Feature requests

I have two things that I’d like to see adressed a.s.a.p.

1) Organizing plug-ins.
Yes I have tried to follow the instructions on page 592 in the manual. It’s very messy. I suggest you take a look at how things are done in Cubase Pro. This is how it should be done!

2) Playback plug-ins
Another thing that the WaveLab team can learn from the Cubase team is in how to handle Playbsck Processing plug-ins.

In WaveLap Pro, the same plug-ins are used regardless of which speaker outputs are selected. In Cubase Pro, on the other hand, each speaker output can have their own plug-in sett-ups.

This is very important if I want to use an aoustics application, such as Sonarworks. In Cubase, I can have two separade instances of the Sonarworks plug-in (with separate speaker profiles) running “in parallel” and automatically switch between them when I switch speakers. In WaveLab Pro (where it matters the most) I can’t.

It’s useless to be forced to use the “wrong” speaker profiles. This is not acceptable for a professional mastering application!

Please fix this.

What is a “Hippie” plugin?

I don’t know. I wrote “Organizing”!

Curse words are automatically replaced on the forum. ‘hippie’ is probably one of those replacement words, like the more often seen flower. So, @Macken maybe made a typo.

Isn’t page 592 Defining Shortcuts?

Yes, page 592 is Defining Shortcuts. I think OP meant page 593.

Why? How would you want it changed? Personally I much prefer the way it’s organised in Wavelab.

There might be different versions of the pdf manual. In mine, “Customizing Plug-in Groups” is handled on page 592.

As I’ve already said… Look at how Cubase Pro’s Plug-in Manager! It’s much more intuitive to use, and doesn’t require a degree in compuiter programming. In the Cubase Pro’s Plug-in Manager you can easily build you plug-in menus by:
a) Make folder and build your own menu hierarchy (with the categories organased as it suites YOU. Not a manufacturer!).
b) Populate these folders via drag and drop (welcome to 2020 :wink: )
c) Have a plug-in be presented in multiple folders (categories).

This is far more easy to use and far more flexible than the way WaveLab does it. And it’s not from another vendor. It’s another Steinberg program.

There might be different versions of the pdf manual

The page numbering differs with languages.

I’m familiar with the way Cubase does it and it’s clear that you prefer that system. It’s fine to build your own menu hierarchy, if you have the time to do so. But FWIW your own custom menu won’t automatically update when you install new plugins. That makes things awkward. However, I agree it’s flexible.

In my opinion, there’s no major disadvantage to Wavelab’s way of organising plugins but, of course, there’s always room for improvement… You could perhaps consider making a request for adding customisable plugin menus.

Building a meny hierarchy is a one-time task. When you want to add a new plug-in, it’s a matter of a few seconds to add it to your menu(s). Yes, it won’t update automatically, but neither will WaveLab! So no difference there.

Cubase’s VST Manager has huge advances over WaveLabs method:

  1. It’s much easier and faster to build a menu hirearchy.
  2. It’s possible to place a plug-in inder multiple categories.
  3. It’s possible to build task-specific plug-in menues.

WaveLabs method is so complicated and limited that I doubt that many users bother with it.

While I’m at it. There is another imporovement that I’d really love to see. Both in Cubase and WaveLab.
That is Display Names:

This would be especially handy when dealing with plug-ins that emulate hardware. Here’s on example (out of hundreds). IK Multimedias T-RackS plug-in suite includes (among other hardware emulators) four Tape Machines named, TR5 Tape Machine 24, TR5 Tape Machine 80, TR5 Tape Machine 99 and TR5 Tape Machine 440. Not very useful names, wouldn’t you agree? They are actually emolators of four specific tape machiones; MCI JH-24, Studer A80, Revox PR99 mkII and Ampex 440B respectively.

It’s understandable that IK Multimedia can’t use the original names, since they are trademarked. However, it would be very useful if we as users could program our own Display Names. I’d rather see “MCI JH-24” in my plug-in meny than, the non-descriptive “TR5 Tape Machine 24”.

