Feature Request:Lane (track) recording within Montage

WaveLab
21

Well “BUDDY” I have been with WL since version 1.6. Your request is one of a number of requests to make WL more of a multi track DAW. I too am a mastering engineer and yes it would be nice to have WL be able to do pitch and catch for external gear like my Weiss EQ1 MKII. To add multi track recording is not really necessary just the ability to open a recording window while playing back your stereo track in WL. It is also very sound card dependent.

I don’t know if you know but this is a “give and take forum” and other people can share their views and I can state what I want without “moving on” as you have suggested. FWIW

22

Wavelab already has this to some extent using the ‘record at cursor’ option for each track in the montage. Using this you can record the output of the Master Section to a single track in sync with the original.

23

Thanks. Maybe I’ll test it some day but this is just one of the many things keeping from wanting to do the play/capture process in WaveLab instead of REAPER or a multi-track DAW.

Can’t beat WaveLab for the montage layout and rendering final formats though.

24

Doesn’t using ‘record at cursor’ on the montage tracks already do this?

This allows you to record whatever is coming out of the Master Section to the selected montage track (by choosing to record the playback signal in the Record Dialogue). As far as I know this remains in sync and aligned with the source (at least for ITB). I’m guessing you may have already tried this and you’re looking for something more sophisticated but I’m not sure because you haven’t explained what you’re doing in detail… I haven’t seen any specific reference to ‘record at cursor’ here. In any case, to answer the title of this thread… WL can already record on a track in the montage and you can effectively record from one (or mutiple tracks) to the target track depending on what you mute in the source tracks.

Maybe it would be a good idea to make ‘record at cursor’ more elaborate so, for example, the user could punch in and out and monitor more easily on the montage track without having to open the record dialogue (using buttons on the tracks, for example).

25

Again, I was simply asking for feature. Your rant about multi track DAW’s and assumption that anyone asking for track recording in WL couldn’t afford another DAW was not helpful. You’re free to post whatever you want, but as the originator of this post I’m letting you know it wasn’t helpful. On the interwebs I believe the call it trolling.

I understand I can open another instance/window in WL and record into it…that is part of my normal work flow. That’s not what I was requesting.

26

I am NOT a troll and I really RESENT your calling me one. I have been on this forum and the one before it for a long time, probably longer than you.

I see more and more requests lately to make WL into a multi-track DAW. Some have even asked to be able to use MIDI instruments. Why is it so hard for users of WL to understand it was NEVER designed to be a multi-track recording DAW. It is a MASTERING DAW and is great for that purpose. I also see requests from people asking to have WL customized for their way of working. WL is a tool and as an engineer one learns to work with their tools. Leave WL the way it is and stop trying to make it into a customized multi-track DAW. :astonished:

27

I don’t see the harm in asking for a feature request to see if any other users chime in to support it. How else can any software get to know the needs of the users if it doesn’t have a means of getting feedback?

I think this is a great request and one I see often for WaveLab. I recently had a big name mastering engineer email me to see if WaveLab could do this because he was thinking of moving to WaveLab. He probably didn’t get WaveLab due to this limitation and others.

Even if you can record into the montage to record at cursor, I highly suspect it’s not sample accurate enough for punch ins/take edits etc.

The ability to do this only leads to more needs like playlists/take comping etc.

WaveLab doesn’t need to be a full multi-track DAW, but it does need some features to meet post-modern day demands to be taken more seriously by those who simple want to play/capture in the same session, on the same timeline, with all the other benefits that come with that in any other DAW.

The problem with large corporations is things tend to move SLOWLY so even if WaveLab does get to this point, maybe by that time, using analog gear will be so rare that it’s not worth them adding the feature. I hope not but that’s how I see it at this point.

28

Hi Justin, as far as I know ‘record at cursor’ has basic sample accuracy, but there are sync problems according to what effects processing you are using. It may not suit recording an analogue chain but this will of course depend heavily on what you’re doing and your particular set up / interface and so on. ‘Record at cursor’ is actually quite easy to use. You can record from any number of source tracks to the target track by setting the record input to ‘Playback output (record what is played back)’.

