DAW software lags behind other creative software like 3D animation packages

[v1o]

Most of the major DAWs have remained largely unchanged for the past ten years with no real innovation. I was reading up on the latest versions of Autodesk Maya and Blender. The amount of new features, functions and technological progress that has been made within just a couple of years is staggering. In terms of computer science these applications are really pushing bar of what is possible in software.

I know this might sound silly to some but when compared to the speed of innovation in the market for 3d animation software & renderers, music production software is in the stone age. DAWs for example have stuck rigidly to the piano roll metaphor when composing, whereas in the aforementioned there are dozens of different but equally valid methods to create (model or animate) content. They have also made huge progress in high quality procedurally generated content to speed up workflows. And almost everything is scriptable and customizable. Even freeware like Blender is a much more complex piece of software than Cubase or Logic; with an order of magnitude more tools, functions, macros, modules, settings, user customizable workflows etc etc. I'm also shocked that physics based interactions have not made their way into Audio yet - such as using real physics to model sound vibrations in different environments rather than the hacks commonly used in most delay based fx.

[chk071]

Don't forget that Autodesk's licensing costs thousands of € year for a subscription. And, i don't know how many features you are seeing which have been added to Blender. The biggest feature was the new GUI (which isn't all that different). Apart from that, there were minor feature additions, at best.

Also, how many features shall be added to a DAW, for a market which, apart from some hardware manufacturers, isn't all that "innovative". The DAW's general workflow hasn't change over the last centuries, with some DAW's which have been added, which have a slightly other approach (Live or Bitwig).

BTW, Autodesk: 8.800 employees. The biggest player in the business, Steinberg, has 180 employees. according to their website. That's a massive difference.

And another BTW: Noone in the industry really uses Blender, they all use Autodesk. Exceptions prove the rule.

[vurt]

people doing video expect to be rendering for hours at a time.
i doubt musicians would do that for a reverb?

[thecontrolcentre]

people doing video expect to be rendering for hours at a time.
i doubt musicians would do that for a reverb?

We used to. I remember going for a walk while Acid Pro rendered final mixes (about 15 years back).

[vurt]

people doing video expect to be rendering for hours at a time.
i doubt musicians would do that for a reverb?

We used to. I remember going for a walk while Acid Pro rendered final mixes (about 15 years back).

yeah, but you could at least listen to it before hand.
im not sure how possible that would be with the suggestion he makes, i don't think cpus are quite fast enough yet?

[telecode]

I personally fail to see the logic in comparing 3d graphics software with audio software.

[pdxindy]

I personally fail to see the logic in comparing 3d graphics software with audio software.

There is no logic... they are far too different to be any sort of useful comparison

[Winstontaneous]

To OP - what concrete features could DAWs take from 3D software to improve the process of getting a sonic idea from concept to realization? As others have noted, the expectation of digital audio to be as close to real-time as possible is different from the graphic rendering paradigm. Also, you're clearly overlooking things like step sequencers, algorithmic composing tools based on probability and statistical processes, scripting APIs, modular environments, trackers, the proliferation of physical controllers, and Ableton Live's introduction of the Session View which removed strict adherence to a linear workflow.

I'm actually surprised no one has created DAWs with more limitations inspired by analog/tape workflow, like hard limits on track count and noise/randomness that increases with the addition of each processor (rather than more features) that would force users to commit to processing decisions rather postponing everything until mix time.

[Touch The Universe]

My workflow and the tools I have are definitely on another level than 10 years ago. The ideas in music themselves have changed quite a bit too.

[THE INTRANCER]

Strangely... I've been wondering how I could create a DAW that re-writes the conventions that we have been use to in the past few days, and trying to figure out the feasibility in whether it would actually work effectively or not. I've the idea and vision is in my head to be able to draw up the design concept of what I'm thinking, but I'm not a coder.. I'm use to scripting however, which isn't too far away from that side of things.

As for the OP's question... I don't think either one is developed slower than the other, they are just different branches of different tree's. They both start from a seed, the pace in which they grow and expand is different and what they produce at the end of the branches is different.

The core of the DAW or 3D program is to be as a hub with a strong ground footing of roots to hold it self up. The plugins are the food in which the DAW or 3D program is able to be enriched by... and these are developed in-house or independently by third parties. Software development is an iterative process... and whilst products may look to follow the same sort of formula, the pace of development really comes down the number of strands in the branches that development stems from and are able to be integrated and when.

Blender was first released 21 years ago... it's taken almost 20 to bring it's GUI up to modern standards. Maxon, developers of Cinema 4D for example were able to do that and get all the foundation stuff done in just 7..yet the Blender Foundation are still trying to get these basics tied up quickly for the 2.8 iterations.

So it's all pretty much relative... and products are created to meet the requirements of the user based on feedback. Going outside and building something radically different and non mainstream isn't always the wise direction, unless there are some key advantages for doing so.

[CasualHobbyist]

@chk071 Seems the Japanese are at least hopping on that https://www.blender.org/user-stories/ja ... o-blender/ Then again, I suppose it does falls under the "exception that proves the rule"

In general: I always found Blender's GUI fine, then again, it may just be me or a few others (don't think I consider a pretty or "modern" GUI a "basic" anyway IMO). As for how it compares with DAWs, well...you're comparing music creation tools with different workflows and styles versus 3D graphics creation tools. There can't be comparisons here, the approach and style are too different to be compared.

[christian f.]

I personally fail to see the logic in comparing 3d graphics software with audio software.

Both are editors/arrangers on a timeline. They're pretty much identical.
I do 3D and video editing as well as music production and because of my DAW background it was easy to pick up video.

I don't agree that video is ahead. I think a DAW is much more flexible and has deeper and more detailed editing possibilities and tons of hardware and 3rd party plugin integration.
What Ableton and Bitwig allow you to do with audio is simply not possible in a 3D/video environment yet. Let alone in real time.

[penfever]

How about being able to sing and snap your fingers and have the software automatically convert it to a melody and BPM?

How about true cross platform compatibility -- being able to edit daw projects on your iPad and PC?

How about being able to do that SIMULTANEOUSLY?

How about integrating volterra kernel sequel HW impulse modeling into DAWs and reducing system hit?

How about using 3d glasses to project virtual instruments and keyboards?

Theres a whole universe of possibilities ... but I agree that money is a constraint.

[stearine]

Today on KVR:

Treadmills lagging behind tractors: Thorough comparison and analysis. Future prospects.

[Forgotten]

Today on KVR:

Treadmills lagging behind tractors: Thorough comparison and analysis. Future prospects.