WL & Spectral Layers Integration?

I’m gonna ask what is (for me) an obvious question: Do you plan any form of integration between WL and Spectral Layers? I ask because I would prefer to keep my head inside WL for as much of my life as possible and in my ideal world, I could edit pop open Spectral Layers to edit a clip from inside the Montage and return to WL.

-Or- the current Spectral Edtor might be refined to include some of Spectral Layers refinements.

Any of this on the board?

I ask because if it’s a no go, I would pass on the Spectral Layers offer. I’m getting too old to dig deep into yet another program if its not going to be a big part of my daily routine.

TIA,

This should happen, but I can’t say yet when and how.

1 Like

+1000

It would be great if WaveLab could allow an external editor (for SpectraLayers or RX) so that in the montage, we can highlight a section of audio, have it open in the external editor, make the fix, and then have the fixed version be active in that section.

In addition, it’s important to have the option to have this be a COPY of that section of audio so if needed, we can easily get back to the original audio via some kind of takes/playlist system.

Doing a hard overwrite of the original audio can be too dangerous.

This is how I’m doing it with REAPER and RX and I don’t think the workflow can be beat:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcvgk39tvw4i3uw/REAPER_RX_Integration.mov?dl=0

Thanks, Philippe.

Although let me say that I find the Spectral Editing currently in WL to be useful. I am a bit surprised that Steinberg purchased SL.

My number one preference would be for you to continue refining your work rather than having any external editor like SL. But since they have bought SL, I look forward to your efforts to integrate.

Best.

I guess the crucial question right now, is whether SL will be integrated into WL (free or for an additional cost), or hooked into it via ARA2. Or: should we jump on the current 50% offer? If SL at some point is included in the WL Pro package anyway, I can get by with RX until then.

I fully understand that you may not be able to answer this, but any kind of hint is appreciated :slight_smile:

r,
j,

SL will not be integrated to WaveLab. And in the future, there is a bigger chance to see WaveLab as an ARA client than an ARA host.

It’s not loading the vst3 in Wavelab. :neutral_face:

Interesting… (strokes beard thoughtfully…)

Cheers,
j,

That would be great!

Stupid me what is an ARA client and/or host?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Random_Access

Thanks for the link. Take care!!!

This would seem logical, because I can imagine (read: “dream of”) being able to edit an audio part using WaveLab in the lower zone of Cubase, whereas I can’t envisage a case for WaveLab being an ARA2 host.

In very simplistic terms, I think of an ARA2 host being the DAW, and an ARA2 client being any kind of editor. Regarding WL/SL integration, if I’m in SpectraLayers I can already configure WaveLab (or any other editor) as an external editor, so I think all that’s needed is for WaveLab to reciprocate, but go one further with the feature described by Justin earlier:

This would be superbly convenient for certain tasks, and it’s also extremely efficient, because the smaller the clip sent to the external editor (“processor”) the faster it gets done!

@MrSoundman, maybe I don’t get what you’re saying, but you seem to contradict yourself. You say WL as ARA client seems logical but then you find WL as ARA host superbly convenient? I can very well imagine WL being the host, since WL is my ‘go to’ audio editor and I certainly see it as a host DAW.

I see SL as a specialist tool, to be used in (or called from) a more general DAW. I can’t see myself working in this specialist tool and then calling up WL as ‘any kind of editor’. That seems to me like working with a hammer and then ask a helper to hand you the whole toolbox.

So I would advocate to consider WL to be an ARA host.

No, in the scenario Justin describes, WL is not acting as an ARA2 host, it is simply calling an external program to process a selection made in the montage, and replacing the original with the edited result. This is what SpectraLayers (and many other applications) already do when you configure a third-party application as the audio editor, just not with the finesse of e.g. Reaper in the video clip from Justin.

Be that as it may (and I agree, to a point), this is already possible regardless, and not using ARA2, but by simply configuring WaveLab as the external audio editor.

There is no need for WL to be an ARA2 host if it can throw a clip to an external editor and capture the result.

