Got this from a client. We did not put 30 seconds at the end of every file but somehow WL did. Not good.
Thank you for the files;
Unfortunately we noticed a 30" blank added at the end of each 44.1K tracks. Same with the DDP.
You didnāt check the files before sending them out? Quality control is part of mastering.
There must be something about your rendering parameters/boundaries/settings that caused this, or perhaps a rogue plugin.
Without more info itās hard to pinpoint the exact cause but itās likely not a thing that WaveLab randomly did without explanation.
2 Likes
One of the first lessons I learned in audio post was ānever turn your back on digitalā.
There must be something in a setting, batch processor or end marker position as all the tracks have the same error.
Yes we did check the filesā¦
1 Like
Yes I agree and hope to find out what happenedā¦
So you checked the files, noticed the extra 30 seconds of silence at the end of each song and sent them to your client anyway?
3 Likes
The 30-second silence at the end of each track was likely caused by a rendering or batch processing setting in WaveLab, or an end marker positioned past the actual audio. WaveLab doesnāt add extra silence randomlyācheck your render boundaries, export settings, or any plugins that might insert silence.
1 Like
I agree. BUT we did the mastering at 48 kHz and used WL to convert the files, one at a time, to 44.1 kHz. The 48kHz files contained NO 30 second blank spaces. I have done this literally hundreds of times with no problems. I will check my settings but something has changed in WL13 (probably hidden in some section I normally do not use). FWIW
The 44.1 kHz files are perfect but when they were put into the montage a 30 second herringbone space was added. Not sure what is doing that. Ideas or suggestions???
Then I think it has to do with Album Wizard or in Markers Tab! Check.
regards S-EH
The presence of any marker 30 seconds beyond the end of the last clip.
WaveLab always renders till the last marker of the audio montage.
Maybe you were working with an unconventional file format similar to mkv in WL.
We were working with .WAV files at 44.1 kHz and 16 bit and were doing all our work in WL13.
There are some āquirksā in WL13 that have to be addressed and one of them is all the āhiddenā menu choices. I am almost ready to abandon WL13 and go back to WL12. For what I do I will never use any of the added ATMOS āfeaturesā. FWIW
I donāt see what you mean. Please give an example.
It seems as though there are more and more āhiddenā menus that were not in previous versions of WL. I have been a user of WL since version 1.6.2 so I have been around for about 30 years and find that WL is getting to the point where you have to be a computer nerd to work it. That was NOT the way it used to be. With all the changes to WL with version 13 it maybe that I have to go back to WL12 which was stable and āuser friendlyā, I really wish that the ATMOS had been a paid add on that people who need this āfeatureā could have it but the people like me who do not do ATMOS and never will can have a more easy to use WL. You are a GREAT programmer but all the added āfeaturesā having to do with ATMOS are a bit much in my opinionā¦
1 Like
WL 12 and 13 are more or less the same. There are 12 changes in WL13, and they are listed in user manual pages 16 and 17 - you can find attached.
Changes.pdf (259.7 KB)
This is not the case (or maybe Iām overlooking something; that is why I have asked you).
The implementation of Dolby Atmos does not change anything to the WaveLab UI, if you donāt use Atmos. Therefore, I donāt understand your remark concerning Atmos.
1 Like
There are usecases at which Audacity is much faster to work with than WL.
For instance: Just adding some files into a larger one. Copyān paste is so easy. Why is WL so complicated to useā¦? Ah, I forgot, itās for professionalsā¦ I am probably not smart enough (or just beeing to lazy to work myself into it, because it does not seem logically consistent) to appreciate the sophistication (some might call it overengineering) of this product.
Every mouseclick, that is not necessary to accomplish a task, is just one too many.
WL has become somewhat like a composition of Brahmsā¦ too many notes, too many melodies, too complicated for the simple minded,ā¦ but still beautiful, though.
I donāt understand your remarkā¦
In WaveLab, you can add a file to a larger one by dragging it from the file explorer into the edited file, at the desired position. Or even simpler, you can copy the file from the file explorer using Ctrl+C (Cmd+C on Mac) and then use the paste command.
This is a very standard procedure, and I donāt see what you find complicated about it.
Since WaveLab 13, you can even copy the file path as text and paste it into WaveLab as audio material. Try to do so with any other DAWā¦
And what Iāve just described for the audio editor also applies to the audio montage.
Iām sure some workflows could be improved in WaveLab, and I am open to valid criticism.
But since your remark is unfounded, as demonstrated above, I get the impression that youāre criticizing WaveLab just for the sake of it.
That said, since I have better things to do with my time than debate this topic, Iām going to close this thread.
6 Likes