Why you use multiple DAWs ?

[AlesisVi61]

[mod edit: flames deleted. See below.]
Just because YOU choose to operate this way,is not a valid reason for someone to bitch about CPU issues that do not exist.

To answer your question....I began with Reason(version 4)....so being that it had no audio & still no MP3 export,it was inevitable...that I would add new DAW's at some point.

Why "add"? Do you keep your old car when you buy a new one? I feel that I am in a position where I have no choice other than to have multiple hosts on my laptop but the day I can wheedle it down to one will be a very happy day for me.
Your analogy is an utter non sequitur.

All this being said,those who choose to restrict themselves to a single DAW,are missing out on a whole plethora of creative opportunities.

Name one, as in something you can achieve in one of your hosts that you can't do in another or that is so significantly easier/better that it is worth the massive effort involved in exporting everything from one host and setting it all up again in another.
[/quote]

[Meffy]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44705

Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will result in your post being edited / deleted, and you may be issued with a warning and / or a ban.

I don't have time or inclination to keep editing out flames, so from here out ones that violate the rules will just be deleted. If that doesn't work then temporary suspension will be the next step. Rather not do that, so argue without the personal attacks.

[BezO]

I find Macs to be the best tool for making Music. They've been great for creating in Pro Tools, Logic and Studio One. Not really sure what the hell you're talking about other than thinking I chose Logic ONLY because I use a Mac.

It's because you said "as a Mac user", as though that was the important part. I don't think of myself as a Mac user or a PC user (I use both), I think of myself as a Cubase user and an After Effects user and a 3DS Max user. But because 3DS Max is Windows only, and so much better for it than any cross-platform application I have ever used, that means I use Cubase and After Effects on Windows, too.

As for stereo panning, look up the difference between balancing and panning, then realize S1 only has a stereo balancer, not a panner. This creates the need to use the plugin if you actually want to pan.

The difference is the input, not the process - you pan a mono source, you balance a stereo source but you use the same tool for both.

Had you read the rest of the comment instead of rushing to argue, you would've saw there was more to it.

I'm a Mac user, a Studio One user, a xxx VI user... They're all important to me.

Nah, you can also pan a stereo source. You are just not familiar. Check Pro Tools. Check the option in Logic called Stereo Pan. In S1, you need a plugin to actually pan stereo sources because it lacks this feature.

[BONES]

But still one of them was more important and went first. Of course you can pan a stereo source, that's my whole point. The Pan knob works on mono sources and stereo sources. It's just semantics, the tools aren't any different. If it's different in S1, I imagine it's because it doesn't split a mono source into two stereo channels like most other hosts do, but provides a separate mono path for it.

[BezO]

@Bones, no, "Mac" was simply 1st in the string of thought.

Now try searching YT for "Logic Pro stereo panning options". You'll likely learn something else. There's a difference between stereo balance & stereo panning. S1 only has the latter. I'm suggesting they add the former.

Then just admit you were wrong. Maybe even apologize. You'll feel better.

[BONES]

Why "add"? Do you keep your old car when you buy a new one? I feel that I am in a position where I have no choice other than to have multiple hosts on my laptop but the day I can wheedle it down to one will be a very happy day for me.

Your analogy is an utter non sequitur.

No, it is just an analogy, another situation where you buy a new thing, to show what generally happens with the old thing. A non-sequitur would be if I had said something like "you don't keep your old car when you buy a new one and that's why the sky is blue". And I asked it as a question, so you could have decided to give an explanation, but instead you chose to make a rubbish non-argument about what I had said. This tells me you have no argument to make, that you have never questioned why you do the things you do and work the way you work. It is something I question all the time, which is why I keep asking questions.

All this being said,those who choose to restrict themselves to a single DAW,are missing out on a whole plethora of creative opportunities.

Name one, as in something you can achieve in one of your hosts that you can't do in another or that is so significantly easier/better that it is worth the massive effort involved in exporting everything from one host and setting it all up again in another.

If you had a legitimate argument, this would have been the place to make it. Who knows, you might have come up with something sufficiently compelling to change my mind.

[BONES]

Now try searching YT for "Logic Pro stereo panning options". You'll likely learn something else. There's a difference between stereo balance & stereo panning.

