The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Wavelab 9.5, I am floored how great it is!!
Old 6th July 2019
  #61
Gear Maniac
 

I didn't want to start a new thread. There is the 30% sale right now on WaveLab. I am not sure about it though, maybe version 10 will come out soon? And I know sometimes they do 40% off, maybe for end of year?

Here's my thing. I have Ozone, lots of other new plugins. I would just like a dedicated wave editor. Used to use Sound Forge a decade ago. I like that WaveLab can be your mastering hub. Ozone is too limited for this, I think. Studio One's Project view is good, but still seems limited.

The thing is, I don't think I need all the extra plugins that Pro has. Mid/Side sounds nice, but Brainworx plugins almost always have mid/side built in. Spectral editing, I got iZotope RX7 Standard for that. (don't even use it)

I read the comparison chart, and I don't need more than 96 Khz, or three tracks, etc.

The problem is, the chart says "limited" for a lot of things on Elements. Like AudioMontage - it has it, but it's limited?

So do I really just need Elements? Or obviously I need Pro? I hate demoing plugins let alone whole software suites, and I don't want to demo both versions. I know I could just buy Elements and upgrade later, and probably that is what I should do.

Basically, I would like a wave editor (and Elements integrates with Cubase also) again. And I would like a "home" as it were for doing mastering, so I can save one project and know the metadata will always flow through every time I output something in whatever format. I don't think either Ozone 8 or Studio One Project view do this. They let you add metadata when you export, but then it has to be set again, leading to mistakes. But it's been a while since I've used either! (haven't done any mastering in months)

If anyone can comfort me that Elements is enough, or on the other hand, show anything I am missing on why obviously we all need Pro, I appreciate it!
Old 6th July 2019
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockafella View Post

If anyone can comfort me that Elements is enough, or on the other hand, show anything I am missing on why obviously we all need Pro, I appreciate it!
Why not demo it and find out? How could you not want to demo such a workflow changing piece of software vs. taking somebody's word on the internet...

I find Elements to be too limited. You can't add track IDs, each track is whatever the audio clip is, and the metadata support is very limited. Also, no DDP export.

It's OK for light duty work but I wouldn't consider it for mastering daily, or even weekly.

I would rather use HOFA (or the coming HOFA Pro) than WaveLab Elements.

WaveLab Pro on the other hand...couldn't work without it anymore. Among many things, it's a metadata machine. Enter the data once, and it's present on any and all master formats.
Old 7th July 2019
  #63
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
Why not demo it and find out? How could you not want to demo such a workflow changing piece of software vs. taking somebody's word on the internet...

I find Elements to be too limited. You can't add track IDs, each track is whatever the audio clip is, and the metadata support is very limited. Also, no DDP export.

It's OK for light duty work but I wouldn't consider it for mastering daily, or even weekly.

I would rather use HOFA (or the coming HOFA Pro) than WaveLab Elements.

WaveLab Pro on the other hand...couldn't work without it anymore. Among many things, it's a metadata machine. Enter the data once, and it's present on any and all master formats.
I feel the same way usually, people should just demo - but I am sure you can see the other point of view, like when comparing DAWs or anything more than a simpler plugin - it's kind of mind-boggling to compare and contrast two pieces of software one has had no experience in! And I think your own, very informative response shows that to be true - I don't think I would have realized those few salient points you mentioned, which is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for... while I don't need DDP or could use Hofa or Studio One Project for that if I did, I do want full metadata management... like, if I have a master saved, I just want to know any time I might go back in and tweak, or re-export a different format of a lower bitrate MP3, all the meta data is going to be there and correct without me even thinking about it... so if only Pro can virtually guarantee me that peace of mind/workflow, then Pro it is!

Now I will still demo probably, but I think you see my point - even if I took a week to demo both, I don't know I would pick up on those differences when it's all new to me. And I'll probably just demo Pro at this point.

Thank you very much for the valuable feedback and saving me some frustration! Just could not find any good real user comparisons of Elements vs Pro (probably because most just get Pro if they can afford it, I imagine), even after 3 or 4 concentrated searches over the past few months.