Having WL as an ARA2 client, however, would be a massive advantage to Cubase/Nuendo users, because it could be used in the lower zone in place of the builtin sample editor.

Yeah, it’s a pretty great workflow. In fact today, I’m mastering a live recording from a cassette from the late 80s. Even though I didn’t use my analog mastering chain, I decided to load the song into REAPER like it would be if I did use my normal analog mastering chain> Now I can just quickly spot fix the problem areas, while maintaining easy access to the original audio (via a takes/playlist system) as well as a nice visual map of where all the edits were made.

I can’t NOT work like this anymore.

I of course am now working in the WaveLab montage for the normal “in the box” mastering work but how great would it be to have an external editor for WaveLab to get the audio prepped for the rest of the processing?

Just out of curiosity and because you have RX, why not do all of this in RX, which is more “select/process” rather than “stream/plugin” oriented?

A few reasons, and my process doesn’t require the RX connect plugin or anything. It’s very fast. I copy of a selected area opens in RX, and RX is focused for you, all in one click.

I like having a visual map of where edits were done on song, which REAPER provides with this workflow. This is especially useful when a client sends a new version of a mix that needs to be redone though the analog gear. I can just replace the mix in my REAPER session, and reprint it as a new take on the capture track. Then in REAPER I can also see where all the RX edits were done, and need to be redone because of the take system it uses.

I’ve even done things like preserve the very tail end after the final downbeat that was already fixed once to remove, noise, metronome bleed etc, assuming the mix didn’t change at the tail end. Then when I render a new version of of REAPER for WaveLab, the new file is EXACTLY the same length, because of regions in REAPER. Or if the beginning of a mix didn’t change, and I did some careful noise reduction, I can preserve that seamlessly and be confident things are in sync instead of manually pasting things together.

The standalone app is maybe a bit faster but you have no map, no easy way to get back to the original audio for a small (or large section). It’s too all or nothing for me.

If I’m working in the WaveLab montage and notice a click, I’d love to just highlight that section, fix it in RX, and have the fixed section be active. My RX workflow just makes a copy of that small section which prevents the original audio from getting overwritten.

In the end I end up with less of a file mess. After I fix up a song in REAPER with RX as external editor, then I render a new file of the song, perfectly named and ready for WaveLab. Also, no audio that didn’t need to go into RX went into RX. Maybe a little OCD but it’s one less process for the majority of the song. Only the bits that needed to go into RX went in.

This saves me from exporting the whole song from REAPER, then fixing in RX (with no map or help as described above), and then into WaveLab. A little too much bouncing around and extra files.

Also, I do this AFTER analog processing but before final processing in WaveLab because if any part of this needs to be redone or undone, it’s a matter of seconds to do.

Thank you for that excellent description! I’m sure you’ve given PG plenty of food for thought. Now, if that workflow could be accomodated in WaveLab, there would be no need for it to become and ARA2 host, and the resultant benefits would be greater. Consequently, having WaveLab be an ARA2 client would also open the possibility of have this workflow available in Cubase/Nuendo in the lower zone; onion layers of power!

Imagine being able to select a part in the Nuendo timeline, see it in the WaveLab editor in the lower zone, mark the region of interest and then throw it into RX or SpectraLayers for special treatment, and then render the lot in place as a new part in the DAW.

Yes, I think PG has plenty of food for thought :slight_smile:

After doing this workflow for awhile, anything else feels too kamikaze style. I like to be easily able to get back to the source for any given moment to compare, and maybe redo that small section.

I’m surprised the RX app doesn’t let you do this when working with an RX doc. I’ve heard that CEDAR can do this but I don’t own that.

For me, it’s all about seeing what you’ve done, and having the flexibly to go back when needed, maybe reuse part of an old RX fix combined with a new file, etc.

Even if I stopped using REAPER for the analog processing, I may still use it just for this workflow alone. It can be done very fast even though two apps are involved. It’s similar to Pro Tools AudioSuite or maybe Cubase Direct Offline Processing except you get the added bonus of the spectral view when doing the small spot edits.