A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post questions and find answers on our latest WaveLab releases here.
User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

Philippe,

I've been using Wavelab happily for more than two decades. Thank you! There are a few aspects in the organization/architecture of Wavelab 10 I would like to see further streamlined (centralized, simplified). Here they are expressed in concrete steps:

1. Move away from a generic conception of project, i.e. a default template wherein a user performs (often times) unrelated tasks: projects should be specific, starting Wavelab should ask what specific project to open, open that project and save to that project.

2. Make the audio montage the central operational mode of Wavelab by getting rid of the audio file editor as a stand-alone editor (see 3.1).

3.1. Move the audio file editor to the audio montage and treat it as a sub-window.

3.2. Move the functionality of the master section having to do with the audio file editor to the clip/track inspector.

4.1. Get rid of the master section as a distinct stage in the signal path (see 4.2), the last stage being that of the audio montage.

4.2. Use the interface of the master section to display and control the audio montage output stage.

The end result should be Wavelab with the audio montage at its center as a single completely reproducible working environment and the project (file+folder) as a user-defined location of project data consolidation and management.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

4.2: or the interface of the montage output could stay where it is (in the inspector) and the master section strip reserved solely for monitoring.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

User avatar
Arjan P
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Arjan P »

That may be nice for your workflow, but for me (and I guess many others) these suggestions would break the workflow that is perfect for the types of jobs I do in Wavelab. And I use the montage as well as the audio file editor, but do not always have a need for the montage.
--- "If anyone owes it all to Bach, it's God" - Emil Cioran ---
SOFT: (All 64 bit) | WaveLab Pro 10.0.50 | Cubase Pro 11.0.0 | HALion 6.0 | Win10 Pro - SoundCloud
HARD: i7-950 | Asus P6TD | 30GB | Tascam DM-3200 | DigiMax48 | Midisport 8x8 - SoundByte Studio

User avatar
Thomas W. Bethel
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:43 pm
Location: Oberlin, OH
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Thomas W. Bethel »

Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
That may be nice for your workflow, but for me (and I guess many others) these suggestions would break the workflow that is perfect for the types of jobs I do in Wavelab. And I use the montage as well as the audio file editor, but do not always have a need for the montage.
Same here. I like the way WL is currently setup. I understand that others have different ways of working but not all of us work the same way. FWIW
Thomas W. Bethel
Managing Director
Acoustik Musik, Ltd.
Room With a View Productions
http://www.acoustikmusik.com/

Doing what you love is freedom.
Loving what you do is happiness.

Celebrating 25 years in business in 2020

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
And I use the montage as well as the audio file editor […].
I do, too.
Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
[…] but do not always have a need for the montage.
In that case, you'd use the audio montage only as the audio file editor.
Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
[…] these suggestions would break the workflow that is perfect for the types of jobs I do in Wavelab.
Can you be more specific, what would break what?
Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
That may be nice for your workflow […].
The motivation for making those suggestions goes beyond the immediate concerns of one's individual workflow. Wavelab constitutes a multi-stage signal path which it has no simple and straightforward way of saving in a single file. This I consider to be an architectural flaw in need of correction. And this is what the suggestions are meant to address.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

PG
Moderator
Posts: 8082
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:15 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by PG »

I have no survey, but my feeling, from all the messages are read, is that maybe 40% of all WaveLab users are not using the montage, but are using the audio editor alone.
And among people using the montage extensively, it's common that many users have more than one montage opened at a time.

WaveLab is oriented as a "rendering machine"... the result are audio files (CD sometimes), hence audio file are really assets on their own, deserving their own editor, and should not only be a sub-window of a montage, like it is usually the case with DAWs.

I like a parallel with photoshop: photoshop produces pictures (// audio files), and is using complex project with picture layers (// audio montages).