I'd been considering Sound Forge also, but I hate Magix's constant "updates" every year with upgrades costing the same as new purchases for the most part. Sound Forge was great back in 2003-2005. Pro 11 can be had cheap secondhand, but 32-bit only. (and then $200 to upgrade - getting almost to the level of WaveLab Pro on sale at that point!)

I also saw a Youtube of a 3 track CD master done in Samplitude Pro X4 - it seems that it works decently for it, but it's a multi purpose program with different "views" for what you're using it for... so I am sure WaveLab is still better. (yet it's the little sibling to Sequoia, which mastering houses do use quite a bit - unless it's not that related... I am used to Cubase and Nuendo which are closely related)

Anyway thank you again!
Old 7th July 2019
  #64
Gear Maniac
 

Final Edit - in short, I think I will end up going with Pro. I think I answered most of my questions. Elements is very nice, but once you touch the spectral tools or realize you don't need a metering plug open since it has the LUFS meter, Pro is the way to go. Just sucks I am duplicating so much from other programs but oh well. Just wanted to add this note before logging off, to save anyone the time of reading all my thoughts (but maybe they'll help anyone else who is considering both in the future).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
Why not demo it and find out? How could you not want to demo such a workflow changing piece of software vs. taking somebody's word on the internet...

I find Elements to be too limited. You can't add track IDs, each track is whatever the audio clip is, and the metadata support is very limited. Also, no DDP export.

It's OK for light duty work but I wouldn't consider it for mastering daily, or even weekly.

I would rather use HOFA (or the coming HOFA Pro) than WaveLab Elements.

WaveLab Pro on the other hand...couldn't work without it anymore. Among many things, it's a metadata machine. Enter the data once, and it's present on any and all master formats.
Well I just demo'ed Elements first (I didn't realize you could get a key for both at the same time, my bad - I actually have never demo'ed any Steinberg stuff before, I just buy it all ). I was even a good boy and I demoed SF Pro 13 first for kicks. Brought back some memories, but man, feels like it's from 2005 still for the most part.

Holy @#[email protected]$%.... maybe it's good I waited before I ever tried it until now (before version 9, it wasn't anything like this, right? I had read some reviews years back), but wow... maybe testing SF Pro 13 first really set me up for joy (it crashed a few times, etc.), WaveLab in general is so sleek, fast, etc., etc., etc.! I reallllly expected it to be hokey pokey and kind of legacy feeling... the way Cubase was still feeling around version 7.5 when they made it look newer but it was still kind of clunky getting around. I mean, they nailed what a wave editor should be in my book.

Now, I DO see the Metadata tab in Elements... but from your previous message, it sounds like Elements is missing something to do with Metadata that only Pro has? The stuff about track and track ids is only for CD prep, right? But the basic metadata - is there some difference? I did see in the comparison page, it mentioned something about "project" support for Pro only. (I see what that is now in Pro. I am assuming that's only for multiple track albums though.)

Edit: DOH! I get it now. Elements only lets you save the wave file, right. (DUH) So if you change out the actual wave content with a revised mix or whatever, unless you somehow copy and paste the audio to the old wave file while open, your metadata gets lost, and you have to re-enter it on the new one, does that sound right? Whereas with Pro, havintg the whole project view, it's more like Studio One's Project view (well, plus 100X more), in that you save your whole master setup, metadata, etc., but can swap in different mix versions/wave files. Let me know if I got it now. (for some reason I assume Elements still had some basic container/project file, but I get it now, it ONLY edits wave files directly...)

Their comparison chart is just weird, frankly - lots of yellow checkmarks for partial support... but for Audio Montage, i don't even see that. (unless they mean, you can have multiple clips in general, but none of the other Audio Montage stuff - but I don't think it does any of that, should be no checkmark for Elements)
https://www.steinberg.net/en/product...omparison.html

It's funny how similar MasterRig's layout is to Izone! Makes Izone feel unnecessary. Or, like I could just use the Ozone discrete plugs I like, but keep the cleaner overall view of WaveLab.

I mean, I know myself... somehow I am going to find myself convinced the Pro is worth the $320 more anyway. But it is really amazing how good Elements is for $70 on sale. I am really spent out on all the brainworx stuff I bought and some other sound libraries, etc.

