What's the one feature your DAW has, found in no other, that you wouldn't want to live without?

[Schmidi]

I love the hardware /software integration of the current Akai MPCs. It's a pretty slick and fun way to sample, chop, sequence, and host VSTs.

None of those things are unique to it, but the real draw for me is that I can create something with this combo, save it to the hardware, and go out and perform with it. I haven't found a better pattern based hard/soft combo for my needs at least.

[antic604]

Ok, but it still looks ugly, no skin will help and you need to go through a deep-diving course to use its labirynthine menus & settings

Which one are you talking about, Bitwig or Reaper? I found Bitwig almost impenetrable and it's UI was no oil painting.

Reaper, obviously

[antic604]

I love the hardware /software integration of the current Akai MPCs...

I'd love to read your feedback in here pretty please

[tooneba]

Gee, I wonder why that might be? I can't imagine why most of us would prefer not to have to invoke mathematical formulae in order to make music.
Someone please promise to shoot me in the head if my music making process ever devolves to this level.

I don't know much about those genre but you know what, one of the most popular daw ableton has built in visual programing tool. And some people appreciate noises randomly generated by machine. beep boop beep

[Unaspected]

Ok, but it still looks ugly, no skin will help and you need to go through a deep-diving course to use its labirynthine menus & settings

Which one are you talking about, Bitwig or Reaper? I found Bitwig almost impenetrable and it's UI was no oil painting.

Where FL Studio differs is the mapping formulas. Being able to take any modulation source and apply it anywhere as many times as you like whilst being able to mathematically change how it operates at each different destination without having to load a new modulation plugin is a feature that I haven't found in any other DAW.

Gee, I wonder why that might be? I can't imagine why most of us would prefer not to have to invoke mathematical formulae in order to make music.

A few other DAWs offer envelope followers but without the combination of mapping formulas or transfer functions, you are limited to adjusting how the control signal behaves via plugins. Also noting that smoothing can be applied uniquely for each link. So the entire response can be reshaped without loading more plugins - and without any setup because it's part of the DAW.

Someone please promise to shoot me in the head if my music making process ever devolves to this level.

Anyway, there are so many things about Orion that no other host software can manage that it's far too depressing to list them all so here are a few highlights:

Wasp;
A proper mixer that shows you everything all at once, in one place;
Drumrack's ability to load a loop and have it stretch to match the song tempo;
Stability, Cubase constantly wrecks projects;
Wasp (yes, I miss it at least twice as much as anything else);
The simple ability to assign my own colours to tracks, not half-a-dozen shit ones some other idiot chose;
Closing an instrument window to delete it; and
Simplicity. No other host software is anywhere near as quick and easy and looking at some of the absurd features listed in this thread, I understand why.

Hehe. It is absurd.

It certainly won't be for everyone. Maybe it could depend on how quick your mental arithmetic is - Some people might shy away from it for that reason. But for me, it's seamless and much quicker than loading another plugin then adjusting parameters.

For example, if you want to use your kick as sidechain input and have it operate with a different depth or even different logic conditions for each sound and have it modulate various parameters in various plugins, you don't need to do anything more than create new links and quickly type in different formulas.

So it saves CPU and time.

Another example might be to use a single automation clip to switch on several parameters whilst switching several others off - or to cross fade between parameters using just one clip.

You definitely will not appreciate this: https://unaspectedstudios.wordpress.com ... -formulas/

It's powerful stuff.

[Trancit]

...
For example, if you want to use your kick as sidechain input and have it operate with a different depth or even different logic conditions for each sound and have it modulate various parameters in various plugins, you don't need to do anything more than create new links and quickly type in different formulas.

...

I admit that these formulas can be very powerful... the only problem there is that it in the "Link to controller" menu there is no other way than expressing it mathematically... that´s a bit annoying...

For the real powerful and complex stuff this is absolutely great but I would like to have a combo together with the mapping input/output from the XYZ controller...

What I find quite unique with FL Studio compared to others is the ease of use how one modulation controller or automation clip can control multiple destinations with complete different settings snd completely track independent... i.e. just one automation clip to control the cutoff of a filter of 20 different tracks with complete independent settings... that saves a lot of work and keep things much more organized...

All others offering something like this need quite a few workarounds to reach track independency...
FLS provides this directly out of the box...

[Unaspected]

...
For example, if you want to use your kick as sidechain input and have it operate with a different depth or even different logic conditions for each sound and have it modulate various parameters in various plugins, you don't need to do anything more than create new links and quickly type in different formulas.

...

I admit that these formulas can be very powerful... the only problem there is that it in the "Link to controller" menu there is no other way than expressing it mathematically... that´s a bit annoying...