Being aware of all this, this is what the concept of file groups has appeared in WaveLab 9.0. You can sort your projects in various custom groups, eg. one file group for one or more montage, another for audio files, another for batch processors...
And if you like the concept of montage sub-windows, you can split the main view in 2 (provided you have a large screen), with one montage and one audio file visible at the same time.
Philippe

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

PG wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm
I have no survey, but my feeling, from all the messages are read, is that maybe 40% of all WaveLab users are not using the montage, but are using the audio editor alone.
Some of that 40% is likely to have been determined by the self-fulfilling prophecy of the de facto way Wavelab is structured now as two relatively autonomous editors.
PG wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm
And among people using the montage extensively, it's common that many users have more than one montage opened at a time.
That does not have to change (as each montage would have its own output stage and nothing past it). The main point is to have the audio montage encompass the complete audio path of Wavelab so it's 100% re-callable with no processing stages outside its scope.
PG wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm
WaveLab is oriented as a "rendering machine"... the result are audio files (CD sometimes), hence audio file are really assets on their own, deserving their own editor, and should not only be a sub-window of a montage, like it is usually the case with DAWs.
How does being a sub-widow of a montage make the audio wave editor not "their own editor?"

Feature-wise, the audio wave editor would stay intact, what would change is how it is accessed.

The destructive and non-destructive types of editing would become two layers of the same (audio montage) editor, instead of having two stand-alone editors. And the point of this, again, is to have a working environment that encompasses the full audio path of Wavelab with nothing left out and nothing appended.
PG wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm
I like a parallel with photoshop: photoshop produces pictures (// audio files), and is using complex project with picture layers (// audio montages).

Being aware of all this, this is what the concept of file groups has appeared in WaveLab 9.0. You can sort your projects in various custom groups, eg. one file group for one or more montage, another for audio files, another for batch processors...
And if you like the concept of montage sub-windows, you can split the main view in 2 (provided you have a large screen), with one montage and one audio file visible at the same time.
You're thinking data management and UI presentation. That is not what I'm getting at. I'm addressing the structural fragmentation of the audio path in Wavelab. Thus my remark:
Aivaras wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:58 pm
Wavelab constitutes a multi-stage signal path which it has no simple and straightforward way of saving in a single file.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

Vocalpoint
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:56 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Vocalpoint »

To be fair - I have tackled the "montage" at least 10 times in the last 5 years and it still never sticks. I count myself as a fast and furious learner but this thing simply does not register with me and I do envy those that "get it".

I do use the Montage for occasional CD mixes etc - but let the standard CD template do all the work.

That said - if I was forced into the "montage" (which is no more than a poor mans multi-track but with extra clunky and unintuitive added as features) - that would end my days in WL permanently.

VP
Bruce McDonald
Vocalpoint Studios
Calgary, AB Canada

User avatar
Arjan P
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Arjan P »

Aivaras wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:58 pm
Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
[…] these suggestions would break the workflow that is perfect for the types of jobs I do in Wavelab.
Can you be more specific, what would break what?
Especially your suggestion to get rid of the Master Section would cause me having issues. I use the master section as it was intended: to have processing set and available for several audio files AND montages that are open in several tab windows.

Since in current Wavelab users that have no need for an overall Master Section can simply ignore it without any consequence (because we have the Master Output effects in montages), I see no reason to get rid of it.
Aivaras wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:58 pm
Arjan P wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:10 am
That may be nice for your workflow […].
The motivation for making those suggestions goes beyond the immediate concerns of one's individual workflow. Wavelab constitutes a multi-stage signal path which it has no simple and straightforward way of saving in a single file. This I consider to be an architectural flaw in need of correction. And this is what the suggestions are meant to address.
All good and well, saying these suggestions are for the greater good and going beyond concerns for individual workflow, but they DO break my workflow.