Edit: Just opened Pro... the weird thing is, there's so much more going on... if I had opened Pro first, I would have been bewildered. Kind of like how Elements looks nice and clean. But even for things like edits - I don't think Elements has all the same edit tools, even though it's supposed to?! (comparison chart doesn't mention that really, but a review I read seemed to indicate they had the same basic editing tools, but I don't see them all in Elements unless they're hidden)

EDIT! Ok, I was missing the workspace layouts. So that cleans it up a lot if you're just using it for editing at the moment, got it!

Anyway, wow... now I am really not sure! Maybe use Elements for now, then upgrade on the next sale towards end of year? (and maybe they come out with WL Pro 10 by then too?) If I am just mastering singles, and it saves that metadata for the master file, but I can export as many times and different formats across different sessions, I guess I really only need Elements. Or maybe get Elements, keep it without upgrading (and since it doesn't need the key), and get Pro separately... I could really see myself doing WAY more editing again with a dedicated editor like this! Bitwig's audio editor is very powerful (multiple clips in one clip, all sorts of volume, pan, and other tricks it can do, reverse, etc.), but with this connected to Cubase (or any program as the wave editor, I suppose), lots of power... and focused, as it were.

One more nice plus - I remember reading about this, but nice integration with the CC121 also!
Old 7th July 2019
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockafella View Post
Final Edit - in short, I think I will end up going with Pro. I think I answered most of my questions. Elements is very nice, but once you touch the spectral tools or realize you don't need a metering plug open since it has the LUFS meter, Pro is the way to go. Just sucks I am duplicating so much from other programs but oh well. Just wanted to add this note before logging off, to save anyone the time of reading all my thoughts (but maybe they'll help anyone else who is considering both in the future).
Sorry, I was off the grid for a bit. Either way, if Elements is enough for you, that's great. I know that it would be too limited for my needs but we all have different needs. You can't go wrong with WaveLab Pro. Especially if you want to stay on Mac, I don't think there is a better option...and WaveLab 10 will be addressing some things that are missing or need improvement.

Also, the WaveLab public forum is a great resource. PG (the author of WaveLab) is on there daily and will answer your posts usually:
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=244

Also, there is a WaveLab users group on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WaveLab/

PG is not on there but it's more of a casual conversation style thing for people who are on Facebook.
Old 7th July 2019
  #66
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
........


WaveLab Pro on the other hand...couldn't work without it anymore. Among many things, it's a metadata machine. Enter the data once, and it's present on any and all master formats.
Though sadly, I have been having trouble exporting files and iTunes reading the meta-data. I assume this is Apple's problem but that is annoying.
Old 7th July 2019
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushwick View Post
Though sadly, I have been having trouble exporting files and iTunes reading the meta-data. I assume this is Apple's problem but that is annoying.
iTunes can't read metadata in WAV files, even though WaveLab can add it. Something like JRiver Media Center can display metadata embedded in WAV files.

With mp3/AAC files, I've had no issues with iTunes displaying that metadata.

Maybe the new Music app from Apple will support reading metadata in WAV files but I wouldn't count on it.
Old 7th July 2019
  #68
Lives for gear
 
GP_Hawk's Avatar
Wavelab Pro for $320? Ok I missed that. Too damn busy...
Old 7th July 2019
  #69
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
Sorry, I was off the grid for a bit. Either way, if Elements is enough for you, that's great. I know that it would be too limited for my needs but we all have different needs. You can't go wrong with WaveLab Pro. Especially if you want to stay on Mac, I don't think there is a better option...and WaveLab 10 will be addressing some things that are missing or need improvement.

Also, the WaveLab public forum is a great resource. PG (the author of WaveLab) is on there daily and will answer your posts usually:
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=244

Also, there is a WaveLab users group on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WaveLab/

PG is not on there but it's more of a casual conversation style thing for people who are on Facebook.
Actually I am planning on staying off Mac unless they starting making a real "pro" laptop again. (long story but yeah I was only Mac for almost 10 years)

Again, I am floored as well like the OP was, the program is very well done overall. I was really expecting it to be hard to use and still "ugly" to iteract with in some areas, but it's actually pretty much perfect... like the export and save as screens, beautiful! Better than most iPad apps.

