Sound Forge or Wavelab?

can't answer your question (sorry) but has ANYBODY used Wavelab 6 ?

Before you go any further, download the trial version of Adobe Audition. It's expensive, but what a program!

Hi Joe!

I just went over to the Adobe website and as far as I could see(unless they didn't print everything, it does not have some of the functions that Wavelab has that are needed for mastering. Audition seems to be both a sequencer(like Sonar) and an editor(like Soundforge) while not being as detailed as either one. Someone like Ognis(above) who has Sonar PE and SF8 will definately not need Adobe Auditon. I think Adobe is trying to market that product to users of other Adobe products who need an all-round capable audio tool in order to compliment their visual work.
Wavelab is a different animal. One reason why I started this thread was to get info on Soundforge as far as its Mastering section was concerned - Ognis, maybe you can educate me here. In Wavelab, there is full cd and dvd-audio authoring. You just open up a ''montage'' screen and drag-and-drop your finished stereo tracks into it. With just one click, you can determine how long you want the pauses between each track to be(like on a commercial cd where the silences are not part of the previous or next track), and you can apply, say, eq or compression to all the tracks that are lined-up.

Deleted

"...give a unique identity to a set number of tracks."

I doubt if Audition can do that since I don't even know what it is. It sounds like something you'd do with burning rather than mastering software though. Anyhow, I went to look at Wavelab's features at Steinberg's site this morning and the software looks pretty good I'd say. Aside from wave editing/mastering, it appears to be able to do CD/DVD authoring too, which is something Audition doesn't do. Well, unless the new version does; I'm still using the first version which is kind of old now. There are probably some things that each mastering application does that its competitors does't do, but most of their effects and whatnot seem to be pretty much the same. Maybe a final decision might have a lot to do with how well your computer OS works with the mastering software, as in: does it crash a lot, take a long time to open and save files and so forth. If Wavelab is meeting your needs, I'd stick with it.

does it crash a lot, take a long time to open and save files and so forth.

Glad you said that, because it made me remember. In SF / CD ART, Sony makes sfk files, which are files which contain the image of the wav, so opening wav's that you have opened before in Sony, open right off with nearly no dely (much like Sonar does if you dont clear your picture cache) - except Sony puts the sfk file right next to the wav file, so they are not hidden away. Also, Sony is very rock solid, and CPU friendly. Yet, if it does crash (due to buggy plug-ins, etc) it has crash recovery - it will remember the last point before the crash, and when you reopen, it will take you back to where you left off (saved me once, so I know it works). It also has a pre-save thing, so say, you save your project, but end up wishing you hadnt, you can go back to how it was right before you saved, as long as you haven't closed the window. Another cool thing is saving plug in chains. Say, you only master for your own genere of music, and usally like to keep the same plug ins in your chain, you can simply set up your chain, and save it as a preset, and recall it whenever you need it - which saves a ton of time, esp since it will remember settings as well. Also, the effect browser is a ton of help, esp if you are like me and have a ton of effect plugs. They are broken down into catagories, and you can just drag and drop say, EQ into the EQ folder, Limiter into the Limiter folder, and so on.. This way, when you need say an EQ plug, you dont have to fumble about looking though a mile long list, you can just go straight to the EQ (or whatever) folder, and the list of what you need will be right there. SF is really made for the mastering proccess, and thats about it. Youi can have multi wavs open at once, but only work on one at a time - you can cut from one wav, and copy to another, but it's not for mixing. Like I said before, it is very sensitive to clipping, and the RMS is always spot on (after checking in other things, such as Har Bal).. If all you want to do is master, and author CD's, I think the full version of SF is they way to go. With all respect to Joe Bravo, Audition looks nice, but I don't think it's what you are looking for in this case.

thats kool .Ive been using Sf.7 a long time now and have developed a three step mastering . first you gotta be happy with your final export . then I go to PultecPro punch/eq . Ozone 3 and L-utramaximizer at a minus 2.1 db . seems to leave a nice trimmed wav . the Cd.s I burn seem to be louder than music coming from the radio . not sure if thats a good thing . I used to leave the wavs a bit thick before what do you think is the right level . there's no distortion just a strong wav . but Im missing that nice big analog compressed mastering the big studios get . frank