Do all DAWs suck?

[chk071]

I never understood Ableton either. Granted, i only tried it briefly very few times though.

[Elektronisch]

I never understood Ableton either. Granted, i only tried it briefly very few times though.

Ive spent a handful of time with Ableton while collaborating on music. At first sigt it looks so simple and easy to use, but gosh its so not at all, especialy when everything looks so cluttered already with 16 tracks and all the automations. I can only imagine how everything would be messy with working with 60-70 and more tracks + bunch of fx each mixer chanel.

Who knows maybe its a daw not for me. But so far FL Studio and Studio One are my choices

[ENV1]

An appropriate qoute for this thread:

"It's a bad tradesman what blames his tools"

Which of course is one of the dumbest things that have ever been said.

Obviously you cant perform brain surgery with a hammer, so this insinuation that anyone who criticises a tool is really just lacking the skill to properly use it is just ridiculous.

I really wonder who came up with this nonsense.

[thecontrolcentre]

Live's not for people who use 60-70 tracks per project (imho). I use it exclusively, but couldn't imagine needing more than 10-12 tracks for a tune. YMMV

[chk071]

An appropriate qoute for this thread:

"It's a bad tradesman what blames his tools"

Which of course is one of the dumbest things that have ever been said.

Obviously you cant perform brain surgery with a hammer, so this insinuation that anyone who criticises a tool is really just lacking the skill to properly use it is just ridiculous.

I really wonder who came up with this nonsense.

Finally, someone with a bit of common sense left.

[slipstick]

An appropriate qoute for this thread:

"It's a bad tradesman what blames his tools"

Which of course is one of the dumbest things that have ever been said.

Obviously you cant perform brain surgery with a hammer, so this insinuation that anyone who criticises a tool is really just lacking the skill to properly use it is just ridiculous.

I really wonder who came up with this nonsense.

Probably someone who was bright enough to realise that it's a REALLY bad tradesman who can't even choose the appropriate tool for the job. If you ever spot anyone attempting brain surgery with a hammer....it may be a fine hammer but it's definitely a seriously rubbish brain surgeon.

Steve

[ENV1]

Its a stupid thing to say, plain and simple.

Even with all the skill in the world, the quality of your work will always stand and fall with the capability of your tools.

Take a mixing engineer. A real good one with decades of experience. Give him a folder full of stems, a copy of REAPER without stock plugins, and a handful of really crummy EQ/Comp/Verb/etc plugins. I tell you right now it wont be long until he realizes that his skill keeps getting defeated by the lousy quality of the plugins and that he has no chance in hell to get anywhere close to the result he envisions. Does that make him a bad craftsman blaming his tools? Of course not, he is still a pro with decades of experience, and if it werent for the crummy tools he has to work with his mix would probably be fine in no time.


Oh well, just saying. Theres so many 'wisdoms' out there that are getting repeated over and over even though when you think about it theyre actually pretty stupid and make no sense at all. This is one of them.

[Kinh]

Live's not for people who use 60-70 tracks per project (imho). I use it exclusively, but couldn't imagine needing more than 10-12 tracks for a tune. YMMV

That's an interesting perspective but my tracks easily exceed 60 tracks and the workflow is virtually the same as it was with 10. I dont even name or color tracks. When you familiarize yourself with the process, things get easier. I use 2 monitors when the sessions get big. The second is arrangement view, from there I can see the meter lights go up and down on each track and I locate them in seconds. When I work on a segment in the song all the tracks are close together anyway - when you create a new track it puts it next to the previous.

[saturdaysaint]

Take a mixing engineer. A real good one with decades of experience. Give him a folder full of stems, a copy of REAPER without stock plugins, and a handful of really crummy EQ/Comp/Verb/etc plugins. I tell you right now it wont be long until he realizes that his skill keeps getting defeated by the lousy quality of the plugins and that he has no chance in hell to get anywhere close to the result he envisions.

It's insane how much people overrate technology here. All of the good engineers I've worked with can get impressive results with stock, 90's-era Pro Tools eqs and comps, without even trying particularly hard. The source audio is generally 1,000 times more critical to mix than whatever EQ you're using to gently cut a certain frequency.

[chk071]

True. Yet, shitty tools can pretty much mess up the end result, regardless of the skill. Let's pick up the "source audio" point. Minimoog or Steinberg Model-E, which would you think gives you a better source audio result? Why would the tools which bring the end result differ from that?

See, i won't even dismiss the argument that a great audio engineer will be able to achieve decent results with stock plugins. But, which great audio engineer really mixes with stock plugins? None. Because they're always looking for that last bit of quality in their work. Otherwise they wouldn't be "great" audio engineers.

[Zexila]

Everything goes into end result, but these days on forums I think it's just over the top pissing contest of golden ears and GAS excuses more than anything, we got hi quality tools for all pockets that get's the job done and difference between them isn't that big as some folks make it look like.

[Resonant- Serpent]

No tool in the world can replace experience. I've known people that took 6 strikes with a 700.00 perfectly balanced hammer to drive a nail, and others with a crap hammer that they picked up at Walmart who could drive a nail in one strike. The 700.00 hammer guys never lasted long at work sites. They simply couldn't keep up, and were quickly labeled a tortuga.

People continue to use all the major DAWs such as Cubase, Studio One, Pro Tools, Sonar, Samplitude, etc. and etc... and they make a living at it. Some of them make millions. The tools really are arbitrary in most regards. Success has more to do with your work ethic and who you know than what tool you use.

[chk071]

No tool in the world can replace experience. I've known people that took 6 strikes with a 700.00 perfectly balanced hammer to drive a nail, and others with a crap hammer that they picked up at Walmart who could drive a nail in one strike. The 700.00 hammer guys never lasted long at work sites. They simply couldn't keep up, and were quickly labeled a tortuga.

Noone will be able to drive a nail with a hammer which breaks apart under the strain though. I would say, the best handyman is the one with the skill, and the best equipment to do the job. Without the right equipment, it may become a long, tedious job, which may never lead to the desired result.

[Johnny Blade]

I understand very well the feelings from the thread starter.

I'm an OLD Samplitude/Sequoia user and I can tell both platforms are solid enough, very rich in options and they handle any task from recording to mastering. They also cover everything, in an extremely effective and intuitive way.

[ENV1]

It's insane how much people overrate technology here. All of the good engineers I've worked with can get impressive results with stock, 90's-era Pro Tools eqs and comps, without even trying particularly hard. The source audio is generally 1,000 times more critical to mix than whatever EQ you're using to gently cut a certain frequency.

Youre still missing the point.

The point is that blaming bad tools for the bad results they give has absolutely nothing to do with being a bad craftsman.