Not mentioned is the fact then when I do try to mastering “in the box” at 96k in WaveLab, it’s easy to get playback dropouts and weirdness once you get a decent plugin chain going which happens on some projects. I don’t know why this is.
With “in the box” mastering I can ignore it because the renders are fine but I can’t say I’d fully trust having a full album going at 96k and having WaveLab play that and record it without a glitch somewhere.
It’s true that if using analog gear, you wouldn’t need as many plugins before going analog as you would if mastering all “in the box” but for reasons mentioned above, I haven’t fully tried it.
Can you do record from one montage track to the other, and have playlists for choosing takes/versions,
Yes
Maybe you’re talking only about recording from one montage track to another, which I know you can do, but don’t find it very user friendly in Wavelab. But playlists in Wavelab? What method serves to emulate playlists in Wavelab?
or quickly spot edit somehow a la AudioSuite or RX as an external editor?
No
This actually I can do quickly and easily enough for my needs, but only (reliably, without running into locked files, etc.) if the external editor includes a Connect plugin like RX does. And only after splitting the clip, clone and substitute, edit source, and render in place.
So I agree with Justin it’s a lot easier and better in Reaper just making a time selection and split on the clip, send directly to RX (or another external editor) and send back.
But having said that, I rarely go out to RX to do this, much preferring to use the tools (global analysis glitch detection, error detection and correction, and spectrum editor) built into Wavelab.
Steinberg have recently embraced ARA2 and acquired SpectraLayers, which is to be released as both a standalone program and as an ARA2 plugin. Assuming that WaveLab will also soon acquire ARA2 host capabilities, I think this will resolve a lot of workflow issues.
Regarding the OT, if one does not like change and is happy with one’s current workflow, one does not have to upgrade.
@Bob99…yeah, I suspected a few false or not 100% yes answers but I really don’t have the time or energy to care. If Steinberg wants to attract more users, or make life easier for current users, some things can be improved.
I know of many people using other apps for the analog I/O for various reasons, and I know of some that have passed on WaveLab for something that does it better as you’d expect.
I’m with you Justin, Wavelab needs to expand his capabilities (clip non-destructive rendering, plugin automation, better implementation for external effects and much much more).
Actually I believe that all these things are in the plans but who knows in which version we’ll see them.
'Till then, I will also keep doing my mastering work in hybrid set ups, starting with Reaper and finishing the job in Wavelab.
I really wish I could do everything in Wavelab.
It’s very different from RX… I just recently updated my copy to v5 through Magix, who appear to still be handling it at present. It links with Sound Forge, of course, as they were both acquired by Magix from Sony at the same time a few years ago. It was updated to handle multi-channel files earlier than RX, and more flexibly as well.
There is a comment about the acquisition from the developers, no less, here. It seems that Steinberg will “soon” release v6.
The discussion later in that thread raises in my mind some very interesting thoughts about the next version of WaveLab…
Ah, all the more reason to make a generic external editor portal for sending pieces of audio from the montage to an external editor for repair, and then having the fixed section as the active take/playlist, with easy ability to get back to the original audio if needed.
I’ve not used SpectraLayers … can you use this in M/S mode and edit a single channel only (as in the WL editor). I just checked their manual and it wasn’t really clear.
My only real comment to all of this is that what matters above all else to me … and I suspect most audio professionals … is stability.
Enhanced features are of course sweet and the progressive development of this great program has been managed well over the years.
For example, the spectrum editor, mid/side editing (which I think I suggested) and even the project concept have been essential in making my workflow better, faster and more organized.
My submission is that by all means look at the calls for enhancement as that’s how we got to where we are now. But not at the expense of stability. It’s everything really. No point in having flash and edgy features if the app keeps crashing (it’s not hard to think of a couple competing apps in that category).
Right now … at least on my systems … WL is rock solid and that’s something I do not take for granted.
So, when the next evolution of WL emerges, and maybe it’s missing something we were hoping for, perhaps pause for a moment and consider whether that’s possibly because stability was deemed a priority. And,of course, writing the code for this stuff isn’t a trivial exercise.
While Wavelab will always be many things to many people - I still long for the day where I can fire up WL and have a wizard pop up and actually ask me what I do. Be it Mastering, Audiobook, CD creation, Stem Mixdown etc - and then let the app fine tune the UI for me and essentially set up my workspace automatically - and hide all the crap I do not need to see.
I realize that I could spent hours customizing a Workspace - but it would be nice to be able to quickly carve out a “look” for a workflow and hide the rest of the stuff I do not need to see. And I do mean hidden - like menu items, tabs - everything that has no part in the task (or workflow) at hand. There would also need to be a way to add things back in if the app gets too heavy handed hiding things.
This way - PG can add whatever he wants to the app and as long as I do not have to see it - I am good with it.
That does play into another more touchy topic of actually paying for things we do not want/need - which I am not sure anyone has addressed yet. It does annoy me when I see gobs of “new” features being added to an upgrade and then having to decide to pay another 150 dollars - if maybe just one thing added out of 20 really matters. But that is another topic…
That really is something. Nearly all the plugin I use are working great in Wavelab now, but I have been noticing with TDR Kotelnikov, it still has that sticky mouse issue sometimes.
It has been asked for before over the last few years. It seems to be the #1 request. Why it never seems to get implemented is anyone’s guess. Hopefully in WL 10 it will become a reality.
Yes, when I am trying to tell somebody how great WaveLab is (because it is), this is one embarrassing area. When they ask about plugin automation I have to say no, not really.
I know we have wet/dry blending but I think most people want ability to tweak limiter thresholds and other things, not just wed/dry blend.