Anyway, I guess for metadata purposes, I was right? If I am doing just singles, then Elements might be ok (discarding the lower number of slots, M/S, etc.)? I noticed that the wave file does keep the plugin chain when you re-open it, so even without a project file, apparently it keeps that "project" data for each wave file you work on somewhere... maybe it keeps the metadata also? (and one could change the mix by just deleting and inserting the new mix file) Probably will just go with Pro though. At least the sale is on until end of the month.
Old 8th July 2019
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockafella View Post
Actually I am planning on staying off Mac unless they starting making a real "pro" laptop again. (long story but yeah I was only Mac for almost 10 years)

Again, I am floored as well like the OP was, the program is very well done overall. I was really expecting it to be hard to use and still "ugly" to iteract with in some areas, but it's actually pretty much perfect... like the export and save as screens, beautiful! Better than most iPad apps.

Anyway, I guess for metadata purposes, I was right? If I am doing just singles, then Elements might be ok (discarding the lower number of slots, M/S, etc.)? I noticed that the wave file does keep the plugin chain when you re-open it, so even without a project file, apparently it keeps that "project" data for each wave file you work on somewhere... maybe it keeps the metadata also? (and one could change the mix by just deleting and inserting the new mix file) Probably will just go with Pro though. At least the sale is on until end of the month.
I really don't know all the details of the limitations of Elements but I guess, go with your instinct.

I basically always use the montage because then all the plugins and settings are safely stored inside the motange (.mon) file.

This means that you can open up a previous montage project and tweak something, and/or load in a new mix and keep all other settings.

The single file audio editor does require you to load and save the global master section separately and while there are settings and shortcuts to make quick work of this, I prefer the montage environment for a few reasons and one of them is so that all the plugins and things save as you would expect.

I actually keep the global master section hidden and only use it for one thing...to host the Clarity M plugin to talk to my hardware Clarity M.

You'll find that there are a lot of options to suit your workflow.

I've never used it on PC, but I say it's best option for Mac because I haven't tried out Sequoia, Pyramix, SADIE, etc.
Old 8th July 2019
  #71
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
I really don't know all the details of the limitations of Elements but I guess, go with your instinct.

I basically always use the montage because then all the plugins and settings are safely stored inside the motange (.mon) file.

This means that you can open up a previous montage project and tweak something, and/or load in a new mix and keep all other settings.

The single file audio editor does require you to load and save the global master section separately and while there are settings and shortcuts to make quick work of this, I prefer the montage environment for a few reasons and one of them is so that all the plugins and things save as you would expect.

I actually keep the global master section hidden and only use it for one thing...to host the Clarity M plugin to talk to my hardware Clarity M.

You'll find that there are a lot of options to suit your workflow.

I've never used it on PC, but I say it's best option for Mac because I haven't tried out Sequoia, Pyramix, SADIE, etc.
Ahh, I see - I thought the Montage was more for just collecting multiple tracks/clips and their data, I actually didn't know it could have the plugins applied within. Makes sense though, that makes it very similar to Samplitude/Sequoia (each audio event has its own effects rack in addition to the track's plugin rack). Funny because I was also demoing Samplitude Pro X4 last night, and was wondering, "but can WaveLab do that?" Definitely sounds like I'd only be happy with the Pro version then for sure, based on that.

And yeah, the workspaces feature is very easy to use and really cleans up/focuses the interface. I was glad to hear the original developer is still actively involved, too.

Anyway, thanks again for your feedback, it's actually more than I could have hoped for!
Old 8th July 2019
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockafella View Post
Ahh, I see - I thought the Montage was more for just collecting multiple tracks/clips and their data, I actually didn't know it could have the plugins applied within. Makes sense though, that makes it very similar to Samplitude/Sequoia (each audio event has its own effects rack in addition to the track's plugin rack). Funny because I was also demoing Samplitude Pro X4 last night, and was wondering, "but can WaveLab do that?" Definitely sounds like I'd only be happy with the Pro version then for sure, based on that.

