SAW Studio 5 released...

[Hink]

Here is the skin I use it with.







E.

does its still use drop down menus for the eq because I cannot think of a worse way to use an essential tool like eq. With most you have either knobs or a graphic view for channel eqs (most actually have both). For instance in samp I right click the parametric channel eq and a graph style appears with 4 points on a 'curve'. I can change the type of slope (shleving, band pass etc) and those with an adjustable Q I can hover over that point and use the mouse wheel to adjust the Q, then grab the point to change the frequency and level (then I can switch back to a coventional knob display for frequency, level and Q).

With SAW (or from what I saw in the videos) you cna only adjust the level and the rest you have to use a dropdown menu which is basically hunt and peck for eq.

You already stated it is not 64 bit which for 2000 dollars is mind boggling.

I am still trying to find out what SAW does that makes it worth that much, btw FL studio has free upgrades, I paid rough 10% of the price of SAW with thte added midi in 02 and it does a lot more. So please spare me the free updates. Though I will admit Samp that I use mostly now is rather expensive to update it has a lightening fast workflow as does so many DAWs at 1/2 and 1/4 of the price of SAW (some maybe 1/8th the price)

I read the brochure (but could have missed some things), watched the videos and tbh (and I dont usually say these things)...I think it's a joke and worth 2% of the asking price (I am open to being proven wrong). Does it do Aux and submix busses? I did not see any mention of any form of autopunch but I assume it must have it. Obviously with 8 layers comping is not all that good, does it have restoration tools? Spectral editing? Is it object based? Does it have audio quantize? What about time streching? What about pitch correction?

I will not mention whether I think the gui is ugly or not because that changes and you get use to whatever fairly quickly...or at least I do. But what about keystrokes? Can you create and/or modify your own keystrokes?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just want to know why...what am I missing that makes it worth so much more than other hosts that appear to do so much more? It seems to me that if there are some advanced benefits/features it would be nice to know about them. Better yet, it would be nice to know if it's competitively priced because if it isn't you would think the developer might choose to lower the price to bring more people to SAW.

So what is it that makes it worth 2k without midi? Or am I correct in my aoriginal assumption that it's really best suited for live mixing and recording of shows (not a bad thing at all). I understand your point about being an HD recorder at heart, but let's look at that. How are you not better off going with a 24 track HD recorder like the tascam 2488 at 650 or the Zoom R24 over SAW basic.

SAW basic is 300 dollars, you will need an interface and for the same amount of physical ins and outs as the HD recorders you's likely not going to get away with less 500 dollars for a soundcard. For 500 dollars now you can get Samp Pro x withe everything except their am-suite and indy pro, so if you were starting a DAW, bought a pc, bought a soundcard and then wanted software why would you want to spend 300 dollars for what appears to me to be a very limted piece of software (talking basic here).

So really I am confused, I just do not see it

However I wish you luck with it and hope it works well for you

[Xenakios]

You already stated it is not 64 bit which for 2000 dollars is mind boggling.

It's an app written completely in assembler code, so to build a 64 bit version, Lentini would need to rewrite his whole codebase. You can guess the chances of that ever happening...

[spaceman]

You already stated it is not 64 bit which for 2000 dollars is mind boggling.

It's an app written completely in assembler code, so to build a 64 bit version, Lentini would need to rewrite his whole codebase. You can guess the chances of that ever happening...

If SAW Studio were a life form, it would be in a evolutionary dead end.
You could say it's the Panda of the computer aided music industry.

[No_Use]

So really I am confused, I just do not see it

It uses fixed point math which sounds better.

(I actually have no idea if it really sounds better, never tested it, but I've read threads some saying so.)

[skipkent]

I think the profound lack of "makin' beats" appeal is what generates the most derision from KVR.

that is an absurd and very wrong (IMO) generalization

Audio quantize, pitch correction, time stretching are some fairly cutting edge features that SAW is being criticized for lacking, features that are commonly advertised most ardently to bedroom musicians and solo producers. Of course these things are also used in formal studio environments, but such places generally will pick and choose their own 3rd party solutions (Melodyne, whatever) rather than demand that a software DAW contain or do everything under the sun.

Protools DOES all these things and is the industry standard, but I strongly believe this is because they want to attract a larger audience of bedroom producers into buying their product, and not that they're responding to demands made by the professional recording industry.

SAW users are clearly willing to pay for a stable environment that doesn't go through drastic changes too quickly, and that has a workflow and features suitable to them. They also clearly enjoy an almost realtime dialog and feedback with the developer, and seem to appreciate and even rely upon his vision.

REAPER clearly provides an interesting parallel at a much cheaper price, but also with a very different and less conservative design philosophy.

