Why you use multiple DAWs ?

[BONES]

DAWs are used for more than just music.

Yes, in your case I imagine it is nothing more than a way to waste time but the statement was qualified so your response makes no sense in context anyway.

been through the ups and downs of Cakewalk/Sonar, but came out on top with Cakewalk by Bandlab (for recording audio, MIDI automation & mixing/mastering) and NI Maschine (which isn't technically a DAW) for beats/loops. i am pretty happy

Yeah but you can run Maschine inside Cakewalk so it's not really the same thing, in that you end up using just Cakewalk, don't you?

[Daags]

So who's with me ? .... Multiple-DAW gang check in.

Not me, I think you're an idiot. Having spent many hours over the past few months painstakingly moving stuff from my old host to a new one, I can tell you for a fact that working across multiple host applications is a giant pain in the arse and a complete workflow killer.

For a start, it restricts you to only using VST instruments and effects and if you've paid a shit-tonne of money for Cubase Pro, for example, you'll be ignoring half of what you paid for. Which would be stupid.

After that you'll have to set up your mixer, adding send and insert effects manually, recreating channel groups, etc. all over again. None of your levels will be right, either, so you'll basically have to re-do your mix from scratch every time you move hosts, which would be even more stupid.

Patches will be another issue. You'll have to make sure you've saved a patch for every instrument and effect you have used, then load them all manually, one at a time, every time you change hosts. Putting yourself through that is the very definition of stupid.

You will run into more problems if you use external modulation generators (like those in Live and Bitwig), or even MIDI plugins, because they won't transfer across to another host. Yet those are good, solid reasons for choosing those hosts in the first place so, again, you're wasting your money buying those hosts and not using some of their best features/functionality. Which would be stupider still.

So that's four really good reasons to find one host, the one that involves the fewest compromises or the one you like to work in the most, and stick with it. Because working around it's shortcomings is going to be orders of magnitude less hassle than moving from host to host and I can guarantee it will also give you the best results. It goes under the category of "jack of all trades, master of none".

^^^ THIS!
If you actually were doing music for money like it was your job, you wouldn't have time to tinker in multiple DAW's...

if you actually were doing music for money like it was your job (with any measure of success), you wouldn't have time, nor the inclination, to endlessly whinge and moan and cry and argue ad nauseum in multiple forums about inane DAW vs DAW minutia.

[Meffy]

This thread is for discussing multiple DAW use, not opinions of each other.

[Daags]

This thread is for discussing multiple DAW use, not opinions of each other.

So who's with me ? .... Multiple-DAW gang check in.

Not me, I think you're an idiot.

[Meffy]

Yes, I've followed the thread. I meant everyone, not just you. Back on topic now.

[apoclypse]

I use multiple DAWs because each one has their own flavor. I'm not talking about sound though I do get different results depending on DAW. Mostly because of workflow differences and native plugins. It's like walking into a new studio space, or just getting a different perspective on things because I'm forced to think about the environment and tools I use.

I'm pretty much DAW agnostic. I don't believe in one DAW. For me the most important thing is the fundamentals. Can it record audio/midi/automation? Can it play VSTs? Then it doesn't really matter to me what the tool is. It's something I had to learn and now I jump from DAW to DAW literally in the same sitting. They all have more things in common than not.

[EnGee]

I use mainly Bitwig and Maschine. I use also Reaper, Live intro, Cubase Elements for playing around and comparing sometimes.

When I make a piece of music, however, I use only one DAW. I agree anyway that using one DAW for everything is more productive (hobby or not). But I didn't decide which one is the one and only one yet!

[billybong]

For many of us, gearlust I'd imagine. Certainly the reason I explored on the DAW front when I was already using one well enough.

30 synths, 4 DAWs, 15 'verbs, burp.

[Aleatoriac]

Gotta support capitalism somehow don't I?

[EnGee]

Oh and I have also FL Studio producer and Samplitude x3! I forgot!