I’m entirely with you on the need for improvements (for recording on the timeline and playlists, comping and routing etc.) but, I have to be honest, I’ve not found the basic request expressed in this thread very clear. On this particular subject, unfortunately, the devil is in the detail.

In my opinion, some good montage track recording capability is already in place in Wavelab (and actually answers the title of this thread). I think that making it better can be achieved by making ‘record at cusor’ more elaborate, as I mentioned above, and making it record in sync at all times (automatic delay compensation). There’s certainly room for improvement.

29

Thanks. I still haven’t had time to take a look but even if this works flawlessly with the analog chain, there are still many things that would make me want to do the analog play/capture in WaveLab in it’s current state.

The entire process really needs an overhaul in my opinion for it to be better than doing in a multitrack DAW like REAPER or even Logic/Pro Tools/Cubase etc.

30

I thought this when reading some of the replies. Seems it would be one of the more positive functions of a forum.
I also think this is a sensible feature request.

31

Again…just asking for the ability to record a stereo feed back into the program. Not sure about your mastering workflow but many of us work with analog gear and would love to capture the result in the same montage…similar to Sequoia, pyramix, etc… I don’t see how that makes it a multi track Daw. It’s already almost there…I just want better functionality. A mastering DAW should have this ability (as every other one does)

Not trying to insult you, but you’re not offering anything constructive to this discussion (hence my trolling reference). I’m looking for a solution, not feedback on why WL should not be changed. It’s obvious I’m not the only one with this opinion. I understand the difference between multi track recording and mastering. Not asking for it to be Nuendo.

I’m a professional using this software. I’m not out of line to request this feature. So far crickets from the moderator.

32

So ‘constructive’ means agreeing with your request and not agreeing is trolling? A forum is about exchanging ideas and opinions and Thomas simply stated his opinion as a concerned long time user, and as another long time user (since 3.0) I see a valid point for concern, though not specifically about this FR.

33

One huge reason for this or benefit of this request is recalls. Normally recalls happen within a few days or a week or so but today I had to revisit a project from about 6 months ago. The artist changed every mix, so I had to reprint them all through the analog chain.

Thanks to the awesomeness of REAPER and the fact that the new mixes had the same start/sync point, I was able to load the new mixes into my play/capture session and print them to the record track again and now I have both versions perfectly in sync. If I have to reference the initial version or want to use the initial pass for any portion of any song, it’s all right there in front of me, perfectly in sync to the sample. It also makes for comparing the old and the new very seamless and effective.

Because I have regions defined for each song in REAPER on the timeline, when I export new versions to finalize in WaveLab, they are perfectly the same length and identical in every way except the sound. It makes for easy recalls. I can now load the new captures into my WaveLab montage and everything is pretty much dialed in again in terms of track spacing, tiles/text etc. I was kind of dreading this 9 song recall from 6 months ago but it was really painless thanks to REAPER.

I even used the original tail end of a song that I had used RX to remove the click track bleed as the song rang out on the original capture from analog, no need to redo that click track removal again which can be tedious. I didn’t have to manually append the files or do any guess work, a simple take/playlist changes that everything is perfectly in sync.

Speaking of RX, with REAPER I can also see all the places that I did some RX repair work with RX as REAPER’s external editor which is also a great feature that I’m sure WaveLab won’t ever have. After I capture from analog, I scan all the audio for any noise, clicks, ticks, pops etc. and remove them with RX as REAPER’s external editor. I do this post-capture because they are usually more obvious post-capture and if I remove anything that should actually be left in, it takes just a few seconds and no analog recall to get it back.

As you can see in the two screen shots attached, the method in REAPER makes it REALLY fast/easy to find all the trouble spots again and fix them ASAP instead of hunting for them all again manually. Such a time saver. The blue track on the bottom is the source track with some plugins inserted on each song with unique settings, and the top red track is the capture track. You an see both main captures of all songs plus all the places I performed little RX edits.

