Why you use multiple DAWs ?

Plug-in hosts and other software applications discussion
2326 posts since 15 Aug, 2003 from seattle

Post Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:18 pm

Away on a work trip for a while.... Bones, you're quoting is getting sloppy, and this part is really the only interesting part of the conversation IMO.
BONES wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:28 pm
machinesworking wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:17 pm
So in Live, DP and Bitwig etc. you can record your audio and MIDI directly into a clip, if you want it in the timeline, you record it into the timeline. In Cubase you're recording it into the timeline, then transferring it to scenes that you then record or arrange back into the timeline, it's another step to use scenes in Cubase if you're choosing to work with scenes, that doesn't exist in Live etc.
That's not how it works at all because, basically, your clips and scenes are simply overlaid on the timeline. They aren't separate from the timeline, they are part of it. So you aren't recording to one place or the other, you're just recording. That actually saves you steps and gives you more flexibility, in that you don't have to make a choice of where to record. You would need to create a template to facilitate that easy workflow but that's something you do once and re-use ad infinitum.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how you can't see that the Cubase way by default adds an extra step if you choose to use it's Scenes feature? This is getting weird.
I'm writing a song, I don't want to add parts to the timeline at the moment and want to use Scenes, in Bitwig etc. it's two steps to do this. write the parts into Clips then export to the timeline. In Cubase to use the same workflow you write the parts into the timeline, separate them out into scenes, then to get them back into the timeline in the order that you want them in, it's another step. There's nothing to argue about here, it's another step, period. If you're not interested that much in working with scenes then it's not that big of a deal really, but there's literally no way to paint it as more efficient than DAWs with Clips.
I'm very comfortable with clips and scenes
Yes, that's what "hidebound" implies.
This is why most folks don't waste time talking to you about things. You're literally set in your way of working, to the point that people who use other, newer methods are in your mind "set in their ways".. :hihi: I work in more than one way, I often don't even use clips or scenes, depends on whether or not the song is already fully arranged in my head or not.

No, I tried it and found it inelegant/clunky. OTOH, I find Cubase's way quite elegant, even though it is much further from any workflow I've used in the past.
Cubase is the easiest to figure out DAW I've ever used besides Live. If it works for you fantastic.

Your assumption seems to be that there are no alternatives to using automation in any situation, which is clearly not the case.
My assumption? You flatly stated
As I've said before, I do very little automation, I think it is a really clunky thing that is always a last resort for me. It's basically a really shit way of working.
That's just a dumb statement, nothing about me stating it's a lame value judgment insinuates that there aren't alternatives to track automation, I'm just not blind to other approaches to the point to where I disavow a whole part of DAWs and their extreme modulation possibilities.

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