batch processor is a joke
Please explain what’s the problem. Because this module is extremely easy to use, mostly a matter of dragging and dropping plugins and audio files.
Philippe
The batch processor has so many windows comprising it’s functionality. I “lost” a few of these windows trying to move them into a logical position. Do you think I could get them back into some sort of default arrangement.
The batch process is a classic case for a wizard (like in WL6), a serial set of commands, setup input files, setup modifications, setup file renaming, setup destination, GO!
It was simple to use in WL 6, and not in WL7. Its like a patchwork quilt in WL7. Is this an improvement?
Because why should I spend hours and days having to move things into position and setup keyboard commands that were fine before, or were there before. I do not want to earn a PhD in setting up WL.
I also have no understanding for sentences like “productivity is light years ahead”. Extreme exaggerations like that for me lead to not taking it serious.
Fair enough. But I am doing a lot of multitrack editing and WL was a very slow process. Load each clip on each of 8 tracks, position them, move them around, slide the edges of each clip in each of 8 tracks to move one fade edge, slip up, have to move them all again. Then mix to stereo, then edit, then master. Also no poly file support into the montage.
It is all done in one montage in PMX now, and I don’t have to customise anything, and I can load the poly files directly into the correct tracks that are created correctly on the fly. The productivity gain has been hours. Not an exaggeration.
Do you think I could get them back into some sort of default arrangement.
To find a “factory” layout, do the following:
-
In Options > Global Preferences > Options, click on “Reset default answers” (this step might not be necessary, but I don’t know what options you might have already selected).
-
Close the batch processor workspace, if any. Then click on the batch icon in the switcher bar, to open the menu. Select “open empty workspace”. A dialog opens: choose eg. "Factory preset: Power-user.
That’s it.
The batch process is a classic case for a wizard (like in WL6), a serial set of commands, setup input files, setup modifications, setup file renaming, setup destination, GO!
It was simple to use in WL 6, and not in WL7. Its like a patchwork quilt in WL7. Is this an improvement?
This is an interesting example. In the WaveLab 6 case, you have a kind of wizard as you say, hence you are somehow guided.
In WaveLab 7, you don’t have this, neither apparently a proper manual chapter to guide you 
. But when you know how it works (and that’s not difficult), I can assure you are more efficient with the WaveLab 7 batch processor as everything is visible and accessible without going through helper dialogs.
That example maybe summarizes this thread.
And what I retain for the future: to provide more “guides/hints” in the UI, and to have some work done on a better documentation. Well, I know all this for long… 
Because you will get back the time you invested back many fold. I have done it. Without PhD. And I am sure you had to invest time into Pyramix, too.
I can’t argue with you about that, because, if you say you are more effective with Pyramix, then you are. I can’t see though, from your short description, where the main obstacles in Wavelab for your specific workflow are, but in any case this seems to be more a matter of missing functions, than of bad UI, which is the main topic in this discussion.
Thanks PG, I can see that the factory resets are a big help in 7.1. I had my terrible batch processor experience before that. But a serial wizard is a better interface for the BP. It allows you to concentrate on just the small amount of info required for each step. At present the BP has 5 patchwork windows on the screen, including a big grey one in the middle, one doesn’t know where to start.
If it was a serial wizard, it’s obvious what needs to be done and specified, when it needs to be done.
Of course I could read the manual and bone up on the methods of using the BP, but I am an intermittent user of the BP and would forget by the next time I need it, and would have to go through it all again. Bah!
The Apple iOS was such a success because it is always obvious to the user, for intermittent users, old people, young people, without having to remember how to do it, or to set it up in a huge effort before using or to have the manual at hand.
Yes, but only the inbuilt keyboard commands. I didn’t have to setup any windows, or macros, or settings, or workspaces etc.
+100 on this - and without a manual of any kind - LutzR makes it sound like we all have tons of time on our hands to just sit around and “customize”…actually - let’s call this what it really is and that’s “get this thing to any point where we can actually use it”…and this is considered a good thing?
Sorry guys - that doesn’t fly. Truth be told - with the aid of the Ask Video series and hours and hours of trial and error - it took me probably about 2 months to actually figure out what I needed to work, what not to touch and so on before I considered my WL7 setup usable…and that is a bit ridiculous.
No - actually you couldn’t because a manual does not exist in the actual form factor or what a manual for this app should be.
