BITWIG STUDIO 3

[BobDog]

In software there is no such thing as at exactly the same time“

That's not quite true, it might well be true for Max but it is not true for software.

[Tj Shredder]

For software it is true for anything running on a single core, you can have more events at the same time only if you have several cores, but that is hardware...
In software we have constructs which allow us to implement with a minset of parallel instructions, but in reality they are only sliced up and run one after another...
You probably never coded in assembler...

[xbitz]

I'm also not sure how The Grid will be more flexible than Signal (nor the other way around.) They look like very similar things to me.

Can you build synths in Signal?

The fundamental benefit of the Grid is it is part of the core Bitwig. It is not something attached on the outside. The Grid being part of the core application is one integrated workflow. With Live you have Live, M4L, Signal, all different environments with different logic and visuals.

And like M4L devices, Signal also has to live inside the limitations of Live. For example, there are many M4L modulation devices like LFO's etc. But they cannot match the easy workflow of Bitwig. So in theory M4L is amazingly powerful for modulation, but in practice nowhere near as fluid and easy to work with as Bitwig.

just wanted to show how S1 can be extended with MUX(same way as Signal can extend AL)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFjPmfnYPI
yes u can build synths etc. with MUX ... but where is BWS3beta1 btw. the chord track implementation is lovely in S1 (quite basic but nice)

[SLiC]

I dint think it is going to be about what is more flexible or what has more depth...The Grid is designed to be fun, intuitive and musical - if it does that I will be more than happy, I dont want to feel like I am writing code, I want to feel like I am writing music

[fold4]

Max is as well just follow the cables... Only the inputs are on top of an object and the outputs are on the bottom of the object. In Signal (and Reaktor) the inputs are left, the outputs right... You are absolutely free to place your objects where you want (for example from left to right...)
The right to left in Max has nothing to do with signal flow, its the event order... In software there is no such thing as „at exactly the same time“, a defined event order helps solving problems which could arise because of that...
Anyway my point is, hiding the best parts of Max to not confuse the user might be helpful for some users, but you could as well simply explain that you can use simplified objects without hiding the good parts and have better results as soon you loose your fear...; - )
As business model it seems to work though... But we will get something better with the grid...

You can't just place things wherever because where you place them can affect order of operations. Signal flow is affected by the precedence rules. This is how I got a device which malfunctioned only because I had one module to the right of another.

While in software there is technically no such thing as "at the same time" there is such a thing as "in parallel" and two operations visually defined in parallel should from the point of view of the user happen in parallel, not in sequence according to a right->left (or left->right, or whatever) precedence. At least that's how everything else I use in parallel works, e.g., multiple tracks in a DAW which exceed the number of available cores/threads.

Whether you think Max does it right or wrong I don't think you can argue against it being unexpected and unintuitive.

I'm still confused about what you would prefer unhidden? All of Max is still available and if Signal hid nothing then it would just be Max.

Having used both Max and Signal, it's a lot easier to get the things Signal does done with Signal than with Max. It's not about not confusing the user, it's about making things easier, quicker, and more fun. We could, of course, e.g., go back to samplers that have tiny screens and use buttons to edit everything, but why would we want to? And Max is still available for anything else. It's not a binary choice.

[fold4]

I'm also not sure how The Grid will be more flexible than Signal (nor the other way around.) They look like very similar things to me.

Can you build synths in Signal?

Excellent point which I had not considered. Thanks.

The fundamental benefit of the Grid is it is part of the core Bitwig. It is not something attached on the outside. The Grid being part of the core application is one integrated workflow. With Live you have Live, M4L, Signal, all different environments with different logic and visuals.

Also a good point.

And like M4L devices, Signal also has to live inside the limitations of Live. For example, there are many M4L modulation devices like LFO's etc. But they cannot match the easy workflow of Bitwig. So in theory M4L is amazingly powerful for modulation, but in practice nowhere near as fluid and easy to work with as Bitwig.

On this I remain unconvinced, at least as far as Signal is concerned. I've found it very easy and fluid to work with. As much as a modular modulation system can be, anyway. But we may have different ideas as to what that means.

Regardless, I hope I'm not coming across as negative about The Grid. I think it looks amazing. I only have Bitwig 8-Track and am not even close to ready to make a move away from Live (I'll need a lot of convincing) but I am paying attention for the first time in a long time just because of The Grid and hopefully some cut down version of it makes its way into 8-Track. We'll see how tempting that is when the time comes.

[pdxindy]

And like M4L devices, Signal also has to live inside the limitations of Live. For example, there are many M4L modulation devices like LFO's etc. But they cannot match the easy workflow of Bitwig. So in theory M4L is amazingly powerful for modulation, but in practice nowhere near as fluid and easy to work with as Bitwig.

On this I remain unconvinced, at least as far as Signal is concerned. I've found it very easy and fluid to work with. As much as a modular modulation system can be, anyway. But we may have different ideas as to what that means.

Regardless, I hope I'm not coming across as negative about The Grid. I think it looks amazing. I only have Bitwig 8-Track and am not even close to ready to make a move away from Live (I'll need a lot of convincing) but I am paying attention for the first time in a long time just because of The Grid and hopefully some cut down version of it makes its way into 8-Track. We'll see how tempting that is when the time comes.

