digital performer compared to other daws?

[fmr]

The issue is that in OS X, on the same resolution, everything looks great (but still a bit small).

Maybe it's the quality of the monitor display? Macs usually have high quality monitors, while in Windows we tend to buy cheaper ones (I speak for myself of course). I bought a second monitor this summer, and I was amazed at how cleaner and brighter the image and the colours are in this new one.

On my iMac, OTOH, no mattre if it's Mac OS or Windows (yes, I have both there), images and colours always looked crisp and bright.

[woggle]

I am finding the size of some components of some windows too small in DP. Otherwise it seems very good but the size problem will be a problem if it is not just my inexperience with the program. Cubase seems to have its own issues - I guess everything does - not having bezier automation is a no go for me if that turns out true but I will test it this week sometime. Then Samplitude.

[Robert Randolph]

The issue is that in OS X, on the same resolution, everything looks great (but still a bit small).

Maybe it's the quality of the monitor display? Macs usually have high quality monitors, while in Windows we tend to buy cheaper ones (I speak for myself of course). I bought a second monitor this summer, and I was amazed at how cleaner and brighter the image and the colours are in this new one.

On my iMac, OTOH, no mattre if it's Mac OS or Windows (yes, I have both there), images and colours always looked crisp and bright.

On the exact same systems, with the same display, DP windows version looks awful to me. It's also possible to take a screenshot of the issue, so it's definitely not a display problem.

It's just something to do with their windows layer.

[Robert Randolph]

I am finding the size of some components of some windows too small in DP. Otherwise it seems very good but the size problem will be a problem if it is not just my inexperience with the program. Cubase seems to have its own issues - I guess everything does - not having bezier automation is a no go for me if that turns out true but I will test it this week sometime. Then Samplitude.

<edit: I'm not going to have this discussion again>

Cubase has curved automation. No DAW that I know of has true beziers with node control.

[woggle]

I am finding the size of some components of some windows too small in DP. Otherwise it seems very good but the size problem will be a problem if it is not just my inexperience with the program. Cubase seems to have its own issues - I guess everything does - not having bezier automation is a no go for me if that turns out true but I will test it this week sometime. Then Samplitude.

<edit: I'm not going to have this discussion again>

Cubase has curved automation. No DAW that I know of has true beziers with node control.

okay, replace bezier with spline - no splines is a problem for automation for me - both visually and audibly. If curves were unimportant then we would just use linear crossfades and most if not all DAWs have a range of crossfading options. An alternative is to draw curves - which is clumsier.

aah - I see your edit, curves in Cubase is not what I had heard so I am pleased about that

[Silaris]

Digital Performer 9 (DP9) is one of the three DAWs that I primarily use to create music. The others are Samplitude Pro X3 Suite and Studio One 3 Professional.

DP9 is a great music production environment, especially as it relates to A/V, but it might be somewhat confusing, at first, because its workflow is slightly different than most other popular DAWs. With that said, DP9 is too feature rich to provide a detail analysis via forum post. The best advice, as has been mentioned, is to download and thoroughly test the 30 day demo. Also, in order to get acquainted DP9's terminology, scanning through the manual, reading reviews and watching video tutorials would be helpful before using DP9.

The only negative I can truly state about DP9 is the small font size reflected on the GUI screens. There are several skins provided with DP9, which might slightly improve a user's ability to read text within the DAW. Over time, when I better understood DP9's layout, the font size issue bothered me less.

[do_androids_dream]

Hi, I have pretty much given up on Reaper and am looking for a more professional product with consistent long term design and functionality. I am using win10 and do not want to have to switch to a Mac. Much of my work now is video based with intricate editing of audio and I think that is likely to continue. Digital Performer seems to have a good reputation and strong functionality for video and audio - not so sure about midi which I don't use much anyway. I do not make pop music, rock, dance or anything like that so something like Live or Bitwig is probably not what I am wanting. Alternatives seem to be Samplitude and Cubase - although pricewise Cubase seems comparatively expensive. I have no need for any additional content like instruments and fx.

Thoughts on Digital Performer/Samplitude/Cubase ?

Hmm.. 'intricate editing of audio'.. That's one of Reaper's strengths. 'Professional' is defined as whether professionals use it. I use it because it's the most capable DAW out there for audio editing and mixing.

"I've no doubt Reaper can do what I want, it's just I'm getting older and not willing to spare the time"

Interesting comment - but you're willing to spend the time to learn a whole new DAW - it can take months or even years to really get to know a DAW. It's very likely you already have what you need. If you simply want a change then that's different.

[koolkeys]

Hi, I have pretty much given up on Reaper and am looking for a more professional product with consistent long term design and functionality. I am using win10 and do not want to have to switch to a Mac. Much of my work now is video based with intricate editing of audio and I think that is likely to continue. Digital Performer seems to have a good reputation and strong functionality for video and audio - not so sure about midi which I don't use much anyway. I do not make pop music, rock, dance or anything like that so something like Live or Bitwig is probably not what I am wanting. Alternatives seem to be Samplitude and Cubase - although pricewise Cubase seems comparatively expensive. I have no need for any additional content like instruments and fx.

Thoughts on Digital Performer/Samplitude/Cubase ?

Hmm.. 'intricate editing of audio'.. That's one of Reaper's strengths. 'Professional' is defined as whether professionals use it. I use it because it's the most capable DAW out there for audio editing and mixing.

I think you are confusing what he is wanting with audio editing. Don't get me wrong, Reaper has plenty of power. But compared to the likes of Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer and Samplitude, Reaper lags behind greatly. It all depends on what you need it for though. No doubt that Reaper's audio editing features will be enough for some and not for others.

