Why you use multiple DAWs ?

[machinesworking]

The advantage of the Live/Bitwig/DP way is that every part of a song or track is immediately or very quickly able to be rearranged.

The same is true in Cubase. Did you watch the video I linked to?

Yeah I did, and in no way is being able to "sample" audio tracks the same as Clips in Live, Bitwig and DP10. If you don't need to work like that it's not a big deal, every DAW has it's strengths and weaknesses.

[BONES]

How is it not the same? It looks exactly the bloody same to me.

[machinesworking]

How is it not the same? It looks exactly the bloody same to me.

Cubase allows you apparently to use audio files in a sampler to fire clips with launch quantization. It has to be audio, it's got to be loaded etc. Compare this to MIDI, audio, or software instrument Clips, that can be anything, including just track or CC automation data, from the timeline or not. It's a cool sampler idea for sure, but it's not really the same concept as Session View in Live, which is essentially another non linear timeline.

[BONES]

I have no idea what your first sentence means. Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying or you have misunderstood what you saw in the video. You don't need to put audio into a sampler to use it in a clip, as the shorter video clearly shows. Anything you can put in the project window (timeline) can be used in a clip, as everything that goes into a clip comes from the project window.

[machinesworking]

I have no idea what your first sentence means. Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying or you have misunderstood what you saw in the video. You don't need to put audio into a sampler to use it in a clip, as the shorter video clearly shows. Anything you can put in the project window (timeline) can be used in a clip, as everything that goes into a clip comes from the project window.

You're misunderstanding.

In Cubase from what the video you posted shows, you can create references to areas of the timeline, that you can then fire off much like Live etceteras Scenes, a collection of Clips, or looped tracks. In Cubase this acts pretty much the same as Session View in Live, or the versions of that you find in DP and Bitwig.
Cubases version of a single loop on a single track is to 'sample' audio with a pretty ingenious sampler, but it's not anywhere near the same as a single MIDI, audio, Software instrument with MIDI, or loop of automation alone, that you can use in Live etc.
Say you want to fire off a section of a soft synth, you have to convert it to audio to use it without it's other tracks in the timeline in the sampler, if you want track or CC automation to be used without flattening to audio you have to create a whole new section of the timeline with those changes in it. In Live, DP, Bitwig you simply create a loop of automation, point it at the soft synth and fire, this can work with the track timeline or the Clip.

The MPC style song arranging part is pretty cool, but that's the only advantage I see of Cubases way, other than that, it's more of a song arranging feature than a song creation feature.

[anttimaatteri]

i use all of them, just to piss off others. its sadism ;D

Rather masochism.

haha yes it would be, but i actually just use one and one more or less randomly. ^^

[toonertik]

Definitely missing something.
You don't get it, many many others do. We all have our preferred workflows.

That tells me you've put zero time and thought into it, you just work the way you do because that's the way you work. I doubt too many people who like using clips in Live or Bitwig have spent the time trying out those features in Cubase, which is perfectly valid (I've never tried using clips in Live, either) but it's not hard to provide an objective assessment, is it?

I'm going to get back to you on this...

Today I just received my 53 eurorack module, Endorphiness Black_noir drum module so .. I'm patching.. much more fun.. but I would like to continue this... zero time..and thought.. omg.. tell me how you extrapolated that from my post.
Yes..work the way I
do maybe it's coz it works for me and the people I have been paid to work for...
you know bonesy old boy.. I have respect for the fact you still doing what you do... we are same kinda generation, I'm 65 and I think you are about 60... ish?? your music is not what I would listen to.. but hey, that is not important to me.. you are still doing it...
I've been professional.. I've worked with many musicians and beyond (I'll elaborate later), not all has been my home listening choice.. but, working is another thing altogether. I loved my work.

I will expand on this later... maybe grab a beer or what ever.

I like to piecemeal and use several DAWs to facilitate this way. It's a follow on from the way I have worked as a sound engineer since recording school bands in 1967.. though a lot more sophisticated. now.

But no less clunky, I'm sure.

