Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: Gordon on January 14, 2004, 12:22:25 AM
-
thoughts? getting ready to get set up to transfer and was wondering the pros and cons. I know more folks use soundforge.
-
i use wavlab 4.0g religously
-
ok, why is it better?
-
i use SF 6.0 religously myself
i dont think there are any huge differences besides preference. except that wavelab has better dithering i believe...
-
will not need dithering. I went with SF 6.0
-
ive just always used SF myself, started with 5.0 and then upgraded to 6.0... i tryed wavelab a few times and didnt really love it, so i just stick with what i know
-
wavelab for recording, samplitude for everything else
-
Soundforge 6 person here.
after using Soundforge, Wavelab just seems to have a very clunky interface.
as far as I know, Wavelab is only superior to Soundforge because it has Apogees' 16bit dither.
-
Doesn't Wavelab create a new WAV automatically as you reach the 2GB mark when recording? I have SF 6.0 and it works great; but I've been told that Wavelab is better if you're going to run up against that 2GB barrier. Normally, I run 16/48 and don't come against this; but I was with some one who ran 24/48 and had a bit of manipulation to do to save two WAV files.
-
Wavlab is not automatic; you have to activate a setting. The seeting is there, though.
-
i have both. i prefer wavelab. i dont think the gui is clunky or maybe im used to it. the 2gb auto split is nice but, yes, it does take a sec to rejoin the waves and such. from what it sounds like, you cant go wrong either way. this is starting to sound like a new v3 vs. mme thread.
-
I think in this case, though, there's probably not an audible difference: just a matter of the ease of use in the interface. I've always liked Soundforge. Just kind of interested in that auto-split feature.
-
in Soundforge, if you save as .W64(an extension to the .WAV format), then there is no 2gb file size limit. you just have to convert later to .WAV, but it is a lossless process...similar to converting SDII> .WAV or AIFF> .WAV
-
Ahhhh....I'm t'inking I'm gonna test this out. If all works well, I may use that technique this weekend.
-
before you convert to wav form w64, split it up into sections that will be smaller than 2gb so you dont run into a problem in the conversion process
-
+T :coolguy:
-
i like both. think of them as phillips head and flat head screwdrivers. both do the same job but they do it differently. i like them both for different reasons and ive purchased both of them. its also a mood thing for me, sometimes im in the mood for the sf interface, sometimes the wavelab, however for 2 track recording i way prefer wavelab. the visual monitoring is way better i think.
-
i really like all of the small things in Wavelab. imaging display is really nice, i like some of the error check functions. The small zoom bar on the bottom makes it really easy to nagivate to very small areas in the waveform. I also like the quick gain adjust. i do wish wavelab had eq options like sf.
-
can you use SF 6.0 for mastering M/S recordings?(i won't be able to do it on the fly) i'll check the archive too....
Brian
-
you can but I cant remember if its a stock plugin or 3rd party add-on.
I use the Waves Gold 3.5 plugin pack(works with Wavelab, Soundforge, etc...)
-
i think i installed the extra plugin pack when i got SF 6.0. i'll have to check. thanks
-
i've used vegas 2.0 to record ( no 2gb limit issues ), soundforge 5.0 and wavelab 4.0 to transfer. i haven't used soundforge for sometime now--i remember it was kinda slow when saving and resampling. i use wavelab exclusively for transferring, and if i recorded to my laptop again i would use vegas.
bill
-
yeah, SF v4->5 were a bit on the slow side when it came to processing/saving, but SF 6 is much faster.
not a fan of SF 7...seems reminescent of ver5 slowness with the only "update" I can see being automation
-
Has anyone noticed that the peaks in the waveform seem lower in Wavelab vs Soundforge? ???
My version of wavelab is 4.0c. Soundforge is 6.0.
Makes it a lot harder to estimate how hot the recording is recorded at, the display of SF looks more accurate to my eye (comparing with the appearance in CDWAV).
Just curious,
Ben
-
By default, SoundForge displays in dB, and WaveLab in % of peak, so there is actually ROOM on the WaveLab display for an OVER (even tho in theory 0dB is absolute peak), so the SoundForge wave display has the appearance of the Peaks being HOTTER (since 0dB is the abosulte top of the waveform display).
I prefer the recording display in WaveLab, as it give a little more information, SoundForge for editing, WaveLab for Bit Depth dithering (24 to 16, as it has Apogee's UV22 as a Native Plugin). For Sample Rate Changes, they're both about equal - personally I prefer SoundForge's Anit-Aliasing algorythym. Plugin chaining is a little more intuitive in WaveLab.
I use BOTH for whichever is appropriate for the task.
Hope this helps...
Rick
-
By default, SoundForge displays in dB, and WaveLab in % of peak, so there is actually ROOM on the WaveLab display for an OVER (even tho in theory 0dB is absolute peak), so the SoundForge wave display has the appearance of the Peaks being HOTTER (since 0dB is the abosulte top of the waveform display).
thanks for the info!!
Take care,
Ben