Is it just me are do some actions are inconvenient for no apparant reason?

[ferez21]

I understand Waveform is trying to be different, but it doesn't mean it should complicate basic things, example:
Waveform has the weirdest way of setting an FX/Send track that i have ever experienced and i can't understand why. You need to create a new generic track, put a "Return" plugin on it, configure it, put a "send" plugin on any track you want to send to that FX track, configure that plugin, and only then you're finally at the stage of actually putting the FX plugin you wanted to use. This thing takes literally 3-4 clicks in any other DAW i have ever tried. I'm upset because i bought Waveform after demoing it thinking it has a potential to have a better workflow, but i keep on finding bugs, inconsistencies (different hotkeys for zooming in in MIDI editor vs Arrangment window for example), and workflow complications that seems there are just there for the sake of making Waveform "different".

* For anyone that is going to comment along the lines of "who cares? No one is forcing you to use Waveform", please refrain  

[whyterabbyt]

Waveform has the weirdest way of setting an FX/Send track that i have ever experienced and i can't understand why. You need to create a new generic track, put a "Return" plugin on it, configure it, put a "send" plugin on any track you want to send to that FX track, configure that plugin, and only then you're finally at the stage of actually putting the FX plugin you wanted to use. This thing takes literally 3-4 clicks in any other DAW i have ever tried.

You can create presets for tracks, so creating a track that's configured with specific named return on it becomes dragging and dropping a preset, as does creating a track with N specifically-named sends on it.

And you can also save the plugin and output portions of a track as a preset and drag them onto a track, so you could, for example, drag in a preset which creates 6 preconfigured Send plugins.

(The one thing about that is that saving the plugins of a track includes all the plugins, including the gain and meter plugins if they're there. Since a new track typically already has these, you'd wind up with duplicates, so you'll need to create your presets on tracks that dont have them, or delete them first before dragging in a track plugin preset. Or maybe edit the XML for the preset if you're hardcore.)

IMO, it would be nice if we could save entire Track Folders and their track contents as presets too.

[spoontechnique]

Personally, I just save an edit template preset with the sends/returns I usually use. That way I have them set up beforehand.

Waveform's Send/Return system offers a lot of flexibility, though. You can put a send/return bus anywhere in a plugin chain. You can have multiple returns for a single bus. If you want to change your busses, you can just move around the return. It's not just unusual for its own sake, you get a lot of benefits from it.

In general, I wouldn't say Waveform is trying to be unusual for the sake of it. It's an old DAW. Many of its quirks date back to a time when there was no "standard" way of doing things.

[pough]

So how do other DAWs do it that's better? I find FL Studio is a little bit easier. I just watched a Reaper video and it looked more complicated, somehow. I haven't used Cubase in a million years but I feel like it hard that hardware-like method that's pointlessly limited.

The Waveform way is a few more clicks but it doesn't have as many limitations. You can send to more than one FX track by adding the same Return to two tracks. You can do the opposite, too: multiple sends to one track. (You can put two instruments through a reverb but have one of those instruments go through an EQ first.)

Having said that, I would like to see a couple of small things that would make it quicker to set up.

1. When you add a Return to a track it takes the next available slot, not #1 over and over again.
2. Copy-Dragging a Return to another track adds a Send to that Return.

[AGreen]

Yeah, I agree with the comments here. Two of Waveforms strengths are it's flexibility and it's preset handling capabilities for just about everything. Learn to use presets and the search tab and you'll find Waveform very fast to use.

[ferez21]

So I guess Waveform is the kind of DAW you have to make some preparations before you can start working comfortably? alright, this is noted, thank you for your replies.
I've tested 8 different DAWs in the last few weeks, and the only one I had issues with accomplishing what I consider some "basic" operations (without digging in the manual or asking in forums), was Waveform, which is a shame because I really like some things in it, especially the modulation tools.

[AGreen]

So I guess Waveform is the kind of DAW you have to make some preparations before you can start working comfortably? alright, this is noted, thank you for your replies.
I've tested 8 different DAWs in the last few weeks, and the only one I had issues with accomplishing what I consider some "basic" operations (without digging in the manual or asking in forums), was Waveform, which is a shame because I really like some things in it, especially the modulation tools.

