Label Set

[rondr]

Where is it?
_________________
Best,
Ron Rice

[PG]

Apart the cross-platform evolution, part of the redesign has been to concentrate again on the ground audio functionalities of WaveLab. Since WaveLab is not primarly a painting application (!) and Label editing was rarely used (according to user feedback), it was discarded. This being said, I don't exclude to reintroduce it in a new form, according to feedback. I guess I already have your vote. But in any case this can't be a priority.
_________________
Philippe

[Thomas W. Bethel]

In all the time I had WL6 I never used the label part of the program. There are sooooooooooooooooo many other programs out there for doing label printing why burden WL with that.

MTCW and YMMV
_________________
-TOM-

Managing Director
Acoustik Musik, Ltd.
Room with a View Productions

www.acoustikmusik.com

[rondr]

Used it everyday here.
_________________
Best,
Ron Rice

[John Reid]

As a workaround you could leave WL6 installed and still use the label function, but use WL7 for disc authoring. WL6 and WL7 coexist happily on the same machine If you put CD Text on the CD when you generate it, most labelling applications can auto-generate a track listing from that. Neato's Mediaface is pretty good, but even my printer came with a freebie that does an excellent job of printing directly onto CDs.

I agree with PG ... let's concentrate on the core business of audio, and as long as we can generate Red Book CD ISO's and now DDPs, it's easy create actual discs. I can however understand the disruption to your workflow, but I think it's going to be worth it in the end. One can't make omellettes without breaking eggs!
_________________
C5.5.2 x64/x86 | WL7.0.1.522 | HSO | eLC 6.1.4.1047 | W7x64 Q6600 4GB | RME RayDAT + MOTU 828MkII FW + Behringer ADA8000 | AlphaTrack

[tritto]

Frustrating... I`ve just stumbled on this problem. I do a lot of minor jobs in which apart from authoring and other "serious" things I need label sets and don`t consider it as "painting" but a quick way of placing titles etc. It seems to be simmilar to Cubase: keeping SX-3 to import previous songs and arrangments and DX plugins. Thanks God, PG still supports this here but please return labelling!

cheers

trito
_________________
Windows 7 Professional (64)
Gigabyte MA 790X-UD3P
AMD Phenom II x 4 945 Processor 3.00 GHz
Patriot DDR-2 8 GB Ram
RME Multiface
ATI Radeon 3600
SX-3, C-4.5.2, C-5.1.1, WL-6, WL-7

[Thomas W. Bethel]

There are sooooooooooooo many software programs, some freeware, that will print labels. Why burden a mastering program with label printing?
_________________
-TOM-

Managing Director
Acoustik Musik, Ltd.
Room with a View Productions

www.acoustikmusik.com

[tritto]

What`s the problem keeping existing solution? Why exporting, finding other programs, scratching head instead of clicking "insert cd track - list" command?

cheers

trito
_________________
Windows 7 Professional (64)
Gigabyte MA 790X-UD3P
AMD Phenom II x 4 945 Processor 3.00 GHz
Patriot DDR-2 8 GB Ram
RME Multiface
ATI Radeon 3600
SX-3, C-4.5.2, C-5.1.1, WL-6, WL-7

[Arjan P]

[Lutz Rippe]

I had used the label feature a few times and it has one advantage over a separate program: You can convert CD text directly to label-text. So, if you already have CD text it is very fast to generate a label text from it.
It may not be a key feature, but for some people it might be very helpful.

Lutz
_________________
Intel Core Duo 2GHz / 2GB RAM / XP Prof SP3 / WL 6 / RME DIGI96/8 PAD / Apogee PSX-100 / WAVES / Algorithmix / Voxengo / PSP

[rondr]

Try opening a project in the montage. Select Audio CD Report. Select HTML as the output format and uncheck everything else and hit apply. This brings up an HTML document that displays the track number, track name and time. This document can be saved and then opened in a text editor such as MS Word. Try to edit the document so it will fit on a 4.75X4.75 label sheet as a CD Jewel Insert. As far as that goes try to export the text only to any "soooooooooo many" label making programs and see how that works.
_________________
Best,
Ron Rice

[Greg Reierson]

[tritto]

Yes, there are some workarounds but as my friend commented it: So one should stop using back gear because You can drive on roller scates
This what could be easily done in seconds is now complicated. I understand that some don`t use it or don`t need it but there are others who got used to it through many years. I certainly do, PG.

cheers

trito
_________________
Windows 7 Professional (64)
Gigabyte MA 790X-UD3P
AMD Phenom II x 4 945 Processor 3.00 GHz
Patriot DDR-2 8 GB Ram
RME Multiface
ATI Radeon 3600
SX-3, C-4.5.2, C-5.1.1, WL-6, WL-7

[Thomas W. Bethel]

One problem is that people want their programs to do "everything" and the programs become so bloated (take Microsoft Word for example) that they barely do what they were originally designed to do.