For a few years now I’ve been asking if WaveLab can work like the original request of this post but as I go father down the REAPER rabbit-hole, WaveLab would have to make MAJOR improvements to get me out of REAPER and do it all in WaveLab. That being said, I know many mastering engineers prefer to stay in one app/DAW and would welcome such changes. It’s a pretty common request on the forums, not just this one.

It’s frustrating to see an app that I really love so much (WaveLab) for many parts of the mastering process, be so clumsy with the initial part of the process, especially when the analog chain is involved.

Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 7.37.32 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 7.37.32 PM.png1920×1080 284 KB

Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 7.37.27 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 7.37.27 PM.png1920×1080 298 KB

34

No one has to agree. I’m just asking for a feature. I fail to see why this is so controversial, and why this functionality would effect anyone who didn’t want to use it. Since you mention it, what is your concern? Why would that create a problem for any user?

When I posted this request I expected constructive feedback, not a rant about the purity of WL and suggestions that I buy other software. I have a PTHD rig, Sequoia, Reaper…I’d like to stick with what I know best. I’ve been a long time WL user and would love to continue with the platform. Again, every other mastering DAW has the feature I’m asking for. Failing to see the controversy here. I assumed the forum would be open to suggestions. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but I didn’t expect the negative feedback. If you aren’t interested in this topic there are plenty of other posts. I’m trying to get some real feedback.

35

When I posted this request I expected constructive feedback, not a rant about the purity of WL and suggestions that I buy other software. I have a PTHD rig, Sequoia, Reaper…I’d like to stick with what I know best. I’ve been a long time WL user and would love to continue with the platform. Again, every other mastering DAW has the feature I’m asking for. Failing to see the controversy here. I assumed the forum would be open to suggestions. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but I didn’t expect the negative feedback. If you aren’t interested in this topic there are plenty of other posts. I’m trying to get some real feedback.
[/quote]

Pete, I for one support your suggestion and think that it is a good idea. I will go on record as saying this is something that I would like in Wavelab as well. I too would like to stay in one DAW for play and capture and for the record I don’t think that adding this feature will turn it into a multitrack DAW as has been suggested as we already have multiple lanes in the montage. Ultimately software makers are in service to their customers and the more they listen to and tune in to their customers needs and the way the software is actually being used, the longer they will maintain their relevance. Looking to the future I expect this to only increase. Antagonism towards change or suggestions of change is not helpful in fostering a culture of creativity or a spirit of innovation. Onwards and upwards…

36

So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll and anyone who posts a different point of view is “controversial” WOW what a srange way to look at other forum members. What I posted was not “negative feedback” but what just what I felt needed to be said. Everyone here works differently and if this change in WL is supported by other members who think it has merit and is something that PG can and wants to implement then fine. I just want to go on record saying that there are lots of other posts from other forum members asking for WL to become a full blown multi-track DAW and I saw your post as yet another one of these request. I still maintain the WL is a mastering DAW, it works fine for my workflow at the present time and I personally do not want WL to become a CUBASE like DAW.

For the record your posts come across as very condescending.

37

I have no problem with someone not agreeing with me. My post was “Feature Request”, not “what do you guys think about this feature.” Condescending would be you blasting me for my post.

Again, not asking for a multi track DAW. I could use Cubase if I needed that. Almost every other mastering DAW has the functionality I’m requesting. If you don’t need a feature don’t use it. I’m sorry this request is such a sore subject.

Your original post was not constructive. Implying that I (or any one who requests this feature) can’t afford multi track software is a joke. I understand what it’s for. I’m a professional using it everyday to make records. When I need a feature form one of my tools I have no problem reaching out to the manufacturer and asking.

I’m looking for feedback from folks interested in this function (which WL has but needs some refining,) not a back and forth with someone who sees no value in it. But, if you want to keep venting have at it. Still hoping for more feedback regarding this request.