VP
That’s true, but it also means you always have to run through those steps. I don’t use the BP very much, but when I do, I run a slightly different batch with much of the same factors still in place. For instance, I run a batch on the same set of input files, with the same processors, but with different output formats and in different locations. No two Wavelab users are the same…
Luck, Arjan
But it could be on serial Tabs or something, so the order of the process is still implied. You could then visit the tab you need to change, edit it and run.
You will not be surprised, that my perception of WL7 is slightly different. I was able to use it right away. The “customizing” is not a process taking “tons of time” but it is a matter of minutes or let it be an hour. Of course you have to know what you can do and how to do it, so I think PG has brought it to the point already in this thread: The problem with WL7 still lies in the documentation and is not the UI or an outdated look. The good thing is that this can be improved easier than the other things (and PG seems to be willing to do so…).
I have used Wavelab since version 1.6. I love Wavelab and use it 8 to 10 hours per day to earn money. I have not switched over to using WL7 for lots of reasons and I am still trying to get my head around a lot of the way it is configured. I still use WL6 for the day to day since to me it is very comfortable and I can get a lot done with it in short period of time. I really think their should be a way to have WL7 work like WL6. I don’t like the workspace idea. There was, IMHO, nothing wrong with the old way of working. I too think in a lot of ways WL7 is more clunky looking than WL6. If you want to see a very intuitive program then look at Samplitude or Sequoia, both of which have beautiful interfaces and work well. One thing I always liked about WL up until WL7 was that it was a very simple program to use and very intuitive for me. Now I have to fumble around with work spaces and ways of doing things that simply don’t make any sense to a seasoned WL user. I have the highest regards for PG and can’t tell you what a pleasure it is to have him on these forums. I have learned much from just reading his replies. I would like to have the functions of WL7 but with the ease of use of WL6 and earlier. My biggest complaint is the master section. It looks like something out of the 1990s and is less than elegant in its forum and function. The other thing I would love to see PG do is to make the interface changeable so one could pick the mode of operation they want to use - either classic WL or WL7. I am not a programmer so I don’t even know if this is possible but…
ps. I really don’t care much about the interface and the GUI as long as the program works and is stable. I understand others concerns but I am more concerned with how well it works and not how “pretty” it looks.
MTCW and YMMV
Tom,
That you popped round to give us your take was much appreciated. I know you are a huge fan and much what you said pretty much sums up what I am seeing and experiencing. I think I alluded to it in an earlier entry where we had WL6 right in the pocket for workflow and ease of use (sure it could have used some polish here and there) - but then WL7 comes along - as if to somehow validate it’s new Version number by taking the “comfort zone” right out of the experience…adding in much unnecessary complexity and truly frustrating the user base with no purposeful documentation.
It is easily the first and perhaps only upgrade I have done where I was left scratching my head going - what the heck is going on here? And are we truly going to get no manual for this? That one still floors me even after some 10 months of ownership.
I too vote for the ability to go “v6” on the fly but I suspect due to the massive shift in operation that is probably not possible now.
VP
^^^^^^^^ Well said and I could not agree more.
Hopefully PG will take some of what is being said here to heart and make a future version of WL something that is truly easy to use and easy on the eyes.
^^^^^^ agree here too - I’ve used every version from 1.6 and this is the first upgrade where I have installed it and not bothered using it - obviously not helped by the lack of a manual 
Regarding work spaces, I could not imagine working with Wavelab with just one monitor. I think 2 makes a huge difference. I am wondering if this makes a big difference with other users?
For myself, there are times even a 4 screen graphic card would be wonderful when using Wavelab.
I still maintain that a well designed program should allow one to use the program to it’s fullest using whatever that user happen to has on hand be it one monitor or multi.
To suggest that one has to go out an spend a ton of dough on extra monitors just to edit audio is a bit lame. To be fair - multi-monitor layouts are very common and I do have a pair…but it’s confirmation of poor design if two or more monitors are “required”.
VP
As I have said earlier: You can use WL7 pretty much like WL6, if you want to. It is not necessary to use the control workspace, you can just leave it away and continue as in WL6…
Well…I would love to watch someone demonstrate to me how to use WL7 like WL6 without my entire interface disappearing/morphing every time I click on the wrong button. WL6 at least would stay put and you could be assured that the menus and the primary interface itself was not going to radically change.
But since it’s impossible (at least from what I can see) to have the Montage and Audio File windows open at the same time - that is definitely not like WL6. When I say like WL6 - I mean exactly like WL6. Single UI with all functions accessible at any given time. Not possible.
VP