Which Daw has the tightest internal midi?

[NAS]

Renoise IS a DAW, ffs. Guess to some people, it's not a DAW unless it has a piano roll.

*cue smug douchebag eye rolling emoticon*

Renoise is a modern tracker with exceptional abilities. No where does the company even claim to be a DAW.

www.renoise.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracker_(music_software)



Try recording a band in Renoise. Something like, a school marching band. That is pretty simple, right? Certainly not the Philharmonic, certainly not the PT acrobats of Kings Of leon, and the like.

You can record any marching band you like in a real daw. Certainly not in Renoise. But go ahead, give it a shot. If you can do it, pass the ketchup, on that day...... I'll eat my hat!

Erm Digital Audio Workstation
Hmmmmmmm wouldn't trackers have been the first ever DAWs

1 Qouting wikipedia never a good thing
2 If you have to qoute wikipedia actaully read it first (renoise does record and edit audio)

Yes it may not be a DAW as YOU think of it but yes it is a DAW

NAS

[JoseC.]

Erm Digital Audio Workstation
Hmmmmmmm wouldn't trackers have been the first ever DAWs

No.

The first DAW would be Digidesign's Sound Designer (1989). The first sequencer ever to include digital audio was Opcode's Studiovision (1990), that integrated the Sound Designer platform for audio.

[ckatrun411]

Oh wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute... what's this here?



http://mirror.renoise.com/about/reviews/


"If you're looking for a powerful digital audio workstation that doesn't come with a heavy price tag but is supported by a huge number of enthusiastic users, Renoise will certainly appeal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:D ... n_software

Ooh, what's THAT on that list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renoise
"Renoise is a contemporary digital audio workstation (DAW) based upon the heritage and development of tracker software. "

ORLY

I guess you can go ahead and shut your pie hole right about now.

I guess they are trying to market it as a DAW. I think Renoise makes a shit piece of DAW software. Its a great tracker, but as far as DAW's are concerned, its pathetic.

Shame on them..


Marketing Renoise as a modern tracker, with minimal audio features, would be, "truth in advertising." Anybody who doesn't wish to suck software cock can see this.

Renoise can be torn to shreds if you wish to compare its audio and mixing capabilities with that of Reaper, and they are both in the same price range.. So, its a fair fight, imho! One is a tracker, the other is a DAW.


Renoise has limited audio abilities, to say the least!

[LawrenceF]

Erm Digital Audio Workstation
Hmmmmmmm wouldn't trackers have been the first ever DAWs

No.

The first DAW would be Digidesign's Sound Designer (1989). The first sequencer ever to include digital audio was Opcode's Studiovision (1990), that integrated the Sound Designer platform for audio.

Not quite...

The first digital audio workstation was developed by Bob Ingebretsen and Jim Youngberg at Soundstream in the late 1970s, using a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-11 minicomputer. It ran a custom software package called "DAP" (for Digital Audio Processor) for digital audio editing and audio effects such as crossfades.

[JoseC.]

Erm Digital Audio Workstation
Hmmmmmmm wouldn't trackers have been the first ever DAWs

No.

The first DAW would be Digidesign's Sound Designer (1989). The first sequencer ever to include digital audio was Opcode's Studiovision (1990), that integrated the Sound Designer platform for audio.

Not quite...

The first digital audio workstation was developed by Bob Ingebretsen and Jim Youngberg at Soundstream in the late 1970s, using a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-11 minicomputer. It ran a custom software package called "DAP" (for Digital Audio Processor) for digital audio editing and audio effects such as crossfades.

LOL that is unfair

Bet that somebody comes now unearthing some tracker that ran on Sperry UNIVACS.

[dgkenney]

The first digital audio workstation was developed by Bob Ingebretsen and Jim Youngberg at Soundstream in the late 1970s, using a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-11 minicomputer. It ran a custom software package called "DAP" (for Digital Audio Processor) for digital audio editing and audio effects such as crossfades.

Phfft! It didn't have ADC, Freeze or at least faster than real-time bounce and it required proprietary hardware to run. Nobody would use something like that.

Dan

[JoseC.]

Phfft! It didn't have ADC, Freeze or at least faster than real-time bounce and it required proprietary hardware to run. Nobody would use something like that.

Dan

Yes...almost like an MPC...who would use that?

[audiouser720]

So what was the conclusion of this topic? Read all pages through but didn’t get which DAW has the best internal midi timing...

[Passing Bye]

[trewq]

Another interpretation of it might be: which daw has the least internal bloat that interferes with internal timing, which is the most legit definition of feature bloat.

All the midi tools should be in a separate binary from the audio for the best timing IMO.

[excuse me please]

Did not read everything, I work exact on the beat in the sequencer of my DAW.

Observed that although my DAW has a tuning accuracy of 1/1000 BPM, the beat drifts of pretty soon when I try to figure out the exact - by approach - BPM of my reference tracks.

Understandable, because 1/1000 of a BPM at 120 BPM is 0.5 ms, 0.1% of a beat. So after 1000 beats (500s) one whole beat is missing. After 250 beats a sixteenth note is missing. Crazy, when one thinks of it.

1/10.000 of a BPM would be far better indication.

So yeah, a whole track synchronically comes down to a few microsec. Fascinating subject btw

[vurt]

So what was the conclusion of this topic? Read all pages through but didn’t get which DAW has the best internal midi timing...

even if you had, i imagine things might change in 11 years

[antic604]

Understandable, because 1/1000 of a BPM at 120 BPM is 0.5 ms, 0.1% of a beat. So after 1000 beats (500s) one whole beat is missing. After 250 beats a sixteenth note is missing. Crazy, when one thinks of it.

That doesn't sound right. The fact that something can be discretely quantised in a more granular way, doesn't mean you're loosing something other than precision - you might not be able to place the notes ideally where they should be, but I can't see how you're missing a 16th note?

[excuse me please]

Understandable, because 1/1000 of a BPM at 120 BPM is 0.5 ms, 0.1% of a beat. So after 1000 beats (500s) one whole beat is missing. After 250 beats a sixteenth note is missing. Crazy, when one thinks of it.

That doesn't sound right. The fact that something can be discretely quantised in a more granular way, doesn't mean you're loosing something other than precision - you might not be able to place the notes ideally where they should be, but I can't see how you're missing a 16th note?

The beat in my DAW drifts off a 16th note after 250 beats at 120 BPM compared to my reference tracks, because I can't get closer than 1/1000 BPM by matter of indication. While at 32rds things get critical in my perception. About 11.6 ms. So that's after 125 beats: 62.5 seconds. Not exactly the length of an average track. I would not start about 140 BPM

[audiouser720]

So what was the conclusion of this topic? Read all pages through but didn’t get which DAW has the best internal midi timing...

even if you had, i imagine things might change in 11 years

But what if I want to know what DAW had the tightest midi back in 2010 so I can sound as tight as 2010?