Studio one

[codec_spurt]

In fact, I remember being able to load cubase projects done on windows 3.1 so god knows what version of cubase that was, into, cubase 5 I think the guy was using. So obviously no audio, but the midi was perfect, as I suppose it should be expected to be.

[LawrenceF]

What i meant was that the Steinberg xml format isn't turned on in some lower level "tiered" versions of Cubase. You can't for example (or couldn't in the past, maybe that has changed since last i looked) import a Steinberg Sequel project into Cubase Essential or Artist, but you can import those into S1, which struck me as being a tiny bit odd.

I think Sequel uses the same xml format as Cubase Track Archives. I suppose that's just one of those functions you only get with the full Cubase.

Anyway, yes, the imports worked pretty well last time I tried. That was one of the things that helped my transition, knowing i could at least get my Cubase songs ported over as relates to audio and midi regions, their placement on the timeline, and clip trims, etc.

[Alfalfa]

That's true. And the "intuitive" word causes a good bit of cross drama. What's intuitive to one guy is not so intuitive to another, and vice versa. It really depends on what your expectations are.

I think you're right that the word gets misused because we mistake almost-identical layouts to what we already know, for something that is genuinely intuitive.

I can look at most any workstation laid out in a more conventional way and find my way around the basics in a few short minutes.

With the track list functions, Studio One and Cubase are appearing more and more similar to Pro Tools, making that initial uptake even easier. One of these years, some of these DAWs will be laid out identically (notable exceptions Ableton Live and Tracktion among others). I actually deleted a sentence saying that after DAW fatigue sets in, it's hard to distinguish between them.

So, what do you do? Maybe buy a piece of hardware instead.

[tapper mike]

It is the search for that magic elixir that will make a person want to start up their DAW and play music.

No DAW will make you want to play day in day out.

My second most used program after my browser.....
Band in a Box.

With biab I always have a song to play and a song to play over/with.
Ever since '98 I've used biab. I've taught guitar lessons with it. When I have fellow musicians around we jam to it. I know "soloist" performers who make it part of thier act. When I'm not playing a song I know and love with it I'm learning new ones. I'm broadening my horizons learning basslines, riffs, and other musical ideas. It's a heck of a lot more fun then guitar pro or ableton live or any daw on the market. I've got over 2000 standards in biab format and another 2000 style demo songs (just upgraded to 2014 megapak)

I just joined the Acoustica (Mixcraft) forums about two days ago. Do you know what I saw there that really peaked my interest in using the product more? Collabs.

Why are Collabs important? After writing, arranging and performing all the parts (or at least most of them) the last thing I want to do is mix my song. When you do everything it gets tiresome quick. There is a word for that and that word is...lonely. Which is why we spend all our time in forums chatting about software rather then using it. In the collaboration forum people (and eventually me too but I don't think I fit the catagory) Actually go as far as to write / record songs that are partially unfinished so that others can add to the song.