I use Acid over or Vegas or the other way around. I'm not interested in Video. Audio only. I'm looking to do a project with my band and we're trying to find which tool to buy for recordings. Thanks |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: merlyn60
Date:5/6/2003 2:11:38 PM
Strictly speaking from an audio point of view, if you plan on multi-tracking your band, you need Vegas because Acid isn't capable of multi-track recording. Acid is more of a production tool that uses audio loops as its basic building blocks. Acid 4 has just recently included midi functionality, although how good it is has been a raging issue on this board. Vegas deals with straight up audio waves (no looping or midi) although audio manipulation is super easy (i.e. cutting, pasting, extending, etc). So, unless your planning on doing production work (i.e. midi programming and looping), Vegas is best suited for your needs. Merlyn |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:5/6/2003 10:45:33 PM
Get both. ;o) Seriously, my thoughts echo Merlyn's. In addition to what Merlyn said, note SoFo designed both to be modular with each other; ACID for its loop sequencing and Vegas for its multitracking. Sound Forge completes it all with its digital audio editing capability. ACID is actually great if you want to add some sheen to your production in Vegas. (You can easily create an ambient, freaky track in no time at all to go along with your project in Vegas, for example.) You do not have to deal with video in Vegas if you do not want to. Vegas will definitely help you out in your audio multitracking chores. HTH, Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: thephantom
Date:7/8/2003 11:43:46 PM
How does Vegas stand up next to Cakewalk? Is Cakewalk strictly meant to deal with MIDI? |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: SonicJG
Date:7/9/2003 10:52:06 AM
Quick note: Antonio posted the same message about 5 times, so I was cleaning it up, and accidentally deleted too high in the fork--sorry. Here was his post: <from user Antonio> I think I should chime in now, since you mentioned the "cakewalk" word!!! I use Sonar and it is great for multi-track recording!!! I don't know how it stacks up against Vegas, for I have never used Vegas, but if you are just wanting to multi-track audio or midi, go with Sonar!!!!! Now, I'm sure there are others who would disagree, but you have to get software that works for you and do the things that you want it to do!! Money is also a factor too, but just remember this: "you always get what you pay for" most of the time!! I think I paid like $299 for the pro version of Sonar(not the XL version...that's $399 the last time I checked)If you consider Sonar, go with the XL version, b/c I think it comes with a little more extra "stuff". Researching is the key. For any software, if there's a demo available, try it out first before you purchase. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: AnthonyJarrah
Date:7/9/2003 3:13:24 PM
Personally, I don't know why ACID doesn't support Multitrack recording. It's the only thing missing from what's supposed to be considered a host application. It's a VSTi host and a Rewire mixer, with no multitrack recording? I think that would be a great addition to ACID Pro 5.0. If people are going to compare ACID to Sonar, Cubase, Logic, etc. Then ACID needs to add that feature. It's not something that would be difficult to incorporate. Just have the track list visible before the recording process and allow the user to select an input to each track, or just right click and insert audio tracks like in Vegas then assign inputs. Adding multitrack recording to ACID won't hurt Vegas sales since Vegas will still sell to the video industry as well as to the audio industry. If SoFo's answer to this would be to add rewire to Vegas, then that still wouldn't work because you would lose the midi capabilities among many other features in ACID by switching to Vegas. Please don't reply saying that ACID wasn't meant to be a multitrack recorder. It can be whatever it was originally designed to be plus something more, and if you don't need the extra features then you don't have to use them. ACID sales would soar and it would be considered one of the best host applications if SoFo would just add this simple feature. Until then, don't anyone dare compare ACID to Sonar or any of the other apps mentioned earlier. Because multitrack recording is one of the most important features in music creation and obviously one feature that's missing in ACID. I use Reason and I like to Rewire it into a host mixer. At that point I like to add some multitracks to the midi production that I produced in Reason. That leaves me with several applications to chose from. Either A) a rewire host with no multitrack recording (ACID), or B) A multitrack recorder with no rewire (Vegas), or C) A multitrack recorder with rewire (Sonar). Hence, I use Sonar. There are many Reason users in my situation that use Sonar for this particular reason. I used to consider ACID as one of the most potentially dangerous applications around if they were to add two features. Rewire and Multitrack recording. One of the two has been taken care of. If they would incorporate the second, then this would be the most lethal program around. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: Jessariah