Waveform is different in it's routing capabilities, a bit like Reaper is different in that regard, but you won't find yourself bogged down due to a lack of flexibility like in some DAWS. If you workflow is very conventional and not particularly experimental in nature you may be happy with less flexibility, but flexibility is always an asset as you never know when you might need it. There are a few key concepts to learn such as the way racks can be used for routing but that's similar to understanding Reapers channel system which from my experience confuses the hell out of new users when they're trying to set up multi-output instruments. Waveform is actually fairly straightforward in most regards but is also very flexible. I think it's true to say that whichever DAW you choose you'll end up looking at videos or asking questions on forums because there's always something that isn't immediately apparent.

[Peter Widdicombe]

I think part of it is what you may be used to. I USED to use Cakewalk years ago, and tried the new Cakewalk/Bandlab recently. Some nice things; including capability of working in (or printing) notation; but working with non-built-in VST's seemed so illogical/confusing to set up!

[ferez21]

I think part of it is what you may be used to. I USED to use Cakewalk years ago, and tried the new Cakewalk/Bandlab recently. Some nice things; including capability of working in (or printing) notation; but working with non-built-in VST's seemed so illogical/confusing to set up!

I came from FL Studio, but I managed to find my way more easily in Bitwig and Studio One for example, and both are very different then FL. I guess Waveform really is one of a kind, for better or worse. I agree it is flexible but in my opinion it is on the expense of being more user friendly.

[fde101]

Note that there are at least three other ways to move sound among tracks:

You can use submit tracks, which behave similarly to folders but route the output through the submix, allowing for common gain/pan/plugins in addition to those for each track

You can use the speaker icon on the right end of the mixer section to choose the primary destination for a track, which may be another track instead of the main output.

You can also use a plugin racks placed on multiple tracks and "wire" the connections among the tracks from within the rack, injecting plugins and the like as desired.


Depending on what you are trying to do with the routing, you may not need to use as many send/return plugins as you would expect; also note that you can copy them from one track to another once you have them which is another way to work fairly quickly (on the Mac you hold down option while dragging the plugin to another track to copy it; not sure which key it is on Windows offhand).

[chagzuki]

I think the system evolved that way because Waveform/Tracktion originally was designed around ease of use regarding other features, then once those were in place the send/return functions had to fit with the already-established environment. So it might take an extra step here or there, but that is a result of other things being faster. Different environment with slightly different priorities.

[ferez21]

I think the system evolved that way because Waveform/Tracktion originally was designed around ease of use regarding other features, then once those were in place the send/return functions had to fit with the already-established environment. So it might take an extra step here or there, but that is a result of other things being faster. Different environment with slightly different priorities.

IMHO it can be done much more intuitively while still keeping the flexible nature of Waveform.
I've noticed that anything i find unnecessarily overcomplicated to do in Waveform, will always be excused by the fans with the argument of "but that way it's more flexible", i disagree, you can streamline things while still keeping the flexibility.

[chagzuki]

IMHO it can be done much more intuitively while still keeping the flexible nature of Waveform.
I've noticed that anything i find unnecessarily overcomplicated to do in Waveform, will always be excused by the fans with the argument of "but that way it's more flexible", i disagree, you can streamline things while still keeping the flexibility.

How do think it ought to be implemented? Much about Waveform has been shifted towards more traditional solutions: in early incarnations there was no mixer. So it could change aux bus stuff too, if it made sense to do so.

[ferez21]

IMHO it can be done much more intuitively while still keeping the flexible nature of Waveform.
I've noticed that anything i find unnecessarily overcomplicated to do in Waveform, will always be excused by the fans with the argument of "but that way it's more flexible", i disagree, you can streamline things while still keeping the flexibility.

How do think it ought to be implemented? Much about Waveform has been shifted towards more traditional solutions: in early incarnations there was no mixer. So it could change aux bus stuff too, if it made sense to do so.

I would say a simple "Send" plugin with a knob on it that lets you send to any available channel, or to dedicated "Send" channels. No need for separate send and return plugins, each with their own panels.

[Watchful]

How would you manage multiple sends and returns on the same channel? While not common, I sometimes send and return channels into and out of each other.