I have Cubase 6, do I need Wavelab 7?

[DAW PLUS]

As an editor, I don't think Wavelab adds that much to Cubase in a normal production workflow. For mastering and CD preparation, i.e. if your mastering is more than adding a peak limiter or maximizer in the 2bus, it certainly does a great job.

[Glenn Bucci]

You can't burn CD's with Cubase, so something like Wavelab is very useful for this. Read the Sound on Sound review on Wavelab 6 and 7 to get a better idea of what it is capable for. It has a lot of mastering options that are not available in Cubase like redbook, IRIC codes, tons of metering information, etc.

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

A big part of what moved me to Samplitude/Sequoia was that it handled all the tasks from within one program. I used to own Sound Forge and CDA and Wavelab along with my regular DAW. Samp/Seq does it all for me, improved my work flow, saved me lots of time.

[crypticglobe]

If you are a gearslut... you need both.

But seriously... I use Wavelab 7 for mastering, CD creation, etc. The audio montage is awesome for setting up your play order, pauses, etcc...

[fatcatmusic]

Originally Posted by crypticglobe

If you are a gearslut... you need both.

But seriously... I use Wavelab 7 for mastering, CD creation, etc. The audio montage is awesome for setting up your play order, pauses, etcc...

For CD compiling I use CD Architect, I do my mastering in Cubase. Now I can meter with various VST plugins; so it's kind of difficult to justify getting one more program... unless I am a gearsult?

[TimDolbear]

For the cost of Wavelab, you could get Samplitude and like its said in the post, one program, record, edit, restoration, object based editing, mixing, real mastering, cd authoring.

[ARIEL]

Originally Posted by fatcatmusic

For CD compiling I use CD Architect, I do my mastering in Cubase. Now I can meter with various VST plugins; so it's kind of difficult to justify getting one more program... unless I am a gearsult?

Same here CD arch ,all the way !! it is so easy and simple to use . I do have Cubase and Wavelab , but I find wavelab not as intuitive as CD arch . Besides I just need to burn the cd as I do my mastering inside of Cubase

[Jay M]

It's like asking "Do I need a screwdriver if I already have a Swiss Army knife?".

The answer is yes, if you need to drive a lot of screws.

I use Wavelab professionally, and it is worth every penny.

Here is how I use it on a daily basis:
-auto file split - to create CD tracks that our CD duplicators use
-batch processor- I have presets for every MP3 format we need to make.
-spectral editor- to remove P pops and other thing.
-Mastering using an assortment of VST and DX plugins.

I have an occasional need to batch process thousands of files. Wavelab can do it. It may take a week, but it does it.

The window layout is different than a multi-track program, and that makes many editing tasks must easier.

Editing is REALLY fast.

It is a great program, and worth the money if you use it enough. If you need to master one album every 6 months, and that's all you will use it for, then maybe your $600 is best spent elsewhere.

~Jay

[Retrospekta]

and what about if you have nuendo, is it recommendable to have wavelab? do you need it? now with nuendo 5.5... i am on the verge of buying one of them.. second hand, so money is not an issue, but tech specs and usability are.. thanks for your input

[greggybud]

Nuendo? I don't know as I have never used it.

IMO Wavelab is the deepest, most powerful, and flexible, mastering environment available. This also means it's not the quickest or easiest to use.

There are many features not found in other programs, and I have found nothing that comes even remotely close to the error detection and global analysis functions found in Wavelab.

The frequency 3D analysis is the best I have ever seen when looking at any wave file in the frequency domain. You can look at it from any position in color.

As mentioned above the batch processing and batch renaming functions are very nice. You decide if you want to spend hours converting hundreds of .wav to MP3 or minutes. And that is very basic batch processing. You can insert dozens of other functions while converting too. Some of these functions can be very involved with lots of processing steps.

Smart bypass (depending on your console set-up) has saved me hours with clients who experience loudness bias when doing A vs B comparisons. This eliminates any volume bias and allows the listener to focus on the actual mastering changes.

The Spectrum editor has become useful on some occasions when nothing else works as well.

For basic or general editing, Cubase is fine. But it's not nearly as extensive or complete as Wavelab which is a dedicated editing/mastering environment.

The Audio Montage is made for mastering. With start stop CD markers almost anything is possible when creating CD's.

All this takes time. You don't learn it over night. But when you have questions not answered by others, PG, the creator of Wavelab will always reply within a day. That is great technical support.

Wavelab Weaknesses:

1. Effect Morphing-This is NOT an answer to automation, but is as close as you can get in Wavelab. In other words, forget about using the R & W buttons found in Cubase automation.

2. Lack of a decent manual. Unlike WL6 and prior versions, there is no manual. Not a printed manual or a pdf manual. The WL7 manual is completely lame and often not any help. If Steinberg doesn't change their mind about this I think in time Wavelab will die.

3. The Wavelab-Cubase integration was lost many years ago because of the introduction of multiple undo's in Cubase. I have missed that very much, but as time goes on, most users don't even know what I'm referring to.

So only you know if you "need" it.