Bottom line: You already have what you need if you only want to use the montage. The suggestions you make don't add to Wavelab, they only take away from it.
--- "If anyone owes it all to Bach, it's God" - Emil Cioran ---
SOFT: (All 64 bit) | WaveLab Pro 10.0.50 | Cubase Pro 11.0.0 | HALion 6.0 | Win10 Pro - SoundCloud
HARD: i7-950 | Asus P6TD | 30GB | Tascam DM-3200 | DigiMax48 | Midisport 8x8 - SoundByte Studio

stingray
Senior Member
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:55 am
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by stingray »

Arjan P wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:51 pm
You already have what you need if you only want to use the montage. The suggestions you make don't add to Wavelab, they only take away from it.
I have to agree with this point of view.

@Aivaras
Wavelab's audio montage can already be used as a single 'completely reproducible working environment'.
Aivaras wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:24 pm
Some of that 40% is likely to have been determined by the self-fulfilling prophecy of the de facto way Wavelab is structured now as two relatively autonomous editors.
Even if that were true, why would you want to reduce software with two autonomous editors to one editor? :? Each of these editors is streamlined for a specific purpose and there's no obligation to use the Audio editor.

And about the Master section, if you don't need the Master section you can bypass it (by clicking on its power button) and also remove it from view (Alt+F9).

In my opinion, Wavelab is more powerful and adaptable than the Audio montage alone (even though the audio montage is already enough for many users). Remember there are also batch processing, DVD audio and Podcast project types and you can store all these different file types under a file group tab, which is convenient for grouping everything to do with a project in the same place. You also have global project files. I think one of Wavelab's greatest strenghths is its flexibility. It can be adapted to suit your particular purpose.

The following threads might give you an idea of the variations in different people's workflows:
viewtopic.php?f=244&t=163907
viewtopic.php?f=297&t=177621

pwhodges
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:29 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by pwhodges »

Vocalpoint wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pm
"montage" (which is no more than a poor mans multi-track but with extra clunky and unintuitive added as features)
That's your view, I guess - but for me it is completely intuitive, and an easier way of working than the file editor.
Arjan P wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:51 pm
I use the master section as it was intended: to have processing set and available for several audio files AND montages that are open in several tab windows.
In particular, the playback section is generally a global requirement - things like speaker layout and room compensation need a single place to go.

And the montage output section can't sensibly replace even the processing part of the master section until it correctly handles plugins for multichannel montages (which currently it doesn't).

Paul

Vocalpoint
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:56 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Vocalpoint »

pwhodges wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:02 am
That's your view, I guess - but for me it is completely intuitive, and an easier way of working than the file editor.
Understood - but this is a interesting statement (From PG):

"I have no survey, but my feeling, from all the messages are read, is that maybe 40% of all WaveLab users are not using the montage."

It's if that intuitive and easy - it gives me great comfort knowing that it's not just me.

VP
Bruce McDonald
Vocalpoint Studios
Calgary, AB Canada

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

Vocalpoint wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pm
[…] the "montage" (which is no more than a poor mans multi-track but with extra clunky and unintuitive added as features […]
A track in Wave Lab may be worth a dozen or more tracks in another DAW because of Wave Lab's capacity to process individual clips in real-time.

"Extra clunky and unintuitive" – that's the sound humans make when something exceeds their muscle power.
pwhodges wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:02 am
[…] for me it is completely intuitive, and an easier way of working than the file editor.
Vocalpoint wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:05 pm
It's if that intuitive and easy - it gives me great comfort knowing that it's not just me.
Given the complexity of current-day DAWs, they cannot be intuitive in principle. What can be done at most is standardizing some of their features to look and act similar/familiar when switching between DAWs.

