Upgrade to Live 9 (10) Suite for £191 OR get Bitwig for £265 (on sale)?

[jacqueslacouth]

uh ... you are assuming that the same subscription terms will apply in 4 years, and it hasn't even been in place for 1 ? that's quite an assumption to make about a fledgling startup that has already broke major promises from BWS 1 -> 2 (opening up the modular environment in version 2 was an explicit selling point they promoted during the entire lifecycle of 1. it never happened.)

Sorry, but you simply can't make such assumptions about BitWig at this point. We can certainly rely on a thriving behemoth like Ableton though.

Also, the big problem with this yearly opt-in/opt-out subscription system that BitWig are currently employing is: bugs. You are living in cloud cuckooland if you think you are not going to end up with some bugs when your subscription runs out. Upgrade to Live 9 (and get 10 free, which seems to be the OP's situation), and you have a mature software in Live 9 - and with your Live 10 license you can at least rely on the fact that for all intents & purposes any bugs you encounter will be fixed without you needing to put your hand in your pocket, or ultimately finding yourself trying to decide which version to roll back to at the sacrifice of which current features as would be the case with BWS if you didn't want to pay for another year just to access the bugfix.

sorry, but I wipe my ass with these licensing schemes. I hope every company that adopts such a scheme fails. Little pip-squeek startups producing a product for a saturated market shouldn't expect to be able to pull off something like Adobe can pull off .... Adobe brute forced the scheme because they have an absolutely monumental market penetration.

Actually, indeed, Well Said.

I am not being facetious when I say this, I actually agree with your point and duly stand corrected.

Unfortunately, these days I do tend to live in cloud cuckooland a lot these days and I sadly aware of my dimming mind as I age (it is scarily rapid and I often just cannot find simple words when talking). I sometimes see part of the story and on odd occasions I think to comment, but seldom see the big picture and typically regret either posting comments online or even speaking in real life.

[Daags]

Although there have been 5 years between Live 9 and 10 , there wasn’t anywhere near that amount of time between other Live versions. Usually it’s only a year or two before your being asked for an upgrade fee.

derp derp. there were four years between 8 and 9. derp. What's usual now is 4-5 years. Until it's not.
And ten years ago, when 7 was released, two was never the usual amount of years between updates. it was one. And that policy created more and more problems until finally boiling over with Live 8. So, as will be clear to any Live users who have been using this software for as long as I have, the 4-5 year lifecycles of Live 8 and Live 9 represent a clear shift in policy.

in retrospect, you can see how the yearly update policy existed in a time when they were gaining market share ... now that they are firmly established, we have the significantly longer life-cycles.

at any rate, the yearly update cycles were causing them more harm then good by the time they shitcanned that policy - almost ten years ago. so ya. what's usual now is 4-5 years. that's just how it is, homie.

[pdxindy]

Although there have been 5 years between Live 9 and 10 , there wasn’t anywhere near that amount of time between other Live versions. Usually it’s only a year or two before your being asked for an upgrade fee.

derp derp. there were four years between 8 and 9. derp. What's usual now is 4-5 years. Until it's not.
And ten years ago, when 7 was released, two was never the usual amount of years between updates. it was one. And that policy created more and more problems until finally boiling over with Live 8. So, as will be clear to any Live users who have been using this software for as long as I have, the 4-5 year lifecycles of Live 8 and Live 9 represent a clear shift in policy.

in retrospect, you can see how the yearly update policy existed in a time when they were gaining market share ... now that they are firmly established, we have the significantly longer life-cycles.

at any rate, the yearly update cycles were causing them more harm then good by the time they shitcanned that policy - almost ten years ago. so ya. what's usual now is 4-5 years. that's just how it is, homie.

It is also because Ableton considers Live a mature and complete product... not much to do so a slow upgrade pace is fine. They are making plenty of money in other ways. Since Live 10 does not have what I want... it is gonna be 4-5 years longer wait at their glacial pace.

[Daags]

Unfortunately, these days I do tend to live in cloud cuckooland a lot these days and I sadly aware of my dimming mind as I age (it is scarily rapid and I often just cannot find simple words when talking). I sometimes see part of the story and on odd occasions I think to comment, but seldom see the big picture and typically regret either posting comments online or even speaking in real life.

man, I am sorry to hear that. I hope you are just lamenting the normal aging process, and it isn't something more severe ?

[antic604]

I've got Bitwig 2 and Live Suite 9. The modulators in Bitwig are interesting, but Max is fully integrated in Live 10... Max has endless modulation possibilities. Workflow in Bitwig is a bit different, but not much better. The biggest drawback of Bitwig is the subscription plan. And they promised all sort of things for version 2 (max-like programming, collaboration), but they never delivered.

