[Thomas W. Bethel]

And it will have DDP

from the Cubase site...

DDP: yes it's there.

Philippe
_________________
Philippe

YEA!!!!!

[mastertone]

Phil Demetro wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 17:50

I just don't know how anyone uses it? Talk about unintuitive - I'm just too far gone into my indoctrination with Sequoia, I guess? The workflow just seems so much more logical?

+1
Samp here but i feel the same way. Maybe use it as playback like Brad does, but i use the free version of samp for now.

[dave-G]

Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 14:14

from the Cubase site... DDP: yes it's there.

Whew. .. that's good ... I was dreading the progression we might see in a subsequent video seeing as how this is apparently what it took to get Mac support:

[ak]

WL is great.

Using it always for mastering of individual files
and CD mastering.

Why i am using SAMplitude is because i can master
several tracks at the same time using two analog chains
which is not possible with WL.

I am mostly doing Vinyl cutting & mastering so there is
often more than one track per side to master and it
saves a lot of time mastering two tracks fitting perfectly
than each track seperatly then cutting.

Analog inserts should not only be able on the master also on
the cd montage for me. Of course that would make not much sense
for cd mastering.

greetings

Andreas

www.schnittstelle.ws

[mastertone]

dave-G wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 21:47

Whew. .. that's good ... I was dreading the progression we might see in a subsequent video seeing as how this is apparently what it took to get Mac support:

hahaha... yeah that video deserves an award

[MoreSpaceEcho]

ak wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 22:58

Analog inserts should not only be able on the master also on the cd montage for me. Of course that would make not much sense for cd mastering.

would be great for mixing though.

[Thomas W. Bethel]

I have used Wavelab since version 1.6. It is the most intuitive program I have ever used. I use it daily and it works well. I also have Samplitude and it too works well and for me is very intuitive. If you want to talk about programs that are counter intuitive you can go back the original SONIC programs which was so confusing it was a royal PITA just to get it to do anything.

We all have different ways of working and different ways of looking at something and that is what makes us good mastering engineers.

I have always maintained that if it works for you use it. If it does not then find something that works and use that and let everyone know about your new discovery as others may be looking for some new/better way to do their work.


MTCW and YMMV

[tom eaton]

Of course the Sonic system introduced the fade editor that Nuendo and pretty much all serious editors still use, generated fades and recalculated waveforms in realtime, allowed you to edit files WHILE you were recording them (does ANY program do this today?)and was ridiculously fast as an editor when you were used to it.  Adding PQ marks to en entire playlist was one command... that kind of thing.  And it sounded good, too.  There were things that were insane about it, too!  Burning a cd was a maze of sub-menus and tweaky parameters.  But Sonic was WAY ahead of the curve in so many ways at that point.  

I'm still looking for a current Mac system that is as easy to assemble and edit in as Sonic "Classic" was... maybe Wavelab is the answer?  Certainly none of the current Sonic options are the thing...

tom

[fuse]

This news is kinda old. (mentioned it before)

I spoke with the guy from Steinberg yesterday and he showed me the alpha version of WL7. He told me that WL7 is a completer rewrite because of the Mac support. So that is why it took them quite some time. Release was expected Q3/Q4 2010 so it will take some more time to finish.
DDP is included indeed so thats a plus. Also a new timestretch engine. You can arrange a 2nd display (for on a 2nd monitor) with meters/gauges any way you like. They included the sonnox restauration plugins as well (almost forgot that).
So all in all not a lot of new stuff so personally I think its more like a 6.5 version that runs in Mac as well.

[bblackwood]

I've not used WL past v4 (still use it for playback of digital files), so a lot may have changed. Fundamentally, Sequoia was 'further along' imo, seven years ago when I switched, but I'm certainly willing to give it a look.

Somehow I doubt I'll make the switch, but I'd really love to get out of the Windows environment, and from the little I've read / heard regarding v7, WL is the first option to come along that may be a truly viable alternative...

[Ed Littman]

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 08:36

I've not used WL past v4 (still use it for playback of digital files), so a lot may have changed. Fundamentally, Sequoia was 'further along' imo, seven years ago when I switched, but I'm certainly willing to give it a look. Somehow I doubt I'll make the switch, but I'd really love to get out of the Windows environment, and from the little I've read / heard regarding v7, WL is the first option to come along that may be a truly viable alternative...

I've been using it with basically the same work flow since then & now up to latest v6. With the few added useful updates since v4, I doubt that your gonna want to change since the work flow & layout are basically the same(the latest v6)

You go with what you know & if I started on sonic or sadie like some of the others maybe I would not gel with WL either.

Ed

[Greg Reierson]

Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 08:26

I've been using it with basically the same work flow since then & now up to latest v6. With the few added useful updates since v4, I doubt that your gonna want to change since the work flow & layout are basically the same(the latest v6)

Interesting. I was a Sonic user when I first looked at WL4. It was cool but lacked important features I had in SS. WL5 was a significant upgrade and the external loop function of WL6 finally convinced me to ditch SS. WL7 doesn't seem to offer much I don't already have, but we'll see.

Unlike other Mac fans (I certainly prefer Mac if given a choice) I can't  justify another hi-end Mac just to run WL when a <$1k PC works great. OTOH, if you you must have a Mac, I can't see a better option.


GR

[bblackwood]

Greg Reierson wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 09:08

Unlike other Mac fans (I certainly prefer Mac if given a choice) I can't  justify another hi-end Mac just to run WL when a <$1k PC works great. OTOH, if you you must have a Mac, I can't see a better option.

Well, I have spare Macs lying around, and beyond that, for what we do, a Mac Mini would probably be overkill...

[Ed Littman]

Greg Reierson wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 10:08

Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 08:26 I've been using it with basically the same work flow since then & now up to latest v6. With the few added useful updates since v4, I doubt that your gonna want to change since the work flow & layout are basically the same(the latest v6) Interesting. I was a Sonic user when I first looked at WL4. It was cool but lacked important features I had in SS. WL5 was a significant upgrade and the external loop function of WL6 finally convinced me to ditch SS. WL7 doesn't seem to offer much I don't already have, but we'll see. GR

Before the external loop i just used the live input plug.
iirc Brad wanted more routing options than WL offered but he can chime as to why jumped from it as his main daw.
Ed

[bblackwood]

Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 09:48

iirc Brad wanted more routing options than WL offered but he can chime as to why jumped from it as his main daw.

Yah, that was one of the major things, but I never really cared for the layout / interface - it was very different from my previous experiences (Sadie and some Sonic). Also wasn't impressed that DDP was a $1500 option.