A DAW has to be learned through a long-time effort and commitment. By way of analogy, there are no intuitive musical instruments. If one wants to play an instrument well, it will require years of painful practice. It's the opposite of intuitive.
pwhodges wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:02 am
In particular, the playback section is generally a global requirement - things like speaker layout and room compensation need a single place to go.
Yes, indeed. Thus my suggestion to retain (even expand) the functionality of the monitoring section reserving the GUI of the current master section solely for it.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

Arjan P wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:51 pm
Since in current Wavelab users that have no need for an overall Master Section can simply ignore it without any consequence (because we have the Master Output effects in montages), I see no reason to get rid of it.
Incorrect. A mastering session usually ends with re-sampling. 1) Re-sampling is not available in the audio montage. Because of this methodically 2) final limiting and 3) dithering cannot be done in the audio montage. The engineer is forced out of the audio montage into the master section.
Arjan P wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:51 pm
Especially your suggestion to get rid of the Master Section would cause me having issues. I use the master section as it was intended: to have processing set and available for several audio files […]
You'd open several audio files in tabs from a montage and process them like you do now, the only difference being they'd be fed to the montage signal path (track bus > montage bus, either one could be used for applying a common chain of processors to the opened audio files).
Arjan P wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:51 pm
[…] AND montages that are open in several tab windows.
This part would indeed require some adjustment in one's workflow. But one would still be in a position to achieve the same results either by applying the same chain of processing to a group of montages at each one's output or by monitoring them through the same chain of processors (the monitoring section could be extended to include more processor slots, an option could be available to insert the monitoring chain at the montage output, etc.).

In contrast, think of someone who wants to work on several audio montages each with its own final effects. It cannot be done in principle given the current state of Wave Lab. One cannot even monitor such montages.

Now if one could re-sample the audio stream coming out of a montage at it's output, the limiting and dithering stages could also be moved to the montage. This would indeed open the possibility of opening several montages with different sample rates, limiting, and dithering settings and working on them all at once, with all those settings saved in the montage as part of it. The audio montage would reach full maturity as a self-contained operational environment.
Arjan P wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:51 pm
Bottom line: You already have what you need if you only want to use the montage. The suggestions you make don't add to Wavelab, they only take away from it.
Incorrect in all respects: I do not already have what I need if I only want to use the montage (re-sampling > limiting > dither). The suggestions I'm making do add to WaveLab (re-sampling > limiting > dither in the audio montage, ability to work on several montages with different final effect chains). Nothing is taken away from it that cannot be replicated through a minor adjustment in one's workflow.
Last edited by Aivaras on Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
Wavelab's audio montage can already be used as a single 'completely reproducible working environment'.
Unfortunately, it cannot because a few critical stages of processing (re-sampling, limiting, dithering) have to be done outside of the audio montage. As a result, this:
stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
And about the Master section, if you don't need the Master section you can bypass it (by clicking on its power button) and also remove it from view (Alt+F9).
is not an option because one is forced out of the montage into the master section.
stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
[…] why would you want to reduce software with two autonomous editors to one editor? :? Each of these editors is streamlined for a specific purpose and there's no obligation to use the Audio editor.
That is not what I'm suggesting. I made it very clear the audio file editor would stay intact (it's a great tool!). What would change is how it is accessed (via the audio montage) and where it is positioned in the signal path of Wave Lab (integrated into the montage signal path).
stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
In my opinion, Wavelab is more powerful and adaptable than the Audio montage alone […]
Yes, of course. My suggestions concern the two aspects of Wave Lab (the audio montage and the audio file editor) which focus (among other things) on real-time processing and monitoring.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

stingray
Senior Member
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:55 am
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by stingray »

Aivaras wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:57 pm
stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
Wavelab's audio montage can already be used as a single 'completely reproducible working environment'.
Unfortunately, it cannot because a few critical stages of processing (re-sampling, limiting, dithering) have to be done outside of the audio montage. As a result, this:
Not really. You can use the Output section of the Inspector.
Aivaras wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:57 pm
stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
And about the Master section, if you don't need the Master section you can bypass it (by clicking on its power button) and also remove it from view (Alt+F9).
is not an option because one is forced out of the montage into the master section.
No you are not forced to do this. Other users here, (see the references above), bypass the master section and use the audio montage as a 'completely reproducible working environment'.

