Vegas vs. Sound Forge vs. Acid
Although I have been using Vegas for a long time...( Back when it was Vegas Pro from SF) I am becoming confused on what to use for audio mixing and recording these days. I have been recording my band and other multitrack needs on separate tracks into Vegas, which seems to work fine. Why would I need Sound Forge if I can do everything in Vegas? Record, Mix, and Master all can be done in Vegas as far as I know. Does Sound Forge have better audio tools? Vegas was audio before video, so I could just use Vegas and forget about it right? If I am not mistaken, Sound Forge doesn't have multitrack recording anyway right? I am confused on the multichannel thing too. Now it seems (from my limited experience) that Acid (aside from the loops) is sort of what Vegas Audio used to be. Apparently it seems to facilitate multitrack recording. It seems that Cinescore is sort of like Acid?
Sorry....I am just trying to get a grasp on all of this stuff. We all know that that Vegas is king of the video, I am just wondering if it is still king of the audio as well.
Thanks for your help
First let me say that vegas is an extremely good audio editor as far as nle's go. Maybe even a little too good since it kind of steps on the toes of both soundforge and acid.
I once downloded the trial of both SF and Acid and played with them a bit and what I discovered (to my disappointment) was that the three programs do not integrate with each other in the way that (just for example) Adobe CS4 programs do. I can quickly and easily feed raw files and data from one CS4 program to another which is what makes CS4 so very attractive. If Sony products took this approach then I might just be a SF, acid owner right now, but they didn't.
What I found instead was that SF, Vegas, and Acid have enough that is common (in a rather redundant, repetitive sort of way) so that the only real attraction would be (or would have been) to integrate them to the extent that the CS4 products are. With that feature not there, I really saw no reason for me to go the SF/Acid route.
I instead opted for Adobe Audition which is more like a combination of SF and Acid with several different modes of operation Edit mode... multi track record mode....etc.
With the combination of Vegas and AA, I find there is enough of a difference between the two programs (with much less overlap and redundancy) to make worth owning the pair together. Not withstanding, AA is cheaper than the combination of SF/Acid and can probably do more.
This is all just one man's opinion though and should only be considered as just that.
Yes I can't believe Sound Forge is at version 10 now,
and it still doesn't have the ability to add and stack tracks like Vegas and Acid Pro....
You are right, they should have just combined Acid and SF to make a good DAW.
Dual 2.5 G5, IO, Kona LH, IO, Medea Raid, UL4D, NVidia 6800, 4Gig RAM
Nehalem Octocore 12 GB Ram, Nvidia card, MBP, MXO, MXO2 mini, Windows Vista Adobe Studio CS4, Vegas 9.0, Lightwave 9.6, Sound Forge 9, Acid Pro 7, Continuum 6, Boris Red 4, Combustion 2008, Sapphire Effects
Whew.....well I thought I was missing something. Thank you for the responses, and anyone else who would like to chime in. I have strongly felt that Sound Forge and Acid should be combined. Personally, I too would love to see Sony come out with an all inclusive audio multitrack program like Pro Tools or Audition. They could leave Vegas the way it is, because the great audio tools make it wonderful for video. However, a solid audio program with TONS of plugins and options for recording would be great.
Maybe they could call it Reno?
Sound Forge is a little better integrated than what you describe. It's certainly not as hard as using a third party product.
I use it fairly frequently for things that Vegas cannot do. Right off the top is sound reduction which can clean up undesired background sounds of various types. Then there is the ability to analyze and adjust sound levels across all tracks. There is also access to advanced functions including an equalizer, compressor, etc. from izotope. SF is also now supporting 8 output channnels (7.1) as well as channel abilities that I do not yet fully understand. SF definitely adds many capabilities that Vegas does not supply, and has now added even more capability.
I agree that the big missing feature is the kind of multitrack audio that Vegas provides. That would be very nice.
"Sound Forge is a little better integrated than what you describe. It's certainly not as hard as using a third party product."
Well I would argue this. I've found that AA integrates with Vegas just about as well as SF does.... or acid for that matter
I'm not sure if you've had the opportunity to work with Adobe CS4, but this is the kind of integration that I would like to see happen with Sony products. In my mind it also just doesn't make sense to offer SF and Acid as two separate programs. With AA in multi track mode (like being in acid) all you have to do is double click the audio track you wish to edit and bang... you're in edit mode (like being in SF) With AA running at roughly the same price as SF (maybe just a bit higher) and having the functionality of BOTH SF and acid combined, the choice is really sort of a no brainer.
No, I have not yet moved to CS4. However, I have the CS3 Master Suite. It is interesting that Adobe includes Soundbooth in the Master Suite rather than the product you mention. I cranked it up briefly to obtain a feel for what is does and how it works.
It does not compare very well to SF. It does not have the range of adjustments and special effects that SF does. I was a bit surprised by the short list of functions available compared to what I am accustomed to in SF. It also seems to rely a lot on simple controls (almost like brightness/contrast sliders in Photoshop) which do not have the precision that SF contains (SF is more like Photoshop's curves function). Certainly, based on a quick tour, the product looks like a very lite version of SF. That observation may stem from the fact that I am not terribly familiar with the product, but it seemed that you weren't terribly familiar with SF before rendering an opinion. As I recall, you downloaded and looked briefly at a trial version of SF.
I did not see much similarity in the interface to other Adobe products such as Photoshop, Premier Pro, or After Effects, so I did not grasp your point about a common interface between products.
Well I wouldn't exactly say a "brief" look at the trial. They give you 30 days and I made heavy use of each of those days
My honest (and personal) opinion of SoundBooth is that is a pretty cheap and limited program and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. As to why they came up with this program in the first place, I have no idea. They include it in CS4 as well. It's about as useless there too :)
AA and Soundbooth are not at all the same program.... not even really similar. As said before AA more like the combination Sf and acid (with all the detail and functionality of both included)
I don't remember saying anything about a common interface. Maybe you miss understood me (or I wasn't clear enough).