The All In One Source Bitwig Information & Speculation Thread

[ThomasHelzle]

Update on Melodyne: The problem only exists for the 32 Bit Windows version. 64 Bit Melodyne is fine. Since BWS eats both, it's no real problem and will hopefully be fixed soon enough now that it's nailed down.

Cheers,

Tom

[ceasless]

So what's the problem? Choose your best section and set that to clip loop. Or cut and paste? Or compose it in a tool that supports the comping style you want and then import it (or is that tool yet to be invented?)

Why should they care about users who want the tool to go somewhere else? Almost everybody who truly cares about tools wants them to be rock solid for what they are meant to do, and thus have the right tool for the job they are trying to perform. The rest sit on forums asking why a tool which is playing to its own strengths rather than doing shit that's been workable in a thousand daws since the beginning of MIDI.

I mean seriously, if it were possible to have it all at once in one tool, don't you think that, going into the third decade, someone would have managed it already?

The Bitwig approach to all that they are trying to address is yet to be tested in the harsh and fickle light of the production software user community, and I for one am glad that they are waiting for a little affirmation of their instincts before trying to solve all the usage scenarios for everyone.

Lord knows there's going to be storms of shit thrown at them on this forum and others in t-minus 4 days. Why add complaints about an unfulfilling comping experience into the mix?

[hibidy]

One of the things I've noticed is that there is a difference in the "makers" of DAW's vs the "users"

There will always be odds because some people want general comforts, some don't care, and there are always a ton of people who back up the idea that we don't NEED onwards and upwards.

In all these years (which was about the time I joined KVR) I've seen and been a part of dramatic change, but in fact, nothing has changed that much. For example, if tracktion had continued development under Jules way way back, I don't think I'd have gone through the MARATHON of hosts I've tried. When mackie got involved it a) died b) didn't work all that well for many people.

So the idea that a host doesn't "need" x or y is an endless debate but I think some of the things missing are critical for a modern DAW.

[dsan@mail.com]

Well said hibidy!

Happy Musiking!
dsan

[Echoes in the Attic]

Can any beta tester tell if there are scripts provided for Push? I know they are supplying scripts for many popular controllers, just wondering if Push is supported out of the box.

[Ogopogo]

I mean seriously, if it were possible to have it all at once in one tool, don't you think that, going into the third decade, someone would have managed it already?

But Bitwig is precisely a bunch of stuff that ableton couldn't/didn't want to fit into their tool. If you had gone to the ableton forum and asked for track based midi and layered editing some people would have told you the exact same sort of thing. "You want cubase or sonar, that doesn't fit the Live paradigm, cramming it in would just create problems, ableton doesn't have to cater to you if you want something different than what we are going for, etc" But Bitwig made it work. I'm betting they will make comping work just fine too in time.

[Ogopogo]

Can any beta tester tell if there are scripts provided for Push? I know they are supplying scripts for many popular controllers, just wondering if Push is supported out of the box.

Seems no: http://www.bitwigbeats.com/ready-mapped ... tudio-1-0/

There might be some legal restrictions against that, I dunno. At least that's what some were saying in here earlier.

But on the front page link to that post he seems to have push working in there. That could be a shop though. And also it might be a generic script rather than one tailored for bitwig. Maybe somebody should comment there and ask him.

http://www.bitwigbeats.com/

[ezelkow1]

There should be nothing stopping anyone from making a push script, its a generic midi device. Since you have pxt general giving you the same playability in any host a push script for bitwig would be that plus clip launching. You just wouldn't need general anymore since presumably that playability could be scripted right in bitwig like any other matrix layout controller

[Regnas]

Current Beta is 112 MB. Content is downloaded on demand separately.

Cheers,

Tom

By the way...

[pc999]

Dom can we convince you guys to integrate the Melodyne ARA?

Would you prefer Bitwig to do that as apposed to rolling their own?
Melodyne ARA is cool and all but I assume that it was designed with a more traditional daw in mind.

This is purely conjecture but I would question how Melodyne ARA would respond to a non-linear/modular daw that supports audio and midi in the same track and multiple audio events in the same clip.

If that's the case I would prefer bitwig to implement their own pitch shifting solution that could be used throughout the daw and not just in the arrangement view and also allow pitch shifting to be used in hybrid tracks. Lets not forget that if the modular system had direct access to a pitch shifting engine people could create some crazy shit like a sampler with pitch shifting in it.
I also suspect that melodyne ARA would have limited interaction with the javascript API

Personally I prefer in house tech for this kind of stuff, more liberty to develop new and innovative features and specially since I am using Linux and Melodyne wouldnt work anyway...

[chadjohnson]

So what's the problem? Choose your best section and set that to clip loop. Or cut and paste? Or compose it in a tool that supports the comping style you want and then import it (or is that tool yet to be invented?)

Why should they care about users who want the tool to go somewhere else? Almost everybody who truly cares about tools wants them to be rock solid for what they are meant to do, and thus have the right tool for the job they are trying to perform. The rest sit on forums asking why a tool which is playing to its own strengths rather than doing shit that's been workable in a thousand daws since the beginning of MIDI.

I mean seriously, if it were possible to have it all at once in one tool, don't you think that, going into the third decade, someone would have managed it already?

The Bitwig approach to all that they are trying to address is yet to be tested in the harsh and fickle light of the production software user community, and I for one am glad that they are waiting for a little affirmation of their instincts before trying to solve all the usage scenarios for everyone.

Lord knows there's going to be storms of shit thrown at them on this forum and others in t-minus 4 days. Why add complaints about an unfulfilling comping experience into the mix?