In terms of 'forcing' ... what you are generally suggesting here would be 'forcing' people to use the audio montage. I don't think this is what Wavelab is about.
Aivaras wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:57 pm
stingray wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 pm
[…] why would you want to reduce software with two autonomous editors to one editor? :? Each of these editors is streamlined for a specific purpose and there's no obligation to use the Audio editor.
That is not what I'm suggesting. I made it very clear the audio file editor would stay intact (it's a great tool!). What would change is how it is accessed (via the audio montage) and where it is positioned in the signal path of Wave Lab (integrated into the montage signal path).
Why would I want to access the Audio editor via the Audio montage? I can already access the Audio editor via the Audio montage anyway... select a clip and press 'E'. Currently, I can also open the Audio editor directly. i can't see anything wrong with the current architecture. We have the best of both worlds.
Last edited by stingray on Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

stingray wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:35 pm
Not really. You can use the Output section of the Inspector.
Can you re-sample in the output section of the inspector?
Aivaras
Garsų menė

stingray
Senior Member
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:55 am
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by stingray »

If you use the resampler plugin, yes why not?
[Correction: it's not possible to use the resampler plugin in the Output section]
Last edited by stingray on Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Justin P
Senior Member
Posts: 2850
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:49 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Justin P »

I would not be sad to see the master section go away, and repurposed just for monitoring FX only for extra meters (Clarity M and room correction even though I don't use that.

For resampling, I don't really trust getting perfect WAV masters of each track when rendering track by track, and then adding the Resampler on top of that. It might be fine, but especially for cases where EP and albums have overlapping tracks, I see this as a vulnerable place for errors at the starts and ends of each resulting file such as ticks and glitches when playing the resulting files back to back like the end listener will.

I really prefer to render the montage as one long file to lock in the plugin processing, but carry over the existing markers, from here you can add a dither plugin and render your track by track WAV files safely.

To get down to 44.1k, you can resample that full project render with the SRC of your choice (RX, Saracon) or using the Resampler in the batch processor. From here you can use Custom Montage Duplicate to recreate the montage at the new target sample rate.

I do a lot of albums for some reason where tracks overlap to some degree and this method has resulted in zero issues and errors, but before using this method, errors would come up which is what led me to this workflow.

I think the global master section confuses new users especially because it's right there and perhaps the most obvious place to insert FX but then they realize that the global master section is not automatically saved or loaded with each project and it's easy for a big mess and headaches to occur.

What WaveLab really needs is Direct Offline Processing for both standalone files and files in the montage, and a takes system, especially now that we can record in the montage more easily.
https://www.mysteryroommastering.com/https://www.justincarlperkins.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WaveLab/

Mac Pro 3.3GHz 12-Core • 176GB RAM • SSD for OS and audio • MacOS 10.15.7
iMac Pro 3.0GHz 10-Core • 64GB RAM • SSD for OS and audio • MacOS 10.15.7
MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 • 16GB RAM • MacOS 10.15.7

RME AES HDSPe, MUTEC MC-3+ Smart Clock USB, Grace m905, Grace m900

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

stingray wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:54 pm
If you use a resampler plugin, yes why not?
It would indeed solve or at least alleviate my immediate issue. I've tried accessing the resampler pug-in in the montage inspector a number of times in the past with no success. I went and double-checked it once more: no, I cannot access the resamper plugin in the inspector even though it is marked in File > Preferences > Pug-ins > Steinberg > Mastering.

If you can insert the resampler in the montage inspector, then something is wrong with my setup.
Last edited by Aivaras on Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

Vocalpoint
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:56 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Vocalpoint »

Aivaras wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:46 pm
Given the complexity of current-day DAWs, they cannot be intuitive in principle. What can be done at most is standardizing some of their features to look and act similar/familiar when switching between DAWs.

