WaveLab 2.0

[sonusman]

Well, this seems to be a nifty little application. Nice display, easy to work in.

The plugins leave a bit to be desired. The EQ-1 is decent. The Puncher sucks. Peak Master is okay, but doesn't really give a smooth compression.

I did get Free Filter, and this plugin is very nice indeed. Very detailed accurate equalization. Worth every dime it cost.

I am wondering though after using this stuff. Is this stuff really in line with what some of your computer recording guys are using? I can't imaging that it is any worse as WaveLab is a highly regarded product. I have been playing with Cakewalk 9 also, but find that it RELLY bites.

The problem I have found with both software is that they seem to play files back with a lot more top end than GoldWave does. GoldWave seems to sound right to me. Also, levels in Cakewalk and WaveLab don't seem to meter right. They usually show the .wav to be about 2dB quieter than GoldWave. They also seem to lack the detail in the .wav file showing on the screen. Kind of bunk.

So you guys working with all software stuff, I really feel for you. Having to put up with this stuff if not very cool. I am so used to equipment that is accurate. It is very hard to guess all the time on this software stuff. No two programs seem to be the same at all.

Just a couple thoughts.....

Ed

 

[S8-N]

This brings up an interesting point... Why would a wav file sound different on different software... I noticed that people were mentioning this on the ProRec forum but no one seemed to know why... Or agree on which multitracker sounded best... The consensus seemed to think that Vegas Pro was the worst sounding multitracker out there... And that CEP was one of the better ones. I feel the opposite.
I'm talking a raw wav file with no directx or anything applied. Vegas pro seemed to be a sonic improvement over CEP to my ears but I wonder if maybe it is all in my head. Maybe different GUI's trigger different responses from the brain causing one to believe that different multitrackers sound different.
Anyone with programing knowledge know why?

 

[Emeric]

I found the metering in Cakewalk to be a bit messed, especially between different programs. Cubase metering is not a whole lot better, but does translate between programs. I think Vegas may be the ticket for accurate metering, it certainly allows you adjust the metering, which is the first multitracker I've seen that does.

I can't comment on the sound difference between Vegas and Cubase yet (if any) but will let you know. Between Calkwalk and Cubase I couldn't tell any difference (when calkwalk would play for more than 4 seconds at a time...heheh)

Emeric

 

[dmcsilva]

I use to use Cakewalk, but then switched to Vegas. I think S8-N maybe on to something with the psychological impact of an appealing GUI. To me, Vegas just blew cakewalk out of the water. I have a/b'd them, trying to be objective, and I can't tell a difference in sound quality. There really shouldn't be a difference unless eq or compression or other fx are added. After all, Vegas only yanks .wav files off of your hard drive and plays them according to your saved preferences. Yet, I swore when I first started recording in Vegas that the sound was soooo much better. In reality, I think it's just that the GUI is more visually stimulating and easier to understand.

I have noticed the same thing happening between Wave Lab and Sound Forge...I like Wave Lab better.

Ed:
Don't feel for me having to put up with software stuff. That I even have the ability to record at my house, with this much capability, and at the quality that I do achieve, is the greatest thing thing in the world to me. It's all a matter of perspective.

dmc