[Hink]

I think the profound lack of "makin' beats" appeal is what generates the most derision from KVR.

that is an absurd and very wrong (IMO) generalization

Audio quantize, pitch correction, time stretching are some fairly cutting edge features that SAW is being criticized for lacking, features that are commonly advertised most ardently to bedroom musicians and solo producers. Of course these things are also used in formal studio environments, but such places generally will pick and choose their own 3rd party solutions (Melodyne, whatever) rather than demand that a software DAW contain or do everything under the sun.

Protools DOES all these things and is the industry standard, but I strongly believe this is because they want to attract a larger audience of bedroom producers into buying their product, and not that they're responding to demands made by the professional recording industry.

As a bedroom 'producer' myself, I look for these things too, but SAW is not clamoring for my attention. We don't see ads for SAW Studio in Future Music magazine for a reason. That's not the audience it's intended for, and while I may be wrong, I think that audience composes the bulk of folks commenting here at KVR. Point taken that could be an unfair generalization.

SAW users are clearly willing to pay for a stable environment that doesn't go through drastic changes too quickly, and that has a workflow and features suitable to them. They also clearly enjoy an almost realtime dialog and feedback with the developer, and seem to appreciate and even rely upon his vision.

REAPER clearly provides an interesting parallel at a much cheaper price, but also with a very different and less conservative design philosophy.

I see your point, but spaceman's post is imo very accurate. Take away everything you talk about, using dropdown menus for the frequency and Q is a show stopper for me. That certainly is not quicker and if fact it looks to me that SAW is so antiquated that I question whether the reason it's not more advertised and not very popular here is not because we do not understand it but because of the opposite...not many of us are willing to take huge steps backwards for outdated software because most of us can see it is quite limited compared to our hosts of choice at a fraction of the price.

I took exception with your first comment because so many here do not make beats (some of us are very old school) and we can see the advantage of a host geared more for just audio work. But between that comment and this one where you say it's because it does not appeal to bedroom producers you have gone from bad to worse as if either there are professionals or bedroom producers...I am neither, I am a recording artist/musician. Music is not my hobby nor my profession, it is my passion which comes above either profession or hobby so once again I do take exception with your generalization (but not offense).

We do not see Saw studio in Future Music because it is so far in the past it has no place in Future Music...YMMV and none of this is personal

FWIW my question has still not been answered, what makes it worth the price? The answer seems to be it isn't for those of us educated in the industry, but if he can keep getting it from his loyal customers that's all that matters. I find that disturbing

[teomi]

Just wait for the screencast boys. Using items from a dropdown menu is just one way. There are knobs and buttons for everything and you can work with most control surfaces as well.

The only real comparable DAW to SAW is PT (other than MIDI) in the sense that it relies on kbrd shortcuts knowledge to really get up to speed with it.

I would say 99% of people that felt underwhelmed with SawStudio were the ones that didn't want to spend the time needed to pass the short yet crucial learning curve.

SAW Studio does not follow common windows procedures. So the use of mouse gestures is quite different compared to anything else.

I won't comment whether it's sounding better or not.

E

[Hink]

Just wait for the screencast boys. Using items from a dropdown menu is just one way. There are knobs and buttons for everything and you can work with most control surfaces as well.

The only real comparable DAW to SAW is PT (other than MIDI) in the sense that it relies on kbrd shortcuts knowledge to really get up to speed with it.

I would say 99% of people that felt underwhelmed with SawStudio were the ones that didn't want to spend the time needed to pass the short yet crucial learning curve.

SAW Studio does not follow common windows procedures. So the use of mouse gestures is quite different compared to anything else.

I won't comment whether it's sounding better or not.

E

obviously you have very limited experience with other hosts

The only real comparable DAW to SAW is PT (other than MIDI) in the sense that it relies on kbrd shortcuts knowledge to really get up to speed with it

That is a joke and a half, have you tried cubase (I never have), sonar, studio one, samplitude, sequoia, neundo, and many others...I cant wait for this video you make but. FWIW keystroke is the same thing as keyboard shortcuts and this is not some new technology, I know samplitude and AA do this very well (samp is also skinable). I have not tried SAW, I have asked you direct questions and one of them you answered directly...it's not 64 bit. Other than that no other questions have been answered and tbh I can not be bothered to even attempt to demo it when I have something that does everything I need very, very, well and has the customer base to back this up.

The same holds true with many other hosts available for many users, but once again if it works for you that's great but if I am going to even think about spending 2000 dollars for all those limitations it better do some things that are decades ahead of the rest, not behind

EDIT: also working with controllers is not something unique either

[skipkent]

We do not see Saw studio in Future Music because it is so far in the past it has no place in Future Music...YMMV and none of this is personal.

Understood. I disagree about being stuck in the past. SAW was never going to be prominently displayed in Electronic Musician or Keyboard Magazine 15 or 20 years ago either. The big apps then were midi sequencers for outboard synths, for the bedroom producers of the time.

'Bedroom producer' sounds like a pejorative, but it doesn't have to be. When you get into professional songwriting and film scoring, some of those bedrooms can be pretty damn big!