And yeah, the workspaces feature is very easy to use and really cleans up/focuses the interface. I was glad to hear the original developer is still actively involved, too.

Anyway, thanks again for your feedback, it's actually more than I could have hoped for!
Yes, the montage lets you have clip FX right on each song, or you can split up the song into multiple clips if different FX are needed for different sections.

Even when I'm mastering a single song, I do it in the montage for many reasons. One of them being that my default montage template already has the ideal metadata template loaded so that I just have to enter the info once, and any rendered WAV or mp3 files contain the metadata I want...and also exists as CD-Text should I make a DDP.

The montage also has audio track FX (not that useful IMO but it's there), and then montage output FX which effects everything in the montage. Good for final limiter and dither, etc.

The global master section is after that but it's not automatically saved and loaded with each montage in a way you'd expect.

That's why it's called the global master section. Some people like it, but I don't.
Old 8th July 2019
  #73
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
Yes, the montage lets you have clip FX right on each song, or you can split up the song into multiple clips if different FX are needed for different sections.

Even when I'm mastering a single song, I do it in the montage for many reasons. One of them being that my default montage template already has the ideal metadata template loaded so that I just have to enter the info once, and any rendered WAV or mp3 files contain the metadata I want...and also exists as CD-Text should I make a DDP.

The montage also has audio track FX (not that useful IMO but it's there), and then montage output FX which effects everything in the montage. Good for final limiter and dither, etc.

The global master section is after that but it's not automatically saved and loaded with each montage in a way you'd expect.

That's why it's called the global master section. Some people like it, but I don't.
That actually sounds beautiful! I can see why you dig it. I wish Steinberg could put that level of detail on their product page, I would have been sold the first time I checked it out a few years ago. (Btw, I love the name of your mastering room, and what a nice setup.)
Old 8th July 2019
  #74
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockafella View Post
That actually sounds beautiful! I can see why you dig it. I wish Steinberg could put that level of detail on their product page, I would have been sold the first time I checked it out a few years ago. (Btw, I love the name of your mastering room, and what a nice setup.)
Thanks.

Yeah, WaveLab doesn't quite get the attention of Cubase and Nuendo but they're working on it. I'm also working on some WaveLab videos that I hope get released this summer yet.

Something to help both new users and existing users. I can't say much more than that now though.

When I outgrew Waveburner I searched high and low for something useable on Mac. I tried WaveLab 7 (which had just come out) and tolerated it through version 8. I tried really hard to find something better on Mac but kept coming back to WaveLab.

WaveLab 9 was a nice improvement, and 9.5 even better.

I have a good feeling WaveLab 10 will solve some remaining weaknesses but time will tell...
Old 8th July 2019
  #75
Gear Maniac
 

Well, I just uninstalled WaveLab from my computer. :(









... WaveLab Elements, that is! And added my license for Pro. Sorry. some late night humor. I'll try to behave from now on! Even though I am nowhere near the caliber of probably 90%, maybe 99%, of owners of WaveLab Pro, I am glad to join the club, as it were.
Old 8th July 2019
  #76
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

I ended up buying it too, 2 days before they put a 30% sale on it, I contacted my rep and they issued a refund for the 30%! Pretty happy about it.
The software has a lot in it, so I'm slowly ready the manual, but I think it's gonna work great for my needs.
Old 8th July 2019
  #77
Lives for gear
 
Shawn Hatfield's Avatar
John McCaig over at Panic Studios recommended WaveLab Pro to me a few years ago and said it would change my life. He was not wrong.
Old 9th July 2019
  #78
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matskull View Post
I ended up buying it too, 2 days before they put a 30% sale on it, I contacted my rep and they issued a refund for the 30%! Pretty happy about it.
The software has a lot in it, so I'm slowly ready the manual, but I think it's gonna work great for my needs.
Consider yourself lucky... any time I try to get Steinberg to budge, they don't do it! (I forget what it was, but I had a lot of instruments piecemeal, then got the Absolute V4 upgrade, but one thing was behind - anyway I was just asking them to credit the difference if I had taken the more direct path to upgrade - I think it was from Groove Agent vs Halion - but they said no such luck...)

