Been using the product for two weeks and have never had any problem with reliability or losing contact with my RME card. Might be system related. I am using an RME card and Windows 7 pro what are you using?

I think I understand what you mean, but like Paul above I’m not a user of that software so can’t really comment on how wavelab compares.

One thing I think is helpful in Wavelab is the ability to be able to zoom to the fade curve by clicking on ‘zoom to fade range’ in the fade ribbon. This along with the other functions in the fade ribbon and envelope points gives some pretty sophisticated control of the fade curves which you can see in fine detail.

One thing I think is helpful in Wavelab is the ability to be able to zoom to the fade curve by clicking on ‘zoom to fade range’ in the fade ribbon. This along with the other functions in the fade ribbon and envelope points gives some pretty sophisticated control of the fade curves which you can see in fine detail.

And worth mentioning: the Wave Matching Tool Window, which I think is pretty unique to WaveLab to create phased-sync xfades.

PG, I’ve always admired this capability in Wavelab and could see it’s possible use in a “crossfade editor” context, but I’ve never really found it useful in most current day needs until it can automaticallY sync across 2 tracks as well. I think that’s what FreeW is asking for (automatic sync) and it’s already there, but not totally useful the way it currently works to sync match clips for editing on one track only. Especially from a visual standpoint it needs to work across 2 (and more) tracks to automatically time align multiple versions across multiple tracks. If the automatic match search range could be made somewhat longer, and it could accurately time align all multiple takes across multiple tracks, I think that’s what FreeW is asking for, and would certainly be useful for me.

It’s not just classical. It’s how I learned to put together pop albums in Sonic HD (precursor to Soundblade). 3 and 4 point source-destination editing with a comprehensive crossfade editor. Both features currently in Sadie, Sequoia, Pyramix, and Soundblade only, afaik (maybe Sonoma too, I’m not sure). Also afaik, both features were a necessity in a pro mastering app to be considered for use in (most) of the biggest mastering houses for many years.

I’ve gotten used to the editing in Wavelab and don’t really miss it that much, but I think it’s still important to many people.


Please, assignable output of montage tracks. Lacking of this “option” makes WL unusable in a full studio.


What do you need that the present output channel assignment for montage tracks doesn’t provide?


Actually you can’t have a montage track sent to multiple otputs nor to different destination than main out without using a fake 5.1 montage, useless if you are working to a stereo project. This feature is ABC for studio DAW.


Please explain with a real word scenario

Montage Track(s) out to… ?

Many Mastering guys/girls is doing ABC outside in mixer or at least inside mixer in DAW
out to speaker or analog stuff, tape recorder e.t.c


regards S-EH

I’d love to send a montage track to both of my D/A converters so I can choose the best option on my mastering console to feed my analog chain. Bonus points if another version can be sent to my monitor controller pre-FX including clip FX so I can A/B the original sound to what I’m currently doing.

Then I’d love to be able to record back on to a new montage track that has the option to seamlessly toggle (no glitch or disruption) between multiple stereo inputs so I can choose which A/D converter is best for the material.

Then I’d love to deactivate the original track(s) after the capture from analog so this track and its clip FX are not taxing my CPU anymore, but I don’t want to delete the track incase I need to rework anything. Just deactivate.

My currency play/capture DAW can do all this easily but I would consider doing all the work in WaveLab if these types of things were added, and I know many others would use WaveLab if this was added because unlike myself and a few others, most people want to work in one DAW.


Please explain with a real word scenario

Montage Track(s) out to… ?

In a real studio we use multiple DACs, multiple ADCs and also multiple analog chains for comparison.
All the AB stuff is managed on the hardware monitor controller that has multiple inputs. In my particular setup i often do some ABC comparisons.
Say track 1 goes to processing and should not pass through master section, then i have a split to monitor A.
Track 2 is in monitor input, catching the analog chain return, and has to go to another DAC (maybe using master section) then to monitor B.
Track 3 has a reference song on it and should go to a third DAC hooked on monitor C.
During playback i can switch between dry, wet and reference in real time.

Another case: Track 1 is the source, i want to send it to different DACs at once and do an AB of DACs without connecting any AD to bring signal back in the daw. I should have the opportunity to assign 2 outputs on track 1 or, the slow version, copy track 1 on 2 and assign it to a different output. I can go on for hours. This basic feature is found on ANY mastering daw, say Soundblade, Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie etc.


During playback i can switch between dry, wet and reference in real time.

What is the difference between “dry” and “reference” in your explanation? Different DAC?

Dry is unprocessed source track we are working on sent direct to a DAC,
Wet is source track processed with a chain, if analog recaptured, limited etc. (real time input monitoring!)
Reference may be another finished song of the album or from another artist we use to keep the general picture under control.
Reference tracks need to be played, without other processing, simultaneously often with some degree of attenuation. Playing references simultaneously on another lane means using a switch in real time without the need of skipping to another location of the timeline nor adding any black between selections. Reference may also be an alternate analog/hybrid setup ready for an AB comparison without the need of capturing it back. Key is having an I/O matrix on the software for most of the basic tasks in real word hybrid or analog use. Most of the guys out there who are WL Pro users need to use say Reaper, Pro Tools, to solve this major limitation confining Wavelab to a mere assembly/authoring/export software.

edit: someone tried to use the 5.1 matrix to solve this big bug but that means working in a non standard stereo montage and troubles with surround instances of plugins, impossible inserts etc. The easiest way is actually to use another software capable of routing.

all of the above involves naturally assignable Master Section to a specific output.

Sad but true. I know you technically can already do the analog gear capture in WaveLab but it is currently severely limited.

What we need is ability to send montage tracks directly to a different output besides the main output 1-2. These tracks would be where the source files are and we would of course put clip FX on each song to make adjustments before going out to the analog chain.

My RME AES card has 8 stereo pairs of inputs and outputs that I use for sending the source tracks to two different DAC choices, then another stereo path to send a fully unmastered version with no clip FX or any processing at all. This way I can A/B between the main DAW output 1-2 and the fully unmastered version on my monitor controller. The versions are fully in sync in the DAW so to A/B on the monitor controller is very smooth and valuable.

Output 1-2 is my main monitoring path so the track that is used to record back from the analog chain goes to output 1-2 but in REAPER I use outputs 3-4 to feed the source track for mastering to one of my DAC units, and outputs 5-6 to feed it to another DAC at the same time and on the mastering console I decide which one feeds my analog gear. The important thing is that WaveLab should be able to send a montage track to more than one stereo output like 3-4, 5-6 etc. This would be the track or tracks that contain the files that are being mastered.

Then in the montage we need to be able to monitor and record to a track directly and right on the track be able to capture from inputs 3-4, or 5-6 etc. In REPAER my script to seamlessly toggle between inputs during playback to audition my ADC units is HUGE. I couldn’t work without it now. Even during playback and input monitoring (while dialing in the sounds) I can press a key command to toggle between inputs 3-4 and 5-6 to compare the ADC choices.

I don’t use WaveLab to record audio so I don’t know all the details but I know there is some limitation with being able to monitor the sound of the ADC out of the main outputs of WaveLab either during playback and/or recording.

I think the External Gear plugin needs to go away in favor of something that works like a DAW where tracks can get routed to any output or buss and other montage tracks can be set to a certain input. Of course, I don’t think WaveLab should turn into a multitrack DAW but there are some things about DAWs like Pro Tools, REAPER, Cubase that make more sense for mastering with analog gear than the way WaveLab currently works.

When I’m working, I just have the record track in “input monitor” mode so I can play the session and hear everything via the record track input and then when I’m happy with it, I record to the new track.

Then of course we need a way to make the source tracks inactive after the recording is done so that the clip FX are not using computer CPU but we also need to be able to make them active again incase a redo is needed.

In Pro Tools the “Track Deactivate” works and in REAPER, I keep the track active but you can make all the plugins go fully “Offline” so they surely do not tax the CPU at all but are still there if you need to make them go back online for a redo.

What’s the point? Any mastering operative software is a multitrack daw by definition. Wavelab is a multirack in concept, but with kind of Appleish crazy logic behind actually forcing and limiting operator to a “view”. I’m thinking to crazy things like last iPad Pro with stellar features, premium prices and software inhibited data transfer on the usbc connector… :astonished: Why a platform intended for professional use shouldn’t evolve at the 10th release to what professionals need? If with the term “multitrack” you are referring to midi score and vst instruments i agree. But basic routing is at least a 20 years old feature of any pro mastering software. Limited functions are found in toys like Ozone etc. If the product line includes a LE version and a Pro version in my opinion Pro should be pro.

Mastering is not the only domain where WaveLab is used. For quite sometimes, WaveLab has been oriented “processing in the box”, ie. without external hardware.
Hardware i/o like external gear, prevent multitask batch processing of course, a domain where WaveLab has a strong implementation and popular usage.
Still, the popularity of WaveLab has incrementally reached standard studios, and now there is more demand for hardware support. Especially, Mastering Studio try to have their distinct brand, their sound, using combinations of devices. This is how I see things. Therefore I think WaveLab will have to provide this kind of support, without, of course, ever giving up on multitasking batch processing (without hardware).

WL is a deep software, sometimes too deep for average professional use :wink: . I don’t think I/O matrix, again basic feature of any platform, will stop customers who need only batch processing or ITB only workflow buying the product. I know for sure a number of colleagues who can’t buy the platform as is or, better, who can buy it (like me) but use it in very limited fashion. You can sure implement some new crazy stuff AI, VR based or whatever in the next release but can’t understand what is the problem solving this super basic question.