Date:7/10/2003 6:55:15 AM
I own and use Sonar, Vegas & Acid. They all play a different role. Sonar is great for midi and audio (the learning curve is much higher, though). I use Vegas for some audio and all of my video, and Acid is where I do all of my soundtracks. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: gjn
Date:7/10/2003 7:26:25 AM
it is necessary that acid face the multitrack .¶ at least, it is necessary that vegas syncrhonise with acid.!!!¶ it takes the multitrack audio and midi.¶ |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: bartchilders
Date:7/11/2003 10:40:35 AM
I couldn't agree more. I bought SONAR becuase I wanted 1 tool that could "do it all". However, ACID works so much better for working with loops (imagine that!). I would love to see multitrack support in ACID. But, if SoFo doesn't want to do that, then just make ACID a REWIRE client so we can rewire it into a good Multitracking REWIRE host. PLEASE!!!!! |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: drbam
Date:7/11/2003 11:07:41 AM
Its my guess that Vegas 5 will be able to serve as a Rewire host which would be just incredible!! This would be much better than bloating either Vegas or Acid by combining them IMO. No matter how much one may like Sonar, like all the other one app wonders, when compared to SOFO apps, its just too damn cumbersome and complex, which is a price you have to pay if you want everything included in one application. I am personally glad that SOFO does not wish to take this approach. I watched a friend of mine working with Logic recently and it seemed absolutely painful compared to working with Vegas or Acid. ;-) drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: AnthonyJarrah
Date:7/11/2003 1:04:13 PM
Adding multitrack recording to ACID would be much more useful than adding rewire to Vegas. Since ACID is more capable for further midi sequencing and loop construction and would be the best one app wonder without being too complex. Multitrack recording is probably the only thing ACID can't do therefore it is the only missing feature. That feature alone would allow ACID to be mentioned in the same sentence with the likes of Cubase, Sonar, Logic, etc. Vegas shouldn't have to reach version 5 to include rewire anyway since ACID added rewire through the same version upgrade. Therefore, they should add it in Vegas 4.0d NOT Vegas 5.0 especially since SoFo already has the technology at their disposal. SoFo should be trying to put out the best product possible in all of there applications, but I don't know why they're choosing not to. Why not Multitrack recording in ACID AND rewire in Vegas since they obviously know how to implement both. It makes you scratch your head really. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: drbam
Date:7/11/2003 1:45:24 PM
>>Why not Multitrack recording in ACID AND rewire in Vegas since they obviously know how to implement both. It makes you scratch your head really. << No, it does not make me scratch MY head - it makes YOU scratch YOUR head. I'm not confused about it at all because many folks, like myself, are glad SOFO is keeping the apps separate and understand the reasoning behind it. SOFO has been consistently clear about why they are doing what they're doing. And I have no need for Acid or Vegas to be mentioned in the same sentence as Cubase, Sonar, Logic, etc., and frankly don't give a damn. SOFO apps are primarily unique because of their intuitive UI and awesome editing power. These qualities diminish in direct proportion to how complex the app becomes. If you think this is not the case, then try working with Cubase or Nuendo and come back and give us a report. Bottom line, there's enough app choices for everyone, and if one isn't meeting your needs, then why not try something else. It's certainly what I'd do. ;-) Peace, drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: AnthonyJarrah
Date:7/11/2003 3:05:39 PM
I do use something else. Sonar! which I mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't give a damn what SoFo does because I have all the apps that I need. I'm just giving my opinion on what would make SoFo's apps more complete. It appears that you don't take constructive critisicm very well. there's no need to be defensive. Just stating my opinion which is why they call this a DISCUSSION FORUM! |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:7/11/2003 3:54:54 PM