By the way, I also got the "upgrade" for SpectraLayers Pro 6. I think it's because they just acquired it from Magix, so no one would has an elicenser code for the old versions anyway (unless it used eLicenser previously) - thus there is nothing to "upgrade", and they probably can't enforce it. Not sure if it will continue to work so I don't want to lead you astray, but assuming they don't retroactively cancel it on those of us that got it, it's a very inexpensive way to get into SpectraLayers Pro 6! ("upgrades" are on sale for $50 right now, vs. full version on sale at $200)
Old 9th July 2019
  #79
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockafella View Post
Consider yourself lucky... any time I try to get Steinberg to budge, they don't do it! (I forget what it was, but I had a lot of instruments piecemeal, then got the Absolute V4 upgrade, but one thing was behind - anyway I was just asking them to credit the difference if I had taken the more direct path to upgrade - I think it was from Groove Agent vs Halion - but they said no such luck...)

By the way, I also got the "upgrade" for SpectraLayers Pro 6. I think it's because they just acquired it from Magix, so no one would has an elicenser code for the old versions anyway (unless it used eLicenser previously) - thus there is nothing to "upgrade", and they probably can't enforce it. Not sure if it will continue to work so I don't want to lead you astray, but assuming they don't retroactively cancel it on those of us that got it, it's a very inexpensive way to get into SpectraLayers Pro 6! ("upgrades" are on sale for $50 right now, vs. full version on sale at $200)
Yeah I'm pretty lucky, it was Sweetwater though who issued a refund for the difference since I bought it there.
Old 10th July 2019
  #80
Gear Maniac
 

Ahh, I see. I usually use Musician's Friend (or ProAudioStar, if there's B-stock available for gear) these days - no sales tax where I am, they can usually do a nice discount (10-15%, not if software is on sale though), AND 8% rewards (even on software that's on sale)... what's not to like! I hate candy anyway... would much rather get the total of 20%+ off my order! (I have read some people have Sweetwater reps who also give them good deals... but mine begrudgingly price matches, let alone anything off, even though I spent a LOT with them... so I don't shop there anymore.)
Old 23 hours ago
  #81
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
Because of a great feature called "Custom Montage Copy", you can lock in all your processing at a high sample rate (and floating point bit-depth), SRC the processed file using the SRC of your choice, and then tell WaveLab recreate the montage using the newly SRC'd file which I keep as floating point, and I manage the dither in WaveLab.

Now the montage is recreated at the new sample rate, with all your markers, CD-Text/metadata, and other stuff still present. Just add your preferred dither plugin set to 24-bit, 16-bit, or no dither for mp3 rendering, and you're all set.
Ok, so I'm trying to give this a shot and I haven't succeeded yet.

Here's the scenario.
I have an audio montage with 5 songs, 24 bit 96Khz, I named the files properly, trimmed the beginning and end of each song, put fade in and out on every song, adjusted some clip gain on some song, did some repairs, put plugins on each clip.

So basically I did the whole mastering process in WaveLab exclusively.
Then, I rendered the songs to 24 bit 96Khz wav files and did my SRC and dithering in Izotope RX because I have a workflow in there that allows me to not have overs and it sounds great.

When I try the "Custom Montage copy", the files end up being cut, faded and clip gained with all clip plugins inserted, exactly like in the Hi Rez version. I do not want all the edits and plugins since they are already applied to the rendered 16 bit 44.1Khz files and even if I bypass everything I'd still have to move the files by hand because there are no longer aligned correctly since I did some trimming in the original 96Khz montage.

So how do I do it?
Maybe my workflow isn't compatible with that "custom montage copy" feature?
Old 21 hours ago
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by matskull View Post
Ok, so I'm trying to give this a shot and I haven't succeeded yet.

Here's the scenario.
I have an audio montage with 5 songs, 24 bit 96Khz, I named the files properly, trimmed the beginning and end of each song, put fade in and out on every song, adjusted some clip gain on some song, did some repairs, put plugins on each clip.

So basically I did the whole mastering process in WaveLab exclusively.
Then, I rendered the songs to 24 bit 96Khz wav files and did my SRC and dithering in Izotope RX because I have a workflow in there that allows me to not have overs and it sounds great.