A DAW has to be learned through a long-time effort and commitment. By way of analogy, there are no intuitive musical instruments. If one wants to play an instrument well, it will require years of painful practice. It's the opposite of intuitive.
Incorrect on ALL counts. If I were to compare the WL "Montage" (which is nothing but a poor mans multitrack) with say - the standard multi-track layout in Studio One - it took me about 10 minutes to get comfy in Studio One.

I agree a DAW must be learned - but no DAW should require "years of painful practice". Anything that is painful is a waste of time for me.

The WL Montage has been the subject of long standing debate for years - I won't rehash it. Many like it - many do not. If it works for you - good on you.

It's very clear from the comments here that many - including the actual software developer - disagree with your ideas.

Probably best to just let it be - we didn't get to 10 versions of WL without learning a thing or two about what people want along the way.

VP
Bruce McDonald
Vocalpoint Studios
Calgary, AB Canada

Vocalpoint
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:56 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Vocalpoint »

Justin P wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:18 pm
I would not be sad to see the master section go away, and repurposed just for monitoring FX only for extra meters (Clarity M and room correction even though I don't use that.
Now this I agree with. I have not understood it's point since day 1 with WL.

VP
Bruce McDonald
Vocalpoint Studios
Calgary, AB Canada

User avatar
Justin P
Senior Member
Posts: 2850
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:49 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Justin P »

Vocalpoint wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:25 pm
Justin P wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:18 pm
I would not be sad to see the master section go away, and repurposed just for monitoring FX only for extra meters (Clarity M and room correction even though I don't use that.
Now this I agree with. I have not understood it's point since day 1 with WL.

VP
Same here. When I got WaveLab (version 7), it was a HUGE point of friction in my workflow. Thankfully the montage output FX (which I couldn't believe didn't already exist) were added for version 8 I think.

When this happened, I could finally breathe and be sure that all my plugins and their settings would be safely saved and loaded with each montage, as you'd expect. Without this, the chance for human error or other disaster was HUGE. I still see cases where people who use the global master section somehow lose or corrupt their settings which can ruin a project and/or it's recall ability. No thanks.

Of course, there are a few things only available in the global master section but I've developed what I think is a great workflow that allows me to keep the global master section hidden and I only use it to host my Clarity M plugin so WaveLab can talk to my hardware meter. I don't use it for anything else and don't care to.
https://www.mysteryroommastering.com/https://www.justincarlperkins.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WaveLab/

Mac Pro 3.3GHz 12-Core • 176GB RAM • SSD for OS and audio • MacOS 10.15.7
iMac Pro 3.0GHz 10-Core • 64GB RAM • SSD for OS and audio • MacOS 10.15.7
MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 • 16GB RAM • MacOS 10.15.7

RME AES HDSPe, MUTEC MC-3+ Smart Clock USB, Grace m905, Grace m900

User avatar
Aivaras
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by Aivaras »

Vocalpoint wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:24 pm
I agree a DAW must be learned - but no DAW should require "years of painful practice". Anything that is painful is a waste of time for me.
I meant the level of learning that is in-depth, fully appreciative of the DAW's vast potential. The understanding and mastery of this level does not arrive in 10 minutes.

There is a form of pain which is almost inherent in any type of human growth. It's about stretching your body. Quite pleasant, too, if not overdone.
Aivaras
Garsų menė

stingray
Senior Member
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:55 am
Contact:

Re: A suggestion to streamline some aspects of Wavelab

Post by stingray »

Aivaras wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:23 pm
If you can insert the resampler in the montage inspector, then something is wrong with my setup.
You're right. It's not possible to use the Resampler in the Output section of the Inspector. Therefore to be precise, it is possible to have a reproducible working environment within the montage, if you don't need resampling. If resampling is always in your workflow I can understand your frustration with having to implement that in the Master section but i think there may be a better solution than changing the whole architecture of Wavelab.

Post Reply

Return to “WaveLab Pro 10 | WaveLab Elements 10”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests