Why do people use multiple DAWs?

[EnGee]

Also, everyone can see you have more than one car or vehicle, but no one can see how many DAWs and software installed in your computer

Anyway, I also have two sides (human and werewolf!). If I feel serious about my hobby, I tend to choose specific tools (say making a piece of music with one DAW and few specific synths and drums), but when I just want to play around like kid with his toys, the sky (or my pocket) is the limit!

There is no right or wrong here. Everyone has his/her reasons for using just one DAW or several ones in spite of the purpose or the way of using it (recording or drawing by mouse).

[whyterabbyt]

The point that's trying to be made is, not getting caught up in the idea that you don't have what you already "need" to make music, sound, audio or whatever. Sure, there's plenty out there to make you life easier or whatever.

The counterpoint of course is not getting caught up in the idea that you have to apply one tool to making all your music, sound, audio or whatever.
Because mileages vary.

The point is maybe it's a good idea to work on one's musicianship rather then relying on their tools to do the work for them.

Again with the blinkers about music. Not every DAW user is doing anything to do with music.
A point is maybe people use more than one tool because they're doing more than one kind of job to use those tools for.
Another point is maybe using more than tool isn't the same thing as relying on those tools to do the work, its using a tool where that tool is more suitable or useful for the job.
Yet another point is that you've got no basis for assuming that people who use only one tool are any less likely to be relying on that tool to do the work for them. Maybe they'd rely on the tool more than someone who sees the job as the objective, not the specificity of the tool.
Mileages vary.

Sure, you get things done quicker and other people's ideas inspire you to create something new from it. But, that's what all beginners do for a very long time.

Other people's ideas? Beginners? Are you conflating this with some other conversation?

Personally, I'm not interested in getting things done 'quicker', I'm interested in getting them done to my satisfaction. If people are more interested in 'quicker' then all power to them, I dont see much of a correlation between that and the number of tools one uses.

There are some people that want to improve their musicianship, producing, or whatever. That takes a lot of hard work and usually dedication, which can be "easier", only having to juggle one thing at a time, while learning something inside and out, to ultimately use their workflow optimally.

There are some people that want to improve their musicianship, producing, or whatever. That takes a lot of hard work and usually dedication, which can be "easier", not having to learn something inside and out, juggling only the most relevant tool for the job, to ultimately use their workflow optimally.
Because mileages vary. And so does the notion of optimal.

I'm sure there are a lot of people here that can vouch that GAS is a real thing and it's not always "fun".

And? You're pretty much saying that sometimes it is fun.
And it probably is, for a lot of people. Because mileages vary.

[fuzzlightyear]

...

It's pretty safe to say that some people will have differing opinions, that's nothing new.

[middle_color]

I am REALLY surprised by the results of the poll. I expected more people jump between DAWs. Yet i don't imagine me exporting stems from one DAW to another - too much effort.

--

For me making music is gaming in the first place. So i just like gamification side of it. Would you play the same and only one game the whole life?

So what you're saying is that making music for you is nothing more than a way to fill your days? You have nothing that you want to achieve, you just need something to do with your hands? Knitting or crochet might be a better way to do that.

What days? I only make music making-related activities 1-5 hours and not even everyday.
I have regular office carrier where i put my ambitions.
Music making is pure relaxation for me. I do this instead of watching films, for example.
For me "music making" is equal to "knitting".

Yet you say knitting as in negative connotation, i absolutely do not agree with that.

--

For me making music is gaming in the first place. So i just like gamification side of it. Would you play the same and only one game the whole life?

......Actually I know tons of folks that still play Counter Strike 1.6.....

......Our recording engineer still uses old Cubase SX3.....

Thanks for the reply, I absolutely imagine that. Both your examples shows that they are using it to achieve their goals in life. Recording engineer is even get paid for job (not sure about gamers get paid, but they absolutely have their personal achievements).
In my job (not music related) i also use familiar and stable solutions, so we are not that different.

What i did not emphasize enough in my post is that i do not plan to make music making my main source of income. I enjoy the process now. Then sometime in the future i will just stop doing it and it will be fine.

[whyterabbyt]

...

It's pretty safe to say that some people will have differing opinions, that's nothing new.

And different jobs to do. And different preferences. And different reasons for doing things. And different workflows.

That's nothing new either.

[rezoneight]

...

It's pretty safe to say that some people will have differing opinions, that's nothing new.

And different jobs to do. And different preferences. And different reasons for doing things. And different workflows.

That's nothing new either.

Wait a second...are you seriously saying that people are different? Mind blown.

[fuzzlightyear]

...

It's pretty safe to say that some people will have differing opinions, that's nothing new.