When I try the "Custom Montage copy", the files end up being cut, faded and clip gained with all clip plugins inserted, exactly like in the Hi Rez version. I do not want all the edits and plugins since they are already applied to the rendered 16 bit 44.1Khz files and even if I bypass everything I'd still have to move the files by hand because there are no longer aligned correctly since I did some trimming in the original 96Khz montage.

So how do I do it?
Maybe my workflow isn't compatible with that "custom montage copy" feature?
It sounds like you're on the right track, but yes, the point of this process is to lock in all the plugin processing and then eliminate them from the resulting montages.

Can you clarify if you're using global master section plugins? Or are all the plugins inserted in the montage as clip/track/montage output FX? The 2nd option is how it works best. I never use global master section plugins aside from Clarity M in the playback slots.

You may also be missing a step:

1) Dial in your montage how you want it..sounds, plugins, markers, CD-Text (useful for populating metadata too).

2) Render a floating point/same sample rate WAV of this whole montage, use the render options that copies markers, creates a cue sheet (that you can ignore), and creates a new montage from the resulting file. I usually render this to a folder called "96k Renders" within the project folder.

3) When the render is done, a new montage will be created. The sample rate will be the same, there will be no plugins inserted, and all the markers and CD-Text info (useful also for metadata embedding) will be applied to the new montage.

NOTE: the resulting montage (and custom duplicate) have visual edits in the waveform where each track is, but they are just visual. The audio remains seamless. I know it looks concerning and I've requested to change this but really, it's a non-issue.

4) Save this new montage along side the new WAV in the 96k renders folder. This is basically a mirror of your source montage but with all the plugins locked in. Insert a 24-bit dither in the montage output section and you're ready to render 24-bit/high sample rate WAVs. You can close the original montage to avoid confusion.

5) Now, you can externally SRC that full montage render down to floating point/44.1k and put it in its own folder. I usually call this folder "44-1k renders".

6) Run the Custom Montage Duplicate option, and when WaveLab asks, point it to the folder with the 44.1k SRC version.

7) When you press OK, a new montage will be created at the sample rate of the SRC'd file, and all the markers, text/data, and layout will be the same, just at the new sample rate.

8) Save this montage alongside the 44-1k SRC WAV.

9) Change the live dither plugin to 16-bit and now you're ready to render 16-bit/44.1k WAV, DDP, or remove the dither plugin all together and you can render mp3 or AAC files.

It's a lot in writing but I should have some videos coming soon to show how to fly though this with shortcuts in seconds (aside from the SRC processing time in RX).

This method allows you to easily render any format, and make sure they are 100% cohesive, and sound great using your SRC and dither of choice.

Last edited by Justin P.; 21 hours ago at 01:46 PM..
Old 21 hours ago
  #83
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
It sounds like you're on the right track, but yes, the point of this process is to lock in all the plugin processing and then eliminate them from the resulting montages.

Can you clarify if you're using global master section plugins? Or are all the plugins inserted in the montage as clip/track/montage output FX? The 2nd option is how it works best. I never use global master section plugins aside from Clarity M in the playback slots.

You may also be missing a step:

1) Dial in your montage how you want it..sounds, plugins, markers, CD-Text (useful for populating metadata too).

2) Render a floating point/same sample rate WAV of this whole montage, use the render options that copies markers, creates a cue sheet (that you can ignore), and creates a new montage from the resulting file. I usually render this to a folder called "96k Renders" within the project folder.

3) When the render is done, a new montage will be created. The sample rate will be the same, there will be no plugins inserted, and all the markers and CD-Text info (useful also for metadata embedding) will be applied to the new montage.

NOTE: the resulting montage (and custom duplicate) have visual edits in the waveform where each track is, but they are just visual. The audio remains seamless. I know it looks concerning and I've requested to change this but really, it's a non-issue.

4) Save this new montage along side the new WAV in the 96k renders folder. This is basically a mirror of your source montage but with all the plugins locked in. Insert a 24-bit dither in the montage output section and you're ready to render 24-bit/high sample rate WAVs. You can close the original montage to avoid confusion.