[Hink]

So what's the problem? Choose your best section and set that to clip loop. Or cut and paste? Or compose it in a tool that supports the comping style you want and then import it (or is that tool yet to be invented?)

Why should they care about users who want the tool to go somewhere else? Almost everybody who truly cares about tools wants them to be rock solid for what they are meant to do, and thus have the right tool for the job they are trying to perform. The rest sit on forums asking why a tool which is playing to its own strengths rather than doing shit that's been workable in a thousand daws since the beginning of MIDI.

I mean seriously, if it were possible to have it all at once in one tool, don't you think that, going into the third decade, someone would have managed it already?

The Bitwig approach to all that they are trying to address is yet to be tested in the harsh and fickle light of the production software user community, and I for one am glad that they are waiting for a little affirmation of their instincts before trying to solve all the usage scenarios for everyone.

Lord knows there's going to be storms of shit thrown at them on this forum and others in t-minus 4 days. Why add complaints about an unfulfilling comping experience into the mix?

Chad Johnson? I'm watching Chad Johnson in goal for the Boston Bruins right now (of course the game was a few hours ago)

[barryfell]

Can any beta tester tell if there are scripts provided for Push? I know they are supplying scripts for many popular controllers, just wondering if Push is supported out of the box.

Seems no: http://www.bitwigbeats.com/ready-mapped ... tudio-1-0/

There might be some legal restrictions against that, I dunno. At least that's what some were saying in here earlier.

But on the front page link to that post he seems to have push working in there. That could be a shop though. And also it might be a generic script rather than one tailored for bitwig. Maybe somebody should comment there and ask him.

http://www.bitwigbeats.com/

There is a project on Bitwig Beats to create a script for Push.

http://www.bitwigbeats.com/forums/viewt ... y0dTfB_t8E

[Redukt]

Not to dismiss your needs, but I think most users of any host would agree that effects such as reverb, delay, compression take precedence over a visual spectrum analyser. Less urgent features will likely be implemented in a future update (as already discussed many times).

Oh, i totally agree with you here. I never said these features are crucial to me in a 1.0 DAW, it's just what i hope for in the future.

[ThomasHelzle]

One of the things I've noticed is that there is a difference in the "makers" of DAW's vs the "users"

There will always be odds because some people want general comforts, some don't care, and there are always a ton of people who back up the idea that we don't NEED onwards and upwards.

In all these years (which was about the time I joined KVR) I've seen and been a part of dramatic change, but in fact, nothing has changed that much. For example, if tracktion had continued development under Jules way way back, I don't think I'd have gone through the MARATHON of hosts I've tried. When mackie got involved it a) died b) didn't work all that well for many people.

So the idea that a host doesn't "need" x or y is an endless debate but I think some of the things missing are critical for a modern DAW.

Yeah, good points.
For me it boils down to the balance between developer vision and user needs/vision and how well the communication works between those.

To create a full DAW you need a lot of motivation and a rather large amount of headstrong rigour to keep on track and don't lose focus every time a user or even a large group of users decides to give you pressure in a certain direction.
Since you need to keep the whole application in focus and how everything works together, things are way more complicated and have much more implications down the road as the typical user is aware of or cares about (I explicitly include myself here ).
At the same time, the developer needs to be open minded about things, since of course he has his own preferences and some of them may NOT be motivated by how to best do things, but simply grounded in his own interests and bias.
You can see this clearly in some of the smaller DAWs, that struggle endlessly uphill since they somehow miss some basic things that would make them "whole" for a larger audience but somehow the developer doesn't see them as important enough or that critical. That can be GUI and workflow things or must-have features that are Yes/No things for too many.

The user on the other hand needs to get the feeling that he is heard and cared for, that he is welcome, that he's on a positive ride towards a better application, even if something is missing ATM. If that can be transported by clear and open communications, it's half of the mission done. The other half of course is to create that better application on several levels, from GUI to workflow to features to docs to overall "feel" of software and company.

Until now, Bitwig had "carte blanche" to do and change things as they wanted (more or less of course). As soon as the application is released, this is over, since from that moment on, you need to keep everything in line and working. Your freedom as a developer is drastically reduced.
So before release, you need to make sure that the basis and groundworks are strong and flexible enough to survive many years of continued development, even if some features may be missing - the foundation is actually much more important for a 1.0, even if the future userbase may heavily disagree...

And still you will always have areas where after a while you realize, you painted yourself into a corner in some regards. That's simply unavoidable.

In addition, some decisions simply create certain dependencies. If clean PDC is one of the goals, certain other things suddenly become very complicated. You can't just send data around tracks as otherwise a modular host could do easily, since you simply wouldn't be able to keep things in time.
Or the decision to create a DAW for live use: You can't trim it as heavily towards low CPU use as a pure studio DAW, since on stage, you need to enable and disable tracks and effects etc. fluidly, so they basically need to run all the time, even if disabled/muted...
Other things are limited by the GUI: If you offer unlimited Sends, how do you deal with them GUI-wise?
I found it rather healthy to be involved in some such projects to realize, how some "very tiny things" can cost hours and day of work. Adding one tiny feature can explode in all directions, from keeping presets and scenes consistent and backwards compatible to showing a new parameter in the GUI in a consistent way to adding it to the docs, not even mentioning the whole enchilada that may arise internally.

So buying into BWS 1.0 isn't about getting the perfect host on day one IMHO.
But if all parties involved do their best, it should become a hell of a ride.

Cheers,

Tom