Why do people use multiple DAWs?

[dellboy]

You are contradicting yourself.

I'm not, you seem out of touch with context of conversation I had with another member, so really have no desire to get into meaningless debate with you on that sole premise, as pointed out, check out dictionary.

Maybe start a new thread with that notion, can someone who earns living penciling in notes in a DAW be called professional, but that's not even slightly connected to snipped of conversation I had with another member, you are so off I'm seriously not gonna bother getting into semantics of it with you, probably someone will if you open new thread.

I have never said that "someone who earns a living penciling in notes in a DAW" cannot be a professional.

In fact that pretty much sums up all the great composers throughout history who did just that but used a pen and score paper instead. Beethoven was deaf at the end of his career but could still hear the notes in his head and was therefore able to write them down. If he was alive today he might well use a mouse to input notes into a DAW.

My point was that the default on this forum seems to be that everyone uses a DAW to write EDM with a mouse and therefore all conversations revolve around that false premise.

It also seems to assume that everyone uses "synths" in their compositions instead of rompler type sounds that emulate real instruments.

And again that musicians like myself who largely use a DAW like a glorified tape machine need a gazillion new features before they can do anything constructive.

[detritusdave]

Most DAW companies focus on the features that the general public wants, not one off obscure or niche types of features that cater to a certain need for a small group of people. Such as 4k graphics with the ability to resize everything to fit their tiny little laptop screens.

This is silly. You can't even buy certain laptop models with non-high DPI screens anymore, especially if you want it to be a touch-screen and/or offer professional color reproduction accuracy (Surface stuff, Razer, XPS). So it's unthinkable that e.g. Cubase still defaults to either 100% or 200% scaling on such screens, for any setting in between. In my book that's missing a feature, even though one can work around it by connecting external screen or forcing the laptop into a lower resolution.

The number of high DPI screens pales in comparison to those who work on a 1080p screen. Laptops are weaker in all aspects of computing, cpu, memory, data, storage and a whole list of other things they aren't really designed for, like displaying large detailed images on a tiny screen.

The future will probably have more coding for high DPI monitors, when the high demand actually exists, that's just good business sense. Now if you were complaining to a video game developer that their graphics sucked, that's a different story.

Where's the evidence for this? In terms of actual numbers/research... my own anecdotal experience is completely the opposite?

[Passing Bye]

My point was that the default on this forum seems to be that everyone uses a DAW to write EDM with a mouse and therefore all conversations revolve around that false premise.

Than I clearly misunderstood you, my point was that there's too much generalizations and stereotypes being thrown out too about how different people work, should work, their needs and behaviors, numerous times I stumbled upon sentence that start with "real pro's..." followed with some generalization, which is not actually completely true, sometimes maybe it's applicable to majority, but not all of them.

[fuzzlightyear]

Most DAW companies focus on the features that the general public wants, not one off obscure or niche types of features that cater to a certain need for a small group of people. Such as 4k graphics with the ability to resize everything to fit their tiny little laptop screens.

This is silly. You can't even buy certain laptop models with non-high DPI screens anymore, especially if you want it to be a touch-screen and/or offer professional color reproduction accuracy (Surface stuff, Razer, XPS). So it's unthinkable that e.g. Cubase still defaults to either 100% or 200% scaling on such screens, for any setting in between. In my book that's missing a feature, even though one can work around it by connecting external screen or forcing the laptop into a lower resolution.

The number of high DPI screens pales in comparison to those who work on a 1080p screen. Laptops are weaker in all aspects of computing, cpu, memory, data, storage and a whole list of other things they aren't really designed for, like displaying large detailed images on a tiny screen.

The future will probably have more coding for high DPI monitors, when the high demand actually exists, that's just good business sense. Now if you were complaining to a video game developer that their graphics sucked, that's a different story.

Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant:
1) Good laptop nowadays are more than enough in terms of CPU, GPU, storage, etc. for most producers, unless you're running some huge orchestral templates
2) On a small laptop screen it's much more important to have high resolution, because it makes a lot of difference in clarity of the picture, especially if you have lots of small objects
3) Most people nowadays don't buy desktops anymore, so it's obvious their needs should be taken into considerations, in particular because it's those people - hobbyists, beginners - that but the DAWs, because most established artists are few versions back with their software, because they don't want to touch what works for them

You keep forgetting about those tiny little 14" screens. Next thing you know people are going to ask for something special to be done for iOS so they can use their DAW on their smartphones. Oh that's right they already have DAWs on smartphones, so that nullifies everything else.

[vurt]

one to do all the music business stuff


and dubturbo to impress the ladies

[BONES]

Regardless of definition of "missing feature", the sole fact that you think if you're not missing anything then no one can, is logically false.

Which is precisely why I didn't say that. Go back and read what I read. Parse it phrase by phrase and stop making yourself look like you can't read and comprehend simple discussions. You're embarrassing yourself.

I disagree that Cubase has everything that anyone can need.

Disagree with whom? Nobody said that. Clearly there are major features in Live and Bitwig that Cubase lacks but they are fundamental to the way each works so you know that going in. So that choice doesn't come down to "missing features", it's a choice of an individual's preferred workflow. I simply used the example of my own experience, at no time did I suggest Cubase was the only host application anyone should ever need. That's just what you chose to read into my post.

[machinesworking]

So that choice doesn't come down to "missing features", it's a choice of an individual's preferred workflow.

This is why I personally use multiple DAWs.
I mostly use DP10, but I also use Bitwig. Different workflows can be interesting sometimes.

Honestly though, I'm at that point to where they're all blending, DP, Logic, Live and Bitwig all have Clips. It's down to workarounds that bother you really, every DAW will have some part where you're jumping through more hoops than another DAW, and in the end your favorite will be the one that gets out of your way the most.

I think if DP fixes the issues I have with Clips, then I'm down to one DAW 90% of the time again.

[EnGee]

When this thread started I was about to buy a license of Ableton Live (and before that Studio One!) but I wouldn't think that I would choose Live to be my to go DAW and the only one using! I thought I would stay going between those 3 DAWs. Anyway, I begin to care more about music than other hobbies and that made me more serious!

So, in the end I ended to consider just one DAW and that is Live. I ordered Push 2 today as I begin to spend more time learning Live (and Arturia's digital emulations). I think I can see my workflow clearly now. My space is still cluttered, but I need to make space for my new baby

I don't know if affected by this thread, but I've never faced myself and think seriously about it! Do I need more than one DAW? The real answer is "No". Why then I have more than one? There is one answer I'm convinced of and this is because I'm not serious about it (you can say silly or shallow! It's ok! ).

Ok time to sell S1 and Bitwig now (stupid!).

[BONES]

This is why I personally use multiple DAWs. I mostly use DP10, but I also use Bitwig. Different workflows can be interesting sometimes.

Enough to be bothered mastering both, though? Seems like way too much effort to me.

every DAW will have some part where you're jumping through more hoops than another DAW, and in the end your favorite will be the one that gets out of your way the most.

I agree completely with the second part but hardly at all with the first. The best way to get the most out of anything is to use the way it was intended to be used, rather than to try and fight it so that it works the way you want it to. Which is to say I am happy to adapt to a different way of working if it allows me to do what I want to do. I am always looking for better workflows, not things that better suit the workflow I already have. I was really surprised to find that Cubase could offer me a better workflow than Orion but it does if I use it the way it is meant to be used. But if I try to use it like I use Orion, it blows goats. Big, hairy goats.

[nix808]

they r Pro goats though, I insist

I have Cubase, as well as relying on Orion
-still just scrolling presets in it(Cubase)

[BONES]

Cubase is awesome and it's not that hard to get into. There are a few excellent tutorials on YouTube to get you going really quickly. I can send you some links if you're keen.

This is silly. You can't even buy certain laptop models with non-high DPI screens anymore

Yes, but for every one of those there will be 10 that are the opposite. And only having a hi-DPi option instantly removes a machine from my selection set.

especially if you want it to be a touch-screen and/or offer professional color reproduction accuracy (Surface stuff, Razer, XPS).

Sorry but a hi-DPi screen does not guarantee colour accuracy nor a better touch experience. Similarly, there are plenty of lower density screens that offer excellent colour accuracy. The whole hi-DPi thing is marketing bullshit from start to finish. My last laptop had a 13" 2.5k screen and it didn't look half as good as the HD screen on my new laptop. The HD screen is just a better panel.

So it's unthinkable that e.g. Cubase still defaults to either 100% or 200% scaling on such screens, for any setting in between. In my book that's missing a feature, even though one can work around it by connecting external screen or forcing the laptop into a lower resolution.

That's not a feature at all. It's what happens when idiots are given access to technology they don't understand and have no real use for. Seriously, what is the f**king point of buying a 4k screen and running everything at 200%? As soon as you scale anything, you are negating the only reason to buy a high res screen in the first place.

You don't have to "force" a laptop into a lower resolution, both macOS and Windows 10 have facilities to do it easily and natively. It's no harder than adjusting the brightness.

I work in Australia's largest and most successful TV network and after trialling dual 4k screens for 6 months, giving most of the 20-odd artists in the department the opportunity to work on them, we unanimously decided to go with dual 2k screens instead. Everything runs at native res, we don't have to worry about Hi-DPi support or any of that bullshit, and we get much more grunt from our graphics cards than we were with the 4k screens. So it' s completely thinkable that professional software like Cubase have development priorities other than providing screen scaling for idiots who chose the wrong monitor.

Laptops are weaker in all aspects of computing, cpu, memory, data, storage and a whole list of other things they aren't really designed for, like displaying large detailed images on a tiny screen.

Really? So you are telling me that my laptop with it's 10th Gen hexa-Core i7, 32GB of RAM and RTX2060 graphics would be no match for desktop PC running an old Core i5 with 4GB of RAM and on-board graphics? Seems unlikely. My laptop provides roughly 4 to 5 times the computing power I actually require to run even our most complex music projects in Cubase or Orion. It's already huge overkill so if it happens not to be as powerful as some other desktop configuration, it's hardly relevant.

Where's the evidence for this? In terms of actual numbers/research... my own anecdotal experience is completely the opposite?

Go and configure a few laptops at Dell. XPS and Precision Mobile workstation will offer 4k screens as an option but none of their bigger selling consumer models will and there will not be a single model in their lineup where the 4k screen is the only option. You'll find the same if you go to the HP or Lenovo website, or Asus or Acer or pretty much every big name vendor. They are happy to sell you a 4k screen if you're stupid enough to want one but they don't force them on you.

[fuzzlightyear]

Really? So you are telling me that my laptop with it's 10th Gen hexa-Core i7, 32GB of RAM and RTX2060 graphics would be no match for desktop PC running an old Core i5 with 4GB of RAM and on-board graphics? Seems unlikely. My laptop provides roughly 4 to 5 times the computing power I actually require to run even our most complex music projects in Cubase or Orion. It's already huge overkill so if it happens not to be as powerful as some other desktop configuration, it's hardly relevant.

Yes, it's a proven fact that laptops have less power then a desktop in every aspect, except smaller screen real estate.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't make a laptop work in a music production situation, but don't expect it to act like desktop.

You know you could always try to plug in a monitor to your laptop so there would be less downtime to your music making and more screen real estate with larger fonts and graphics so you can see your spectrum analyzer.

[machinesworking]

This is why I personally use multiple DAWs. I mostly use DP10, but I also use Bitwig. Different workflows can be interesting sometimes.

Enough to be bothered mastering both, though? Seems like way too much effort to me.

Coming from Logic 4.7 and Reason 1.0 years ago, to getting Ableton Live around v3 for it's obvious superiority in time stretching it's not that hard to learn another DAW. With Bitwig I get a fantastic interface to the Push 2, MPE, basically Kore/Automap level custom controller mapping of VSTs without the hassle. In DP you get 35+ year of keyboard shortcuts, things to speed up workflow etc.

every DAW will have some part where you're jumping through more hoops than another DAW, and in the end your favorite will be the one that gets out of your way the most.