I know a lot of people wanted a mixer function in WL but WL is NOT a mixing program and to add a lot of other "junque" just makes no sense.

WL is a good two track editing and mastering program. It can also do surround work. Why do people want it to also do labels and mixing????

It is PG decision what he wants to include.

Buy the way WL6 and WL7 coexist on my computer very well so if you need to do label printing why not just open WL6???
_________________
-TOM-

Managing Director
Acoustik Musik, Ltd.
Room with a View Productions

www.acoustikmusik.com

[MoM]

Hi TWB
I don't use it but it has been there in the first place (It is PG decision what he wants to include)! and if we update to a new version one should think you get WL 6 +++ and not WL 7---
_________________
CU
M.o.M

[tritto]

Thomas, have You ever felt sorry about this feature in previous versions of Wavelab? Have it disturbed You in Your workflow? No? I thought so
I will not use surround yet (maybe in the future) but I don`t complain it exists . There are many new things in WL-7 which will make me stick to it so I`d like to use only one version to have it as handy as possible. BTW 6 and 7 are not backward compatibile so it`s not so easy to jump back and forth to do this one stupid thing.
Sure, PG will decide, why not?

cheers

trito
_________________
Windows 7 Professional (64)
Gigabyte MA 790X-UD3P
AMD Phenom II x 4 945 Processor 3.00 GHz
Patriot DDR-2 8 GB Ram
RME Multiface
ATI Radeon 3600
SX-3, C-4.5.2, C-5.1.1, WL-6, WL-7

[Thomas W. Bethel]

[PG]

This was added in WaveLab 4, AFAIR. I am not against putting it again, but it must entirely be redone. This is not on the top priority list. We will see.
_________________
Philippe

[tritto]

Looking forward, thanks

trito
_________________
Windows 7 Professional (64)
Gigabyte MA 790X-UD3P
AMD Phenom II x 4 945 Processor 3.00 GHz
Patriot DDR-2 8 GB Ram
RME Multiface
ATI Radeon 3600
SX-3, C-4.5.2, C-5.1.1, WL-6, WL-7

[Thomas W. Bethel]

[Thomas W. Bethel]

[kingsx]

WL6 had a label program? WTF?

[Barny]

I used it every time I used WaveLab. Because every time I used the program the end result was a CD, or many different CD's--all of which needed labeling. And WaveLab made it so you didn't have to switch programs, re-type song lists, etc. etc. Kind of a no-brainer to keep it in the program--it worked great.

[David Spearritt]

[John Calloway]

I would disagree that the label maker was junk. I also used it nearly every time I used WL, and WL also supports my livelihood. I've switched to Open Office, but still keep Word on my machine, because there are some tasks that it simply does more easily, and a couple that only it can do.

WL's label editor was/is far from the simplest, and you cannot get too fancy with the text (on paths, etc.), but if you are producing work for educational distribution, audition recordings for professional performers, it is quite capable. Like others, I appreciate not having to leave WL to accomplish this task.

Its absence will not keep me from upgrading, but I will be happy to see it included in some future update.

I can understand why Steinberg may have relegated this feature to a lower priority, what with their decision to make WL available on the MAC, but I am surprised that the perceived consensus is that few use the label feature.

Its inclusion in future versions is unlikely to bloat the software.

I have yet to use any part of WL's video capability and have never burned a DVD with WL. I cannot imagine why one would bother with Video in WL, but I don't complain that it doesn't belong in WL.

Respectfully,
JC

Caruso

[chase]

[Thomas W. Bethel]

[chase]

^
OK, then, I'll explain. Perhaps it was a bit obscure ...

Two ways of viewing the same problem - as represented by the list of letters W, I, etc, which are taken to form the initial letters of two very different imagined remarks stemming from two different attitudes.

The two remarks were meant to represent two different viewpoints often expressed in the Cubase.net forum. One is like the person who says "I never use that feature, so it's useless and ought to be excluded to make the program leaner," while the other is what some people might say after reflecting about the entire body of users: "I don't need that feature but I can see that others want it, so let's have it in the program".

[Greg Reierson]

[quote="John Calloway" I cannot imagine why one would bother with Video in WL, but I don't complain that it doesn't belong in WL.[/quote]

I do a fair amount of "fixing" audio for video tracks. It's vital to be able to see the video while editing / processing the audio. The WL6 implementation is pretty rudimentary but sufficient for what I need.


GR
_________________
Greg Reierson
Rare Form Mastering

[John Calloway]