Poll: How many DAWs do you use?

Audio Plugin Hosts and other audio software applications discussion
Post Reply New Topic

Poll: How Many DAWs Do You Use?

Poll ended at Tue May 08, 2018 8:55 pm

1
54
39%
2
38
28%
3
20
14%
4
7
5%
5 or more
19
14%
 
Total votes: 138

RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

As long as it's got fake wooden panels, I'm in.
Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Post

machinesworking wrote:
Psuper wrote:
machinesworking wrote:
jancivil wrote:
machinesworking wrote:Why on earth would you convert your old songs to your new DAW? You're confusing using multiple DAWs with some sort of religious conversion ...
Well, the 'new DAW' may have some way of working the other one didn't. I haven't come across that myself but there are ways of working (in something as vast as most DAWs even brought into it) that aren't my ways.
Sure, but taking audio and MIDI files, software synths and FX from one DAW and replicating that in another is a waste of time. I'm not saying that because I haven't done it, but because I have, and it is. Rendering all tracks as audio from one DAW to mix and master, create stems etc. in another, is different, I'll probably use Reaper most of the time to do that so I fully relate to that type of transferring.

To be fair I have taken simple starts in Live and transferred them to DP or Reaper etc. but only when it's a few MIDI tracks and VI's, there's a law of diminishing returns there for sure.
As to the second sentence, why are you fabricating a story about a person's thought without even getting an answer to 'why'? Rhetorical question? But there is a good chance there are reasons.
The quoted statement I was replying to suggested that you had to convert your songs to a new DAW, there wasn't any room in it for using multiple DAWs side by side, as if you were only using multiple DAWs because you were switching DAWs all the time.... ergo, the original statement was also rhetorical. :wink:
No, re-read my post and recognize the context of why to avoid multiple DAWs. I didn't replicate anything in a new DAW, I backed up every project I created in multiple DAWs, to be able to be used in any future DAW - huge difference. Specifically one needs to avoid attempting to locate and load all the old programs you used years ago, and successfully re-load and use them on your or your nice new "DAW"... which then becomes a shitpile of miscellaneous problems.

So unless you plan on doing that reload dance every time you want to access your old projects and absolutely screwing up your nice fresh system every time (and you most certainly will), then you need to have your old projects ready to be used in whatever you're working with these days.

I've been in the industry for a long time, and have all my backups for about 20 years now so finding the programs and loading them on clones was relatively straightforward for me, just extremely time consuming. However most typical users aren't anywhere close to the organization of backing up, or skill level to successfully reload old programs in Win 7/10 one by one to work with their new programs, or fix it when it busts their system over and over.
Might be a Windows thing here, I'm on OSX, but I kind of doubt it? I've never had multiple DAWs on my system screw up my system, I don't experience a "shitpile of miscellaneous problems" having Live 10, Logic X, DP 9.5, and Reaper 5.8 all on the same machine, and no issues occur when I load then one right after another.

The only issues I've experienced with older songs in various DAWs on my system have nothing to do with the DAWs and everything to do with using free plug ins that no longer exist, or manufacturers like NI that upgrade their plug ins by whole point updates that do not load in songs with older versions of that same plug in, Absynth 5 doesn't load in songs with Absynth 2 in them etc.

The other annoying thing is the jumps Apple made from OS9 to OSX, and from Power PC to X86 chips. Those also hosed VST AU plug ins in terms of loading presets, whole point upgrades etc. On the other hand Reason and Logic songs with embedded plug ins only, loaded just fine throughout all that.

I think there's a good argument for using a DAW like Reason with it's embedded plug ins only as a way to ensure as much as possible that a song can exist 15 years from now on a new system with whatever new version of Reason is out for sure. I just don't see how any of that relates to converting songs to a new DAW? I've got a copy of Reason 2.5 still, and the .rns files I have here will load just fine when and if I bother to upgrade to 10 it won't crash or make OSX unstable, and since the file embeds the samples etc. it should 100% load with no issues. Again I think you're either experiencing something that most of us don't or you're not explaining clearly why your system experiences problems with DAWs you haven't used in a while, because I don't experience any of that.
Live 10, Logic X, DP 9.5, and Reaper 5.8 are all newer versions overall. You can go back many years of the DAW software itself and still be fine. Few, if any, would experience issues beyond basic knowledge base stuff.

We're talking exactly about the outdated/abandoned items: Quoting my Original post:
Took me so many weeks of converting, moving raw audio around, exporting mids and audio, finding old VST/samples/packs I never use anymore, multiple clones to restore after some of the old ones busted my system.
So that covers that again. Everything that follows in your last reply is an incorrect assumption that people have issues loading DAWS or embedded files.

