Wavelab

[Walrusgumboot]

I recently got Wavelab and I have to say, I'm very impressed. It's editing features alone are worth getting it but I have been experimenting with some of the mastering features. I've already been able to improve my finished recordings but I wanted to see if there are any Wavelab users who have anything to offer that I may have yet to discover.

 

[Massive Master]

WaveLab is like anything else - You listen to the mix and you do what the mix asks you to do.

 

[mshilarious]

The biggest improvement I got to Wavelab was a UAD-1

I always keep on the spectrum meter, because it is a pretty rainbow of colors. The phase meter too, it is surprisingly useful at times. The glitch marker feature of global analysis is your friend, but be aware most of the glitches will really turn out to be OK. Every once in a while it will save your ass though, which makes it worthwhile.

I can spend all day drawing fades in Montage only to discover the easy fade tool sounds better

 

[ecktronic]

The analysis function (shortcut: y) is a good function for checkin errors and how loud your mix is.
The record function is quite good, but one draw back is you can only automate volume and pan, you cant automate plug-ins.
Editing is great on it.

 

[Walrusgumboot]

Thanks Massive Master. It only took you 3 minutes to respond. Your perspective is quite unique-just not for this website. I've always thought of it in terms of me telling the mix what to do but I'll let it start asking. I'm sure my efforts will start sounding as good as yours in no time. To everyone else, thanks for answering the wrong question. To anyone interested in recording and has a question to ask, I will be more than willing to share any of of the things I've discovered about recording-it's really not that hard to get decent results. I'll even give direct answers to direct questions.

 

[flatfinger]

I'll even give direct answers to direct questions.

What ?????? That won't fly around here buddy!!

 

[Walrusgumboot]

I give up on this website

.............................................

 

[Robert D]

I'm sure my efforts will start sounding as good as yours in no time. To everyone else, thanks for answering the wrong question. To anyone interested in recording and has a question to ask, I will be more than willing to share any of of the things I've discovered about recording-it's really not that hard to get decent results. I'll even give direct answers to direct questions.

Why would anyone have the name Flatfinger? I guess the place you've been sticking that finger is a bit tight? Loosen up dude and post a pertinent question and see how many stupid or evasive answers you get.

WTF? Loosen up yourself. What was the specific or direct question you asked that everyone but Massive Master answered wrong? You wrote "I've already been able to improve my finished recordings but I wanted to see if there are any Wavelab users who have anything to offer that I may have yet to discover." While Massives answer was sage advice, it was the one answer that you might say was guilty of what you're accusing everyone else of doing, not addressing your specific question.

 

[Farview]

Why would anyone have the name Flatfinger? I guess the place you've been sticking that finger is a bit tight? Loosen up dude and post a pertinent question and see how many stupid or evasive answers you get. Or someone rambling on about another subject. Or someone trying to sound really intellectual about sticking a microphone six inches in front of an amp. Most people who get into home recording are songwriters and I see very little well thought out give and take on almost any of the posted replies. I can only guess the majority of replies are from studio owners who want you to give up and pay for their services? But please keep in mind, it's all relative. When I just had four tracks to record on, I was quite content with having to bounce tracks and having to deal with limited EQ and so on. I got quite good at it and it forced me to work fast. I had a few records on the radio and I felt pretty good about it. Then I moved up to 8 track. It should have made things easier but it slowed me down. I had the ability to make better recordings, but the decision to bounce tracks usually got put off. I had more equipment and more options but it was harder to get something done. Recording wasn't as spontaneous or fun. The product suffered. My focus went from engineering to trying to be more productive. And so it goes but my point is that you shouldn't be sticking you finger there buddy!

That was sarcasm. You can tell by how ridiculous the statement is and the laughing smileys after the comment.

Relax

 

[flatfinger]

Wow,
Tough crowd!
Ok , Im not your favorite comedian

please forgive me



You do realize that the key to lots of humor is (supposed to be) that there is an kernel of ironic truth in many jokes? I guess I might have been subconciously trying to warn you that you would have allot of chaff to have to sepertate from the wheat in most replies yer gonna get around here any ways!!
But hey with your charming ,non-defensive way, maybe the guys here will give you all there most dearly kept audio secrets on a platter; but then again..........

It was not my intention to offend and for that I am truly sorry , kind sir.

 

[Massive Master]

I've always thought of it in terms of me telling the mix what to do (snip)

That's where a lot of engineer's go sideways. You can give 10 engineers the same exact tracks and get back ten different mixes. But most of the time, those mixes are going to be similar at the core - Those things you can "massage" and "persuade" to go in a particular direction of course - But unless you're going to go in and actually change the elements that make it up, the mix is ultimately the boss.

