Seems to be a lot of request for changes to WL

And a lot of these requests are from people who want WL to conform to their way of working. I would just like to say that not ALL OF US work your way and if WL is changed to your way of working then others here may not like the changes or find it does not fit their ways of working. I know PG is smart enough to not make WL into one person’s way of working but there seem to be an abnormally high number of requests from newbies and others to fundamentally change the way WL works just so they can do things “their way”. I like WL the way it is and it works for me. FWIW.

This is common over a lot of software. It’s often accompanied with irritation that their requests are not being dealt with immediately - presumably they have no awareness of the work involved in software development, and don’t care to notice what other changes and improvements are being worked on. When they also “threaten” to use some other software instead, my (internal) response is: “if that suits you better, then why not?”


I know I chime in a lot here but for the record, I’m very happy with WaveLab for what I use it for.

PG has been kind enough to add things that I (and probably others) have requested like Montage Output FX, Custom Montage Duplicate, CD Track Groups for vinyl and cassette pre-master rendering, and some other great things.

However, on other things, rather than waiting and hoping for WaveLab to conform to my workflow, I’ve also made the effort to find other software that does what I need it to do, more efficiently. In particular, the workflow of processing through analog gear.

I’ve had more than a few very pro mastering engineers ask me about some things regarding WaveLab, like can you simply load a song into a montage, and record it back to a new track. They ultimately tried it and chose another mastering DAW.

Yes, WaveLab can do it, but it sure is clunky and restrictive IMO compared to a normal DAW. I was using Pro Tools for this, but then a couple years ago discovered the power of REAPER for this task. Now, REAPER doesn’t have anything like the WaveLab montage so it’s not a full mastering solution or even close to it, but it KICKS ASS at sending audio to and from your analog chain.

I have a workflow I’m happy with but if Steinberg/WaveLab wants to attract new users, this is a good area to focus on because some users want to easily do it all in one app, not two or more.

In REAPER I can send the source audio to more than one D/A converter to choose between on my mastering console, seamlessly toggle between two different A/D converters to capture back from and program input changes per song throughout the album. Then I can also have an audio feed without any plugins or analog gear on my monitor controller to compare with seamlessly in real-time.

I can easily send small sections of audio to RX to fix things, and have the fix be active in my session, but still have the option to very quickly access the original audio if needed via a take/playlist system.

I could go on but it’s all these things (big and small) that make it worth using a more powerful tool in this area.

I will say that especially on Mac, nothing beats WaveLab overall for mastering, the the montage is 2nd to none, but it could really use a refresh in the analog loop department.

I am not the only one I know of that uses another DAW for this part of the process.

In my opinion, there will most likely be no major changes to the fundamentals of Wavelab but of course there will be additional features and changes to some of the existing details in forthcoming new versions. Undoubtedly, how much you change the software must be a fine line. I think Wavelab is already quite flexible in accommodating different workflows. However, as Justin points out there’s room for improvement in certain areas.

The key elements of successful software is to maintain the quality of software development as well as evolution and innovation. Wavelab is what it is today because its development never stopped to evolve and enhance.
This is not the first time I see you posting the same selfish nonsense and rant about people you call newbies and others.

And it will not be the last. There are a lot of people on this forum who seem to think that because they work a certain way that WL should be designed/modified/changed to accommodate the way they work. That is NOT the way good software, like WL, works. A lot of the suggestions are GREAT but some are very egocentric and those are the ones I have a problem with.

(By the way I have been a loyal supporter of PG and WL since version 1.6.2 I just don’t like bloated software that does everything from multi-track recording to multi-track mixing to video production and is also a word processor) FWIW

Thomas, how exactly will adding a feature like loopback recording effect effect your workflow in a negative way? Seems like a reasonable request for a 2 track recording/editing software that’s geared towards mastering and authoring… many of us have pushed for this functionality.

Not being sarcastic here. Genuinely curious why this is an issue for you. How do you see it watering down WL?


I’ve had a few people reach out to me about how to do this in WaveLab like you can in basically any other DAW and mastering program, and then be disappointed with the answer and current and not ideal option.

Then they end up using something else.

WaveLab has so many great things in the rendering, metadata, and montage department but there a few big things that prevent it from being the definitive all in one mastering DAW for both Mac and PC. So close, but not quite there yet.