Lets make this simple (and we can even think-ahead that one day you will use another DAW in a new OS): Load up Cakewalk (or whatever DAW you used to use) and rewire Reason, create and save 5 songs using both with a few VSTs . Now load up Reaper and rewire Reason, create and save 5 songs using both with a few VSTs. This assumes you both know how Reason works rewired, how to save all necessary files within the DAW software (including separate RNS files), and you had the where-withal to choose a strategy of saving them that minimizes work for future proofing.

Now just load up some other DAW and try to use one of the 10 songs.

Now imagine just 10 years has gone by and the songs themselves are familiar, but the process is long forgotten, the DAW software stopped being produced (or radically changed) 9 years ago, a couple VSTs gone for good (Alchemy), 128bit system (basic architecture changes), VST is gone replaced by some direct-hardware code (new formats/standards), who knows what else. Now you know why I choose to prepare them all for future-proofing. I see you now realize why I use one DAW (and an on-going saving strategy) due to the inherent simplicity of how it works with some of these examples in mind.
Have you tried Vital?

Post

machinesworking wrote:
Psuper wrote:
machinesworking wrote:
jancivil wrote:
machinesworking wrote:Why on earth would you convert your old songs to your new DAW? You're confusing using multiple DAWs with some sort of religious conversion ...
Well, the 'new DAW' may have some way of working the other one didn't. I haven't come across that myself but there are ways of working (in something as vast as most DAWs even brought into it) that aren't my ways.
Sure, but taking audio and MIDI files, software synths and FX from one DAW and replicating that in another is a waste of time. I'm not saying that because I haven't done it, but because I have, and it is. Rendering all tracks as audio from one DAW to mix and master, create stems etc. in another, is different, I'll probably use Reaper most of the time to do that so I fully relate to that type of transferring.

To be fair I have taken simple starts in Live and transferred them to DP or Reaper etc. but only when it's a few MIDI tracks and VI's, there's a law of diminishing returns there for sure.
civil wrote:As to the second sentence, why are you fabricating a story about a person's thought without even getting an answer to 'why'? Rhetorical question? But there is a good chance there are reasons.
The quoted statement I was replying to suggested that you had to convert your songs to a new DAW, there wasn't any room in it for using multiple DAWs side by side, as if you were only using multiple DAWs because you were switching DAWs all the time.... ergo, the original statement was also rhetorical. :wink:
What you actually said was it was tantamount to a religious conversion to want to use a second DAW for a same project. Now you tell me why YOU wouldn't, and actually I wouldn't either, but until someone tells me why, I don't actually know. Even if they want to do all that, and even if I can't relate to that I wouldn't dismiss their thinking of the "new DAW" as though what's driving them is "I have converted to a better religion so all of my projects will be recreated in the image of my new God" (which is actually kind of insulting). :D

Rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. You stated something, then, that wasn't in evidence. As though to read someone's mind. That was my whole point. And why I said I don't do it that way but someone else may have reasons to. And now here it is again, you dismiss everybody's reasons out-of-hand. EG: "as if you were only using multiple DAWs because you were switching DAWs all the time" aka straw man. Yeah, I at times think shit like that but I hold myself in abeyance as it's not so reasonable.

I use the one DAW. I have only ever done import MIDI from Logic to Cubase. And without getting into the weeds, it was problematic and I didn't have time to even care why, Logic's Hyperedit one-window-for-each-controller killed the deal for me writing in it. Here's where "YMMV" comes into use.

Happy Mother's Day.

Post

Studio One 3 and Live 9, and Bidule (if it can be call as daw)

Post

Aloysius wrote:As long as it's got fake wooden panels, I'm in.
LGR, that you?
Nobody, Ever wrote:I have enough plugins.

Post

I'm not pointing you out, but one of you cracks me up. After you're done walking on water, don't forget to share that one loaf of bread you feed the people with.

You coming at me with Before Common Era logic, when you might as well be coming at me with stone age logic and tools. I mean that's back when we probably only had access to one "DAW."

I'm sure you can share many tales of raising the dead projects, but I believe that's because of standards such as Midi and Wave formats.

This stuff about the one all magical DAW, on a one all magical OS is freaking hilarious!

Edit: Coming at me is another way of saying what I'm hearing from you, sorry about any confusion.

Post

herodotus wrote:
Topcheese wrote:There is nothing wrong with using a single DAW to cook up new music for people to feast upon. Does a chef only use a microwave oven to cook meals?

