Waveform 9 review...

[Robert Randolph]

Robert,

Be sure to check out the new 9.1 release. Hopefully there is still time for an addendum addressing the new features/fixes.

I'm aware of it, and I've already started making updates to previous posts, thank you.

The next site update will be tomorrow, hopefully along with the next post.

[Robert Randolph]

http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2018/ ... eview.html

Next part out. Lots of subjective things here... not exactly the most positive post this time.

One more post left!

[MBO]

I'm really curious about your final conclusion especially if you use Reaper as your main DAW (I use mainly Reaper and Waveform these days).
I don't want to write my opinions right now, I will impatiently wait for the final chapter

[vitocorleone123]

I would love to see the stock plugins and Essentials be improved this release, with improvements made as we head toward v10 (which should possibly drop many plugins that aren't good/updated/fixed yet).

I haven't personally minded the plugins as I've always used 3rd party, but now that Waveform is really quite good overall and - in my mind - competitive for the price, getting the stock plugins updated seems like somewhere to start spending time after a couple more months of core bug fixing/feature updates. Ideally, the plugins would be clean, digital effects that add little to no "color'. I'd prefer to see fewer of them, in total as long a they worked as expected.

Even just focusing on the basics would be great: delay, reverb, compressor, limiter, gate, 5+ band EQ (in addition to the routing ones) - bonus for chorus and phaser.

[Stuttaton]

I would guess the old plugins are kept for compatibility with previous versions. So if you have projects which are created in an earlier version, then you can open and play them in the latest version.

[Robert Randolph]

The conclusion post...

http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2018/ ... usion.html

[gesslr]

The conclusion post...

http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2018/ ... usion.html

[TSC]

Just wanted to say a big thank you to Robert for this review

It is rare we see this level of depth and attention to detail in a DAW review/comparison

Hats off from the Tracktion team

[Robert Randolph]

Just wanted to say a big thank you to Robert for this review

It is rare we see this level of depth and attention to detail in a DAW review/comparison

Hats off from the Tracktion team

Thanks!

I know you guys (developers, owners, support, sales, web guys, testers etc...) put a lot of effort in to your products, so I try to respect that by putting effort in to the reviews.

[Naenyn]

Great review! I have to admit that, at first, I was a bit leery, but you did a great job of diving in deeply as well as backing up your opinions.

I hope the Tracktion folks take your feedback in to account when prioritizing and developing future enhancements! You make a lot of great points.

Well done.

[Stuttaton]

Great review! I have to admit that, at first, I was a bit leery, but you did a great job of diving in deeply as well as backing up your opinions.

I hope the Tracktion folks take your feedback in to account when prioritizing and developing future enhancements! You make a lot of great points.

Well done.

Needs and usage are not the same for everyone. Not all users are large studio owners. For instance a songwriter might prioritize other things than someone who runs a studio.
I wonder what percentage of potential Tracktion customers share Mr. Randolph's needs. I suspect it's a rather small pecentage. So maybe the developers shouldn't take this review as their priority list.

[Steve Bolivar]

I imagine almost all users share Mr. Randolph's needs. Do you like your audio tracks to be synced up properly, then you have a vested interest in the delay compensation problems he pointed out getting corrected. The solo behavior of tracks in busses now works correctly.

It doesn't matter much if you're running a major multiroom recording studio or are a bedroom hobbyist. You will use Waveform to record audio, use plugin synths, or loops and mix it down. It's the same principal, just on different scales. He evaluated it from the perspective of recording and mixing, and from creating from within Waveform. I really hope the developers make fixing the flaws he pointed out a high priority, and making the good points even better.

[Robert Randolph]

Great review! I have to admit that, at first, I was a bit leery, but you did a great job of diving in deeply as well as backing up your opinions.

I hope the Tracktion folks take your feedback in to account when prioritizing and developing future enhancements! You make a lot of great points.

Well done.

Needs and usage are not the same for everyone. Not all users are large studio owners. For instance a songwriter might prioritize other things than someone who runs a studio.
I wonder what percentage of potential Tracktion customers share Mr. Randolph's needs. I suspect it's a rather small pecentage. So maybe the developers shouldn't take this review as their priority list.

I agree with you, and I disagree with you at the same time.

When I write content for my website I try to keep in mind my reader's interests more than my own. When I'm "working" I'm constantly trying to fulfill the needs of musicians and hobbyists. It's quite literally my job to cater to people that aren't recording professionals.

Despite that I do have 2 mindsets that I operate in when I'm using software.

So I'd like to respond to this from 2 perspectives: Robert the reviewer, and Robert the engineer.

