Not adding to the back-n-forth… cause I’m not really discussing but just adding more user experience/feedback
I use Wavelab for mastering, AND for quick edits or single file processing. I work in music and film/media. Never thought of Wavelab as “just for mastering” tool… but it’s becoming that because it fails me. I work with more multichannel music and multichannel audio every year. Sound effects, Ambisonics, Film Score Stems, etc.
In order to continue to use Wavelab as MORE than just mastering stereo music… specifically as my go-to, quick loading, primary audio editor… it needs to add native multichannel support. Until that happens, I’ll not pay for another upgrade and will begin to look for other software that can manage this simple task.
Not that one user matters… not saying it in a threatening way, cause really… no one cares if one user leaves or not… just saying it so that Steinberg can see the reality here. I’ve used Wavelab since 1999… and now I’m looking around for alternatives. That sucks.
I have good reasons to believe that, it does matter. On top of that, you are not the only one who is thinking about alternatives. I am not going to upgrade as well, unless of course, it dramatically brings the feature overnight. It sucks for me even more because I was assured before buying Wavelab Pro that it is going to have multi channel support in this release. Apparently it does not. Anyway, I don’t want to blame anyone. May God bless Wavelab ‘Pro’ but I don’t want to wait for another few years to have the multi channel support if it comes at all. I’m looking at Sound Forge as the best alternative right now. Best of luck.
I have multiple DAWs on my computer. I use them for different tasks. I use WL for mastering and restoration and it works great. I have a number of other DAWs that can do multitrack /multichannel and that is what I use them for.
It sometimes sounds to me that a lot of people on this forum don’t want to spend any money to purchase other DAWs and just want to use one DAW for everything and keep asking to have WL be an OMNI DAW meaning it can do everything.
If you are doing audio as a profession and are making money then I don’t see the problem with owning more than one DAW. FWIW
Thomas I agree with you about multitrack. Use pro tools or cubase or nuendo or reaper to record and mix. But multichannel are delivery formats just like stereo. Mix to multichannel in the mix apps, but master the multichannel in a mastering app, with the ability to directly open, edit, and process multichannel files with multichannel tools, in the editor and the montage. That’s why all the mastering apps have had 5.1 for so long.
Exactly, but this Mr. Bethel won’t get that, because he is his own little satellite orbiting around himself watching his tiny backyard. Of course it is NOT just about having tools that are capable of doing multi-channel editing, but workflows in general. I do multi-channel mastering, conversions etc. in Nuendo or even in TwistedWave, but the workflow in WL would allow better and simpler workflows for that. RX Advanced is multi-channel ready too and could be used as an external editor like with stereo and so on …
There is no excuse for not having multi-channel file editing etc. in WL. I suspect that there may be some software architecture problems/reasons to postpone that as much as possible.
I own Wavelab… 3x copies of Cubase 10, Nuendo 10, and Pro Tools Ultimate.
I like to do quick edits of sound files in Wavelab best. It opens faster… doesn’t create a project folder… and would be the best tool for certain types of editing, but it doesn’t support multichannel files. That makes it useless for sound effects work or other basic editing jobs for many files
I do not appreciate your personal attacks on me ^^^. Everyone on this forum has different ways of working and uses their copy of WL for different purposes. I do not do much multi-channel work so I really don’t need it. For those who do you have been asking for this for a long long time and I am surprised that Steinberg/PG have not implemented this to your liking long before this. It must have something to do with the way WL is coded. I like the new WL10 and find that it suits my needs for a mastering/restoration DAW. FWIW
PG himself indicated clearly that it was intended to be so, but has said it proved impossible to make it ready for this release. Clearly, then, the necessary work is being done, and it may be that it is near enough to completion for release to be possible in, say, a 10.1 release.
Yes. But I don’t want to blame him or anyone else for that matter.
Anyway, thank you so much for your insights. Although, if that is the case by any chance, Wavelab could have, in my opinion, at least written that in the product page and here, like Nuendo 10 did when it was released. Nuendo 10 released without,
Video Render and Export,
ARA integration,
Cue sheet export, etc.
But they announced it beforehand that those are coming to version 10.x.
Anyway, your comment feels hopeful to me. Thank you. Much love.
We have no way to know, other than what has been said and written. But as a former programmer myself, I would say:
(1) It is possible to make fundamental internal architecture changes without initially exposing them to the user interface; and
(2) With modern project control methods, the work making potentially visible changes can relatively easily be done in separate development paths which can comparatively easily be merged with the core product when ready.
Internally, this is a step change in the way the product works, and I would not expect to see significant evidence of it in advance of a workable (even if incomplete) release.