KVR Audio

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:16 pm

Atardecer wrote: I find it interesting that you're very interested in Bitwig yet you have zero interest in Live. They are effectively the same program with the same workflow. Not trolling, just curious

+1 especially given that your knowledge of Bitwig Studio is based on some screen shots and no more, and also bearing in mind you know nothing of the forthcoming Live 9 features...

philliptwenty · Post by **philliptwenty** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:23 pm

Atardecer wrote:
I find it interesting that you're very interested in Bitwig yet you have zero interest in Live. They are effectively the same program with the same workflow. Not trolling, just curious

headquest wrote:
+1 especially given that your knowledge of Bitwig Studio is based on some screen shots and no more, and also bearing in mind you know nothing of the forthcoming Live 9 features...

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:28 pm

Bitwig is getting a lot of mileage out of these comparisons....

And, since all we have are screenshots of the GUI, how is this going to serve as evidence that it is live that they copied? I'd think that maybe what needs be explained is that the devs did come from Ableton .... so, of course it is going to look like live...but I'd rather have it here before I make conclusions about its workflow....

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:43 pm

trimph1 wrote:Bitwig is getting a lot of mileage out of these comparisons....

Looks their plan is working extremely well.

UI, features (More than few) and workflow comparisons with Live on various forums.

BW have effectively created a buzz that suggests should one mention Live, BWS will almost certainly be mentioned as an alternative.

If that was the plan...it is definitely working.

SLiC · Post by **SLiC** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:49 pm

All linear/timeline sequencers (cubase/logic/protools etc.) essentially look and work the same so why not some none linear 'clip based' competition?

Good Luck BigWig- Who knows, if the main sequencer is good I may be able to drop Live 8 and Cubase 6 for an integrated solutio

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:52 pm

SLiC wrote:All linear/timeline sequencers (cubase/logic/protools etc.) essentially look and work the same so why not some none linear 'clip based' competition?

Good point. Yes there are probably just as many similarities between other hosts (maybe more feature for feature) as there are between BWS and Live.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:53 pm

SLiC wrote:All linear/timeline sequencers (cubase/logic/protools etc.) essentially look and work the same so why not some none linear 'clip based' competition?

Good Luck BigWig- Who knows, if the main sequencer is good I may be able to drop Live 8 and Cubase 6 for an integrated solutio

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:55 pm

Indeed it is probably the reason why one can (for the most part anyway) get up and running with hosts without spending much time with a manual. A long list of similarities IMO.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:08 pm

It's also why we can (if we are experienced using any of these software tools) actually tell a heck of a lot from intelligent observation of the screen shots

I'll certainly help out with the beta if selected, and either way will try the demo. There's a chance it could be the dream tool I have long waited for. I would be amazed if at version 1.0 it contains all of the stuff I rely on in Live 8 (a lot of which is NOT included in their description or visible in any of the screenshots) as well as the new features they advertise, but I'm always willing to be amazed

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:17 pm

I think we should align our expectations with probable reality. It's often the case that a new DAW gets announced and people expect it to have everything and do everything right, and that's usually not the case.

Once this goes public the feature requests for things they didn't think of (or think of in the correct way) will begin. It's only a 1.0 so that list will be very long.

I've not yet seen a 1.0 dream tool... only the possible beginning of what might eventually be that. You know how it goes, early excitement and they you slowly start to discover flaws and/or irritations.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:20 pm

@ Lawrence: +1

Some sanity here

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:31 pm

headquest wrote:@ Lawrence: +1

Some sanity here

Well, yeah. A developer could probably write PT, a DAW that does everything PT does, just as well as PT, with every feature, before even releasing it... but it would take a very, very long time and he wouldn't be making any money at all along the way.

So they don't do that.

It's a 1.0 and you can bet that 3.0 will be a far better beast, whatever it is.

My curiosity about Bitwig is more about how they'll approach the other stuff, support, bug fixes, updates. If they're really slow that will be a bummer.

4damind · Post by **4damind** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:31 pm

I agree. Eventually we see a design idea/workflow better than Live. Maybe it will be a game changer and the new DAW of choice for many users. But I see also some similarities with Studio One. Also from formerly developers of a big DAW (Cubase). Becomes much attention and new users which switched from other DAWs. But there are also bugs and missing features.

I expect the same with Bitwig.

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:52 pm

headquest wrote:It's also why we can (if we are experienced using any of these software tools) actually tell a heck of a lot from intelligent observation of the screen shots

I'll certainly help out with the beta if selected, and either way will try the demo. There's a chance it could be the dream tool I have long waited for. I would be amazed if at version 1.0 it contains all of the stuff I rely on in Live 8 (a lot of which is NOT included in their description or visible in any of the screenshots) as well as the new features they advertise, but I'm always willing to be amazed

Agreed on all points

I think I may be in a minority here but the biggest draw for me with BWS is the similarities it has with Project 5...
...not Ableton Live.

The split Clip / session view and the arranger in the same single view is a huge deal for me.

I was never too comfortable with Live's tabbed switching between the Arranger and Sesssion view. I just prefer to drag as in P5.

Hopefully and this is my only concern ATM...when the BWS beta period starts it will not last longer than Ohm Studios. IIRC that was originally announced back in April of 2010 almost 2 years ago!

I definitely prefer Devs to take as long as they like until a product is ready but just hope BW do not need 18+ months to get a stable product out of the door

Echoes in the Attic · Post by **Echoes in the Attic** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:59 pm

zerocrossing wrote:
SLiC wrote:All linear/timeline sequencers (cubase/logic/protools etc.) essentially look and work the same so why not some none linear 'clip based' competition?

Good Luck BigWig- Who knows, if the main sequencer is good I may be able to drop Live 8 and Cubase 6 for an integrated solutio
That's exactly what I'm thinking.

I'm thinking the same. I've never been comfortable in Live's arrangement view. A lot of it may be aesthetic, but I just feel it's messy. So I still have Logic for more complex (non live) type stuff and have been eyeing Studio One.

I'd move to Bitwig as an all-in-one but I suspect I'll find too many things missing from Live at first to switch. Sometimes it's only when you try a different program that you realize the things you really dependant on. With Live it's mainly hardware integration. If Bitwig doesn't have a means of assigning macro in groups of eight, which are activated by selecting a given track (from the APC40), I wouldn't go. Just that one feature alone would prevent me from switching.

It would be crazy for a live performance oriented host to not have a great hardware mapping method, but I feel that would have been one of their major features mentioned in the current overview.

Bitwig (!/?)