I am all for changes and upgrades that make sense. Things like machine control of a lathe for one individual make no sense nor do, IMHO, asking for multitrack recording. If you want multitrack recording there are a lot of programs that do this quite well. Things like loopback recording make sense.

I trust PG will add what he thinks necessary and useful and keep the “I want this feature because it is the way I work” nonsense to a minimum.

The ribbon for WL9 was pure genius so were floating windows. The reason I don’t want a lot of “this is the way I work” suggestions for changes is because NOT all of us work that way and I don’t want WL to become bloated with a lot of non essential BS. FWIW

I have a really good friend who was thinking of changing from ProTools to Wavelab for mastering. He is a Grammy nominated mastering engineer. He likes a lot of what WL can do but misses a lot of things he can do in ProTools. I told him to join the forum and suggest some changes that would make his life easier and more productive. He has yet to join. A lot of what he wants concerns the way ProTools is organized and how it works and how he can do certain things quickly. I hope he eventually joins the group and gives PG some good suggestions.

Right. Many people are using other DAWs for the analog I/O because it’s so much better and easier all around. Plus, you can easily feed more than one DA to choose from on the mastering console, and have more than one AD to choose from on the way back in.

Pro Tools and most DAWs are better at it than WaveLab. Plus, in Pro Tools you can have playlists, you can AudioSuite small sections to fix problems, and easily get them back to their original state if needed. I actually thought I’d miss AudioSuite when I moved to REAPER but actually, REAPER’s ability to have RX as it’s primary external editor is better and faster than AudioSuite or RX Connect. I hope PG considers adding this for WaveLab.

Many of the people doing this in Pro Tools, Logic, REAPER, Cubase etc. deem WaveLab too expensive and complicated to use it JUST for an assembly and final touch mastering app. I don’t, but many do.

I haven’t seen any requests for WaveLab to become a multitrack recording DAW.

I do not have any problems Playing out of Wavelab into my analogue loop and recording the output back into the same instance of Wavelab. I have been doing this since V6

But can you send to multiple DA converters, or have more than one stereo input? Can you send a fully unprocessed and in sync version to your monitor controller to toggle between for A/B comparisons?

Can you do record from one montage track to the other, and have playlists for choosing takes/versions, or quickly spot edit somehow a la AudioSuite or RX as an external editor? We need a simple way to be able to insert clip FX, send out to the analog chain, and record back to a new montage track and have it all be in sync.

Can you monitor the actual signal after the AD? I actually don’t know but I hear there is some kind of weakness or compromise here.

All these little things (and more) make doing this part of the process in another DAW essential in my book.

Can ProTools burn Red Book CDs?

Of course not. That isn’t what it’s designed for. What a dumb rhetorical question. I’m not sure what your beef is with people looking to make WaveLab better for 100% of the mastering process.

I really don’t care if it improves because I have a great workflow using multiple apps, because I like to use the best tools for each part of the job if it’s a net gain.

However, clearly others want to do it all in one app without compromise which WaveLab could do without becoming a multi-track DAW. Some multi-track DAW features are useful in mastering but if WaveLab did add the things I suggested, it would still be a terrible multi-track DAW for other reasons.

You have a way of working that is completely foreign to what I do. If it works for you then GREAT if not I guess you have to use this logic “I really don’t care if it improves because I have a great workflow using multiple apps”. Everyone is different in their approach to mastering. That is what makes us unique.

I watched a good friend do some mastering with ProTools. It was fascinating to see how he did everything and then he got ready to burn a CD and he had to go to an outside app to burn the CD. I know ProTools is not designed to burn CDs but WL is. That was my point.

Keep doing it “your way” if it works for you and I will keep doing it my way because it works for me. FWIW

I can do all of that with WL and my trusty Z-Systems router. Problem solved.

I do see how some of this could be solved with a Z-Sys router. I’ve never used one though. How instantaneous are the A/B comparisons? If I had to bet, there might be a lag when switching things but I’d love be wrong. I do have an RME AES card on both of my systems (and love them) and that is a great solution for most of what I suggest, but still a compromise.

Hey, I’m just trying to help Steinberg make WaveLab better in areas where they are losing potential new customers. I really don’t care if it happens because I actually like my multi-app workflow. It slows me down 0% and helps me work faster, better, more accurate, etc. Zero friction.

If you guys want to keep using stone-age solutions, that’s great, but I have too much work to get done to deal with the compromises.

Jtransition, I haven’t really kept up, but are there specific reported issues you’re thinking of?