We all can cook food that we can eat, but it is the people that can master a variety of methods of cooking who can serve up the most memorable meals.

So you cook all of your food up in your trusty old crock-pot, and put all of your eggs in one basket, so life is good.

All I'm saying is that using other DAWs help influence what you cook up, dare I say you only need one to feed the people.
Food for thought. :harp:
Sorry, but that is a bad analogy. Any DAW or host or whatever you want to call it, even limited freeware like Mulab free, is much closer to being a kitchen than a crockpot.

I don't even really know where to begin, except for to say that If you can't stand the heat get out of my crockpot. We are not talking about the studio/kitchen, but the tools that are in that kitchen/studio we can use to cook up world class meals.

It doesn't matter if you pirate the crockpot off the street, it will not make you a master chef. You might be able to cook up some wonderful meals, but it has nothing to do with the "kitchen."

Edit: I mean Per Se, because we know that it would be tough to cook a world class meal in a 7-Eleven kitchen. Have you seen the DAWs in that place!

Post

Aloysius wrote:As long as it's got fake wooden panels, I'm in.
+1 All day!

Post

Aloysius wrote:As long as it's got fake wooden panels, I'm in.
GarageBand for the win.

Post

Psuper wrote: Now imagine just 10 years has gone by and the songs themselves are familiar, but the process is long forgotten, the DAW software stopped being produced (or radically changed) 9 years ago, a couple VSTs gone for good (Alchemy), 128bit system (basic architecture changes), VST is gone replaced by some direct-hardware code (new formats/standards), who knows what else. Now you know why I choose to prepare them all for future-proofing. I see you now realize why I use one DAW (and an on-going saving strategy) due to the inherent simplicity of how it works with some of these examples in mind.
Again, you're assuming that anyone using more than one DAW is essentially switching DAWs, "the process is forgotten", plug in formats haven't been updated, in this scenario you're painting where this figurative multi DAW user abandons upkeep on some DAW they switched from.
I have alway gotten that you personally do not work with more than one DAW, that you feel it's safer to convert songs to your new DAW etc. but you left no room for the way other people work in your imagined scenario.
Multiple DAWS is fun if you are just putzing around, but if you make a ton of music and have been for a long time and want to keep your original tracks, its a gigantic PITA.
Yes, it is, if you're switching DAWs all the time, not upgrading them and forgetting how the DAW works, but again, not all of us work like you do.

Post

jancivil wrote: Rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. You stated something, then, that wasn't in evidence. As though to read someone's mind. That was my whole point. And why I said I don't do it that way but someone else may have reasons to. And now here it is again, you dismiss everybody's reasons out-of-hand. EG: "as if you were only using multiple DAWs because you were switching DAWs all the time" aka straw man. Yeah, I at times think shit like that but I hold myself in abeyance as it's not so reasonable.
You might want to reread what I was responding to, it's pretty clear that Psuper believes than anyone using multiple DAWs is in the process of converting to the new DAW, it's the entire argument he has against using multiple DAWs. In fact nothing I responded back with was anywhere near as dismissing of his process as he is of other peoples processes.

There's no straw man here, he states in the above quote than the 'process is lost', i.e. that the imagined multi DAW user has forgotten how to use one of his DAWs, that new plug in formats will break this ignored DAWs ability to keep good records of your old songs, (another indicator that you aren't using said DAW now) I don't think it's possible to read that as anything else but that his imagined user has abandoned X DAW for Y DAW and now is lost? but yeah I'm the one replying rhetorically?

You're for whatever reason not paying attention to the conversation I'm having with Psuper in it's entirety and picking out what you see as logical fallacies on my part, but again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in my opinion very clearly stated if you read the entire conversation. When is it being dismissive to respond to someone who is essentially being dismissive? Nothing I responded with said his reasoning was wrong in every way, just that it's wrong for the reasons he's giving.

