Subject:vegas vs. acid #2

Posted by: brnijeff

Date:7/20/2001 7:14:28 AM

Hello,
I see that Vegas is the definite choice if you need to record more than 2 sources at once. I'm just making music by myself-- at most 2 mics at a time. Also, I want to use no external processing... all plug-ins!

Given my situation, is there anything I can do in Vegas that I can't in Acid?
Thanks,
Jeff W

Subject:RE: vegas vs. acid #2

Reply by: Ted_H

Date:7/20/2001 9:58:41 AM

Acid and Vegas kind of look alike, but that is where the similarities end. I would encourage you to download demo versions of both programs. Try them out for seven days and see what works best for you.

Ted

Subject:RE: vegas vs. acid #2

Reply by: brnijeff

Date:7/20/2001 12:45:39 PM

Thanks, I already own Acid Pro 3.0 and love it. For what I need, it seems to handle my multitracking needs. Again... I have no more than 2 input sources at once (usually just one at a time). I do the Vegas trial, but I'm just looking for a few good points of difference from you guys before I invest the time.

Given my situation, are there any benefits to Vegas? Is it more computationally efficient? Does it handle plug-ins better? Are there more and better plug-ins available?

Thanks,
Jeff W

Subject:RE: vegas vs. acid #2

Reply by: bgc

Date:7/20/2001 1:12:49 PM

ACID really isn't appropriate for use as a multi-track system. While it lets you record non-loop audio, once you start getting a large number of non-loop audio tracks (> 4) ACID starts to bog down. Vegas is much better suited to having many tracks of audio that is being read from a hard drive. If you're using loops and recording only 1 or 2 full length tracks I think ACID is OK. Once you get more than a couple of full length audio tracks you should really use Vegas.
I really think that you need both to do serious work. I compose in ACID and then transfer it all to Vegas to do the real work.
B.

Subject:RE: vegas vs. acid #2

Reply by: spesimen

Date:7/20/2001 2:01:34 PM

incidentally, i actually use acid 3.0 for all sorts of multitracking...i prefer the interface for getting things down fast. i haven't really noticed the issues mentioned and often have 8-16 tracks coming from disk. am i just lucky?

i haven't used vegas so i can't comment on the thread topic really.

Subject:RE: vegas vs. acid #2

Reply by: Maruuk

Date:7/21/2001 12:48:26 PM

I think it's real hardware dependent. My Celeron and USB interface made overdubbing useless as tracks lost sync within 1-2 minutes. My new Athlon and PCI audio interface have cleared that bs up. SF should be much straighter with consumers about the problems with audio recording in Acid on less than stellar systems. It's basically useless, and insidious in that tracks begin to drift slowly out of sync. A true multi-tracker like Vegas takes sync very seriously and basically prevents drift from occuring.