Like I said, it's semantics. What you call "Pan" is the default option in both Cubase and Logic and it is, in fact, the Stereo Balance Panner. What I assume you are referring to as the other way of doing it is something called "Combined Stereo Panner" in Cubase, which is a different thing that combines the left and right channels and allows you to set a stereo width and/or move both channels to the left or right without losing any of the info in either channel. Yes, in Logic they give it the unhelpful name of "Stereo Pan", hence the confusion.

S1 only has the latter. I'm suggesting they add the former.

Are you sure? It seems to me that the Combined Panner would work just as well for "normal" panning as the Balance Panner, especially on mono signals. I imagine the main advantage of the Balance Panner is lower CPU usage. I also think the number of situations where you would need the Combined Panner is quite low, so having to resort to a plugin wouldn't be much of a chore on those occasions, surely?

[reggie1979]

Cus I want to bitch

What an idiot question. So many people use different DAW'S and why not? Why does anyone care?

[BONES]

Maybe some of us want to learn new things?

[perfumer]

Maybe some of us want to learn new things?

You know how this works?

[chk071]

TBH, I'm shortly before (re-)buying Cubase Artist, after I gave Cubase AI 10.5 a go, which I got as a free upgrade for my existing AI 8 (or so) license. That GUI is just inviting, can't put it another way.

[WasteLand]

i ignore the discussion, most discussion are void, perhaps if your destill them, some things are worthwhile...

i have more DAW's. why? i always used cubase, but i bought reason 10, second hand, because i had good memories about it, long time ago. i bought reaper, because one plugin wouldn't work in cubase & reason 10, a plugin i wanted to use a lot (it now works in cubase 10, i have now cubase 10.5 pro, it still works, even better...). reaper i use quite a lot for sketching.
i use maschine 2.x, it is not a full DAW, but with 2 controllers, it is great to lay the basics of song. the limitations work for me.
also i bought the push 2, then ableton live 10 suite (upgrade). because of the sessions view, the devices, M4L.

they complement eachother. i work differently within each DAW, other songs, sounds are created.

i can do it also in cubase, but working in ableton, simpler has its merits, other sounds.

i make my sounds, 98% of the time, from scratch. yes i use drumkits, but also make my own drumsample loops, or drumsamples, and have a few kits, i use a lot. but i also use the build drumkits, in cubase i use mainly spark 2.x..

my tracks are created from sounds. the start the fire...

i love to work in maschine, the ideas view and the arrangment view are nicely tied together.

in ableton the session view and arrangment view aren't that tied together, and the samplers of maschine and ableton leads to different results.

in ableton and maschine i mainly use the built fx/devices, but nowadays also third party plugins.

i like to have the possibilities. the workflow changes my way of working, as an effect on the sounds, how a play them. etc.

was it really necessary? perhaps not, but if i am stuck in one, i go to another, and yes, i get new ideas.

and what one DAW can't do, i can do in another.

[BONES]

they complement eachother. i work differently within each DAW, other songs, sounds are created.

How does that work? You make sounds with the same plugins, regardless of host, and mixing and effects work the same way in any of them.

i can do it also in cubase, but working in ableton, simpler has its merits, other sounds.

What could be simpler than Cubase? That's what really grabbed me when I first tried it - how quick and easy it is.

i love to work in maschine, the ideas view and the arrangment view are nicely tied together.

I hadn't started Maschine in a couple of years until I read this. I'd only ever used it to preview the mountains of content that came with the bundle I got with the Maschine Mikro I bought and never really used it for anything else. It never looked to me like it could be a serious composition and production tool but I just watched a couple of YT vids and I discover it has this Ideas View and a mixer. I am pretty sure I didn't know about either until now.

All of which goes to show how little interest I have in working in other hosts, although if I'd known all this, maybe I could have saved a few hundred by not buying Cubase? Oh well, it is much easier/better for me to waste money than time.

[WasteLand]

they complement eachother. i work differently within each DAW, other songs, sounds are created.

How does that work? You make sounds with the same plugins, regardless of host, and mixing and effects work the same way in any of them.

i can do it also in cubase, but working in ableton, simpler has its merits, other sounds.

What could be simpler than Cubase? That's what really grabbed me when I first tried it - how quick and easy it is.

i love to work in maschine, the ideas view and the arrangment view are nicely tied together.

I hadn't started Maschine in a couple of years until I read this. I'd only ever used it to preview the mountains of content that came with the bundle I got with the Maschine Mikro I bought and never really used it for anything else. It never looked to me like it could be a serious composition and production tool but I just watched a couple of YT vids and I discover it has this Ideas View and a mixer. I am pretty sure I didn't know about either until now.