 

[Walrusgumboot]

We are waiting

Massive Master, I don't understand why people like you respond to questions on this website. Actually, I do understand why you do but you cause more harm than good. Your approach is something that I witness all the time on this website and I think that certain people don't join in the back and forth because they may get a response from a "grand master" like you. My frustration with you is that you just waste my time and redirect the focus of the discussion. You sound credible but you've addressed nothing and your intent is proprietary. Of course the mix dictates something. People wouldn't come onto the website if they weren't trying to figure out things. Your answer implies that only a few can interpret just what that is and I strongly disagree with you. I play guitar and piano and I can hear a chord or an interval and I can tell you what it is. That comes from training my ear. With recording and mixing, there are many things you can train your ear to do and that's why people ask questions. Until you tweak the right nob, you just might not make the connection and there is always an approach to a mix. A list of things you may or may not do. There is so much I've learned by trial and error because most of the literature is so poorly done and no one will give you a straight answer. Anyway, Mr. Flatfinger, I wasn't offended by your response but I thought you were a bit misguided in feeling you needed to respond in the way you did. I would like for you to get onto the website and ask whatever question you want and get a real good answer. To me, there is nothing more frustrating than to look forward to a response and then get a silly answer like what Massive Master gave. Robert D, now that you have the key to the universe-per Massive Master-tell us what the mix tells you to do. We are waiting.

 

[mshilarious]

I think I'll make a new year's resolution not to participate in negative threads, but while it's still 2006:

I thought I gave you a straight answer. Let me give you another hint: WL doesn't have any features of the type you are seeking. Oh, it has excellent mastering features; that is, the Montage is absolutely great at doing any sort of PQ edits you need, and you don't even have to know what PQ editing is. It's wonderful. But pretty much all of that is in the manual and well described.

You already noted WL's wave editing features, so I presume you are familiar with them. WL has one other large useful feature set, that is analysis tools, which I mentioned.

Strictly speaking, those are all you need for mastering; that is, producing a premaster CD (OK, it's nice to have Plextools, but if you have a Plextor drive, which you should, you already have that).

But you are interested in audio "sweetening". Here's another hint: WL's canned plugs are mostly terrible. The Apogee UV22HR dither is good. I hear WL6 has a better SRC, I don't have that yet. But reverb, EQ, compression plugs . . . all terrible. The NR plug is OK. The stereo expander isnt horrible, but it's not my favorite.

So if you want audio sweetening, get a UAD-1 with all the plugs. In fact, skip the PCI and PCI-e cards, and wait for the IV version, because that stuff is like audio heroin, man

Clear enough?

 

[Farview]

The question you asked has no answer. You said that you have already imporved your recordings, but you didn't say how. Wavelab doesn't do anything that soundforge, protools, cubase, sonar, etc... can't do with a stereo mixdown. (except burn a CD in some cases)
The only difference is workflow. The same plugins work in all the programs and they are applied the same way.

You were asking how you could use wavelab to improve you mixes. Improve them how? What needs improvement?

Your question may as well have read: I recently got a Ford Escort and I have to say, I'm very impressed. It's driving features alone are worth getting it but I have been experimenting with the radio. I've already been able to improve my driving experience but I wanted to see if there are any Escort users who have anything to offer that I may have yet to discover.

Or maybe: I recently got a Hoover vacuum and I have to say, I'm very impressed. It's vacuuming features alone are worth getting it but I have been experimenting with some of the attatchments. I've already been able to improve my vacuuming but I wanted to see if there are any Hoover users who have anything to offer that I may have yet to discover.

Do you see how your original post doesn't say anything? If you had a specific question, you might get a specific answer. How do I make this 'better' is not a specific question unless you define 'better' or at least define the problem you are trying to solve.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I would like for you to get onto the website and ask whatever question you want and get a real good answer.

An answer can only be as good as the question. Not all questions have really good answers.

I personally did not respond to this thread until now because frankly I had no idea what your question even was.

There is failure to communicate on both sides based upon the fact that your original question was so ambiguously worded as to have either no meaning to the rest of us, or a hundred different meanings, depending upon how you look at it.

Just what is it you want to know? What information are you looking for when you ask for "anything to offer [when using Wavelab] that I may have yet to discover"? I honestly don't know what that means.

It sounds like you are either asking

a) "How do I use Wavelab to fix my mixes?" to which Massive Master gave the only relvant answer possible. Or

b) "What neato features might there be in Wavelab?" to which both ektronic and Mshilarious gave fine answers.

So what is it, Walrus? What exactly is it you need to know? Rephrase the question and maybe we'll give you the kind of answers your looking for.

G.

P.S. Oh, and BTW, did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, "flatfinger" is a guitar player, in which case the handle is quite apt.

 

[Walrusgumboot]

Thank ya!