The reviewer:

When I review products I'm careful to consider things that people are interested in. I get e-mails daily about what people like/dislike in DAWs. I read forums 3-4 times a day about products. I'm part of multiple beta-testing teams for audio software.

So when I review products I base my content about 50/50 on things that I personally like or dislike, and a comprehensive set of notes that I've created based on feedback I've received from readers. I feel like this is fairly obvious when you read my reviews and see that I make an effort to cover features that I explicitly say I do not normally use.

Of course you probably realize that most of the software I test is done 'in the real world'. I usually stop using Reaper/DP and use the review software as my primary DAW for 30+ days. So naturally I'm going to experience the software in that context.

However, I spend my after-hours still working with the software. I go through the manual and dig in to nearly every feature (though I don't cover everything). I write posts and try to fact check myself. I watch all of the first-party instructional content. I watch a good deal of third-party content. I check the DAW forum before breakfast and lying in bed to sleep on my iPad.

So while I can understand that it may be concerning that the context of the review (working studio environment) may seem to be an outlier in the general community, I do try my best to prepare the content with my readers and general public in mind.

The Engineer:

There's times where I totally forget the fact that I'm reviewing the software. I spend my day not 'reviewing' software, but using the software. Professional use varies from user to user and studio to studio, but I experience in the context of how I work.

As an engineer I'm constantly (and I mean constantly) asked about what software I'm using, why I'm using it, what I think about it and 'what are you doing right now'.

I also help administrate the EDMProduction Discord, which has around 5,000 active users. I am asked dozens of times a day about products. I jokingly change my name to 'Tech Support' fairly frequently. These questions come in based off my technical knowledge and engineering experience. (I sometimes do live streams there). For the last month, guess what's been the most discussed product? Waveform. Purely based off the fact that people see the review, ask about it, and other people see the questions, then try it, then they ask questions etc...

So as an engineer my view is that improving the software for the professional or semi-professional audience has the side effect of increasing the userbase through word-of-mouth. There's people that are trusted through the fruits of their labour, and their opinion holds weight in the eyes of the public. By catering to these users there most likely would be a larger influx of users than through catering directly to hobbyists (whose word, I'm sorry to say, doesn't hold as much value in public opinion).

The increase in hobbyists or casual users would naturally create a louder public voice for features that benefit them specifically. I suspect that the pro:hobbyist ratio is easily 100,000:1 (or greater) in the real world. For every Waveform fanatic that's gained that comes from a professional background, the number of hobbyists arriving will be exponentially higher. Thusly the outcry for features and fixes would naturally increase in the hobbyist's favour.

The second layer to this is that when I'm working, the #1 thing I care about is bugs. Nothing is more disruptive to a session than crashes, lost data, or features that you planned on using that simply won't work. When I'm in hobbyist/reviewer mode with software it's just a creative block to me. When I'm being paid then it's a creative block to 5+ people, costing 4+ people extra money, and cost me money and reputation!

So my #1 when working with Waveform is stability and that features work as expected. I suspect that benefits all users.

My #2 concern is that current features I rely on are improved to benefit my workflow.

The #3 concern is that I don't make a fool of myself and waste people's time. This relates to #1.

The concern for features that I want, as a professional, is way down the list. If Waveform lacks a feature that impedes my workflow then I simply don't use it. That's it.

So as 'a professional', I feel like my concerns are in line with what would benefit the general community. If the Waveform team did decide to target pro/semi-pro audiences I think that would be a good thing, both selfishly, and as it would be a fantastic way to create a positive word-of-mouth that would benefit Waveform in the longterm.

---

I'd also like to know if you saw specific instances of me bringing up things that you think aren't applicable to the common user. I know that the multitrack editing feature I brought up at least 3 times may not be super common. Was there something else?

Any feedback you can provide I will happily note and refer to in future content. I really do value feedback from readers.

[chico.co.uk]

I'd also like to know if you saw specific instances of me bringing up things that you think aren't applicable to the common user. I know that the multitrack editing feature I brought up at least 3 times may not be super common. Was there something else?

Hi Robert,

I hugely enjoyed the review, across the various parts, but seeing as you're asking, in Part One, you brought up the inability to use hammerspoon, to script Waveform - that's pretty niche, isn't it?

I can understand you throwing that out there, in an addendum section of a multi-part review, but how many common users break out hammerspoon, to work with their DAW, so that becomes a headline issue, in part 1 of the review?

I mean "The problem is when you begin to realize that you need to basically relearn how to use a computer to interact with Waveform" ... that's just not true, is it? It's hyperbole, based on your specific workflow. I doubt very much that the common user feels they've had to relearn how to use a computer, when trying out Waveform.