Hmmm ..
not as clunky as pushig start on a 2" Studer.. although THAT clunk was almost musical... the engineering is just outstanding.. ))))

I'll see if I have time tomorrow.. but we have 6 nations Rugby UNION ... yer I used to play.. was a gobby little scrum half.. big forward... yummy.. breakfast time... nothing more satisfying than landing one and standing over the big hulk .. giving them the finger

[BONES]

Cubases version of a single loop on a single track is to 'sample' audio with a pretty ingenious sampler, but it's not anywhere near the same as a single MIDI, audio, Software instrument with MIDI, or loop of automation alone, that you can use in Live etc.

OK, I see now. What you saw was simply one example of how it could be done but it's not the only way. Imagine a project where you don't yet have an arrangement in place. You can place MIDI or audio anywhere in the timeline and use the arranger track to turn them into individual clips. OK, you have no way of combining clips into scenes but why would you need to when you can just move them around on the timeline to combine them? Again, it seems to me to be removing a step or two from the process.

If you wanted to be bold, you could create a template that already has an Arranger track with as many blocks already created as you like. If your first block started at bar 33 or something, you'd have the first 32 bars as an area to play around with ideas which you could then drag along the timeline and into whichever arranger block you want them to go into. This idea builds on a workflow I developed in Orion for working with multiple vocal takes - I already had the song so I'd create an area at the end of the arrangement where I could test out different takes with a stripped down version of the verse or chorus backing, then I'd drag whichever take I preferred into the song proper.

Say you want to fire off a section of a soft synth, you have to convert it to audio to use it without it's other tracks in the timeline in the sampler, if you want track or CC automation to be used without flattening to audio you have to create a whole new section of the timeline with those changes in it.

A "whole new section" isn't a big deal, the timeline is infinite (for practical purposes). If you are starting from scratch, you'd have the freedom to put stuff wherever you liked because your final arrangement doesn't have to start at bar no. 1, it can start anywhere.

In Live, DP, Bitwig you simply create a loop of automation, point it at the soft synth and fire, this can work with the track timeline or the Clip.

That's a different thing and I imagine you could do that with MIDI plugins in Cubase (although it's not something I have ever needed or tried). Cubase isn't strictly linear any more, you work with clips now so repeating stuff is dead easy - you grab a clip by the handle and you drag it out as far as you want and it makes however many copies it needs to fill that area of the timeline. If you need to make a change you delete all but the first clip, change it and drag out again. It takes almost no time at all.

The MPC style song arranging part is pretty cool, but that's the only advantage I see of Cubases way, other than that, it's more of a song arranging feature than a song creation feature.

As I said, I think it's flexible enough to be whatever you want it to be. BTW, I am really enjoying this discussion because it's making me think about Cubase and the way I work and I think it is going be really beneficial to my workflow in the future. So thanks for keeping up your end.

[machinesworking]

OK, I see now. What you saw was simply one example of how it could be done but it's not the only way. Imagine a project where you don't yet have an arrangement in place. You can place MIDI or audio anywhere in the timeline and use the arranger track to turn them into individual clips. OK, you have no way of combining clips into scenes but why would you need to when you can just move them around on the timeline to combine them? Again, it seems to me to be removing a step or two from the process.

More like leaving out a different way of working. It's not a big deal but if you were like me, and have used Live extensively for live performance and song creation since 2003 or so, then the fact that you have to throw a bunch of MIDI and audio into the timeline to grab it and put it into Scenes (because that's essentially what Cubase is doing here), is a lot of extra work. I'm one of those people who never even thought of working in Lives Arrangement View, I've always used the Session View, so the creation of a part in Live was never a matter of grabbing parts from the timeline. I mean besides performance, Lives only advantage was Session View for years, so why not take advantage of it?

If you wanted to be bold, you could create a template that already has an Arranger track with as many blocks already created as you like. If your first block started at bar 33 or something, you'd have the first 32 bars as an area to play around with ideas which you could then drag along the timeline and into whichever arranger block you want them to go into. This idea builds on a workflow I developed in Orion for working with multiple vocal takes - I already had the song so I'd create an area at the end of the arrangement where I could test out different takes with a stripped down version of the verse or chorus backing, then I'd drag whichever take I preferred into the song proper.

Yeah that's how I worked in Logic for years. It works.

A "whole new section" isn't a big deal, the timeline is infinite (for practical purposes). If you are starting from scratch, you'd have the freedom to put stuff wherever you liked because your final arrangement doesn't have to start at bar no. 1, it can start anywhere.