I agree completely with the second part but hardly at all with the first. The best way to get the most out of anything is to use the way it was intended to be used, rather than to try and fight it so that it works the way you want it to. Which is to say I am happy to adapt to a different way of working if it allows me to do what I want to do. I am always looking for better workflows, not things that better suit the workflow I already have. I was really surprised to find that Cubase could offer me a better workflow than Orion but it does if I use it the way it is meant to be used. But if I try to use it like I use Orion, it blows goats. Big, hairy goats.

Mostly what I meant by that would be things like setting up MPE in Live, DP etc. DAWs that you have to create 16 midi tracks for it, or articulation mappings. It's possible most of the time to use drum editors to emulate the advantages of articulation mappings. These are all workarounds. They aren't that hard, but people including myself will switch DAWs over it. My point was that every DAW has some sort of area they aren't that good at. Bitwig doesn't do SysEx, movies, complicated MIDI editing procedures, shortcuts are set up about as badly as can be, etc. etc.

There are definitely advantages to sticking to one DAW, although you never know really how sludgy something you're doing is in your DAW unless you see it in action in another.

[BONES]

I don't even know what you're talking about. Well, I kind of do but the things you mention are of little or no interest to me. Too fiddly. I program everything into the piano roll with my mouse. I don't bother with the drum map interface when I'm programming drums or any of that krap, those things are just distractions I don't need.

I've never been big on keyboard shortcuts, either, except in Photoshop. I use a few where it seems to make sense but mostly i prefer to do things physically. I don't like using search boxes to find things, either. I prefer to learn for myself where they live, even if it can take ages to find something. I do love right-click menus, though, which is probably something Mac users find strange, weird even.

Really? So you are telling me that my laptop with it's 10th Gen hexa-Core i7, 32GB of RAM and RTX2060 graphics would be no match for desktop PC running an old Core i5 with 4GB of RAM and on-board graphics? Seems unlikely. My laptop provides roughly 4 to 5 times the computing power I actually require to run even our most complex music projects in Cubase or Orion. It's already huge overkill so if it happens not to be as powerful as some other desktop configuration, it's hardly relevant.

Yes, it's a proven fact that laptops have less power then a desktop in every aspect, except smaller screen real estate.

I don't usually leave my original post in but I wanted to this time, just so everyone could see how completely absurd your response is. For once in my life I am actually lost for words to accurately describe just how stupid your reply is.

You know you could always try to plug in a monitor to your laptop so there would be less downtime to your music making and more screen real estate with larger fonts and graphics so you can see your spectrum analyzer.

I don't use a spectrum analyser. I have ears, I don't need pretty dancing graphics to describe sound to me. I also have functioning eyes, so I don't need my fonts or graphics to be any bigger. Quite the opposite, I like to keep it all as small as possible. Just have a look at the graphics on the synths I make if you doubt me.

[machinesworking]

I don't even know what you're talking about. Well, I kind of do but the things you mention are of little or no interest to me. Too fiddly. I program everything into the piano roll with my mouse. I don't bother with the drum map interface when I'm programming drums or any of that krap, those things are just distractions I don't need.

This contradicts this.

The best way to get the most out of anything is to use the way it was intended to be used, rather than to try and fight it so that it works the way you want it to. Which is to say I am happy to adapt to a different way of working if it allows me to do what I want to do. I am always looking for better workflows, not things that better suit the workflow I already have.

Drum editors etc. are ways of doing things quicker, 99% of the time, a whole window in a DAW is going to be designed to make things easier, easier drum programming, easier MIDI editing, etc.

I've never been big on keyboard shortcuts, either, except in Photoshop. I use a few where it seems to make sense but mostly i prefer to do things physically. I don't like using search boxes to find things, either. I prefer to learn for myself where they live, even if it can take ages to find something. I do love right-click menus, though, which is probably something Mac users find strange, weird even.

And again I wonder if you really do use macs at work at all? Contextual menus have been common forever on OS X, maybe OS 9 lacked them, but every DAW, program, the OS itself has contextual menus. There are gestures on trackpads even to call them up..