Why do people use multiple DAWs?

[fde101]

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..

MacOS 9 had contextual menus.

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

That's all well and good if you only do audio work or if you never do video work at higher resolutions - if you are only targeting 1080i/p resolutions or are simply viewing the video in order to produce the audio then have fun.

I happen to do both video and audio editing. While my primary computer does not currently have retina (hi-dpi) displays, I will eventually need to start switching to those to support working on video footage intended to be delivered at higher resolutions. If the audio software can't handle that well, I will need to choose different audio software.

Note this does not really mean the audio software needs to actually leverage the higher resolution: it doesn't really matter to me if it thinks it is on a 4K display or a 2K display as long as it works smoothly alongside the video software that will need to leverage the extra resolution.

However, any performance benefit of having the software think it is running at 2K resolution when it is actually on a 4K display is likely to be negligible at best. If it is running on a 4K display then it may as well take advantage of it where possible.

[an-electric-heart]

I use FL for doing my stuff. I find FL the easiest for sequenced electronic stuff, because of how easy the piano roll and pattern system works. But occasionally I get jobs recording other people, and in that case for recording a standard "band" I use Reaper. I do think different DAWs favour different genres of music, to an extent.

[metamorphosis]

Because more is better.

[BONES]

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.

How so? I can expand the PR window in Cubase full-screen at the click of a button but I mostly edit MIDI in the project window, not in the piano roll window. I think the keyboard shortcut is "R" or something. I find I work faster when I can see everything in context, rather than constantly swapping between windows and layouts and only seeing this thing or that in isolation.

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.

Sure, the menus are there but what's always been missing is the right mouse button to invoke them. CTRL+Click is a bit ungainly and most Mac users I know rarely, if ever, think to try it to see if there is a menu there, where Windows users are far more likely to. And don't even think about getting a Mac user to try middle mouse button to pan in a 3D viewport. They think that's some kind of voodoo hex magic.

Oh, and for the record, I swapped my MacPro for an HP Z Series workstation towards the end of last year. I've been considerably more productive since. They are slowly replacing them all and when we move to our new offices in September, the entire department will move to Windows. The editors trying to run Avid on 5 year old iMacs are particularly excited, as they currently endure multiple crashes per day.

That's all well and good if you only do audio work or if you never do video work at higher resolutions - if you are only targeting 1080i/p resolutions or are simply viewing the video in order to produce the audio then have fun.

I don't do audio for a living, I am a motion graphics ad visual effects artist. I've worked on TV and film projects, as well as on multimedia projects at resolutions in excess of 10,000 pixels wide. Yet I have never felt the need for a monitor larger than 2k, nor have I ever felt that full HD res was too little for my needs.

I happen to do both video and audio editing.

We have editors to take care of that stuff.

While my primary computer does not currently have retina (hi-dpi) displays, I will eventually need to start switching to those to support working on video footage intended to be delivered at higher resolutions.

Why? Don't you have a playout monitor for that? You'll never a get a good idea of what you're looking at inside a software GUI, even if it is fully compliant with the SMPTE Standard.

[MMaarrkk]

(except for one collab work where I had to temporarily switch to another DAW which I hated).

Personally, that has been the main reason why I had to use multiple DAWs. It's rather helpful to at least know your way around a few mainstream DAWs to make it easier to work with people. Of course, it's not an issue if you work with stems, but sometimes, taking a look at the full original project might be much more helpful and way less limiting.

If you really don't like the idea of knowing multiple DAWs, just knowing how to convert a project from one to another might be helpful. But even I could do some work with that, as I end up remaking a project manually sometimes.

[antic604]

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.

Yes please. Explain what you said. I've read it several times by now and what you say is:
- I use 10% of Cubase' features
- I can't imagine anyone wanting anything more than 10% I use and what's covered in remaining 90%
- (implicitly) hence Cubase is the perfect DAW, covering all needs.

Perhaps what you meant is different, but I can't know that - I only see what's WRITTEN.

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).

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.

Please read my post again (oh, the irony! )

• I'm not saying 4K guarantees touch capabilities and/or color accuracy - I'm saying that some laptop brands are only offering those with 4K screens (whereas 1080p screens usually come with high refresh rate, vs. 60Hz for 4K)
• I'm saying Cubase defaults to either 100% or 200% if user chooses anything in between, e.g. 125, 150 or 175% which is precisely what one wants when using high-DPI screen, i.e. to take advantage of extra sharpenss ad detail. But no - Cubase only supports those two extremes; no one WANTS that and that was exactly my point, not the opposite
• there's substantial difference - in Bitwig, Studio One, Live at least - when running it on a 1080p panel vs. a 4K panel with 200% scaling! All elements are of the same size (assuming same diagonal of the screen), BUT for each pixel of 1080p screen you now have 4 pixels on 4K screen, therefore any text or elements featuring high-frequency detail (icons, waveforms, rounded buttons & sliders, etc.) are sharper and can have more detail / less aliasing. I'm not excluding that Cubase simply quadruples the pixels for 4K/200%, which is why you wouldn't see any difference

[fuzzlightyear]

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.