Better, but it sounds like some people just don't understand the question or don't have anything to add but just want to post so that everyone thinks they know something about the subject. I appreciate your answer Farview but you are basically saying you don't have anything to add to the discussion You stated that there is no absolute answer. There is no need for an abstract/absolute answer nor was one asked for. I simply asked for anyone's opinion on the subject if they had a relevant opinion. That was all. I have to take it that some people-including you- don't like Wavelab or havent' used it much. I'm not through evaluating it yet. FYI-The first thing I did with Wavelab was play with all the toys. That was fun for awhile but of course you have to approach it in a more subtle way. I'm encouraged by the results. There seems to be the potential to make recordings louder and cleaner without a whole lot of degradation in sound. Or maybe I'm just way off base. We all agree Wavelab is what it is and I don't think we need a debate about that. Wavelab is a tool and maybe its not up to the standards of professional recording but a lot of what I have to use falls into that category. It's what I have and that's what I'm trying to use to its' fullest potential and I'm suspecting that it does have some potential with regard to "sweetning" and yes, the original intent of my question was sweetning. Mshilarious acknowledged that he understood what I was talking about but he didn't address it when he first responded. I appreciate that he responded but my gripe is all the pontificating we have to put up with on this website. And he was pontificating rather than addressing my question. He didn't even clarify why he likes to look at the "pretty meters". For the sake of beauty? Or what was his desired outcome of all the monitoring that he described? I couldn't even tell if he was being serious. If you have something relevant to add, add it. If the point of this website is the exchange of ideas, let's get on with it. If you just don't understand plain english or just like to rattle on, then I apologize for being being annoyed with your posts when you have nothing constructive or helpful to add. Maybe I'm being negative or maybe someone else is. Just my subjective opinion. Thank ya!

 

[mshilarious]

There seems to be the potential to make recordings louder and cleaner without a whole lot of degradation in sound.

See, this is what makes me think you haven't caught on yet. There is nothing in Wavelab that make tunes louder, unless you are using Normalize or Gain Change, and I don't have a lot to say about that. Global Analysis will tell you how loud your tune is, but it won't do anything about it. Neither will the Level meter. It's all plugs that do that, the WL's canned plugs aren't very good (I don't know anyone who has confessed to using the Edit/Dynamics feature). That is why Farview says that WL won't do anything that another program won't do, because they all run the same plugs.

Wavelab is a tool and maybe its not up to the standards of professional recording but a lot of what I have to use falls into that category.

There is nothing about WL that keeps it from producing a professional recording. Sure, there are more expensive packages that have some features that pro MEs might prefer, but if you can't do a professional CD with WL, those programs won't help you either.

Mshilarious acknowledged that he understood what I was talking about but he didn't address it when he first responded.

I believe I did mention the UAD-1 in my first post, in fact it was my first comment, because I knew that was what you were asking.

He didn't even clarify why he likes to look at the "pretty meters". For the sake of beauty?

For the spectrum meter, yes, it is pleasing. I don't think it provides too much useful audio information, other than if there is way too much bass, or if you've cranked the 12kHz stuff to insane levels. While I am firmly in the "I like meters" camp, if you can't hear that stuff already . . . but I derive a benefit from having an ergonomic workspace. Spectrum meter is feng shui for your desktop

The phase meter is handy, especially if (like me) you have substantial hearing loss in one ear. It will also spot mono-compatibility problems for you; if you keep it in the corner or your eye, it saves the time of relistening to the entire track after you've hit the "mono" button in the master section.

Or what was his desired outcome of all the monitoring that he described? I couldn't even tell if he was being serious.

If you don't like my style of posting, feel free to ignore me. If I prefer to convey a message with humor, that is my prerogative. When you start a thread on a public BBS, you invite all to participate.

 

[Farview]

Better, but it sounds like some people just don't understand the question

That's what the last three posts are telling you.

I appreciate your answer Farview but you are basically saying you don't have anything to add to the discussion You stated that there is no absolute answer. There is no need for an abstract/absolute answer nor was one asked for.

I stated that there was no question. So, of course there would be no answer.

I simply asked for anyone's opinion on the subject if they had a relevant opinion. That was all.

an opinion on what? An opinion on wavelab? It's great.

I have to take it that some people-including you- don't like Wavelab or havent' used it much.

I produce a weekly syndicated radio show with wavelab (twilight zone) so I am intimately familiar with it, I like it just fine.

There seems to be the potential to make recordings louder and cleaner without a whole lot of degradation in sound. Or maybe I'm just way off base.

You are kind of off base. There is no way to clean anything up without degrading the sound. You can never add quality, you can only take it away.

Wavelab is a tool and maybe its not up to the standards of professional recording but a lot of what I have to use falls into that category.

Professionals use it every day, it's just not a multi-track DAW. It's a two track editor that is one of the finest out there. Where did you get the idea that it was less-than-professional?

It's what I have and that's what I'm trying to use to its' fullest potential and I'm suspecting that it does have some potential with regard to "sweetning" and yes, the original intent of my question was sweetning.

