WaveLab 11.0.20 bugglet (Re-visited 13 Dec '21)

WaveLab
1

Hi there, newbie here.
I’ve just stumbled on a bug that didn’t exist in WaveLab 10.
In the Audio Editor; the ‘Copy’ > ‘Paste’ > ‘Multiple Copies…’ is not working correctly.
The pasted selection is always x1 sample short and the number set in ‘Number of Copies’ returns to ‘2’, regardless of where it was set. Not the biggest world tragedy but I thought I’d mention it incase there are repercussions elsewhere.
Using up-to-date Windows 10.
All the best

2

I can’t reproduce this.

I can reproduce.

4

Thank you kindly for investigating the bug.
I have just reinstalled WaveLab Pro 10 and the ‘lost’ sample problem is not there; so I can only deduce that something has changed between the WL10 and WL11.
Just incase I wasn’t clear as to what I’m seeing as a bug, here’s an example:

  1. In Audio Editor, select 10 samples of an audio file.
  2. In the Edit ribbon, click on ‘Copy’.
  3. Expand ‘Paste’ and click on ‘Multiple Copies…’
  4. In the pop-up window’s ‘Number of Copies’ field, select 2, then click the ‘OK’ button.
  5. The result of the ‘Paste’ now shows ‘19 smp’ selected at the bottom of the screen, instead of the
    expected ‘20 smp’ (assuming the ‘Sample’ view has been selected).

This only happens in WaveLab 11 and with any multiple of copies - there’s always 1 sample missing at the end.

I often use this function to adjust timing in the audio, rather than time stretching, which can introduce weird artifacts.
Can anyone else reproduce this same issue on an up-to-date Windows 10 OS or is this just happening on my machine? I’d be grateful for your feedback.
Thanks for your time and all the best

5

I can reproduce now. But this happens only when you overwrite the existing selection.
Therefore, until this is fixed, you can do this:

  • Copy
  • Move the cursor at the very end of the selection
  • Deselect
  • Multi paste
6

I have investigated further. In fact, all samples are properly copied. But the very last sample is not part of the new audio selection, hence this gives the (false) feeling that one sample is missing.
Of course, this will be fixed in a future update (as well as the copy count persistence).

7

Thank you so much for looking into it. It’s made me very aware of just how often I use that function!
All the very best to you.

1 Like