Sure, it's just nice to be able to not deal with a timeline at all. Like I said, I've used Live for 15+ years, so if I'm working in the way you're describing I almost never grabbed Logic or DP before Clips. Since you on the other hand haven't worked like Bitwig, Live and DP now work with Scenes and Clips, it's just not comfortable to you, and your workarounds don't seem that big of a deal to you. On this line though, in no way am I saying you have to have Clips and Scenes in any DAW to make good music or be fast etc. it's just another tool, like using a DAW that doesn't or does do MPE etc.

That's a different thing and I imagine you could do that with MIDI plugins in Cubase (although it's not something I have ever needed or tried). Cubase isn't strictly linear any more, you work with clips now so repeating stuff is dead easy - you grab a clip by the handle and you drag it out as far as you want and it makes however many copies it needs to fill that area of the timeline. If you need to make a change you delete all but the first clip, change it and drag out again. It takes almost no time at all.

Here's the difference though, without a direct timeline a basically complex LFO style modulation clip can modulate anything in the scenes it's in, or be fired copied, routed etc. to modulate anything in other Scenes. it takes no pre planning to do, which even using a plug in requires in a linear timeline.

As I said, I think it's flexible enough to be whatever you want it to be. BTW, I am really enjoying this discussion because it's making me think about Cubase and the way I work and I think it is going be really beneficial to my workflow in the future. So thanks for keeping up your end.

No worries, I'm on the road right now, but this is the sort of in and outs of why different DAWs exist, and why people use them that I wanted this thread to be about. With how simplified in some ways Live is I get why some people wrote it off, but having used it for years and seeing what can be done with Clips and Scenes, it's not at all surprising to me that the most common secondary DAW that people used over the years was Live. I'm glad Bitwig and DP came out with the same feature though. I really do like Live, but I feel Ableton have been resting on their laurels and the integration of Max 4 Live into Live for about 10 years now. Besides this supposed "deep" integration with M4L Ableton have been IMO just kind of coasting for quite some time.
I recognize that Bitwig didn't gel with you, but it's non linear modulation system is exactly why some people do like these Scene/Clip DAW approaches. My only complaints about Bitwig so far are the GUI being too toy like, some off choices for key commands, and the fact that control surfaces are either amazingly supported or "learn to code"..

[BONES]

the fact that you have to throw a bunch of MIDI and audio into the timeline to grab it and put it into Scenes (because that's essentially what Cubase is doing here), is a lot of extra work.

How is it extra work, that stuff doesn't just magically appear in Live, does it? You have to create it and put it somewhere so, honestly, I can't see the difference.

I'm one of those people who never even thought of working in Lives Arrangement View, I've always used the Session View, so the creation of a part in Live was never a matter of grabbing parts from the timeline.

So where do you grab them from? Doing it all in the project window in Cubase just makes it more integrated, obviating the need for separate views/modes to work on the same material. You're not taking stuff "from" the timeline, you are just moving it about within the timeline. Having watched a couple of Live videos, that's got to be a pretty big advantage, given how clunky it is moving clips and scenes between views.

I mean besides performance, Lives only advantage was Session View for years, so why not take advantage of it?

Advantage over what? It just seems like working with patterns.

Since you on the other hand haven't worked like Bitwig, Live and DP now work with Scenes and Clips, it's just not comfortable to you, and your workarounds don't seem that big of a deal to you.

I worked with a pattern based sequencer for more than 20 years, I should be even more hidebound than you seem to be but I am open to change if it improves my workflow and/or the results of my work.

Here's the difference though, without a direct timeline a basically complex LFO style modulation clip can modulate anything in the scenes it's in, or be fired copied, routed etc. to modulate anything in other Scenes. it takes no pre planning to do, which even using a plug in requires in a linear timeline.

You're talking about other things, now, more fundamental differences between different hosts. As I've said before, I do very little automation, I think it is a really clunky thing that is always a last resort for me. It's basically a really shit way of working.

seeing what can be done with Clips and Scenes, it's not at all surprising to me that the most common secondary DAW that people used over the years was Live.

