in order to make WL even more flexible I miss two major points / functions:
For those mastering engineers prefering the hybrid workflow (mastering in the box with inserted outboard gear) WL is limited when the requirement is given to use 2 inserts (e.g. one for analog gear and the second for digital outboard gear, e.g. TC System 6000). This is the point to look for another DAW. Why don´t you offer at least a second insert option so that this combination of 1 analog and 1 digital insert would be available?
When we started with digital mastering a bit more than 2 decades ago we used to work with two tracks: One for the source material without processing which would be fed to the analog chain and the second lane to re-record the processing. This is kind of old school but with this option WL would cover almost all available workflow approaches in mastering (except the ability using automation within a mastering project).
You would increase the target group of WL8 with ease. Why don´t you do that?
To the question “Why don´t you do that?”, I simply answer that WaveLab was originally conceived to be “software centric”, eg. “there are enough good plugins to answer all needs”. But I understand that you may disagree with this.
I understand this is less flexible, but why not patching your analog and digital gear together, ie. WaveLab > D/A > Analog gear > A/D > Digital Gear > WaveLab ?
I understand this is less flexible, but why not patching your analog and digital gear together, ie. WaveLab > D/A > Analog gear > A/D > Digital Gear > WaveLab ?
I knew that you would say that
It would requre a completely other wireing approach and I would not have the freedom to insert the digital gear after internal plug-ins (Internal > external analog > internal > external digital > internal).
Would be great if you could put it on the wishlist for WL9.
It would requre a completely other wireing approach and I would not have the freedom to insert the digital gear after internal plug-ins (Internal > external analog > internal > external digital > internal).
I knew that you would say that
I have noted the query for a future uypdate. We’ll see.
Why not render the analogue process and work from there? Yes, it would be great to have everything controllable from inside one application, but seriously, once you go D/A there are so many variables that the session will never be reproducible unless you print the intermediate files, so the only advantage is convenience.