ACID (Pro, specifically) is not really meant to compete with the likes of SONAR, Cubase, et al., merely because it sets out what it does best: Looping. It's like comparing apples with oranges. I'm finding it a little difficult about adding a true multitracking feature to ACID. The reason is that ACID applies its timestretching and key stretching features to Loops and Beatmapped tracks. A true multitracker does not even go into this paradigm; it basically takes a track at its face value and nothing more than that. While it's true One-shots are also not timestretched by ACID in any way, I believe One-shots were designed with short, quick snippets in mind. (Percussive hits, for example.) The fact that One-shots load into RAM if they're 3 seconds or shorter supports my theory. A brief note: I remember SoFo selling an "all-in-one" package that included all the major professional apps (and then some) together a few years back. I'm gathering it never sold all that well because I never saw it again. Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: drbam
Date:7/11/2003 4:14:00 PM
>>It appears that you don't take constructive critisicm very well. there's no need to be defensive. Just stating my opinion which is why they call this a DISCUSSION FORUM! << Interesting. I didn't take your comments as criticism at all - constructive or otherwise. I only corrected your erroneous statement that implied that *I* was scratching my head in confusion as to why SOFO wasn't doing what you wanted with Acid and then I clarified a bit as to why I take the position I do about this issue. I did not criticize nor imply that your opinion wasn't vaild or that you should not post it. Our opinions just differ - thats all. Peace . . . please, drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: AnthonyJarrah
Date:7/11/2003 5:40:42 PM
mD, You said that Acid is not really meant to compete with the likes of SONAR, yet SoFo has a comparison chart comparing Acid to Sonar on the Acid product page. Also, I agree with you that Acid's strength is looping, but they recently added new midi recording and editing with vsti support and those features are being used daily my many musicians/producers. Just another case for multitrack recording. What's not useful to one user might be very useful to another. If they can add midi, they can add multitracking. Just my opinion. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: vitalforce2
Date:7/14/2003 1:26:23 PM
Man, you guys wear me out. I'm going back to the Vegas forum section. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:7/14/2003 2:58:29 PM
You should be here when we really get going. ;o) Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: coolout
Date:7/14/2003 3:17:05 PM
as i long time logic user i agree that acid's GUI makes it so much easier to get things done. i don't see what's the big deal about multitracking is anyway. if you're going to record a full band properly you'll need a crap load of outboard gear to do it right, plus the right acoustical environment. this is the reason commercial studios are still in business. if you'll have all the proper mics, pre-amps, compressors, and a nice multichannel audio interface, i doubt you're using acid as your only audio app. you're running nuendo, logic, or protools. at least everyone i know who has a large enough studio to charge people money is. plus if you're recording a full band that must track the whole song at the same time you probably don't need to mess with a bunch of loops, which is the primary function of acid. heck, i doubt if you could get the drummer to play to a click track. the point is that the majority of acid users likely never need to record audio in stereo much less multi-channel and with acid's editing power punch-ins are never an issue, so multi-tracking is not a big deal. i've only recorded in stereo only twice: for a singer-songwriter who insisted on playing his guitar while he sang and for some stereo-mic'd background vocals. other than that i just record things seperately and layer, layer, layer. i think for any loop-based genre of music acid is almost at a point of perfection. if you're doing any kind of band-based music it's not the app for you. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: SonicJG
Date:7/15/2003 10:08:16 AM
coolout said "if you'll have all the proper mics, pre-amps, compressors, and a nice multichannel audio interface, i doubt you're using acid as your only audio app. you're running nuendo, logic, or protools. at least everyone i know who has a large enough studio to charge people money is. " To the "nuendo, logic, or protools" list, I'd like to humbly submit Vegas. :) Just posting on this thread so you all know that we're reading and it's been noted. Cheers, Joel |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:7/15/2003 3:04:05 PM
