Topic: why use Wavelab instead of Cool Edit?

[chong138]

I hear alot of people on here say that they edit on one program like Cool Edit or Soundforge and then do the tracks on Wavelab.  I've always done everything including tracking on Cool Edit and I've never noticed any problems with it.  So my question is what's so great about doing the tracking on Wavelab as opposed to Cool Edit? 

[fozzy]

I like wavelab because you can set trackmarks on region segments, can't do this in SF.  You can dither/resample and preserve trackmarks.  When you atosplit you can sepcify a file list so tracks are already named properly.

[JasonSobel]

I used Cool Edit 2000 for years, and recently switched to WaveLab 5.01b
I switched for the two following reasons:
use of UV22HR dither for dithering 24 bit files down to 16 bit files.
and
WaveLab processes files much more efficiently.

for an example of what I mean by efficiently, lets say I have an hour long file, it's 16 bit, 48 kHz, and I want to resample to 44.1kHz.
On my machine (Pentium 4, 512mb RAM, running Win XP), that process took approx 20 minutes in Cool Edit.  In WaveLab, that same process takes 1 or 2 minutes.  And that's just an hour long file at 16 bit.  I routinely work with files around 2 hours in length, and now I'm recording at 24 bit.  Using WaveLab, I can process these files much more quickly.  Not to mention, I think the results sound better as well (based on one or two head-to-head comps I did when I first switched.)

those are the main reasons for my switch.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Certain operations in Cool Edit/Audition are slow.  Slow to load, slow to write.  Have a 45 minute file that is 1.5GB but only 5 minutes is audio?  Well, just cutting off what you don't want takes FOREVER when it should take less than a second (as is the case in wavelab).

Also, CE doesn't create peak history files.  So each time you open a file, it has the read the whole thing. I like to restart wavelab or CE between each file I edit because they both seem to get more slow as you do more work (though CE is worse then wavelab).

That said, I really like some of the UI features of CE better.

[pfife]

I like wavelab because you can set trackmarks on region segments, can't do this in SF.  You can dither/resample and preserve trackmarks.  When you atosplit you can sepcify a file list so tracks are already named properly.

by SF, do you mean Sound Forge?  In SF 6.0, you can set regions and export each region as a seperate track, but that doesn't ensure against SBE's though.

[fozzy]

I like wavelab because you can set trackmarks on region segments, can't do this in SF.  You can dither/resample and preserve trackmarks.  When you atosplit you can sepcify a file list so tracks are already named properly.

by SF, do you mean Sound Forge?  In SF 6.0, you can set regions and export each region as a seperate track, but that doesn't ensure against SBE's though.

That is correct in reference to SBEs, it also requires renaming files once they are exported.

[JasonSobel]

Also, CE doesn't create peak history files.  So each time you open a file, it has the read the whole thing.

there's a setting in Cool Edit that will let it write peak files.  I used to do this all the time with Cool Edit 2000

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Thanks Jason. I'll look for it.

[fsulloway]

I hear alot of people on here say that they edit on one program like Cool Edit or Soundforge and then do the tracks on Wavelab.  I've always done everything including tracking on Cool Edit and I've never noticed any problems with it.  So my question is what's so great about doing the tracking on Wavelab as opposed to Cool Edit? 

A lot of people use CD Wave for tracking after using SF, CE, or WL for editing. Is that what you meant?

[bdasilva]

The reason I use Wavlab to record is that it writes to a file... you press stop and the file is there, In cooledit/audition it writes to a temp file that must then be saved. I record to my laptop so it reads off the same harddrive it writes to. I do edit in audition because its what I am use to.

[dgodwin]

I recently started recording in 24 bit, but no pk files were created in adobe audition/cool edit.  Is there a switch for 24 bit, or does aa/cep only do pk files for 16 bit?

[Brian Skalinder]

I recently started recording in 24 bit, but no pk files were created in adobe audition/cool edit.  Is there a switch for 24 bit, or does aa/cep only do pk files for 16 bit?

IME, CEP only builds PK files for 16- and 32bfp, not 24-bit.

AA/CEP has two different "workspaces" - a 16-bit workspace in which the s/w uses 32bfp precision for processing and then dithers back down to 16-bit automatically as part of the processing, and a 32bfp workspace (which is used to open 24-bit files) in which the s/w uses 32bfp precision for processing and then leaves the results of that processing at 32bfp for the user to dither later.

Ideally, one should dither only once to minimize quantization noise.  Performing multiple edits to a single portion of a 16-bit file within the 16-bit workspace will result in multiple transitions between 16-bit and 32bfp, thereby increasing quantization noise.  So if one's performing multiple edits on the same portion of a 16-bit file, open the 16-bit file in the 32bfp workspace.  (Options | Settings | Data | Auto-convert all data to 32-bit upon opening.  Note:  this doesn't actually "convert" anything - the data is still 16-bit until one performs an editing operation.  Only upon editing does the portion of the waveform edited become 32bfp data.  If doing this, leave all edited portions of the waveform as 32bfp until all editing is done, then dither the entire file back to 16-bit before tracking.)

