I am a Wavelab veteren, and absolutely love it. It is the most productive and intuitive software I have ever used for anything. The montage is a wonder, as is classical editing with it. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Many people "look" at Wavelab and dismiss it because they never get past the WAV window mode, they never see or explore the montage. The montage is the heart and soul of this program, I never use the WAV window. Here is an example of the montage edits in a 10 min piece of chamber music.

http://www.lodestarrecordings.com.au/images/edits.jpg

Some also complain about the master section not being able to externally route out to other boxes and then back in. But in my relatively simple classical projects I never do this either so don't miss it.

Its sonic integrity is unquestionable.

Do you need some specific questions answered?

David-

Thanks for posting the screen shot on how you go about doing classical editing in Wavelab. While I've (of course) seen you post numerous times about how you work in it, I could never quite visualize how you use it as a tool. When I worked in Samplitude years ago before working in Sequoia, I did a number of my edits in the same manner.

--Ben

Nice pic Dave!

I also like Wavelab and think it's one of the "sleeper" packages on the market.

For years, I used it as a 2 track mastering program and loved it. However, I didn't dive into the multi-track aspects of it until about a year and a half ago. It was only because I was so used to Cubase/Nuendo at the time that I didn't use it as my primary (that and my Radikal SAC 2K didn't work as well (or maybe not at all, I don't remember) with it.)

Just out of curiosity, what difficulties or issues are you encountering with Samp vs. Sonar that you feel slow you down? I agree, when I switched from Cubase SX3 to Sequoia, for a while I thought "DAMN! Why did I spend so much on this?!" Then I started to get my workflow down with it and I can complete projects much more quickly than I ever could.

BTW -

Dave: That's the exact method of edits I used in Cubase - the crossfading in Cubase sucked, so I went this route and drew my own fades. I found it to be FAR more flexible (though more time consuming.) Of course, Wavelab's crossfades are excellent, so that's not so much of an issue.

J.

I find the montage editing to be very productive. If the artist wants to compare another edit option, I can add a third or forth montage track and put the necessary clips into these. By muting the tracks containing the original edits, one can listen to and compare two or more options very quickly.

The clip based metaphor in the limitless track montage works well for me, you have great control over the edges of them, the amplitude and panning of them and in copying and moving them. It is intuitive and productive. Some 28 crossfade options allow you to do anything when they intersect.

For multitrack editing, I generally mix to stereo first then edit the stereo clips. But you can just edit all the track clips separately. I think the author is going to add an enhancement so that adjusting one clip edge will do the lot.

I think the main justified complaints with Wavelab are the limited options for routing and mixing in the master section. As I said, I have never had a project where this was required, or I deliberately prepare and master the files first if I need outboard processing.

I certainly haven't been doing any surround editing or mastering and will probably voluntarily retire before I go down that path. :)

Having used Wavelab since version 1.6 for all my mastering I can say nothing but GREAT things about it.

As others have pointed out it is a GREAT program and the MONTAGE feature is something I use every week for producing two radio shows. I literally could not do what I do in the time alloted without WL.

I also has very good support from Philippe Goutier, who is PG in the Wavelab forum and is the creator of WL. On the forum he answers questions from end users and takes suggestions for the next release and helps even Newbies when they run into problems. All in all a very nice way to keep in touch with the programmer. Not something you see all the time.

I would recommend it highly.

First off, thanks David for replying to my post. I couldn't post yesterday for some reason. What I really wanted to know was whether it would encourage a different approach to working, and from what you've posted, I think it would do just that. I always find that any new editing paradigm is very stimulating, even if it is possible to do the same thing with the software I already have in a round about way; besides, I like to jump between different programs. Maybe some day I'll learn to use one program properly and just stick with it!

Jeremy
I find Sonar is a great program. When I open it up, everything is there in front of me exactly the way I want it to be, and using the mix view, it is incredibly easy to set up the most complicated mixes. I would say that the newer Sonar mixer is its greatest feature, and it takes a matter of hours to learn everything about it, as it's so easy to guess how to do things.

I did have some issues with when recording with Samplitude that I discovered were related to drivers (things were clipping at -6dB). Apart from that, I find it a bit slow to respond to commands (I don't have a very fast computer). What I LOVE about Sam. is the quality of the effects. In Sonar I can have 24 tracks at 96/24 with low latency, but I did have to learn how to hotrod it first. I suppose I need to learn more about Samplitude, but I'm certainly not going to abandon it. The way it uses object editing is addictive. That is something Sonar can't compete with.

Tom
It's really cool that you can deal with the man himself. The Sonar forum is not somewhere I visit very frequently. It's good to have another recommendation from another committed user 8-)

Thanks everyone!
John

I've used Wavelab for the past 3 years, and coming from trying to do classical editing on ProTools, Wavelab was a godsend!

It sounded good, the montage window was powerful and cross-fade creation was flexible.

It worked well if you are only working in stereo and at at 44.1kHz, which for my work was fine.

However, when I started recording at higher resolutions and in surround, I just wasn't able to edit with Wavelab anymore. It just isn't designed (in vrs.5 at least) for multi-track editing. I'd also become a bit annoyed with trying to approximate source-destination editing with multiple montages.

A few months ago I started using Sequoia and it is fantastic - I should have done it years ago. I found out why classical recording people swear by source-destination editing - it is so quick and easy. The crossfade editor with it's gated waveform view makes aligning takes much quicker. Multitrack editing is no longer an issue and the effects are great. I can now also do all of the editing at high-resolution and surround and then easily create a stereo CD master (a pain to do in Wavelab).

Wavelab is a great program, you just need to be aware of the limitations. If you are involved with classical recording, I would certainly only work with something that handles source-destination editing like Sequoia or possibly the new version of Pyramix Native.

Hope this is on some use.

Cheers,
Tom

Thank you Tom, .
I usually work with a small number of tracks, and I never do surround -I don't have enough decent equipment!

Your experience with Wavelab is very interesting, so thank you for sharing your views with me 8-)

Thanks!
John

Tom, your assessment is spot on re Wavelab. Its not much chop as a multitrack editor. But the montage can emulate source destination 4 point editing very productively for stereo by utilising two alternating tracks. You do not need a Sequoia if stereo is your main game. If its not then, Magix seems to be numero uno on the PC.