For the real powerful and complex stuff this is absolutely great but I would like to have a combo together with the mapping input/output from the XYZ controller...

You could do that using Formula Controller and an XYZ set up to influence variables in your formula. This could also be done using Patcher but with the expense of one variable, which has to be used in place of "Input" - also the current work around for using mapping formulas inside Patcher.

What I find quite unique with FL Studio compared to others is the ease of use how one modulation controller or automation clip can control multiple destinations with complete different settings snd completely track independent... i.e. just one automation clip to control the cutoff of a filter of 20 different tracks with complete independent settings... that saves a lot of work and keep things much more organized...

All others offering something like this need quite a few workarounds to reach track independency...
FLS provides this directly out of the box...

This is one of the things I was saying.

[Trancit]

You could do that using Formula Controller and an XYZ set up to influence variables in your formula. This could also be done using Patcher but with the expense of one variable, which has to be used in place of "Input" - also the current work around for using mapping formulas inside Patcher.

Of course, but
1. I would like to have the XYZ curves directly in the "Link to controller" window
2. Using Patcher kills the the track independency... Controller used in Patcher are not available for destinations outside this Patcher instance

[tooneba]

I like edison being able to resample even after track's playback stopped, and resample middle of effect chain. I don't have to fiddle with duplicating track, splitting clip, deleting clips, rendering, deactivating effects etc. Not DAW specific though.

[Faiky]

Individualization and automation of all possible processes. The possibilities to write simple and incredibly complex scripts, assigning shortcuts to virtually all commands and options and own created routines. Then the big helpful community and free third party scripts and effects that are really amazing.
The profound individualization is the hammer, if the daw runs exactly the way you want it to. This is the perfect DAW for me. I think we know what we're talking about here.

[Trancit]

I like edison ... Not DAW specific though.

While no other DAW delivers a complex Wave editor right of the box... that´s quite DAW specific though...

[Trancit]

...I think we know what we're talking about here.

Hmmmm... does it start and end with a "R"??

[BONES]

Ok, but it still looks ugly, no skin will help and you need to go through a deep-diving course to use its labirynthine menus & settings

Which one are you talking about, Bitwig or Reaper? I found Bitwig almost impenetrable and it's UI was no oil painting.

Reaper, obviously

Maybe obvious to you but not to me. After my initial excitement, I found Bitwig very disagreeable. It never felt like it was going to do what I wanted to do and everything was such a chore. After around 4 months using it as my only host/sequencer, I went back to Orion with nothing at all to show for my time and effort.

I don't know much about those genre but you know what, one of the most popular daw ableton has built in visual programing tool.

Yes, I'm sure sales went through the roof when that was added.

For example, if you want to use your kick as sidechain input and have it operate with a different depth or even different logic conditions for each sound and have it modulate various parameters in various plugins, you don't need to do anything more than create new links and quickly type in different formulas.

As I said, shoot me if my process ever devolves to that level. Seriously, why the f**k would I want to do anything like that? I have songs to finish, I don't have time to do shit like that.

So it saves CPU and time.

I can save you even more time - stop fart-arsing about with arcane stupidity and make some music.

Another example might be to use a single automation clip to switch on several parameters whilst switching several others off - or to cross fade between parameters using just one clip.

Why? Is there a limit to the number of automation lanes/clips you can have? I see this sort of thing all the time at work - people make simple tasks so bloody complicated that it's almost impossible to work out what they have done. I can often reduce them to less than half the number of layers (tracks) without affecting the output at all.

[Kongru]

...I think we know what we're talking about here.

Hmmmm... does it start and end with a "R"??

RFL Studior?

[antic604]

Ok, but it still looks ugly, no skin will help and you need to go through a deep-diving course to use its labirynthine menus & settings

Which one are you talking about, Bitwig or Reaper? I found Bitwig almost impenetrable and it's UI was no oil painting.

Reaper, obviously

Maybe obvious to you but not to me. After my initial excitement, I found Bitwig very disagreeable. It never felt like it was going to do what I wanted to do and everything was such a chore. After around 4 months using it as my only host/sequencer, I went back to Orion with nothing at all to show for my time and effort.

Well, I'm not alone in saying that Reaper is ugly and complex (granted - as a result of its enormous depth, flexibility and customisability).

On the other hand, you're the only person I see mentioning Orion in every other post. Frankly, if it wasn't for you I wouldn't even know it existed.

Lastly, people who complain about Bitwig's (or any other DAW's, really) workflow are those that force on it the workflow & features of their current / favourite DAW, instead of even trying to understand what it's all about and how to leverage its strengths and avoid its weaknesses. It's like picking a spanner from the toolbox and trying to hit a nail with it - "it's in the box with the hammer, it must work and be just as effective like a hammer, surely?!"

Let that sink in.