5) Now, you can externally SRC that full montage render down to floating point/44.1k and put it in its own folder. I usually call this folder "44-1k renders".

6) Run the Custom Montage Duplicate option, and when WaveLab asks, point it to the folder with the 44.1k SRC version.

7) When you press OK, a new montage will be created at the sample rate of the SRC'd file, and all the markers, text/data, and layout will be the same, just at the new sample rate.

8) Save this montage alongside the 44-1k SRC WAV.

9) Change the live dither plugin to 16-bit and now you're ready to render 16-bit/44.1k WAV, DDP, or remove the dither plugin all together and you can render mp3 or AAC files.

It's a lot in writing but I should have some videos coming soon to show how to fly though this with shortcuts in seconds (aside from the SRC processing time in RX).

This method allows you to easily render any format, and make sure they are 100% cohesive, and sound great using your SRC and dither of choice.

Thanks for the detailed replied, mucho appreciated!

I do not use the master section, it's way too easy to do a mistake when switching sessions.

I think the most crucial part is your point #2 , which I didn't do. That will definitely change everything.

For your point #5 , you say to dither to 24 bit. I'm glad you raised this up because I was wondering why WaveLab says the current audio bit depth is 32 bit when my files are 24 bit. Is it because it automatically make every files 32 bits when there is processing done to them?

I will give that a shot, thanks for the help!
Old 20 hours ago
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by matskull View Post
Thanks for the detailed replied, mucho appreciated!

I do not use the master section, it's way too easy to do a mistake when switching sessions.

I think the most crucial part is your point #2 , which I didn't do. That will definitely change everything.

For your point #5 , you say to dither to 24 bit. I'm glad you raised this up because I was wondering why WaveLab says the current audio bit depth is 32 bit when my files are 24 bit. Is it because it automatically make every files 32 bits when there is processing done to them?

I will give that a shot, thanks for the help!
Yes. Before you duplicate the montage, you need to have a clean/processed hi-res version w/o the plugins to duplicate from.

I always run the dither live because any processing from WaveLab, or the SRC, will increase the bit-depth to floating point (32 or 64-bit depending on the software and settings).

So, doing that initial render to 24-bit isn't optimal because it will be processed again later by your SRC and open the can of dither/bit-depth worms.

It's best to keep the audio files floating point and apply the dithering when rendering the 24-bit or 16-bit WAVs, or remove dither all together if rendering mp3 or AAC files so it can be done from the floating point source.

Pretty much any modern DAW will process at 32-bit or 64-bit floating point, so even the simplest gain change will increase the bit-depth.

The built in bit-depth meter of WaveLab can help guide you.

That being said, after my first full render, I am never changing the gain, fades, or doing anything other than SRC and dither.

All in all, keeping the the files floating point and only dithering and reducing the bit-depth when the final WAV files and DDP are rendered is IMO the best practice.
Old 15 hours ago
  #85
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin P. View Post
NOTE: the resulting montage (and custom duplicate) have visual edits in the waveform where each track is, but they are just visual. The audio remains seamless. I know it looks concerning and I've requested to change this but really, it's a non-issue.
ok so I just tried this, just to make sure I got this right, its normal that I now have only one long audio files with markers? They will be separated into individual files when I do my final export?
Old 15 hours ago
  #86
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

I also didn't get the ISRC codes to follow in the new montage, probably because I didn't export the cue sheet?
Old 15 hours ago
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Justin P.'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by matskull View Post
ok so I just tried this, just to make sure I got this right, its normal that I now have only one long audio files with markers? They will be separated into individual files when I do my final export?
Yes, with the workflow I use and have been describing, the first render you do is technically just one long file to lock in the processing. This method also helps prevent any glitches at track transitions with overlapping audio. Everything should be clean.

The resulting montage carries over the markers and (for better or worse) splits the full file into clips for each CD track but this is not destructive. It's still one audio file, but the montage file thinks it's multiple clips now.

It's not a big deal though, everything is fine either way.

To get separated individual files when I do my final export you have to choose the right rendering option.

The render source should be:

All Regions/CD Tracks

This will render a WAV of each defined CD track.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump