WL 9.5.30 (build 142) + ML8000 -> WL does not render!!

WaveLab
21

@ PG
… but it seems to be the more interesting “5%” of plugins that we are used to work with!! :wink:

@ Justin P
Thank you for the list of “faults an blunder” above!
Despite of it all being very beasty stuff, I’m kind of happy to see this frank collection :wink:
I’ve seen all of these things also in my workflow, with highly appreciated plugins from DMG, Nugen, Flux and other manufacturers involved.
Would add ‘frozen’ plugin GUIs and ‘silent’ audio after rendering (seems now to be fixed).

As a simple user e.g. with those ‘fade in’ phaenomenon I never thought of a plugin in the chain to be the cause!! - Thought I ‘trapped’ blindly into another ‘hidden feature’ of WL I did not know how to get rid of :wink:

Too often (especially when WL crashes, freezes… before I finally saved my master chain presets, like the last days with McDSP stuff) I have to switch to another host. - For some cases / functions I still have an old (stable) WL version running, but most of the time I curse like a trooper and go to a different software, simply to get my things done.

=> Would be really happy tho have “those 5%” of great plugins I’m used to use working flawlessly also in (current) WL…!!

@ PG
Would be great if you could provide all necessary information (as detailled as necessary, and best ‘proactive’ in advance) to exact this small circle, those “5 %” of developers of appropriate, mastering grade plugins, to have them finally running in current WL.
=> That could increase and preserve the “value” of WL for us profoundly!!

22

No problem. I guess I’ve sort of found my set of plugins that work well in WaveLab like most Plugin Alliance/Brainworx stuff, FabFilter (VST3), DMG Limitless (after some work), Sonnox, UAD, Eiosis AirEQ (had the no process on render issue at first), some Ozone modules (not the full plugin), and Goodhertz.

I also have recently been using the Softube Weiss stuff that just got fixed for the render fade in bug, and Leapwing DynOne which had some serious issues at first in WaveLab.

Vertigo Sound is starting to release their own models of their hardware (separate from the Plugin Alliance/Brainworx versions) and I warned them to really test WaveLab because if they don’t, I would expect some issues at first. We’ll see how it goes.

I should also mention that I do the majority of my sonic processing in REAPER with some plugins inserted before my analog chain. So when I get the files into a WaveLab montage, they are mostly done aside from some digital limiting on the montage output section, and small touches as CLIP FX if needed, so I don’t really use A LOT of plugins.

Sometimes I do a project all in WaveLab with no analog processing but even then, I stick to the classics that work for me.

I can imagine that trying to use more plugins on a regular basis from smaller and mid-level developers without the resources to fully test WaveLab is a recipe for bugs and crashes.

23

Yep.

24

I also have recently been using the Softube Weiss stuff that just got fixed for the render fade in bug

Thanks again, Justin P - you’re great!! :wink:
So it’s to assume that these terrible fades were related to my Softtube MM1…
Very helpful!

I should also mention that I do the majority of my sonic processing in REAPER with some plugins inserted before my analog chain. So when I get the files into a WaveLab montage, they are mostly done (…) so I don’t really use A LOT of plugins. (…)

I can imagine that trying to use more plugins on a regular basis from smaller and mid-level developers without the resources to fully test WaveLab is a recipe for bugs and crashes.

Yepp… that’s it.
I experience this kind of problems on a regulary basis.

But… I still don’t want to move with my 2-bus / mastering stuff (even when thinking of it in another dark hour with WL), I’m still sticking with the phantasy to do it in WL!!
(And with my whole chain of nice plugins inserted, including Softtube’s Weiss, iZotope, DMG and the others) :wink:

I’d love to have WL (back again) as “the” mastering machine, where I can do my editing, insert the VST stuff I want to use, and put out apporpriate results for the different media. I need WL as a reliable editor, stable plugin host, reliable and clean conversion, dither… I don’t need WL as a “Jack of all trades device”, with everything built in - but in a way ‘restrictive’ and not fairly open for ‘external’ stuff.
This (“5%” :wink: ) VST stuff I’m used to, and I want to use it also in WL, with the same characteristics, handling and features like in my DAW(s). That’s fine for my workflow - but not having to sort out (like you very wisely already did…), what’s “fitting” with WL!

That’s what I meant with the “value”: WL is the more valuable for me, the more reliable and stable it’s working (including the cooperation with the other stuff I appreciate).
But it’s getting more and more useless when it’s growing “narcissistically undemocratic” (sense of: “what do you want with the other stuff - you just need only WL, what’s built in and what’s fitting to it - the rest can’t be worth the hassle”).

