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.


I am in agreement with you 100%. I was just saying that while we don’t need WaveLab to evolve to a point where you could record, mix, and produce a song in it, we really do need the basic routing options that come with a traditional multitrack DAW for the routing to and and capturing from analog equipment.

I am not sure why some people on this list (especially newbies) keep wanting WL to be a multitrack recorder and editor. WL is for MASTERING not for multitrack recording. There are plenty of other choices on the market if you are looking for a multitrack DAW. This obsession with trying to make WL a Swiss Army Knife DAW is counter productive IMHO. Leave WL a mastering DAW. I agree with the idea that there should be more routing options in the master section. FWIW

…being more “multitrack” of what it is now.

+1 , in the montage. track outputs and inputs, etc.


For my part and based on the use I give, I only miss two things:

  1. Full automation. For the cases in which I need it I have to do the mastering in Cubase, and it does not work in the same way.

  2. More slots in the master section. The current limit of 12 inserts seems to me an important limitation, and unnecessary in the current times. I currently have to master using the VST Blue Cat’s PatchWork. By my way of working I have in my mastering template 25 VST, very far from the 12 allowed. It would be good to break those limitations.

Otherwise perfect, I love WaveLab!

@MrTopo: It seems you only use the Wave editor and not the Montage in Wavelab. The montage gives you Clip FX slots, Track FX slots, Output FX slots and on top the Master Section FX slots. That’s 3x10 + 12 FX or a total of 42 plugins you can use on one file/clip…

Agree with that. I think it’s worth mentioning that WL is of course also for audio EDITING. Definitely agree also that more routing options are needed in the montage (as outlined by others above).

And you’ve produced something that does this, arguably, better than anything else on the market. WL is hard to beat for ITB.

I sort of agree with you if you have 25 plugins in the chain and it works ok in Wavelab, what’s the point of the limit? Does Cubase allow 25?

Cubase and Nuendo allow 16.

25 processors on a master mean something is badly wrong… :smiley:

I cannot imagine the CPU load with 25 VST3 plugins running. WOW!!! I thought it weird when I recently had to use 4 plugins. If you are using 25 plugins there has to be something MAJOR wrong with the original material.

Yes, I really do the mastering of the songs using the Wave editor, for the convenience of work.

:laughing: :laughing: This is really the template, in which there are also loaded viewers and listening simulations, not just processing effects. As I use a step mastering method, of those 25 plugins I use about 13 or 14 (most subtly, a matter of color and details), but it depends on the project. For that reason and due to the agility of the work, it is convenient for me to have the template with the plugins that I usually use, to have them at the click of a mouse.

It is no longer a matter of number of slots, if there are many or few, it is more a matter of putting limitations were there could’t be, only that.

True, especially for those who want to use a Mac. I’ve seen a trend of engineer/producers who tend to be Mac users that are getting more serious about mastering and the fact that WaveLab can work on Mac is really inviting where historically, most mastering DAWs are PC only for whatever reason.

On the Mac, WaveLab is REALLY hard to beat.

I had to use Studio One to teach a mastering course at the tech college last semester and while there are one or two things I like about it, overall it’s severely limited and felt almost like a toy. The mastering project mode that is. I didn’t use the multitrack session mode.

The good news is that the IT department is supposedly finishing up a WaveLab install today on all the machines in the classroom/lab so starting next week I can teach using WaveLab which will make for a much more enjoyable and informative class.

I couldn’t find a limit adding plugins in a Reaper chain. Think I added about 50 plugins.

That is the subject.
Cubase, which you asked, has a limit of 16 inserts, but it is solved quickly by creating a chain with all of the necessary fx channels. Of course, the operation of WaveLab is different, it does not have that possibility.

Just my personal opinion, but I actually think it’s bad practice to use very long chains of plugins except in exceptional circumstances, both from the audio quality point of view and in pure practical terms. Something like this is easy to ask for but it might be worth thinking it through from A to Z. It certainly wouldn’t be easy to access/manage 25 slots in the master section. You’d probably be doing a lot of scrolling unless the slots were displayed on screen in a different manner.

However, if more inserts were added to the forthcoming WL10 master section I wouldn’t complain (but I’d rarely use them since 12 is enough for me). If ever I need more (for some exceptional circumstance) I’m perfectly happy using Blue Cat’s PatchWork.

Each to their own way of working of course.

WL is beaten easily by Nuendo on Mac for me - more and more mastering tasks are shifted over by me to Nuendo. Just recently I worked under time pressure to finish an important fashion show music and sound design for the Fashion Week. This was just in stereo and I set up a simple chain of three plug ins in WL Pro (McDSP, Softube) while Nuendo had other projects open. Hitting “render” crashed WL immediately. I rebuilt the chain in Nuendo and the same plug ins with the same settings, in the same order worked just fine. I then mastered the rest only in Nuendo. WL is not ready for complex tasks if plug ins are involved - I’m not talking about exotic brands. It is the only application that crashes that often, and nearly always with plug ins no other application reacts bad to. I have two additional WL Elements installations (Mac and PC) and stability is generally far from what it was with WL 6.
The other program I use more and more instead of WL is RX7 Advanced, especially now when it has multi-channel capability, something that is ignored for so long in WL, that it is a running gag. I’m pretty sure the beta testers must find all these problems. The only other person I know using WL Pro, uses it on a PC and she has constant crashes too, while trying to finish some mastering of classical music. She bought Nuendo on my recommendation though … I don’t take WL development serious anymore, it became a totally unstable environment for plug ins - btw. there are still some showing just a blank window … I click it away and use something else. Reporting makes no sense either - we get the same religious sounding answers: WL does always everything correct, while all other products are not really having the correct plug in implementation, even if they very obviously work much better with plug ins than WL. That has some comical elements.