No! read what PG and others have said in this thread, using a good audio device like RME or similar then you don’t have this problem…
But this defeats the entire purpose of this whole discussion. It’s a matter of principle. Why would I throw away money on some new hardware to do a thing in WL that can be done in Audacity without any extra hardware?
It’s not that I can’t afford the new hardware - it’s just that my inner rebel refuses to bow down and waste money when I don’t have to. Does it mean that I won’t invest in that hardware later? Of course not! I would like to upgrade my hardware at some point, when it seems necessary for my workflow, and when I’ll feel that I’ll get the most out of my upgrade. But I won’t do it arbitrarily, just because: “no, we refuse to implement that feature inside of WL - go and buy some hardware!”
1 Like
To close a thread or trying to cancel peoples votes, because they might seem uncomfortable first, do not change the facts.
When it comes to recording for instance, Wavelab lacks some very fundamental basic stuff.
That is a known and repeatedly mentioned fact. Like it or not.
Well, it would not surprise me if this topic got locked, as well. But I really wish that we could continue a meaningful, honest conversation in regard to the things that could be improved inside of WaveLab.
It’s never a healthy thing to sit in an echo chamber and have a few, loyal followers agree with everything you say. Self-criticism is always a good thing, no matter how genius you are.
I personally care about WaveLab and its future because I care about Cubase and Steinberg, and I want Cubase and WaveLab to complement each other in every way possible. And I really want to like WaveLab and how it behaves, more than I do now.
I am willing to make compromises and accept, that WaveLab won’t have everything that I like about Audacity or other audio applications, and that’s ok. I want to focus on the strong sides of WaveLab, because I know, there are plenty. But this record device switching thing IS a problem.
If you try and suppress public opinion because: “that’s the way it’s always been and that’s the way it is”, then software won’t reach its full potential. It will cater to a small niche group of experts, while a much bigger group of potential customers would be neglected.
In my humble opinion, you don’t have to be a professional to use WaveLab. And I don’t think it will hurt the company / brand image, if the software would be more accessible to a more casual target audience of audio and music enthusiasts.
1 Like
I have been a loyal WL user for over 30 years. It is an amazing piece of software and PG is an amazing person who willing gives of his time to answer questions on this forum. I use WL for mastering and restoration work and find it is ideal for both. I also own a lot of other DAWs but WL is my first choice when it comes to my daily work.
Audacity is a very simple program and is what I always tell people to use when they are first starting out as it gives you the basics without being to hard to use. Would I use it for my work - NO WAY.
It is not designed for professional use IMHO. If you want a program that is professional then I suggest WL. and professional level hardware to go with it.
I too have concerns about some of the “features” people ask for and have said so on this forum but I am a committed user and will continue to use WL as my primary DAW for as long as I am doing mastering and restoration work.
Comparing WL to Audacity is like comparing a race car to a bicycle IMHO.
FWIW
What features are you talking about. Pls be more specific.
The two “features” I mentioned? Would you consider loopback recording and exact latency as just some “features”? Seriously?
From a professional software I would at least expect exact values to the bit.
Oh, I forgot to mention sidechaining and a consistent layout.
1 Like
The features I am talking about are for ATMOS and other “features” that only few WL users would use for their own work like remote start and stop for a record cutting lathe.
I am more than happy with WL and its “features” as they are currently configured
FWIW.
If you are happy with Audacity then I suggest that you continue to use it. No one is forcing you to change to WL.
I like Wavelab… though, yes.
It’s just, that there are some basic functions are missing in WL. That’s all.
1 Like
I might adjust this analogy a bit, if you don’t might.
Wavelab seems rather like a very sophisticated and overengineered Merceds Benz and Audacity like a cheap chinese workhorse car. With the MB, we can ride very comfortable on nice roads, but have to worry about scratches and dirty on the way. With the chinese car, we don’t care about the quality of the roads and some dirt on the way. We just drive and if we have breakdown, we can fix it easily, because it is solid build without much fancy stuff around.
And you know what happens to the german car industry right now?
(Btw. yes, I do also prefer the MB.)
1 Like
I’d also like to add a bit to that adjustment of the analogy. The expensive car (Mercedes = “WaveLab”) can do a lot of things, has a lot of fancy features and it can drive much faster than the cheap, crappy car. It has way more horsepower than the crappy car, and it can drive much further on the same amount of fuel.
BUT, the crappy car has the advantage of having much simpler door design, and every time a new passenger (new recording device) enters the car, there is no problem. They don’t need a special, expensive key (ASIO equipment) to open the door and just drive (record audio).
And every time one passenger (an old USB microphone) leaves the car and another one (regular onboard sound card with loopback recording) enters, they don’t need to waste each others’ time. In the crappy car, every passenger is welcome, and they don’t need to have expensive keys to get to their destination.
It kind of reminds me of “The Tortoise and the Hare” story.
Also, I am not a developer, but if Audacity uses some special driver that enables you to easily switch between recording devices without headaches, then why not use that same driver in WaveLab, so that people, who don’t have Hanz Zimmer level of equipment also can participate?
And besides, Audacity is open source, meaning that you should be able to peek inside the code and see how they done it, no?
2 Likes