Signal within itself is easy to work with. Live and modulation isn't so much.

For example, add 3 LFO's to a track in Live. Using those 3 LFO's, adjust say 15 different parameters (5 each or whatever). Now look at the workflow if you want to edit 2 parameters in relation to each other that are each modulated by an LFO.

In Bitwig, you add the 3 LFO modulators to your device, modulate the 15 parameters and over in the inspector you see the 3 LFO's and the 15 parameters values. You can adjust the values of any of the 15 targets, you can add or remove targets to any of the LFO's.

Another thing... modulate a parameter in Live, then try to go edit the parameter. In Bitwig you can modulate something and still edit it like normal.

Then there is the saving of presets, every device having macros, device and preset panels. The entire process of creating, editing, working with and saving modulated devices is so much better in Bitwig.

[fold4]

Signal within itself is easy to work with. Live and modulation isn't so much.

...

Ok, I get what you're saying now.

[DavidCarlyon]

Does anybody know if optimization is on the list of improvements for V3? I am super excited and def gonna renew my 'non subscription subscription'
Bitwig is already incredibly inspiring. I am thinking i will (from V3) use it almost exclusively on its own - meaning using internal stuff and just building syths - then mix in Studio One.

But one thing i have noticed this week since going back to S1 - It honestly feels at least twice as efficient.
I heard people bitching about BW efficiency before and thought nothing of it, but after this week i can say its such a monumental difference.

Part of me thinks with the grid, maybe it will really pay off if you just use the grid and build really awesome synths etc.
But once you start piling 3rd party instruments and plugins, shit will likely hit the fan.
feeling a bit anxious waiting now! Just wanna try it.

[pdxindy]

But one thing i have noticed this week since going back to S1 - It honestly feels at least twice as efficient.
I heard people bitching about BW efficiency before and thought nothing of it, but after this week i can say its such a monumental difference.

Different people have different needs and interests. For someone in a high speed production environment, their job might depend on workflow efficiency. For me, I am in it for the creative exploration and from that perspective, basically any DAW today is plenty efficient enough because I am the slowest part of the equation... and really every DAW today is absurdly powerful.

Some DAW's have certain features that make them desirable for the given use. Maybe for someone doing lots of vocal takes in a studio setting, they really want comping. How I can do it in Bitwig is good enough for me as I am the only one doing vocals and there is no time pressure.

For me, the modulation abilities of Bitwig are something unique and the MPE support is an essential. So for me, S1 would not be particularly more efficient overall because I would have to jump through hoops to do MPE.

It is really something dependent from user to user.

[Tj Shredder]

...
The right to left in Max has nothing to do with signal flow, its the event order... In software there is no such thing as „at exactly the same time“, a defined event order helps solving problems which could arise because of that...

You can't just place things wherever because where you place them can affect order of operations. Signal flow is affected by the precedence rules. This is how I got a device which malfunctioned only because I had one module to the right of another.

Any program has to deal with the event order! Better if you are in control of it. In your case you just made the experience that you missed the first lesson about the trigger object. The worst solution would be that the event order is determined by the order of object creation or something like that. Bugs arising out of that can be untrackable...

[fold4]

All I'm saying is that in other visual environments when I place two things in parallel using a split signal chain I do not get a sequential series of processing events. I get parallel processing and the output of the two combines seamlessly. E.g., when I send a signal from a track in Live to two Send channels I do not get one processed before the other based on which is on which side. The two sends have their output blended, in time, with all other sends and sent to the master, again in time**, along with all the regular tracks. Using precedence rules to determine that a signal split in two and sent to two modules and then recombined means the right-hand signal arrives first, affecting the behavior of resulting operations, is simply an apparently odd decision on the part of the Max designers. Perhaps they had a good reason but none is given (at least none I have found.)

** Allowing for possible timing errors due to imperfect PDC, which is a different matter.

I know that internally true analog style parallel processing is not what's happening. And now that I know that Max does not work that way I will be more careful. I will also, wherever possible, avoid the issue entirely by using something which does not have this (especially in a visual environment where things look like they should be processing in parallel) unintuitive behavior. For instance in the case of that Max device I rewrote what I wanted to do in a single JavaScript module so that I didn't have to deal with the right->left precedence. And where I want something that Signal does I will use Signal.

At this point I suspect we're not going to agree. I just wanted to make it clear that I understand how computers work, now understand how Max works, and have good logical reasons to believe that the way they have chosen to do this is not optimal - visually parallel modules operating in (illusory but for all practical purposes actual) parallel is the optimal solution. It easily avoids your hypothetical scenario and fits what we see on the screen. I somehow doubt that you'll find Bitwig's Grid adopting a non-parallel approach to visually parallel modules, because from the looks of it they want it to be intuitive and easy to use.

I apologize to everyone for derailing this thread, which should be about Bitwig and not Max. I have issues letting things go but I'll do my best to leave it at this.

[pdxindy]

I apologize to everyone for derailing this thread, which should be about Bitwig and not Max. I have issues letting things go but I'll do my best to leave it at this.

No worries... it is not like we have Bitwig 3 beta available yet... soon hopefully!

[rbx11]

Is there a release date or ETA for version 3?

[pdxindy]

Is there a release date or ETA for version 3?

My guess is quite soon after 2.5 is officially released...