And, as I’ve said, you can mutiply this issue by hundreds. Just about every hardware emulator (such as tape-machines, outboard FX, instruments, etc.) suffers from this naming issue.

Can you guess what synthesizer the “U-NO-LX” plug-in is emulating?

If you have to keep going back to add new plugins it’s not a one time task, and you have to remember to do it.

It has some nice features but suggesting it has ‘huge advances’ is an exaggeration, in my opinion. It also has disadvantages. In the non-customised plugin menu it produces lots of unnecessary submenus in the categories. These get in the way of workflow since using the menus becomes a click fest (not the case with Wavelab).

Personally, I don’t find it complicated and I would think that many users don’t bother with customising in either program. I’m not convinced that Cubase is better than Wavelab in this regard and I prefer Wavelab’s plugin menus and method overall. However, most users (myself included) would probably have no objection if more custom features for plugin organisation were added to Wavelab.

Of cause, you have to remenber to do it. But you have to remember to get up in the morning, if you’re gonna get any work done during the day. Don’t you?
Building the hierarchy is a one-time task. If you want to have the plug-ins automatically added to the category you wish, the program has to be capable of reading your mind. Steinbergs programmers are good, but I doubt that they are that good!

It has some nice features but suggesting it has ‘huge advances’ is an exaggeration, in my opinion. It also has disadvantages. In the non-customised plugin menu it produces lots of unnecessary submenus in the categories. These get in the way of workflow since using the menus becomes a click fest (not the case with Wavelab).[/quote]
The advantages are huge. For one thing, it takes seconds to add a plugin to the menu in Cubase and minutes in WaveLab.
A simple misstyping can screw up the WaveLab menu, while it’s a feat to screw things up in Cubase. Drag-and-drop will always be easier to use, than commandline programming.
In Cubase, you can have a plugin show up in several categories. In WaveLab, you can’t.
Relying on having the vendors decide the categories somply doen’t work. The, by far, biggest category in WaveLab is “other”, which holds plugins of all kinds that should be sorted under other categories.

These advantages are huge!!!

Personally, I don’t find it complicated and I would think that many users don’t bother with customising in either program. I’m not convinced that Cubase is better than Wavelab in this regard and I prefer Wavelab’s plugin menus and method overall. However, most users (myself included) would probably have no objection if more custom features for plugin organisation were added to Wavelab.
[/quote]
As I’ve allready said…Drag-and-drop will always be easier to use than commandlines. Nevertheless, the are a minority that prefers commandline programming, but I can garantee that the vast majority prefers a GUI.

Personally, I’d prefer to spend as little time as possible setting things up, and more time making musik!

@Macken: if someone says ‘in my opinion’ it means that’s the way he thinks about it. You can come back and say it’s the other way around, but that’s ‘your’ opinion. Repeating your point of view over and over doesn’t make your argument any stronger. That’s my opinion.

and thats the point where you will realize your wish will be ignored like so much other improvements or requests from other users in this forum and you will have to find a workaround for yourself…

wasted time :frowning:

I think in general that PG listens to request and where possible implements them. Multi-track implementation has been a BIG disappointment for a lot of people. There are numerous posts on this subject going back 10 years or more. I am not a programmer so I don’t know why this seems to be so hard to do. Some people want PG to “implement” certain features that only “they” deem necessary like the person who wanted WL to control his cutting lathe. If you make a valid request and not something that only you deem “necessary” I think you will find PG listens and evaluates the request. When it gets added is something else entirely. FWIW

OK. I won’t bother anyone with suggestions of improvements anymore!

I’d just ask that PG will make a statement of intent, with regard to Apples switch to their propertary silicon. We got a Mac version of WaveLab because Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel. Does this mean that we will lose WaveLab all together?

We got a Mac version of WaveLab because Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel.

Not exactly.

Does this mean that we will lose WaveLab all together?

Not at all.

Philippe

Thanx Philippe. That’s reasuring.