Post

machinesworking wrote:
Psuper wrote: Now imagine just 10 years has gone by and the songs themselves are familiar, but the process is long forgotten, the DAW software stopped being produced (or radically changed) 9 years ago, a couple VSTs gone for good (Alchemy), 128bit system (basic architecture changes), VST is gone replaced by some direct-hardware code (new formats/standards), who knows what else. Now you know why I choose to prepare them all for future-proofing. I see you now realize why I use one DAW (and an on-going saving strategy) due to the inherent simplicity of how it works with some of these examples in mind.
Again, you're assuming that anyone using more than one DAW is essentially switching DAWs, "the process is forgotten", plug in formats haven't been updated, in this scenario you're painting where this figurative multi DAW user abandons upkeep on some DAW they switched from.
I have alway gotten that you personally do not work with more than one DAW, that you feel it's safer to convert songs to your new DAW etc. but you left no room for the way other people work in your imagined scenario.
Multiple DAWS is fun if you are just putzing around, but if you make a ton of music and have been for a long time and want to keep your original tracks, its a gigantic PITA.
Yes, it is, if you're switching DAWs all the time, not upgrading them and forgetting how the DAW works, but again, not all of us work like you do.
I've made no assumptions, you've made the assumptions - you're still going on about some "conversion" to one DAW among other assumptions I've no idea where you're pulling them from. You need comprehension training Machinesworking, seriously. Having me state the same thing over and over isn't helping you at all here.

Quoting again (please pay attention this time):
I didn't replicate anything in a new DAW, I backed up every project I created in multiple DAWs, to be able to be used in any future DAW - huge difference.
I stated consistently the primary reason someone might want to avoid using multiple DAWs if they make a lot of music. Can't be any more clear, nor more simplistic in the reasoning. Doesn't apply to everyone, no one said its supposed to.

I never once criticized anyone elses "process", no one presented one to me that I see anywhere. However don't think that I wouldn't, I certainly would if I thought it was a shit process in an effort to help, instead of being a troublemaker as clearly you are being.

However I did see a post or two agreeing with me. Maybe that's your beef?

If you don't need my advice, by all means don't take it not gonna hurt my feelings. But going on like I'm "wrong" about something that clearly has no metric of wrongdoing makes you look foolish, at least to anyone who is paying attention to the conversation.
Have you tried Vital?

Post

Topcheese wrote:
herodotus wrote:
Topcheese wrote:There is nothing wrong with using a single DAW to cook up new music for people to feast upon. Does a chef only use a microwave oven to cook meals?

We all can cook food that we can eat, but it is the people that can master a variety of methods of cooking who can serve up the most memorable meals.

So you cook all of your food up in your trusty old crock-pot, and put all of your eggs in one basket, so life is good.

All I'm saying is that using other DAWs help influence what you cook up, dare I say you only need one to feed the people.
Food for thought. :harp:
Sorry, but that is a bad analogy. Any DAW or host or whatever you want to call it, even limited freeware like Mulab free, is much closer to being a kitchen than a crockpot.

I don't even really know where to begin, except for to say that If you can't stand the heat get out of my crockpot. We are not talking about the studio/kitchen, but the tools that are in that kitchen/studio we can use to cook up world class meals.

It doesn't matter if you pirate the crockpot off the street, it will not make you a master chef. You might be able to cook up some wonderful meals, but it has nothing to do with the "kitchen."

Edit: I mean Per Se, because we know that it would be tough to cook a world class meal in a 7-Eleven kitchen. Have you seen the DAWs in that place!
I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

All I was saying was that a DAW is not remotely analogical to a crockpot. No decent cook depends on a crockpot to do anything more than keep food (almost) warm. You can't cook a decent meal with it at all (sorry Mom!).

I wasn't arguing with whatever point you were trying to make, because I am still not sure what it was.

Could you express it with fewer metaphors?

Post

machinesworking wrote:
jancivil wrote: Rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. You stated something, then, that wasn't in evidence. As though to read someone's mind. That was my whole point.
You might want to reread what I was responding to, it's pretty clear that Psuper believes [...]

You're for whatever reason not paying attention to the conversation I'm having with Psuper in it's entirety and picking out what you see as logical fallacies on my part,
No. I found what you said insulting. Rather than considering the other person isn't you and may not have the thought you do, or fit the story you invented in order to dismiss them. And telling me what I was thinking is more of the same. To know more about what Psuper said that bothered you wouldn't change my view of what you said that I responded to.

Post

jancivil wrote:
machinesworking wrote:
jancivil wrote: Rhetorical question is a statement in the form of a question. You stated something, then, that wasn't in evidence. As though to read someone's mind. That was my whole point.
You might want to reread what I was responding to, it's pretty clear that Psuper believes [...]

You're for whatever reason not paying attention to the conversation I'm having with Psuper in it's entirety and picking out what you see as logical fallacies on my part,
No. I found what you said insulting. Rather than considering the other person isn't you and may not have the thought you do, or fit the story you invented in order to dismiss them. And telling me what I was thinking is more of the same. To know more about what Psuper said that bothered you wouldn't change my view of what you said that I responded to.
Why stir up the (crock)pot? :(

Post Reply

Return to “Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)”