"I've no doubt Reaper can do what I want, it's just I'm getting older and not willing to spare the time"

Interesting comment - but you're willing to spend the time to learn a whole new DAW - it can take months or even years to really get to know a DAW. It's very likely you already have what you need. If you simply want a change then that's different.

The problem with Reaper, despite all its power (I own and use it myself, though not nearly as much as I used to, more for testing purposes these days), is that it simply isn't intuitive. I know, I know, Reapers users will tell you it is brilliant in simplicity and that they got tracks going seconds after launching. But when it comes to consistency of paradigm, Reaper is confusing. It doesn't have the same type of flow that many other programs have. Everything is tossed together independently without respect to how it all fits together. Even the entire MIDI editing itself was originally built as nothing more than a plugin and not a part of the core program (that may have changed over time, but just making a point).

Reaper is great. A ton of power if you are willing to dig in and learn the intricate parts of the action system and scripting, and if you want extreme routing scenarios, there is no doubt Reaper shines. But I would argue that it is no easier to master than something like Digital Performer (though for different reasons). And DP gets you far more powerful features for the film composer and audio editor, and MIDI editing even for those who use virtual instruments. Both can do things the other can't, but there is a reason why DP is so widely used for scoring work.

So I think beyond the actual learning curve, I believe the reason Woggle is giving up on Reaper isn't because it isn't a good program, or he isn't willing to learn a new workflow. It's that Reaper doesn't really HAVE the workflow he needs. He isn't willing to continue tweaking endless hotkeys and macros and actions and options to create workarounds that he can do inherently in other hosts. Because in the end, for better or for worse, that's the key to Reaper. And many people simply prefer something that feels cohesive and consistent, which Reaper is not.

Again, I like Reaper. I've used it a ton over the years. But just being honest from my perspective.

Brent

[woggle]

'Professional' is defined as whether professionals use it.

I don't think that is how "Professional" is defined nor is it how it is used here. Reaper - as a tool - lacks coherent design quality across all scales. Typically Reaper has good quality algorithm design and implementation but relatively poor visual and user experience design. This is a common observation about Reaper and distinguishes Reaper from more professional products where design and implementation are considered more carefully throughout. As far as professionalism goes it is neither here nor there if a particular function is or is not implemented. It is also neither here nor there if people use it in paid work just as it is not the case that cow shit is professional because numerous uses are made of it in paid employment.

[Dúnedain]

Is DP still missing audio instrument tracks? Setting up a midi channel, setting up an virtual instrument, setting up an audio channel, getting tired thinking about it.

[do_androids_dream]

'Professional' is defined as whether professionals use it.

I don't think that is how "Professional" is defined..

Er.. yes it is If a professional person uses a tool to perform his profession then, simply by this fact alone, that tool is 'professional'. I can't see how you can dispute that.

[fmr]

Is DP still missing audio instrument tracks? Setting up a midi channel, setting up an virtual instrument, setting up an audio channel, getting tired thinking about it.

Actually, although I didn't like it at first, to me this is the best way to do things. This way, any multitmbral synth is used up to its full potential. One instance of Kontakt, for example, can have multiple MIDI tracks addressed to it.
The paradigm is very simple - MIDI is MIDI, and audio is audio. In the old days, we would this the same way, except that the synths were outside (hardware). Now they are inside the box (software). Eben in Cubase, I usually unstantiate the instruments as Rack Instruments, and then create MIDI tracks and choose the MIDI out in them. It's more flexible. More and more, this became my working paradigm. Instrument tracks are not as flexible.

[lfm]

It's more flexible. More and more, this became my working paradigm. Instrument tracks are not as flexible.

I like rack instruments as well, but seems that Steinberg almost deprecate them.

Track archives does not allow you to save and restore rack instruments, only track instruments which now been extended since 7.5 or so with multiple outs. And the new ability in 8.5 to import selected tracks from another project is even less useful where no routings are maintained. Steinberg seems to lack an overall longterm plan how things should be, it's pretty much a programmer addition of something in a new feature.

I think Sonar solution is the best, synths always end up in the synth rack - but you can choose the little dialog wizard and do simple instrument tracks which keeps it together on one track for you. And everything works as track templates too, with busses and routings and all - very easy to reuse parts of old projects.

The VRack in DP is good too, and allow for chunks in timeline to be reused elsewhere. Main problem for me was that no midi clip containers to easily handle a natural group of midi.

[woggle]

'Professional' is defined as whether professionals use it.

I don't think that is how "Professional" is defined..

Er.. yes it is If a professional person uses a tool to perform his profession then, simply by this fact alone, that tool is 'professional'. I can't see how you can dispute that.

think it through, your defn can't possibly be correct, even within common usage. Under your definition a biro tube is a professional tool as doctors have been known to use them in emergency surgery, and coconut water is a professional medical tool as it has been used as an IV fluid (don't try it at home)

Being used by a professional as a tool does not necessarily mean it is a professional tool.

[do_androids_dream]

'Professional' is defined as whether professionals use it.

I don't think that is how "Professional" is defined..

Er.. yes it is If a professional person uses a tool to perform his profession then, simply by this fact alone, that tool is 'professional'. I can't see how you can dispute that.

think it through, your defn can't possibly be correct, even within common usage. Under your definition a biro tube is a professional tool as doctors have been known to use them in emergency surgery, and coconut water is a professional medical tool as it has been used as an IV fluid (don't try it at home)

Being used by a professional as a tool does not necessarily mean it is a professional tool.

Oh man lol.. I forgot I was at KVR..