Few things I'd like to point out, as I'm in the same situation (Live 9 Suite + Bitwig 2):

1) Max isn't any more integrated in 10 that it was in 9 - it's just loading either in the background when you launch it, or by components. In terms of usability and workflow nothing changed

2) I don't see how Max's modulation is any more 'endless' than it is in Bitwig? I suspect you're referring to the fact that in Live I can put LFO on track #1, to modulate filter in track #2. But why would I want to do that? The only case this makes sense you somehow want to use the signal or MIDI from one track, to modulate something in another track. And guess what, Bitwig has Audio Sidechain/Receiver, Note Sidechain/Receiver and Signal Follower that do just that. On the other hand Bitwig has audio rate modulation, that e.g. lets you create a synth out of nothing: https://youtu.be/5GL-4YTz1xg

3) It's not a subscription plan.

4) Who's to say there ever will be v3, 4, 5, etc.? They might still open up the modular environment in v2 ...in 2 years. They don't need full version releases to generate the cash flow

[.jon]

if you are switching daw then buy (i will recommend you not to switch but if you are determined)
Reaper + playtime for reaper (both in total of 100$)

yes it will be hard to learn a new daw but it will be worth it
reasons to switch from ableton
1.way better cpu perfomance (ableton relies on the realtime porocessing power of your cpu whereas reaper always renders ahead the audio thus utilizes all the cores + the realtime perfomance)** if you are using UAD plugs then sorry no luck for you UAD relies on realtime processing
2.64 bit mix engine (if you care about that)
3.in built slave mode (its like vienna ensemble) use the cpu power of other pc or mac you may have
4.skinnable and modular as f**k boi (yes reaper has a ableton like skin)
5.cheap as f**k (60$ for 2 consecutive versions)
6.if you love scripting or love to make your own scripts then .... yes it supports jesonic
7.automation has become awesome(from version 6.21)
8.(my fav)if you have a audio fx that accept midi (eg.MXXX) any track can any any info no sepereat midi track send
9.if you love routing of audo signals through different fx for parallel and series signal processing then reaper is a heaven for you

on the other hand ableton as M4L which replaces the scripting part and makes it easy at the expanse of CPU resource

choose wisely

1. Live uses less CPU than Reaper using the same plugins, and doesn't have the playback latency which they dub "anticipate processing" Reaper needs to achieve even that level. Reaper needs a lot less memory tho, so on Live you would need a whopping 400mb instead of 60 out of all those dozens of gigabytes.

2. Nobody does, it has literally no effect on anything. It just means the noise floor is even more desibels below the level any existing hardware is capable of utilising. Furthermore not many plugins operate in 64 bits, so your audio stream is actually 32 bits anyway. Lol.

3. Why not build a whole server room to run vst plugins on ffs.

4. It's not fully skinnable and all the user submitted skins look like shit. Skinning it requires learning a shitty pseudo-programming language they half-arsed and then stopped improving. Some skins not as shit as the default tho. It's not modular in any meaning of the word.

5. Other daw prices include handy stuff like actually usable effects and instruments, support, manual and quality control. Yes it's cheap, but you get what you pay for.

6. Who wouldn't rather script for days to get a missing feature than make music. I learnt LUA because of Reaper so guess it's a bonus.

7. Automation in Reaper was actually really good even before automation items.

8. Erm? Any any info no sepereat midi track send does sound quite unique indeed.

9. Parallel processing is incredibly easier and visually clearer in Live. Routing in Reaper is a total pita.

Choose Live or BWS.

[.jon]

2) I don't see how Max's modulation is any more 'endless' than it is in Bitwig?

Max is a Turing complete visual signal programming language. Bitwig has a limited number of simple, closed source devices that can modulate plugin parameters. I hope this helps.

[jonljacobi]

Bitwig is a very interesting, inspiring looking and competent program, but it's very immature in some areas such as audio recording and stretching. I'm also not a fan of what they did to the 2.x interface which made everything I do more difficult. BWS is great for creating sounds and monkeying about and of course, as with any DAW, if you have the talent and put in the effort, you can produce great music.

On the other hand, I don't like Live's look nearly as much, but I can't get beyond the fact that its keen focus makes arranging, recording and correcting audio far quicker and easier than anything else out there. And there's simply nothing else in the industry that I'm aware of to match the Grooves functionality. It's also THE program for live performance.

I agree Reaper offers tremendous bang for the buck. But many users lose all those savings very quickly in the wasted man-hours spent paring down menus and wading through the myriad features and commands. Reaper is very powerful, but it has a very steep learning curve.

[rod_zero]

I have been using live for many many years and while I love it it is more CPU hungry than reaper, no contest really. ALl the heavy plugins (diva, serum, reaktor) run with way less cpu in reaper.