Hey joel, I really hope that the rewire interconnectivity is a big issue in the development of Vegas/acid 5. I would rather see the midi enhancements ONLY in acid. That way vegas stays at what it does best. I envision vegas/acid as the combo that compliments each other like sonar/project 5 or acid/reason. [but BETTER ;) ] But then again if you guys were able to add vegas's features and integrate them into acid for a super app you won't hear me complaining. Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: coolout
Date:7/15/2003 4:29:01 PM
no offense to joel, any current vegas users, or anyone at SonyFO, but i've never met anyone using vegas strictly for audio recording. honestly, i think all the video stuff would get in way of being productive if you just want to record some bands. perhaps there's a newer, kick ass version of vegas audio in the works that can compete with all the popular audio recording apps. you know one with a dedicated audio mixer page with vertical not horizontal faders, freeze tracks, vst, and all the current midi and audio features of acid and vegas. kind of like the features of logic, nuendo, or samplitude with the easy to use SOFO...er (i mean...sonic foundry desktop applications now owned by Sony) user interface. a couple of times when i've played some of my tunes for people and they asked what app i use to record with, they looked kinda shocked when i tell them i prefer to record, edit, and mix with acid pro. they look at me like i just said i did the whole tune in mixman, rebirth, or something crazy. acid really is a great prodution environment as long as you don't need to record more than 2 tracks at a time. but more importantly, it's great because the developers actually pay attention to the users. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:7/15/2003 4:57:38 PM
>>freeze tracks<< I really hope this gets worked out!!! In theory this would mean I would only need to buy ONE UAD-1 card!!!Plus on a really fast machine freezing/unfrozen tracks would go by in an instant. Plus with a killer 10k serial ata HD track count won't matter anymore. Unless ofcourse you're doing HD video as well. >>>but i've never met anyone using vegas strictly for audio recording. honestly, i think all the video stuff would get in way of being productive if you just want to record some bands<<< Hi my name is ed and I use Vegas 4 as my audio app[everybody says "Hi ED" ;)]. I don't have the space for bands but in terms of overdubs plus hip-hop recording vegas's interface can't be beat. Download a demo and see why there ARE people who do use it alot. We've seen what can be done with a limited amount of cash+r&d time...now with sony money...??? Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: drbam
Date:7/15/2003 11:56:02 PM
>>but i've never met anyone using vegas strictly for audio recording. honestly, i think all the video stuff would get in way of being productive if you just want to record some bands. << Your comment clearly suggests that you aren't familiar with Vegas. If one wants an audio only setup, with a few clicks and in less than 30 sec., the video features can be made completely transparent (invisible in every way). I've used Vegas as my primary multitrack audio app since version #1 and know plenty of others who use it strictly for audio as well. Vegas is the most efficient, intuitive app I've ever used and its editing power makes the other so called "pro" apps like Nuendo, Cubase, Logic and ProFools seem downright clumsy. ;-) drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: pwppch
Date:7/16/2003 6:43:15 AM
>>no offense to joel, any current vegas users, or anyone at SonyFO, but i've never met anyone using vegas strictly for audio recording. honestly, i think all the video stuff would get in way of being productive if you just want to record some bands. << You have not met enough people then. Vegas is used by many audio only engineers. The video stuff does not get in the way of an audio project at all. You can hide any video feature you don't need, just like you can hide the video feature in ACID. Vegas will be getting better with regard to the audio centric users. Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: elemmons
Date:7/17/2003 12:28:04 PM
In regard to Sonar, Sonar actually can function very much like ACID. It has a loop explorer view which is similar to the ACID interface and it fully supports ACIDized loops. Sonar has good ACID loop editing tools also. I own both ACID and Sonar. Until recently I had not tried to use Sonar for loop-based production. But when I tried it, I found it quite capable in this area. So with Sonar, you have the loop-based production plus all of the MIDI and multi-track audio recording, etc.. If one was to get one program only, I'd have to recommend Sonar. Eric |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: stakeoutstudios
Date:7/19/2003 6:08:09 PM