The answer to that question has more to do with types of plugins and processing technique than it does with anything specific to wavelab. That is why your question was so misunderstood. Wavelab isn't the issue, what you are trying to accomplish is. Thus, Massives post.

I appreciate that he responded but my gripe is all the pontificating we have to put up with on this website. And he was pontificating rather than addressing my question.

He wasn't pontificating, he was recommending a bunch of plugins. He also pointed out that using the global analysis can "save your ass" and that the easyfade sounds better than drawing fade in montage. How was that not helpful?

He didn't even clarify why he likes to look at the "pretty meters". For the sake of beauty? Or what was his desired outcome of all the monitoring that he described? I couldn't even tell if he was being serious.

That is your problem, not his. Everyone else knew he was serious.

If you have something relevant to add, add it. If the point of this website is the exchange of ideas, let's get on with it.

Who died and made you queen of the BBS? I'm not sure you are the one calling the shots around here.

If you just don't understand plain english or just like to rattle on, then I apologize for being being annoyed with your posts when you have nothing constructive or helpful to add.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand plain English. If you did, you would have realized that everyone was trying to help even though your OP was vaguely worded and ambiguous

 

[Walrusgumboot]

Ok Grasshopper

I've really got the hive stirred up now. I take it a lot of you just love this. I'll leave you to it. On a parting note. Southside "grasshopper" Glenn is another one of crowd who likes to think in abstract terms a bit too much. What is there about asking for anyones general opinion that causes you to search for a specific question? What part didn't you get? What are you searching for? The meaning of life? How are the Kung Fu lessons going ? mshilarious is really stirred up now because he is actually divulging some relevant information and addressing the subject. But then he contradicts himself. In the same sentence he says "there is nothing in Wavelab that can.... unless". Ok grasshopper.

 

[Massive Master]

Massive Master, I don't understand why people like you respond to questions on this website. Actually, I do understand why you do but you cause more harm than good. Your approach is something that I witness all the time on this website and I think that certain people don't join in the back and forth because they may get a response from a "grand master" like you. My frustration with you is that you just waste my time and redirect the focus of the discussion. You sound credible but you've addressed nothing and your intent is proprietary. Of course the mix dictates something. People wouldn't come onto the website if they weren't trying to figure out things. Your answer implies that only a few can interpret just what that is and I strongly disagree with you. I play guitar and piano and I can hear a chord or an interval and I can tell you what it is. That comes from training my ear. With recording and mixing, there are many things you can train your ear to do and that's why people ask questions. Until you tweak the right nob, you just might not make the connection and there is always an approach to a mix. A list of things you may or may not do. There is so much I've learned by trial and error because most of the literature is so poorly done and no one will give you a straight answer. Anyway, Mr. Flatfinger, I wasn't offended by your response but I thought you were a bit misguided in feeling you needed to respond in the way you did. I would like for you to get onto the website and ask whatever question you want and get a real good answer. To me, there is nothing more frustrating than to look forward to a response and then get a silly answer like what Massive Master gave. Robert D, now that you have the key to the universe-per Massive Master-tell us what the mix tells you to do. We are waiting.

Look - I don't know you. I have no idea how long you've been at this. All I can guess is that you're a "rookie" okay?

One of the most common "rookie mistakes" in the world is trying to take a project where it doesn't want to go. Half the time, if they'd just listen to the mix, the mix will guide them on where to go. Instead, they like Metallica, so they try to EQ the guitars like Metallica. They like Pantera, so they try to get the drums to sound like Pantera. They like Bill Dickens, so they try to get the bass to sound like Bill Dickens.

It doesn't work - Then they complain that they can't get their mixes to sound like "pro" mixes.

No one here can tell you much of anything if you don't try to make some sense. So, I just went to the lowest common denominator - Do what the mix asks you to do.

It's like driving - I can sum up all of Driver's Ed class in one sentence: When you drive a car, you want to put the car where there isn't going to be anything else.

There you go. That's how to drive. Everything else is trivial - Lines, speed laws, turn indicators - The point is to put the car where there isn't going to be anything else. All the laws and limits and colored lines on the pavement and regulations stem from that one point.

What you're trying to do is bring a mix to its fullest potential. That's all fine. But what do you want people to tell you? It's freakin' WaveLab. "Hey, I have an EQ are there any cool things I can do with it?" Sure. Put it on something that needs EQ and then LISTEN TO IT and do whatever it needs. I have no idea what it needs. Only you do. If you know how to listen, and you know how to use your tools, the mix will tell you what to do. If you don't know how to listen, that's something that *you're* going to have to work on.

And as far as "things that you have yet to discover" about WaveLab, just read the manual. Everything it does is in there. Problem solved. Otherwise, people could be spouting out "discoveries" for a week - ALL of which are covered in great detail in the manual anyway.