And different jobs to do. And different preferences. And different reasons for doing things. And different workflows.

That's nothing new either.

Don't forget different addictions.

And different obsessions, different habits, vices, crutches...

And different perspectives...

[DaveClark]

... more or less self evident that developers test their plugins in as many daws as they can....

Hi recursive one,

Thanks for your response.

Actually not all developers do this. For example, some rely on a team of beta testers to do this for them; others rely on "application engineers" at their large company, etc. In these scenarios, it's possible for each member to use only one DAW. So use of multiple DAWs by developers is by no means "self-evident."

Regards,
Dave Clark

[ramseysounds]

Been using Cubase since version 4. Skipped a few intermediate updates and now on 10.5. Dabbled with reaper but couldn't get on with it. It does all I need and more and made 100’s of tracks with it. I don't understand the need to use multiple daws, but like most things its personal preference.

[clipnotic]

a good question, I also don't understand the reason to work with more than one DAW. Perhaps the reason is, that those peoples bought the wrong DAW!

[ShawnG]

Can't be true. I bought all of the DAWs. Only use a couple really, but still...

[Passing Bye]

Thanks for the reply, I absolutely imagine that. Both your examples shows that they are using it to achieve their goals in life. Recording engineer is even get paid for job (not sure about gamers get paid, but they absolutely have their personal achievements).
In my job (not music related) i also use familiar and stable solutions, so we are not that different.

What i did not emphasize enough in my post is that i do not plan to make music making my main source of income. I enjoy the process now. Then sometime in the future i will just stop doing it and it will be fine.

Sure, I understand, music making is great hobby and whatever get you excited about it is fine in my book, audio industry quite changed because of that for the best, now we don't need fortune to buy gear and software anymore, awesome times for music making!

[BONES]

Well, I know what features aren't there in Bitwig that I had and used in Logic and vice versa,

I don't and it was the kind of information I was hoping to elicit from my response to your original comment.

I doubt I use 10% of the features of Cubase so I find it hard to fathom how anyone might think it has missing features

This is so flawed logiclly that I can't believe one would type it and decide to click "submit"

It would be if what you quoted had been my entire post but it wasn't, was it? It should have been obvious that what I was asking was to clarify what Passing Bye thought of as a "missing feature", on the assumption that it would be very different to what I think of as a "missing feature". e.g. To one person, not having a "Q" control on both the upper and lower mids in the channel EQ might constitute a missing feature, whereas to me the fact both have some kind of EQ ticks the box for "per channel EQ". To put it another way, to me the EQ is a feature of the DAW, the "Q" controls are a feature of the EQ and not relevant to the DAW discussion itself. One might be a "better feature" but not a "missing feature". Similarly, a piano roll is a DAW feature. Some are better than others but as long as there is a PR present, I can't see a lack of some tool or other within the PR as a "missing feature" in the DAW itself, unless maybe it is something that simply cannot be achieved via a workaround in one PR but can in another.

[Passing Bye]

Well, I know what features aren't there in Bitwig that I had and used in Logic and vice versa,

I don't and it was the kind of information I was hoping to elicit from my response to your original comment.

I doubt I use 10% of the features of Cubase so I find it hard to fathom how anyone might think it has missing features

This is so flawed logiclly that I can't believe one would type it and decide to click "submit"

It would be if what you quoted had been my entire post but it wasn't, was it? It should have been obvious that what I was asking was to clarify what Passing Bye thought of as a "missing feature", on the assumption that it would be very different to what I think of as a "missing feature". e.g. To one person, not having a "Q" control on both the upper and lower mids in the channel EQ might constitute a missing feature, whereas to me the fact both have some kind of EQ ticks the box for "per channel EQ". To put it another way, to me the EQ is a feature of the DAW, the "Q" controls are a feature of the EQ and not relevant to the DAW discussion itself. One might be a "better feature" but not a "missing feature". Similarly, a piano roll is a DAW feature. Some are better than others but as long as there is a PR present, I can't see a lack of some tool or other within the PR as a "missing feature" in the DAW itself, unless maybe it is something that simply cannot be achieved via a workaround in one PR but can in another.

I understand your point, comping takes would probably be missing feature in your book, but not as much as "Select Equal Subpositions" in piano roll and all of those MIDI selecting options in general, I actually agree with you and that was intent of my writing, there's always going to be something missing, no DAW will be 1:1 in every little thing.

[BONES]

That's what I figured. Little things can make a big difference but what I often find with Cubase is that there is something, somewhere else, that speeds things up to compensate for those things that slow you down. It ends up being more a case of "swings & roundabouts", rather than things you can't actually do.