All of which goes to show how little interest I have in working in other hosts, although if I'd known all this, maybe I could have saved a few hundred by not buying Cubase? Oh well, it is much easier/better for me to waste money than time.

that is what i mean with the discussion. what works for you, works for you.
i use mainly the devices in ableton, when i use ableton... as i already stated...
the simpler is the most used.. also the operator and analog. and effect devices of course.

yes cubase is great, my main daw. but for pattern based projects i go to ableton or maschine, maschine was first, (before ableton) and got me right away. how i make samples, and re-edit them, and o well. i first made music in cooledit pro, long time ago, not the multi-track stuff i used.
i used the sampler editor. made loops with it, dubbed them. tape machine like.
the same workflow i can do in maschine.

how does that work, they complement eachother, listen to my music and see where it is made in....
i know how it works. if have sounds, from a soft synth (i program the synths myself), i play something add some effects.. sample it. edit it. not always of course.

the track i making now is completely in cubase, with all the sounddesign within cubase, no resampling. a version can listened to on soundcloud.

i didn't say it was necessary. but i am reasonable. if you say, that i suggest, you must have more DAW's, you are quite wrong.

it is your workflow, your studio.

i like a ITB studio, i work fully ITB (yes a microphone, and a guitar.. but still ITB...), with many options.

but i also like the workflow in ableton and maschine (which is powerfull, if you use it... powerfull.. if it is not your thing, then ok.. for me it has given me songs, maschine is for the heavy stuff, ableton for the more subtle stuff, cubase for both... and i use maschine standalone, and then i use it as a plugin in cubase. most of tracks are there for song. i put some more tracks on top of it. and vocals.).

i like it, simple as that. i must point again, i start from sounds, only drumkits i use from libraries. so maschine i use as a maschine. but most times the drums are my own samples.

it is almost if i must defend myself. i never thought i would own more than 1 one DAW. now i do, me like. it gives my so much pleasure and results! and sometimes i use ableton for making samples i use in cubase, and sometimes i use cubase to make samples that i use in maschine or ableton...

the same plugins or effects, in other DAW, with another worklfow... also gives other results..

but mainly in tend to stay with the stock plugins of ableton and maschine. although in ableton i use more and more third party plugins. you must see it how i work, how to explain a process, that takes days. i jump around from program to program.

i use spectralayers pro 6 for sounddesign, for example, or use LION, Ds thorn, the arturia synths, etc. etc. and yes use it in simpler. etc. etc.
and sometimes i use the synths only. so many possibilities, i do not drown... i can swim..

DISCLAIMER: this can be an endless discussion. this is the way i work, and i like it. i use it, it gives me great results. not only the DAW's are important, the soft synths i use, and the collection of effects, i have. and samples! samples! my own samples, field recording..

[BezO]

Now try searching YT for "Logic Pro stereo panning options". You'll likely learn something else. There's a difference between stereo balance & stereo panning.

Like I said, it's semantics. What you call "Pan" is the default option in both Cubase and Logic and it is, in fact, the Stereo Balance Panner. What I assume you are referring to as the other way of doing it is something called "Combined Stereo Panner" in Cubase, which is a different thing that combines the left and right channels and allows you to set a stereo width and/or move both channels to the left or right without losing any of the info in either channel. Yes, in Logic they give it the unhelpful name of "Stereo Pan", hence the confusion.

S1 only has the latter. I'm suggesting they add the former.

Are you sure? It seems to me that the Combined Panner would work just as well for "normal" panning as the Balance Panner, especially on mono signals. I imagine the main advantage of the Balance Panner is lower CPU usage. I also think the number of situations where you would need the Combined Panner is quite low, so having to resort to a plugin wouldn't be much of a chore on those occasions, surely?

How is it semantics if it's actually 2 completely different things? Does it help you if I call it Dual Pan, S1's terminology?

No, what I'm calling pan is NOT the default in Logic. Balancing is the default in Logic. But yes, I see one of several reasons why you're confused.

I'm not talking about mono signals. I'm talking stereo, but you probably skipped that part, another reason for your confusion. And I never want the levels affected when I'm panning, so no, the balancer is never the better option for me and means that I always have to use the plugin.

Ha!