So you truly believe laptops have the same power in all aspects of a desktop? You really should research it before you sound so convinced.

Well, most high end desktop CPUs can't be cooled enough in a laptop case, do to lack of space, fans and water cooling, in order to keep the temperatures low enough for proper operating conditions. They also want to keep their compact size, which results in smaller manufactured parts and bigger limitations.

It's just physics, science and fact... it's not opinion.

[antic604]

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.

So you truly believe laptops have the same power in all aspects of a desktop? You really should research it before you sound so convinced.

Well, most high end desktop CPUs can't be cooled enough in a laptop case, do to lack of space, fans and water cooling, in order to keep the temperatures low enough for proper operating conditions. They also want to keep their compact size, which results in smaller manufactured parts and bigger limitations.

It's just physics, science and fact... it's not opinion.

Some laptops are definitely more powerful than half of desktops.

[fuzzlightyear]

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.

So you truly believe laptops have the same power in all aspects of a desktop? You really should research it before you sound so convinced.

Well, most high end desktop CPUs can't be cooled enough in a laptop case, do to lack of space, fans and water cooling, in order to keep the temperatures low enough for proper operating conditions. They also want to keep their compact size, which results in smaller manufactured parts and bigger limitations.

It's just physics, science and fact... it's not opinion.

Some laptops are definitely more powerful than half of desktops.

Pick your fastest mobile chip verses the fastest desktop chip, you won't even be in the same ballpark.

Sadly, I don't think some even know there are two different types of chips when they talk about i3, i5, i7, etc... There's a mobile version and a desktop version.

[antic604]

Some laptops are definitely more powerful than half of desktops.

You are misinformed.

Pick your fastest mobile chip verses the fastest desktop chip, you won't even be in the same ballpark.

Run some benchmarks if you don't believe me.

You're disputing with claims we didn't make. Some laptops - the fastest ones - perform better than half of lowest performing desktop PCs. You do realize that MOST desktop PCs are not gaming rigs or professional work stations? They're used for office work, web browsing, etc. light workflows.

Obviously the best desktop PC will beat best laptop. No one disputes that. Even @Bones, surprisingly

[fuzzlightyear]

Some laptops are definitely more powerful than half of desktops.

You are misinformed.

Pick your fastest mobile chip verses the fastest desktop chip, you won't even be in the same ballpark.

Run some benchmarks if you don't believe me.

You're disputing with claims we didn't make. Some laptops - the fastest ones - perform better than half of lowest performing desktop PCs. You do realize that MOST desktop PCs are not gaming rigs or professional work stations? They're used for office work, web browsing, etc. light workflows.

Obviously the best desktop PC will beat best laptop. No one disputes that. Even @Bones, surprisingly

Pick your fastest mobile chip verses the fastest desktop chip, you won't even be in the same ballpark.

Sadly, I don't think some even know there are two different types of chips when they talk about i3, i5, i7, etc... There's a mobile version and a desktop version.

If you're trying to be funny, it's not working.

[antic604]

Sadly, I don't think some even know there are two different types of chips when they talk about i3, i5, i7, etc... There's a mobile version and a desktop version.

If you're trying to be funny, it's not working.

No, I'm not trying that. And that quote above also shows deficits in your knowledge, because e.g. mobile chips are also not homogenous - there are at least Y, U and H variants (with additional sub-variants) each with different power envelope, turbo boosts, cooling requirements, number of cores, cache size, etc. So it's not just 2 versions of e.g. 10th get i7.

[fuzzlightyear]

Sadly, I don't think some even know there are two different types of chips when they talk about i3, i5, i7, etc... There's a mobile version and a desktop version.

If you're trying to be funny, it's not working.

No, I'm not trying that. And that quote above also shows deficits in your knowledge, because e.g. mobile chips are also not homogenous - there are at least Y, U and H variants (with additional sub-variants) each with different power envelope, turbo boosts, cooling requirements, number of cores, cache size, etc. So it's not just 2 versions of e.g. 10th get i7.

When people move the goal posts to make a point, there is no longer an original point to be made.

[antic604]

When people move the goal posts to make a point, there is no longer an original point to be made.

The problem is you've been disagreeing with a point that no one made!

@BONES only said that he's using a new, powerful laptop that's more than good enough for his music production needs. I added that some laptops (the best ones) are more performant than most desktop PCs (in the world, not in gamers/musicians studios only).

Yet you insist we're arguing that laptops are faster than desktop PCs in general.

[WatchTheGuitar]

Unsubscribe