Knowing the Montage is a superclass of a sound editor window, I wonder if someone needs a sound editor mode when you can do everything and more over a single sound file in the montage mode. Perhaps I am wrong but the sound editor mode could be removed and left only the montage window in Wavelab
I already thought about that, but I don’t think this would be a good idea.
The concept of an “audio file”, a raw recording, needs to stays for the sake of simplicity. Having only montages would be too much complex for some users.
Even if the montage is great, I know many users still prefer the simplicity of audio file editing.
I too think it should stay. I think it is a good concept to have both.
Speaking about that: Maybe a supersimple Montage would be an idea ?
Scenario: Editing a 6 hour audiobook. We do it now destructive in audio editor because
a) it ends up as this single file anyway and
b) not many thinks can go wrong while quick editing. No position-sensitive regions.
But it would be obviously an elegant way to be able to go back to the orogonal file to find alternatives later in the process.
So maybe a “supereasy” Montage-Mode ?
Just one tool at a time (only drag or only mark), no Pegel-Curves etc …
This is where a playlist option that I’ve mentioned before would be very useful. There are some editing/restoration tasks I prefer to do in Pro Tools because with playlists, it’s very easy to revert to the original playlist and copy/paste the original recording into any small section of the file to start fresh just for that section…and you don’t have to work about any sync problems because the playlist is perfectly in sync.
I think the audio/file sound editor mode is essential in WaveLab for analyzing files and destructive editing. I wouldn’t want to make a separate montage to destructively edit a file and bring back to the source montage. I want to edit the file right at the source.
I have been working with WL for almost 10 years now - and I still avoid the Montage like the plague. It’s clunky and frustrating and strange in a way I have never been able to overcome.
This is most certainly due to years of built-in assumptions on how a “multitrack” environment works on other DAWs like Studio One - where everything is logical and works in a way that makes sense to me.
I have not tried v9 yet - but maybe this time is the charm?
But if PG dropped the actual “editor” there would be no point to this application for me. I am in “edit” mode 100% of the time.
It’s interesting to see all the uses of WaveLab. For me, the montage and it’s deep features are what draws me to WaveLab. I use the audio editor for quick edits if I notice small issues in the source file when working in the montage. The audio editor is also a great place to analyze files both before I start working on them, or for quality control of my work before sending to a client.
Any major editing/cleanup/analog chain processing I prefer to do in another app but the WaveLab montage for me is the best of any software by A LOT. WaveLab 9 specifically saves me so much time over 8.5 and earlier.
I couldn’t see assembling final album masters of all formats without the montage. I also do any “in the box” mastering within the montage. I like that the plugins are running in real-time and non-destructive and I also like that I don’t have to separately save the master section settings and recall them in a separate step.
That’s the big difference between someone who “masters” and someone who does not. I use WL as the ultimate audio toolbox for all sorts of things ranging from cassette transcription to LP needledrops to audio for video cleanup to sample reduction but most of all batch conversion (Watch Folders)
Certainly the montage makes total sense if you are assembling an album for a commercial client - but for me - that’s simply not a reality.
That said - I would love to learn the Montage someday for CD mixes for the car but currently Studio One’s “project” page does it faster and better for what I need to do - so WL will have to be faster and easier if I am ever going to transition.
Alas - every time I have tried to make a go of it in the past - it has resulted in frustration and a quick exit.
There was a topic about this at Gearslutz Mastering. Most ME’s who replied overwhelmingly use the montage and rarely if ever, use the editor. Comments such as why it exists because you can do “everything” in the montage etc.
Personally, I prefer the editor. I started out on the editor learning it and avoiding the montage except for mixes. But for mastering, the montage is pretty much required if you intend to take full advantage of Wavelabs mastering functions.
Over time I learned the Montage and today use both.
I use both every day and would hate to see either one go away.
I hated the way WL7 and WL8 handled the back and forth between the edit window and the montage window but with WL9 it is back to the WL6 interface and I could not be happier. Congratulations to PG on a job well done…
And none of this blinkered pretending that 5.1 is the only surround format, either.
I want to be able to edit files in any of the AMB formats listed here. I can in Audition (though I can’t create them, nor does it write back the correct GUID); I can in SourceForge (though I have to remove the specified GUID before it will open them). But I’d prefer to be able to in WaveLab.
I’ve been using WaveLab for fifteen years; but if I have to wait that long again for this to become possible, it’s not unlikely that I will have died first…
Wavelab is basically a two channel mastering application. It is NOT and was never designed to be a multitrack editor which is what you are looking for. IMHO DAW software does not have to do “everything” to make it a good DAW. What it does have to do is do what it is intended to do very well. With WL 9 I think PG has achieved that goal.
I can’t afford Sequoia*, and Samplitude also doesn’t do enough.
Of course WaveLab wasn’t designed as anything more than a two-channel editor. The same was true of Audition and SoundForge, and even Sequoia, I imagine. They have been able to develop beyond that as the market started to call for it. WaveLab acknowledged the need with the surround possibility in the montage, but hasn’t gone the next step. It may be hard to do - I know from my time as a software developer that early architectural decisions can have hugely limiting unforeseen effects down the line - but surround is not going away, and with the explosive growth of VR systems, there is a growing marketplace which it is unwise not to consider, and which requires much more flexibility than just 5.1 (which is really only for films - its use for music is far from optimal).
I am a (just this week) retired audio enthusiast with a special interest in Ambisonics, whose inventors I have known since university.