They are both great DAWs but I'm not good in either! I wish though I'm good in mixing in Samplitude. The plugs inside and the mixer are killers!

Anyway, I like my Bitwig/Maschine combo for now and I have no reason to change

[machinesworking]

I don't "use" multiple DAWs (though, some folks probably think that's all I do ), but I love to explore different products.

I have one primary product that I use, but every piece of software has an obvious workflow.

Ok then, which do you primarily use? From the outside world it looks like you're still searching.

[machinesworking]

So who's with me ? .... Multiple-DAW gang check in.

Not me, I think you're an idiot. Having spent many hours over the past few months painstakingly moving stuff from my old host to a new one, I can tell you for a fact that working across multiple host applications is a giant pain in the arse and a complete workflow killer.

For a start, it restricts you to only using VST instruments and effects and if you've paid a shit-tonne of money for Cubase Pro, for example, you'll be ignoring half of what you paid for. Which would be stupid.

After that you'll have to set up your mixer, adding send and insert effects manually, recreating channel groups, etc. all over again. None of your levels will be right, either, so you'll basically have to re-do your mix from scratch every time you move hosts, which would be even more stupid.

Patches will be another issue. You'll have to make sure you've saved a patch for every instrument and effect you have used, then load them all manually, one at a time, every time you change hosts. Putting yourself through that is the very definition of stupid.

You will run into more problems if you use external modulation generators (like those in Live and Bitwig), or even MIDI plugins, because they won't transfer across to another host. Yet those are good, solid reasons for choosing those hosts in the first place so, again, you're wasting your money buying those hosts and not using some of their best features/functionality. Which would be stupider still.

So that's four really good reasons to find one host, the one that involves the fewest compromises or the one you like to work in the most, and stick with it. Because working around it's shortcomings is going to be orders of magnitude less hassle than moving from host to host and I can guarantee it will also give you the best results. It goes under the category of "jack of all trades, master of none".

In terms of recreating a song from one DAW to another you're of course right.

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've moved an incomplete song over to another DAW. Mostly I've used Live along with another DAW Logic or DP, not rewired or anything etc. The main practice was to write the song in Live then export to DP for mixing and mastering. Or to use Live rewired into DP on occasion when writing in DP to use the stretch features of Live. That's all changed recently with DP10 getting most of Lives main unique features.

I'm pretty happy lately in DP10, but I'm also DAW curious, so I'm looking into Bitwig, it's very possible it's going to fit 99% of my needs. Learning a new DAW isn't that hard IMO.

[BONES]

if you actually were doing music for money like it was your job (with any measure of success), you wouldn't have time, nor the inclination, to endlessly whinge and moan and cry and argue ad nauseum in multiple forums about inane DAW vs DAW minutia.

I think most of us have jobs, yet we all find time to post here, don't we?

The main practice was to write the song in Live then export to DP for mixing and mastering.

Why? Mixing is the one thing I don't see any advantage in one host over another. They all have a mixer, the mixers all allow for insert and send effects, why would you go to the effort of transferring a half-finished piece to another host at that point? Honestly, it seems like the stupidest idea ever to me.

[anomandaris1]

Why? Mixing is the one thing I don't see any advantage in one host over another. They all have a mixer, the mixers all allow for insert and send effects, why would you go to the effort of transferring a half-finished piece to another host at that point? Honestly, it seems like the stupidest idea ever to me.

A quick browsing through the manuals of some EDM vs some "mixing" DAWs will answer this question. You are right that basic functionality is there, but it's not all about basic functionality when you have to deal with like a hundred stems. Plus, some DAWs were plagued for years with bad synchronization - not sure if even now you won't get phasing, if you try more complex routing in most EDM daws.

[roman.i]

Probably because there is already too much going on in this project. Bouncing projects to audio gives you a clean state in channel inserts and an opportunity move this project to a different DAW with a better mixer. Live's mixer is not in the same league as Cubase's or Studio one's.