just a little note here... I use Vegas day in day out for audio-only recording, editing and mixing. I record mostly bands, and hence have little need for MIDI or programming, but when I do, it's done in ACID. hook both up... dream tools. (soon hopefully!) Vegas is awesome for audio, and the video features are transparent - they're just not there unless you call them up. They simply don't get in your way. There are many other audio engineers like me using Vegas also! Jason |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: coolout
Date:7/23/2003 5:02:38 PM
sorry vegas audio guys...don't jump on me all at once. i didn't know you were out there. with that said i'm perfectly comfortable using acid as my main recording tool, because a don't have a multichannel interface and don't need to record more than two inputs at a time. right now it's damn near perfect. as far as sonar goes...i tried it out once and it represents everything i love acid for and dislike "traditional" audio-midi sequencers for...a bloated and cramped GUI. everything takes less steps to do in acid. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: adowrx
Date:7/23/2003 8:06:39 PM
drbam"Vegas is the most efficient, intuitive app I've ever used and its editing power makes the other so called "pro" apps like Nuendo, Cubase, Logic and ProFools seem downright clumsy. ;-)" Absolutely agree w/drbam. We've got VV3, Cubase SX (SUX), and PT at the studio. PT name brings in clients, Cubase SX would be great if it didn't take Steinberger 6 mths to fix basic bugs, then not really fix them, and VV3 ALWAYS becomes the place to mix. If SF adds midi to Vegas or Multitracking to Acid and I if can still get the amazing track/plug count and ease of editing, they would rule the AudiWorld. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:7/23/2003 10:33:14 PM
>>>Cubase SX would be great if it didn't take Steinberger 6 mths to fix basic bugs, then not really fix them, and VV3 ALWAYS becomes the place to mix.<<< LMAO!!!! ;) Thats the whole reason I started to use Vegas 2.0 in the first place! [at the time mind you. Version 4 is great]Everything just made soooo much sense it made me want to hurt the guy who sold me cubase over vegas. But ofcourse he pushed buying soundforge and cd architect on me... Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: JoeD
Date:7/30/2003 6:01:22 PM
That is because SF completely stomps the competition in terms of UI. I've used cake since the 12-tone days (dos seq), they're UI design needs an overhaul - that's about it. That's where I feel SF has a nice platform to recoup - THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHEN IT COMES ACROSS AN ELEGANT UI (noobs to vets). But, It (sonar) has everything most would need right their in one application, which is what people look for now. "Efficiency" should take priority now. What needs to happen is Acid and Vegas becoming ONE APPLICATION. Right their will be the flagship SF product. Until then eh? JD |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: AnthonyJarrah
Date:7/31/2003 8:46:11 AM
Joe, I couldn't agree more. If SoFo would take the audio section from Vegas and incorporate it into ACID, I don't think there would be another application that would touch it (Including Nuendo, Protools, etc). Then they should keep Vegas a video application and go back and rename it Vegas VIDEO 5.0. That way the video people would be happy and the audio people would be happy. It makes little sense how professional video editing and professional audio are mixed into the same app. Also there are many ACID users that need the audio features of Vegas, but they're simply not available. As you mentioned earlier Sonar will continue to be the preferred app as long as musicians and producers can get everything done with one less app. When and if SoFo combines the two apps, I'll be the first to throw Sonar in the trash can. I think many would follow. |
|
Subject:RE: Vegas vs Acid
Reply by: aress
Date:7/31/2003 10:02:36 AM
i would use vegas as my main DAW, but compared to my prostools HD stability, it doesnt even come close. i cant afford to use a DAW that will crash in the middle of a session. its due to the 3rd party drivers that vegas uses. now i will say, that vegas and acid, in post if the BEST software out there. if we are doing post production on a project, and dont need to worry if the driver in fact i show seasoned engineers how fast vegas/acid is, all native, no rendering, no waiting..... after using prostools now for over 10 years, i can tell u that the user interface is not that much different from their version 1! it still sucks. the UI in vegas and acid is so stupid that my kids use it, and we still do amazing things, quickly in vegas/acid.... one more thing, my prostool system cost me over $30000. my vegas/acid DAW cost us, with computer, around $2500.... word. |