AA/CEP by default opens 24-bit files in the 32bfp workspace - there is no native 24-bit workspace (else we'd run into the same issues as the 16-bit workspace in which each edit transitions back and forth between bit-depths resulting in increased quantization noise).  But again, the data is still 24-bit even though it's in the 32-bit workspace.  The first edit operation produces a 32bfp result, and all subsequent operations will also produce 32bfp results - there's no dithering and re-dithering like in the 16-bit workspace.  When done editing, simply dither to 24- or 16-bit as desired.

I hope to put together an AA/CEP guide in the next couple weeks that lays this out more clearly.

[chong138]

I hear alot of people on here say that they edit on one program like Cool Edit or Soundforge and then do the tracks on Wavelab.  I've always done everything including tracking on Cool Edit and I've never noticed any problems with it.  So my question is what's so great about doing the tracking on Wavelab as opposed to Cool Edit? 

A lot of people use CD Wave for tracking after using SF, CE, or WL for editing. Is that what you meant?

yea that is what I meant.  I do my tracking in Cool Edit.  I have to save each track one at a time....but I have a pretty fast computer now so Any stuff I do in Cool Edit only takes a minute or two anyways.  I was wondering if there was a sound quality issue with Cool Edit or something.  It sounds like Cool Edit just isn't as convinient as other programs for splitting tracks up. 

[Brian Skalinder]

It sounds like Cool Edit just isn't as convinient as other programs for splitting tracks up.

IME, no app - not just AA/CEP - is as convenient as CD-Wave for tracking.  If you're using CEP, just make sure you set the Time Format to 75fps to avoid sector boundary errors.

[kskreider]

Why I Like Wavelab, A Love Story, by ...Kk

1) Montage
2) Multitracking combined with a user-friendly GUI's (unlike other mt-capables out there)
3) DVD-A authoring
4) Ability to split 24/96 files automagically at a preset limit (like 1995MB) ON THE FLY
5) should I continue?

My current vote for most user-UNFRIENDLY interface: Nuendo 3.x

[Brian Skalinder]

Why I Like Adobe Audition / Cool Edit Pro, A Love Story, by ...Bs

1) Multitrack view
2) User-friendly, non-clunky GUI for single file editing or multitracking (unlike other MT-capables out there)
3) DVD-Authoring - who needs it, my playback is medialess
4) Ability to handle processing of > 2GB files without needing to split the file
5) 32bfp processing without choking on large files
6) Shall I go on?



All this to say the decision is very dependent on user preferences.

Why I Like Wavelab, A Love Story, by ...Kk

1) Montage
2) Multitracking combined with a user-friendly GUI's (unlike other mt-capables out there)
3) DVD-A authoring
4) Ability to split 24/96 files automagically at a preset limit (like 1995MB) ON THE FLY
5) should I continue?

My current vote for most user-UNFRIENDLY interface: Nuendo 3.x

[kskreider]

Audition will "record" PCM wav's > than 2GB?

RE: DVD-A's: I record too often to actually sit and listen to anything.  If I did have the time I would use Minnetonka since it is so much easier.  Basically drag, drop, and click.

I also use Wavelab because it is what I am familiar with.  I used to know Sound Forge 5.0 and 6.0 INSIDE/OUT.  Now that they are on 7.0 I find myself lost trying to back track.  I should give Audition an audition.   

Why I Like Adobe Audition / Cool Edit Pro, A Love Story, by ...Bs

1) Multitrack view
2) User-friendly, non-clunky GUI for single file editing or multitracking (unlike other MT-capables out there)
3) DVD-Authoring - who needs it, my playback is medialess
4) Ability to handle processing of > 2GB files without needing to split the file
5) 32bfp processing without choking on large files
6) Shall I go on?



All this to say the decision is very dependent on user preferences.

Why I Like Wavelab, A Love Story, by ...Kk

1) Montage
2) Multitracking combined with a user-friendly GUI's (unlike other mt-capables out there)
3) DVD-A authoring
4) Ability to split 24/96 files automagically at a preset limit (like 1995MB) ON THE FLY
5) should I continue?

My current vote for most user-UNFRIENDLY interface: Nuendo 3.x

[mmedley.]

I am sick of the 2GB Wavelab hurdle lately...although I am looking forward to testing Wavelab 6. I just tried out Audition 2 and man it looks sweet. I am sure the learning curve is quick if you are familiar with most audio editing software.

[Brian Skalinder]

Audition will "record" PCM wav's > than 2GB?

Dunno about recording since I've never really recorded with it, aside from transferring some DATs before I switched to HD/CF-based recorders.  But it will open, process (i.e. editing operations like normalize, compress, EQ, etc. with 32bfp resolution), and save files > 2GB.

[mmedley.]

4gig is the limit, but it will autosplit it seems. It will save files greater than 4gigs, but only may be opened in Audition itself. Learning this as we speak working on a 3hour 24/96 show.