Incorrect on ALL counts. If I were to compare the WL “Montage” (which is nothing but a poor mans multitrack) with say - the standard multi-track layout in Studio One - it took me about 10 minutes to get comfy in Studio One.
I agree a DAW must be learned - but no DAW should require “years of painful practice”. Anything that is painful is a waste of time for me.
The WL Montage has been the subject of long standing debate for years - I won’t rehash it. Many like it - many do not. If it works for you - good on you.
It’s very clear from the comments here that many - including the actual software developer - disagree with your ideas.
Probably best to just let it be - we didn’t get to 10 versions of WL without learning a thing or two about what people want along the way.
Same here. When I got WaveLab (version 7), it was a HUGE point of friction in my workflow. Thankfully the montage output FX (which I couldn’t believe didn’t already exist) were added for version 8 I think.
When this happened, I could finally breathe and be sure that all my plugins and their settings would be safely saved and loaded with each montage, as you’d expect. Without this, the chance for human error or other disaster was HUGE. I still see cases where people who use the global master section somehow lose or corrupt their settings which can ruin a project and/or it’s recall ability. No thanks.
Of course, there are a few things only available in the global master section but I’ve developed what I think is a great workflow that allows me to keep the global master section hidden and I only use it to host my Clarity M plugin so WaveLab can talk to my hardware meter. I don’t use it for anything else and don’t care to.
I meant the level of learning that is in-depth, fully appreciative of the DAW’s vast potential. The understanding and mastery of this level does not arrive in 10 minutes.
There is a form of pain which is almost inherent in any type of human growth. It’s about stretching your body. Quite pleasant, too, if not overdone.
You’re right. It’s not possible to use the Resampler in the Output section of the Inspector. Therefore to be precise, it is possible to have a reproducible working environment within the montage, if you don’t need resampling. If resampling is always in your workflow I can understand your frustration with having to implement that in the Master section but i think there may be a better solution than changing the whole architecture of Wavelab.
So the underlying rationale/logic of my suggestions seems to be sound after all (I wish it were not). The seemingly only way out is to let the output of the audio montage take over the rendering functionality of the master section.
Right. So after your re-design I have to use all kinds of tricks and cheats to be able to do what I now can do directly. As opposed to your desired way of working which is already possible with only the exception of resampling that needs the Master Section. I think it is clear your idea won’t float.
Resorting to hyperboles (e.g., “all kinds of tricks and cheats”) won’t make your argument any stronger nor your workflow any more special than that of another engineer. Please, respect the fact we’re different.
It’s only fair, I guess, for me to say that I have had a career entirely working with computers in various ways (programming, management, using, repairing, and supporting) since 1970 (I’m now retired); so I can very quickly visualise the way a program is working and internalise it. Perhaps this is an unfair advantage in this discussion!
However, I would also remark (as an ex-programmer) that there is more inconsistency in commands and controls between the editor and the montage than there should be, which makes learning the second (whichever way around) harder than is ideal.
I can relate to your experience, albeit from another walk of life. It’s a special competence you’ve developed through long-term cultivation. Intuitive for me is more of a naturalist concept, something that relates to human nature as human nature without assuming one is in possession of special skills. Semantics, I guess.
Mind you, I also had a period working at the BBC, where among other things I did some tape editing. I found the way the I can split a clip in the montage, slide the pieces apart, and bring another clip to fill the gap felt as like tape editing as you please (well, as I please…).
Not really. The first three suggestions of your first post would not suit a large number of users who seldom use the montage and would thus not represent a streamlining of the software.
Lets just leave it the way it is. it works for a majority of users and to completely change WL to suit the needs of one uses seems absurd. If you don’t like the way WL works then find another DAW that suits your workflow. You seem to be the only one who wants it “your way” FWIW
Have you conducted a survey to determine this for a fact? If so, please, point me to the results of the survey.
Given the number and frequency of your own complains about Wave Lab in these forums and elsewhere, shouldn’t you follow your own advice?
This very thread disproves your statement: Some participants are happy with the status quo, some would welcome the changes suggested and these participants are more than one. Some are happy with the status quo while being generous of mind and heart to appreciate the fact some need the changes. At least two would welcome the changes suggested in their entirety. At least one would embrace some aspects of them.
I gave it a bit more thought: what if the issue is approached from the perspective of both/and instead of either/or. Say, the user is given the choice of configuring Wave Lab to operate either in multi-editor mode or single-editor mode.
The multi-editor mode would be how it is now (no changes whatsoever). The single-editor mode would:
sport the audio montage as the only primary editor;
integrate the audio file editor into the audio montage as a sub-editor feeding its signal to the signal path of the audio montage;
move the processing stage of the master section (resampling, final effects, dithering) to the montage output;
reserve the master section for monitoring tasks alone.
The exclusive features of the single-editor mode would be ability to:
contain the complete signal path within the audio montage;
work simultaneously on multiple audio montages each with different final effects, including different sample rates.
Philippe, would you even consider such a scenario, is it even remotely feasible?
I have been with WL since version 1.6.2. Versions up until 7 were GREAT then we got WL7 and WL8 which, IMHO, were not very good. WL 9.5.5 seems stable and that is what I am currently using until WL version 10 is bug free. You seem argumentative and you want to push your agenda and when any of the senior members of this forum say something you immediately start attacking them. What are you trying to accomplish??? Just because YOU want WL to work YOUR way does not mean it will happen. ( and I PRAY PG does not listen to you).