Related to that, you said there's "no scripting", which a casual reader will take as gospel, in part one of the review, then it was part 8, before you got around to reviewing the jscript support in the product. Which makes me think scripting possibly isn't actually as important to you, either, as a headline feature in a DAW ...

Multi-track editing, by contrast, I reckon more folks probably would appreciate, as a feature

But please take the above as constructive feedback, because you asked, because the overall review was very enjoyable, in-depth, and pretty well balanced, I thought. I certainly got a lot out of it.

[Robert Randolph]

I'd also like to know if you saw specific instances of me bringing up things that you think aren't applicable to the common user. I know that the multitrack editing feature I brought up at least 3 times may not be super common. Was there something else?

Hi Robert,

I hugely enjoyed the review, across the various parts, but seeing as your asking, in Part One, you brought up the inability to use hammerspoon, to script Waveform - that's pretty niche, isn't it?

I can understand you throwing that out there, in an addendum section of a multi-part review, but how many common users break out hammerspoon, to work with their DAW, so that becomes a headline issue, in part 1 of the review?

I mean "The problem is when you begin to realize that you need to basically relearn how to use a computer to interact with Waveform" ... that's just not true, is it? It's hyperbole, based on your specific workflow. I doubt very much that the common user feels they've had to relearn how to use a computer, when trying out Waveform.

Related to that, you said there's "no scripting", which a casual reader will take as gospel, in part one of the review, then it was part 8, before you got around to reviewing the jscript support in the product. Which makes me think scripting possibly isn't actually as important to you, either, as a headline feature in a DAW ...

Multi-track editing, by contrast, I reckon more folks probably would appreciate, as a feature

But please take the above as constructive feedback, because you asked, because the overall review was very enjoyable, in-depth, and pretty well balanced, I thought. I certainly got a lot out of it.

Awesome. Thanks for bringing this up.

I mean "The problem is when you begin to realize that you need to basically relearn how to use a computer to interact with Waveform" ... that's just not true, is it? It's hyperbole, based on your specific workflow. I doubt very much that the common user feels they've had to relearn how to use a computer, when trying out Waveform.

I do think that this is true, but in the context of my readership.

If you're using to using common shortcuts for your OS to position windows, trigger menus, type, search for help, switch windows, move/switch tabs etc... then Waveform is rather frustrating.

I think this may be more obvious for macOS users than Windows users, since macOS has more of a focus on this type of unified UI/UX.

I feel validated by this since I received feedback from multiple readers demoing Waveform that they had the same experience (in fact I just finished talking to someone on IRC about it).

Now, I'm not sure if the "average" user will feel this way, but I do think that my average reader has strong preferences for how to interact with their computer. I put out a good bit of content on this topic, and I get feedback on these posts.

When I encounter these sorts of things, I realize that I should be more specific in what type of user that my commentary is targeting. I'll try to keep this in mind in the future.

Related to that, you said there's "no scripting", which a casual reader will take as gospel, in part one of the review, then it was part 8, before you got around to reviewing the jscript support in the product. Which makes me think scripting possibly isn't actually as important to you, either, as a headline feature in a DAW ...

I think that scripting is very important (this is why I maintain the Reaper Script Showcase on my site!).

I stand by the idea that I think that Waveform has very poor scripting, but excellent macro support.

If you compare Waveform's "scripting" functionality to any other daw (or even plugins!) that have scripting support then Waveform's is far by the wayside in capability. Waveform has no way to display a GUI for a script. Limited support for acquiring project data. No support for background scripts. No support for process launching. No external API. Limited data manipulation. No support for even version 1 javascript language features.

Waveform's scripting is just a macro system that lets you use loops and if statements. Other DAWs with this functionality don't even bother to call it scripting! (Cubase's PLE is an example of this)

I appreciate that scripting is complex functionality to implement, but other single-author programs have implemented far, far more capable scripting systems.

I won't relent on this point. I'm taking this one to the grave (Or until they improve it)

... Then again, is this really a big deal? For most users, not at all.

However, if they're going to advertise scripting then I'm going to look at it in the context of scripting. If it was just called a "Advanced Macro System", I'd have had nothing but praise for it. I tried to make that distinction clear in part 8.

Similarly I took Harrison to task about their console (http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2017/ ... er.html#eq). If they simply claimed to have done a modern model of the 32c console I'd have praised it. BUT! They claimed to make a detailed emulation, and it's not a complete emulation. The claims and naming of features influences purchases and public perception of the software, so I usually take those claims in to account and put them in context of competing products.

(You may be able to tell that I don't have much to do today except create walls of text. )

Anyway, thank you again. I am going to use your feedback in future posts.