Like Bitwig, I got the impression very early on that live was not made for working the way I work or for the type of music I make. The fact that it is mostly popular as a secondary application tells me that's probably true of a helluva lot of others, too.

[machinesworking]

How is it extra work, that stuff doesn't just magically appear in Live, does it? You have to create it and put it somewhere so, honestly, I can't see the difference.

IMO it seems like you've never really worked with clips. So in Live, DP and Bitwig etc. you can record your audio and MIDI directly into a clip, if you want it in the timeline, you record it into the timeline. In Cubase you're recording it into the timeline, then transferring it to scenes that you then record or arrange back into the timeline, it's another step to use scenes in Cubase if you're choosing to work with scenes, that doesn't exist in Live etc.

So where do you grab them from? Doing it all in the project window in Cubase just makes it more integrated, obviating the need for separate views/modes to work on the same material. You're not taking stuff "from" the timeline, you are just moving it about within the timeline. Having watched a couple of Live videos, that's got to be a pretty big advantage, given how clunky it is moving clips and scenes between views.

Again, it doesn't seem like scenes in Cubase is really going to be useful to you if you somehow can't get that it necessitates an extra step in Cubase. Live has had the ability to use two screens for a while now, you can duplicate the way Bitwig and Cubase have scenes on the same monitor if you wanted, but mostly over the years I've just recorded scenes directly into the arrangement, it's pretty easy really.

I worked with a pattern based sequencer for more than 20 years, I should be even more hidebound than you seem to be but I am open to change if it improves my workflow and/or the results of my work.

Pot kettle there, we all have various workflows that are necessitated by our habits though, I'm very comfortable with clips and scenes, if you're using another approach it might seem not that useful, i.e. not all pattern based sequencers are the same. You shrunk at Bitwig's foreign to your old ways of working approach, but I'm hidebound?

You're talking about other things, now, more fundamental differences between different hosts. As I've said before, I do very little automation, I think it is a really clunky thing that is always a last resort for me. It's basically a really shit way of working.

That's a value judgment that I just don't see the point of. IMO it's a good call if you're trying to distill out your 'sound', separate yourself from the pack etc. but as a rule, it's a dumb one. Some people do amazing things with track automation and in many ways it's no different than a complex LFO. It's like a guitarists saying synth players are all knob twiddlers who can't play etc. who cares.

Like Bitwig, I got the impression very early on that live was not made for working the way I work or for the type of music I make. The fact that it is mostly popular as a secondary application tells me that's probably true of a helluva lot of others, too.

For you it might be 100% true, but for a lot of people it's not.

Live started out as an audio only sample mangling looper with a lot of beat matching etc abilities, it didn't get MIDI out or virtual instruments until version 4. To some people it took a few versions to feel like it was a mature DAW. For people using Cubase, Logic Pro Tools etc. it offered much much better time stretching in terms of ease of use. At this point though it's integrated with Max4Live from Cycling 74, which in many ways makes it more powerful than about any DAW. Though to be fair a huge portion of the focus of Ableton tends to be modern indie EDM types and generative synthesis people.

It just comes down to the fact that there are 12+ DAWs out there, and while some of that can be attributed to the fact that a lot of people buy a DAW and learn it, and feel no need to switch etc. I think mostly it's because they all offer strong points and weak points in different areas.

People talk all the time of leaving Cubase and how they like X DAW that much better etc. but it in no way means Cubase is a POS.

[burnt circuit]

I use multiple DAWs because they have different strengths, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So for each 'link' in my production 'chain', I use whatever DAW is best at that particular task.

the beauty of VST plugins is they work in whatever DAW is the 'link' I'm working on at any given time. All on the same computer, using wav & midi files. It's not like you have to lug 14 lbs of tape from the studio down stairs, up ten flights of stairs, convert it to a different tape format, then lug 23 lbs of the new tape format down 3 flights of stairs to the next studio to work in, and repeating this process everytime you want to take your project to another stage better suited in another 'studio'. So it is beyond me why neckbeards get their panties all twisted and bunched up their heinie just because someone might have some criticisms about their 'waifu' DAW, even when the criticisms are coming from people who own licenses to and financially support the waifu in question.

