Thanks, but it’s quite straight forward, as Thinkingcap writes (emh, I see his reply was withdrawn now). No physical audio cables, it’s 32 firewire channels from PC to Tascam, and 32 the other way. Inside PC, Cubase sends 30 and Wavelab receives 2 at the same time. If your Mackie firewire is seen by Wavelab, the only question is; can the firewire connection be shared by 2 applications at the same time, as in my setup. This ofcourse depends on the Mackie f/w driver. (BTW, Cubase only sends 30 because I reserved the remaining 2 for Wavelab to use for playback)
There are some Steinberg factory vst’s that work in both Wavelab and Cubase. I have full current versions of both. I would have to be sitting in front of my computer to see the mutual factory vst’s. Can’t the Steinberg “legacy” vst’s be used in both Cubase and Wavelab? As far as VST3’s…I don’t know if there are any or I should say I don’t think there are any that can be mutually used. But there are some that are the same…just found in different places in your file system. For example Roomworks is included. The bottom line for myself is that I don’t use many Steinberg VST’s for mastering. So maybe someone can prove me wrong?
As mentioned there is no Cubase burner function.
Like Arjan, many of us have the full Wavelab version, not LE so we can’t comment. Unlike Arjan, I don’t use his unique mixing scheme. Normally I receive a final mix from an engineer or client with or without stems and load that into Wavelab including the audio montage. Its a very powerful program that goes far beyond the features found in Cubase. Yes, the basic features can be achieved in Cubase, but there is a reason you don’t see ME’s using Cubase to master.
I’m not familiar with Cubase batch export at all. Can Cubase take 200 .wav files and add processing, change sample rates etc and convert to MP3 all in one step?
The comments IMO are not patronizing. For someone unfamiliar with Wavelab, you really don’t know what you are missing until you use it. Of course if you are not a commercial ME or don’t do extensive editing, you might not be missing anything at all and be totally content with Cubase. This is all user dependent.
As far as specific tools in Wavelab not found in Cubase…thats a long list. Without sitting in front how about extensive error analysis, superior frequency analysis in 3D so you can shift the wave around, smart bypass, Sonnox restoration tools, extensive batch processing, cd text, generating cue sheets, and the spectrum editor which has on occasion been a lifesaver.
And yes, Wavelab definitely needs a decent manual like what was found in WL6.
Greggybud and Arjan, thanks for the help. Having had the trial for a few days, I can get to a few things, and you’re right, there are editing features in WL that are not found in Cubase. BTW, I have downloaded the manual for WL6 as was suggested. Thanks for that tip.
By this time Philippe has also answered a few questions for me, and in that exchange he concedes that the WL7 manual is not as good as it could be. He also mentions that WL8 will have a more thorough manual among other things. 
He’s a brilliant man, no doubt, but I also suggested that he spend some time with people who are not. 
If a program like this were more intuitive it would change many people’s musical landscapes and certainly their musical destinations. Just like Cubase has.
Oh, Arjan. I have let go of any immediate need to interface Cubase and WL like you have. I think it’s awesome that you can do this. For me for now, I will just be happy to be able to edit in WL like the rest of the 99.9% do! Thanks for your help.
Hey, that’s good news, though more or less expected. PG is not only brilliant, but also is very much present for help in the Wavelab forum, and listens to suggestions made by users - very valuable for such a program!
You’re welcome, and I’m sure you’ll appreciate Wavelab. Make sure you check out the power of the audio montage. And interfacing Cubase and Wavelab like I do may be just luck for having an interface driver that allows this… Good luck!
For me, WL is a must. It makes complex audio edits a breeze.
The CD creation is the best there is.
And if you can get into it, the batch processing facility is the baddest.
And all that was there in WL4! Andfrankly, I could still get by with WL4 if it ran on Win7. But the spectral editor has helped me do some pretty unbelievable clean up on old recordings.
Unfortunately, if you haven’t used WL before, WL7 will initially appear confusing. FWIW: experienced users feel the same way.
Up to WL6… I considered WL just about -the- finest, cleanest piece of software I’ve ever used. I have no idea what happened, but the UI of WL7 is so Rube Goldberg I’m still stunned. It’s still fantastic, but it’s hard to tell because almost everything that used to be so straightforward is now stuck behind 2,000 floating windows.
FWIW: If you’re the kind of guy who trusts strangers: here’s what you do:
- Purchase WL7
- Then download WL6 (which has the spectral editor)… it uses the same license…
And then you’ll see what everyone loves about WL. Use that and be happy.
Eventually WL8 will appear and my sincere expectation is that Phillipe will clean up the UI.
—JC
It’s amazing that he managed to take the UI paradigm that vastly simplifies interfaces and turned it into the most incomprehensible system of window location management ever. I was truly stunned the first time I used W7. I didn’t think it was possible to zoinc up docking by preference. I was wrong.
But W7 is still a kick ass utility app. I wouldn’t be without it.
+1, and yes, it took me a long time to find my way around WL7 too, but in the end it really is better than WL6.