I don’t think that it’s a question of capacity on the plugin manufacturer’s side. I guess that at least iZotope e.g. have a lot of people testing (but it’s still critical), Nugen also, and I personally know from really small manufacturers mentioned that they definitely go into testing it or at least are willing to. - That said I suppose there is more a problem of communication and cooperation, not only between plugins and host, but also between the people.

  • So far my “guesswork”.
25

What XLR said - I totally second this, thanks XLR to sum it up so nicely. I would like to add that I’m using WL as a sound design tool and combine many plug ins sometimes and therefore I’m plagued with problems - seems I also want to rely heavily on the last ‘bad’ 5%.

26

I would also love to see a great workflow for doing it all in WaveLab too. I know it can all be done in WaveLab technically (assuming no plugin issues) but at this point, I have a REAPER workflow so dialed in it saves me a ridiculous amount of time settings up new projects, doing the work, doing mix recalls when clients send a new mix that has a change, fixing small parts with RX but still have the ability to get back to the original source if needed, etc.

I could go on but my REAPER workflow is so dialed in I could cry. Plus it’s stable, and they can push out pre-release versions every few days and official updates every week or two usually.

I’ve invested quite a bit of time and a decent amount of $$$ hiring people to make custom scripts to help speed up and improve my workflow for mastering in REAPER which has paid off greatly. Just when I thought it couldn’t get better I found a guy that has made about 6 new scripts for me.

Every year that WaveLab doesn’t improve in this area, it gets father away from being a reality for me to use it for the full mastering process including analog gear processing.

At this point I kind of like having REAPER as an area to do the heavy lifting and then having a nice simple clean montage to finalize the project.

I absolutely love the WaveLab montage for the final stages of the process and all “in the box” projects when I don’t go analog.

I understand the desire to stay all in one app for some people but for better or worse I’ve gone down this rabbit hole of using more than one app for mastering and I think in the end I work better and faster because of it.

27

I used WL Montage very often for many years, WaveLab user since Version 1.x here. Since the 9.x version I used it ONCE for playing back an old montage file. Can’t trust something that doesn’t goes along with many plug ins. Made myself several templates for mastering purposes in Nuendo. Plug in handling is great and I don’t have to watch out which channel format works and which doesn’t. Around 50 % of my work is in surround or multi-channel formats.
There are two kinds of listening to the user base, I can select user suggestions and opinions which follow the programmers intention anyway, or I can listen to users in a broader manner - in both cases someone can say he is “listening to the users”. WL always appears to me as a very egocentric concept.

28

NKf, I agree for your sake, and pwhodges, and me and some others, Wavelab has to support multichannel files and more multichannel formats. Simply because Zoom has multichannel recorders and includes Wavelab LE, yet Wavelab can’t open the poly files it creates I’m pretty sure, which is kind of crazy. It can read the special bwf / ixml metadata in the wav files the Zoom creates, but if the Zoom now records FLAC with metadata like Sound Devices, Wavelab LE can’t read the translated special FLAC metadata, or the multichannel FLAC files I don’t think.

Anyway I don’t know what the answer is for your plugins. I don’t know how plugin makers get their copies of programs to test in. If they were simply all given Wavelab Elements or Wavelab LE and they simply tried one render in even just the Master Secion it might go a very long way to get them workable as you’d like.

How do plugin makers get Nuendo? Do they buy it for $1900? There has to be some reasonable solution to encourage them to try their plugs in Wavelab.

29

An example: I’m in close contact with the friendly guys from Noisemakers concerning optimizing their plug ins for Ambisonics work in Nuendo. They got the 30 days demo for checking. Since the years I work with Nuendo, plug in problems are very, very rare - even the most exotic stuff usually works fine. Ambisonics channels are new to Nuendo and there are some hiccups to sort out, not everything works like expected in this regard at the moment.
Anyway, I think 30 days of a full working demo should be plenty of time to check some plug ins. I’m sure Steinberg would add another month of demo time if necessary.

30

The McDSP company is aware of the problem. They don’t have a fix date yet.

31

The McDSP company is aware of the problem. They don’t have a fix date yet.

Thank you, good to hear!
Hopefully they get it resolved.

I ended up plugging in ML8000 to RX after editing…

32

The information is the VST2 and VST3 specs. Very often developers (in many fields, not just audio plugins) implement as much of the spec they are working to as they find necessary to operate with the programs they test in, and ignore the rest. This is the reason they can get caught out when a program uses different features of the spec (and they may assume that all Steinberg programs work the same way internally, which we also know is wrong). Programmers who take the trouble to implement and test the whole spec should not run into these problems.

Paul