Funny thing is, some of the most ardent cry babies with the most amount of pantie wedged the deepest up their chair-shaped heinie ... appear to have a relatively plentiful supply of disposable cash to spend on their hobby. So it's not like they are under huge economic pressure to go 'all in' solely for their waifu, warts n all.

So who's with me ? .... Multiple-DAW gang check in.

Same reasons why someone would own and play two different video games?

[BONES]

So in Live, DP and Bitwig etc. you can record your audio and MIDI directly into a clip, if you want it in the timeline, you record it into the timeline. In Cubase you're recording it into the timeline, then transferring it to scenes that you then record or arrange back into the timeline, it's another step to use scenes in Cubase if you're choosing to work with scenes, that doesn't exist in Live etc.

That's not how it works at all because, basically, your clips and scenes are simply overlaid on the timeline. They aren't separate from the timeline, they are part of it. So you aren't recording to one place or the other, you're just recording. That actually saves you steps and gives you more flexibility, in that you don't have to make a choice of where to record. You would need to create a template to facilitate that easy workflow but that's something you do once and re-use ad infinitum.

So where do you grab them from? Doing it all in the project window in Cubase just makes it more integrated, obviating the need for separate views/modes to work on the same material. You're not taking stuff "from" the timeline, you are just moving it about within the timeline. Having watched a couple of Live videos, that's got to be a pretty big advantage, given how clunky it is moving clips and scenes between views.

Again, it doesn't seem like scenes in Cubase is really going to be useful to you if you somehow can't get that it necessitates an extra step in Cubase. Live has had the ability to use two screens for a while now, you can duplicate the way Bitwig and Cubase have scenes on the same monitor if you wanted, but mostly over the years I've just recorded scenes directly into the arrangement, it's pretty easy really.

I'm very comfortable with clips and scenes

Yes, that's what "hidebound" implies.

You shrunk at Bitwig's foreign to your old ways of working approach, but I'm hidebound?

No, I tried it and found it inelegant/clunky. OTOH, I find Cubase's way quite elegant, even though it is much further from any workflow I've used in the past.

That's a value judgment that I just don't see the point of. IMO it's a good call if you're trying to distill out your 'sound', separate yourself from the pack etc. but as a rule, it's a dumb one.

Your assumption seems to be that there are no alternatives to using automation in any situation, which is clearly not the case. You already mistook simple velocity modulation for automation when listening to some of our music so you should realise that those end results can be achieved by other means. In both Live and Bitwig you have external modulators which, again, offer more flexible alternatives to automation. Ditto for MIDI plugins that can be used in any host. 90% of the automation I use is on the mixer or effects. I seem to manage to get what I want out of an instrument in other ways, even when my band-mate sends me stuff with automation on it.

People talk all the time of leaving Cubase and how they like X DAW that much better etc. but it in no way means Cubase is a POS.

Now we are veering off-topic. This isn't some kind of popularity contest, we're not saying one thing is good and another bad, just that finding the application which best suits your needs and living with its compromises makes a lot more sense than switching between them mid-project, just because one is better at something than another.

[BONES]

Really? You see making music as a way to fill your day, wasting your life away? How sad for you.

So in Live, DP and Bitwig etc. you can record your audio and MIDI directly into a clip, if you want it in the timeline, you record it into the timeline. In Cubase you're recording it into the timeline, then transferring it to scenes that you then record or arrange back into the timeline, it's another step to use scenes in Cubase if you're choosing to work with scenes, that doesn't exist in Live etc.

That's not how it works at all because, basically, your clips and scenes are simply overlaid on the timeline. They aren't separate from the timeline, they are part of it. So you aren't recording to one place or the other, you're just recording. That actually saves you steps and gives you more flexibility, in that you don't have to make a choice of where to record. You would need to create a template to facilitate that easy workflow but that's something you do once and re-use ad infinitum.

So where do you grab them from? Doing it all in the project window in Cubase just makes it more integrated, obviating the need for separate views/modes to work on the same material. You're not taking stuff "from" the timeline, you are just moving it about within the timeline. Having watched a couple of Live videos, that's got to be a pretty big advantage, given how clunky it is moving clips and scenes between views.

Again, it doesn't seem like scenes in Cubase is really going to be useful to you if you somehow can't get that it necessitates an extra step in Cubase. Live has had the ability to use two screens for a while now, you can duplicate the way Bitwig and Cubase have scenes on the same monitor if you wanted, but mostly over the years I've just recorded scenes directly into the arrangement, it's pretty easy really.