[Apratim]

if you are switching daw then buy (i will recommend you not to switch but if you are determined)
Reaper + playtime for reaper (both in total of 100$)

yes it will be hard to learn a new daw but it will be worth it
reasons to switch from ableton
1.way better cpu perfomance (ableton relies on the realtime porocessing power of your cpu whereas reaper always renders ahead the audio thus utilizes all the cores + the realtime perfomance)** if you are using UAD plugs then sorry no luck for you UAD relies on realtime processing
2.64 bit mix engine (if you care about that)
3.in built slave mode (its like vienna ensemble) use the cpu power of other pc or mac you may have
4.skinnable and modular as f**k boi (yes reaper has a ableton like skin)
5.cheap as f**k (60$ for 2 consecutive versions)
6.if you love scripting or love to make your own scripts then .... yes it supports jesonic
7.automation has become awesome(from version 6.21)
8.(my fav)if you have a audio fx that accept midi (eg.MXXX) any track can any any info no sepereat midi track send
9.if you love routing of audo signals through different fx for parallel and series signal processing then reaper is a heaven for you

on the other hand ableton as M4L which replaces the scripting part and makes it easy at the expanse of CPU resource

choose wisely

1. Live uses less CPU than Reaper using the same plugins, and doesn't have the playback latency which they dub "anticipate processing" Reaper needs to achieve even that level. Reaper needs a lot less memory tho, so on Live you would need a whopping 400mb instead of 60 out of all those dozens of gigabytes.

2. Nobody does, it has literally no effect on anything. It just means the noise floor is even more desibels below the level any existing hardware is capable of utilising. Furthermore not many plugins operate in 64 bits, so your audio stream is actually 32 bits anyway. Lol.

3. Why not build a whole server room to run vst plugins on ffs.

4. It's not fully skinnable and all the user submitted skins look like shit. Skinning it requires learning a shitty pseudo-programming language they half-arsed and then stopped improving. Some skins not as shit as the default tho. It's not modular in any meaning of the word.

5. Other daw prices include handy stuff like actually usable effects and instruments, support, manual and quality control. Yes it's cheap, but you get what you pay for.

6. Who wouldn't rather script for days to get a missing feature than make music. I learnt LUA because of Reaper so guess it's a bonus.

7. Automation in Reaper was actually really good even before automation items.

8. Erm? Any any info no sepereat midi track send does sound quite unique indeed.

9. Parallel processing is incredibly easier and visually clearer in Live. Routing in Reaper is a total pita.

Choose Live or BWS.

1.really when i tried demo of ableton while choosing of my daw i found that ableton cpu meter shows >100%(cpu overload) while reaper was at only 85-90%(still had room for equalizers before overloading) on a same preset on 3 diva vst instances .dont know for you it may be some driver bug or something else (dont remember the exact numbers)

2.i said "if you care about that" to the OP because i also know that
i just mentioned it because of cubase is barging the shit about that

3.if the op needs then he dosent need to buy vienna ensemble + a pro

4.yup i agree but not all look like shit alter ego 5.00 looks like exact copy of cubase

5.yup reaper is not having any instrument but it has some useful effects ,manual,and other stuff

6.then download user submitted script from the stash

7.ok

8.no comment

9.yup i agree some dig the routing matrix other dig ableton no complain about but that is just at its raw form thats all

[pekbro]

This is ridiculous, it is a subscription plan. Just one with a yearly interval. You pay a fee on a regular basis to remain current. Just because you're not compelled to pay doesn't make it "not" a subscription. It is required to maintain a status, Eg. a subscription. Saying that is isn't is a silly argument.

Fee on an interval, that is the definition of a subscription.

[pdxindy]

This is ridiculous, it is a subscription plan. Just one with a yearly interval. You pay a fee on a regular basis to remain current. Just because you're not compelled to pay doesn't make it "not" a subscription. It is required to maintain a status, Eg. a subscription. Saying that is isn't is a silly argument.

Fee on an interval, that is the definition of a subscription.

To me and many others, subscription means if you stop paying you lose ability to use it. That is not the case with Bitwig. So Bitwig is not subscription.

[pekbro]

Exact same thing that cakewalk had going, they at least didn't try to sugar coat it, by not referring to it as a subscription.

[Daags]

This is ridiculous, it is a subscription plan. Just one with a yearly interval. You pay a fee on a regular basis to remain current. Just because you're not compelled to pay doesn't make it "not" a subscription. It is required to maintain a status, Eg. a subscription. Saying that is isn't is a silly argument.

Fee on an interval, that is the definition of a subscription.

To me and many others, subscription means if you stop paying you lose ability to use it. That is not the case with Bitwig. So Bitwig is not subscription.

There are various types of subscription - in this case it's an opt-in/opt-out or 'pay as you go' subscription. it may not be like other implementations of subscription scheme in the digital world - like Adobe's Creative Cloud - but it is a subscription all the same.

That my friend, is an absolute, objective fact.

What you and your friends like to think does not change that fact, but of course the motivation not to accept this fact is understandble ... in this context subscription is a dirty word, and it's hard to lure people to support your preferred developer while faced with the reality that their licensing scheme is toxic to what is likely a majority of people.

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the various types of subscription before telling people what BitWig's licensing scheme isn't.

[.jon]

I have been using live for many many years and while I love it it is more CPU hungry than reaper, no contest really. ALl the heavy plugins (diva, serum, reaktor) run with way less cpu in reaper.

They don't. Reapers own cpu meter just shows a smaller percentage in its default setting. Actual cpu usage as displayed by windows task manager is even or slightly in favour of Live. This is a simple verifiable fact, and the reason is simple: VST plugins are the programs responsible for the DSP instructions. No daw magic can make those algorithms consume less cpu and still sound the same.