To me, a 'bedroom producer' is someone who largely works producing music alone. A single app that does almost everything out of the box like PT or Cubase is perfect, and SAW will understandably make no or little sense to prospective DAW shoppers.

For someone doing (and editing) live multi-track events in or out of the studio, ProTools will perhaps be the obvious ('industry standard') choice, but for some an app like SAW will, if scrutinized with an open mind, offer an interesting alternative. Integrated TCP/IP control and a dedicated live sound application (along with the support of the developer and an active community) are fairly bold and innovative features not easily found (or supported) elsewhere. Workflow and editing is subjective, but clearly some users familiar with other platforms still get a lot done in SAW.

[Hink]

We do not see Saw studio in Future Music because it is so far in the past it has no place in Future Music...YMMV and none of this is personal.

Understood. I disagree about being stuck in the past. SAW was never going to be prominently displayed in Electronic Musician or Keyboard Magazine 15 or 20 years ago either. The big apps then were midi sequencers for outboard synths, for the bedroom producers of the time.

'Bedroom producer' sounds like a pejorative, but it doesn't have to be. When you get into professional songwriting and film scoring, some of those bedrooms can be pretty damn big!

To me, a 'bedroom producer' is someone who largely works producing music alone. A single app that does almost everything out of the box like PT or Cubase is perfect, and SAW will understandably make no or little sense to prospective DAW shoppers.

For someone doing (and editing) live multi-track events in or out of the studio, ProTools will perhaps be the obvious ('industry standard') choice, but for some an app like SAW will, if scrutinized with an open mind, offer an interesting alternative. Integrated TCP/IP control and a dedicated live sound application (along with the support of the developer and an active community) are fairly bold and innovative features not easily found (or supported) elsewhere. Workflow and editing is subjective, but clearly some users familiar with other platforms still get a lot done in SAW.

fair enough though I think you might find that for many 'professionals' doing film scoring and such Samplitude/Sequoia is their choice and because it imports and exports OMF it's even better. I know because I use Samp, their forums are for users only and there are a lot of just such producers who are not musicains and make their living doing audio for films, ads, websites, musicians, games and much more. The developrs are active on the forum and the forum is a tremendous place to learn from some very bright engineers and producers.

I still think SAW is more aimed at the live aspect as I have stated for mixing and recording shows, you seem to back that up a little

[Stupid American Pig]

Moores Law has made SAW studio irrelevant IMHO. when we had 1/10th of the cpu power we do now, I can maybe see the need for assembler. However, at this point in time, I would use a .NET or Java host if it offered the workflow/features and stability that I need. I rarely use over 25% of my CPU on anything I work on these days. Keybindings are just that, bindings. They can be changed... For, instance, I use sonar key bindings in Logic since I have so much experience with Cakewalk that when I switched to Logic it was just easier to work with the old keyboard shortcuts. Paying extra for midi functionality is another anachronism in SAW.

However, who the f**k am I. If he can make the app and find people that are happy then more power to him, Im just some guy who isnt in his target market...

[Dean Aka Nekro]

I am a believer now,and I really believe that I will not see the day SAW studio is part of my studio

drop down eq frequencies and "Q"s?

A Dream!

These videos are from 10 years ago guys.

I think I need to make this screencast after all...

But again, not trying to convince anyone.

Eitan

But Dear Eitan, You 'Get' The Dream

What's to convince? With all of that assembly language power and the ability to synchronize multiple windows and all, well, I'm convinced.

A Dream!

Here is the skin I use it with.







E.

Unbelievable Power + The Dream. I Built It

Awesome, Funky Fusion-Style "Blues Jam". Love the bald guy with no top on but a daper half open black shirt Oh he wants to overdub some harmony guitar parts, BRB. Bobby.L xox

Get the Full 45 page Bob Lentini Story right here:
http://www.rmllabs.com/Biography.htm

I'm Set and Were rollin' - Bob Lentini

[Hink]

but...but...that story itself seems to be out of date (I admit I jumped to the last page) and it says

Already in development and at the beta stage, is the forthcoming Midi Workshop add-on to the SAWStudio core engine, offering a full MIDI sequencing environment, and again opening up potential for another niche market.

But that's out now

I dont live in realtime either so

Seriously though I am not putting down the software, I'm just stunned by the price in today's market. If the full version was 300-400 dollars without midi it would not be the same, but 2k is waaaaaaay over the top for what I have seen.

It probably is awesome software but scooters these days are a great way to get around, but would they be if they cost as much as a harley?

[jsp1979]

You guys have it all wrong.

Instead of trying to make Saw Studio into Reaper, we should be going the other way around by making Reaper into Saw Studio.

We could start by making a Saw Studio skin for Reaper...

[strangedogs]

I'll wager they have LESS than 1% of the DAW market. The price is outrageous and it looks like an old 8-bit app.