I'm very comfortable with clips and scenes

Yes, that's what "hidebound" implies.

You shrunk at Bitwig's foreign to your old ways of working approach, but I'm hidebound?

No, I tried it and found it inelegant/clunky. OTOH, I find Cubase's way quite elegant, even though it is much further from any workflow I've used in the past.

That's a value judgment that I just don't see the point of. IMO it's a good call if you're trying to distill out your 'sound', separate yourself from the pack etc. but as a rule, it's a dumb one.

Your assumption seems to be that there are no alternatives to using automation in any situation, which is clearly not the case. You already mistook simple velocity modulation for automation when listening to some of our music so you should realise that those end results can be achieved by other means. In both Live and Bitwig you have external modulators which, again, offer more flexible alternatives to automation. Ditto for MIDI plugins that can be used in any host. 90% of the automation I use is on the mixer or effects. I seem to manage to get what I want out of an instrument in other ways, even when my band-mate sends me stuff with automation on it.

People talk all the time of leaving Cubase and how they like X DAW that much better etc. but it in no way means Cubase is a POS.

Now we are veering off-topic. This isn't some kind of popularity contest, we're not saying one thing is good and another bad, just that finding the application which best suits your needs and living with its compromises makes a lot more sense than switching between them mid-project, just because one is better at something than another.

[BONES]

Really? You see making music as a way to fill your day, wasting your life away? How sad for you.

So in Live, DP and Bitwig etc. you can record your audio and MIDI directly into a clip, if you want it in the timeline, you record it into the timeline. In Cubase you're recording it into the timeline, then transferring it to scenes that you then record or arrange back into the timeline, it's another step to use scenes in Cubase if you're choosing to work with scenes, that doesn't exist in Live etc.

That's not how it works at all because, basically, your clips and scenes are simply overlaid on the timeline. They aren't separate from the timeline, they are part of it. So you aren't recording to one place or the other, you're just recording. That actually saves you steps and gives you more flexibility, in that you don't have to make a choice of where to record. You would need to create a template to facilitate that easy workflow but that's something you do once and re-use ad infinitum.

So where do you grab them from? Doing it all in the project window in Cubase just makes it more integrated, obviating the need for separate views/modes to work on the same material. You're not taking stuff "from" the timeline, you are just moving it about within the timeline. Having watched a couple of Live videos, that's got to be a pretty big advantage, given how clunky it is moving clips and scenes between views.

Again, it doesn't seem like scenes in Cubase is really going to be useful to you if you somehow can't get that it necessitates an extra step in Cubase. Live has had the ability to use two screens for a while now, you can duplicate the way Bitwig and Cubase have scenes on the same monitor if you wanted, but mostly over the years I've just recorded scenes directly into the arrangement, it's pretty easy really.

I'm very comfortable with clips and scenes

Yes, that's what "hidebound" implies.

You shrunk at Bitwig's foreign to your old ways of working approach, but I'm hidebound?

No, I tried it and found it inelegant/clunky. OTOH, I find Cubase's way quite elegant, even though it is much further from any workflow I've used in the past.

That's a value judgment that I just don't see the point of. IMO it's a good call if you're trying to distill out your 'sound', separate yourself from the pack etc. but as a rule, it's a dumb one.

Your assumption seems to be that there are no alternatives to using automation in any situation, which is clearly not the case. You already mistook simple velocity modulation for automation when listening to some of our music so you should realise that those end results can be achieved by other means. In both Live and Bitwig you have external modulators which, again, offer more flexible alternatives to automation. Ditto for MIDI plugins that can be used in any host. 90% of the automation I use is on the mixer or effects. I seem to manage to get what I want out of an instrument in other ways, even when my band-mate sends me stuff with automation on it.

People talk all the time of leaving Cubase and how they like X DAW that much better etc. but it in no way means Cubase is a POS.

Now we are veering off-topic. This isn't some kind of popularity contest, we're not saying one thing is good and another bad, just that finding the application which best suits your needs and living with its compromises makes a lot more sense than switching between them mid-project, just because one is better at something than another.
[/quote]
[/quote]