Should Bitwig take Ableton 11 as an example?

[_leras]

Bitwig is not lacking any basic DAW functions. It can host VST's. It can record audio and midi. It can edit audio and midi. It can arrange those recordings into a composition and it can export the results.

So no, it is not just a modular environment, it's a DAW.

If it suits your needs/wants or not is up to you.

Whilst it might not be 'lacking' in basic DAW features, it could do with some additional work in the area of workflow, partilcularly arranging and mixing. (I may just not know how though, as whilst most things are fairly intuitive, some things are not)

Obviously it is possible to group channels - but I don't see how you can then have those channels all together in the the mixer - which is a real help in mixing.

The mixer itself - even if I have it taking up a whole screen - it's not space efficient or flexible and I'm stuck with these tiny stubby little volume meters and faders.

Perhaps someone can help with this one, but once I have an arrangement, I always feel like there is a risk of overwriting it if I go back to the scenes. Actually having multiple arrangements could be really nice, and could mean you could keep an arrangement and jam out a new rough
one etc etc.

[mosska]

Basic stuff: Groove pool and ability to extract the grooves and ability to save channels by default. Its SOOOO basic.

[Dirtgrain]

I didn't even know things like 'Retrospective Midi Record' existed until a few years ago, now apparently they are must have!

[ReleaseCandidate]

I want to see Bitwig keep developing in the direction of sound design and modulation. There is still plenty of stuff to do there to add to what are already some pretty unique capabilities. I'd like a Midi Grid device. An MSEG modulator. A midi device for adjusting curves of incoming modulations. User created UI's (like Polymer) for Grid presets. Etc. Etc.

Yes. But when it's lacking too many features of a DAW it's 'only' a modular environment that you can't use in another DAW

Bitwig is not lacking any basic DAW functions.

That's not what I said. And we can always discuss 'basic' (neither Bitwig nor Live have basic mixing features).

It can host VST's. It can record audio and midi. It can edit audio and midi. It can arrange those recordings into a composition and it can export the results.

Actually the export of MIDI out of Bitwig is a major PITA.

So no, it is not just a modular environment, it's a DAW.

Yes, but the question is, if it is usable - if it is reasonably fun to use it - as a DAW.

If it suits your needs/wants or not is up to you.

Of course. But I like Bitwig and want to be a DAW that people use, and not a second or third choice.

You will never get everything that everybody wants in one DAW. By the time you get that 'must have' feature from one DAW they will have added more new must have stuff you don't have!

Of course. When you want to sell a new version to the people you actually have to add something they want or need or do some thing better than before. But you know that when you start developing a program that's not a one-off (like plugins) but a program with a longer lifespan.
Also if that includes features you know are useless but the client or sales manager wants - just as an arbitrary example without any real world background .

[pdxindy]

Yes, but the question is, if it is usable - if it is reasonably fun to use it - as a DAW.

It is for me... Bitwig is my favorite DAW. One of the reasons is I haven't had a crash in a long time... at least a couple years. I never have to be concerned about losing work even if I have left it open for days or if a plugin crashes. For me, that is feature #1.

Bitwig is by far the most stable DAW I have used.

Bitwig has all the basic mixing features I need. What do you want to see added as far as mixing?

[ReleaseCandidate]

Yes, but the question is, if it is usable - if it is reasonably fun to use it - as a DAW.

It is for me... Bitwig is my favorite DAW. One of the reasons is I haven't had a crash in a long time... at least a couple years. I never have to be concerned about losing work even if I have left it open for days or if a plugin crashes. For me, that is feature #1.

Actually that's not a feature but a requirement (that many DAWs fail to meet . I can't stand unstable software or computers. That's why I don't use Tracktion/Waveform, which has some _really_good ideas.
Since 11 I'm using Bitwig less than before, because Live really made my life[not the best pun] more enjoyable.

Bitwig is by far the most stable DAW I have used.

Well, Live wins that competition on my computers through the years. But Bitwig _is_ stable (that's why I keep using it).

Bitwig has all the basic mixing features I need. What do you want to see added as far as mixing?

Well, it has a mixer At least the sends have names (unlike another DAW , but no real stereo panning (unlike another DAW
What's missing: usable size of the faders (I don't need huuuuge meters but big faders), better routing of audio (why do I need to use audio receivers to see the levels), saveable ranges (to loop), busses (no, groups don't cut it) and VCAs (or at least saveable groups of faders/knobs, but saving automation is a PITA using them), saveable channel views in the mixer, saveable mixer states (including automation), a monitor bus, options like 'Solo Safe' for channels, the ability to add aux channels at the sending channel, so you don't need the extra clicks, and other stuff I forgot, because I never use Bitwig (or Live) to mix. I don't really enjoy mixing that much, so at least I try to keep the process as smooth as possible.

[mholloway]

What's missing: usable size of the faders (I don't need huuuuge meters but big faders), better routing of audio (why do I need to use audio receivers to see the levels), saveable ranges (to loop), busses (no, groups don't cut it) and VCAs (or at least saveable groups of faders/knobs, but saving automation is a PITA using them), saveable channel views in the mixer, saveable mixer states (including automation), a monitor bus, options like 'Solo Safe' for channels, the ability to add aux channels at the sending channel, so you don't need the extra clicks, and other stuff I forgot, because I never use Bitwig (or Live) to mix. I don't really enjoy mixing that much, so at least I try to keep the process as smooth as possible.

All that this laundry list makes clear is that you're simply using the wrong daw. Everything you list above is old-school, 'classic studio in a box' stuff, totally covered, right now, by Cubase and Studio One. Bitwig was not made for people who say they 'need' these things. And in my personal opinion, that's a good thing. Bitwig, like live, was conceived as an alternative to that kind of DAW. If it had everything you just listed, 90% of it's base would never touch it and consider it pure bloat. You'd be much better served by Studio One, frankly, if this stuff is such High Priority stuff for you.

[machinesworking]

Have to agree, I would love comping, because in many ways that's part of the recording process. I sometimes mix and master in DP, but I would like to stay in Bitwig for the process of creating audio tracks for more advanced mixing if I need it. I can't see how VCA faders for instance would be of much use to but maybe ten people using Bitwig.

[lokanchung]

Live is heavily towards "Live" performances. Its workflow was stuck for years. But as version 11 brings comping and mpe support, I believe it's almost a superset of Bitwig feature-wise.

Bitwig has stable audio engine and has some nice elements compare to Live - that's why I switched - but it feels somewhat lacking, incomplete and immature. It's mostly coming from buggy and janky workflow and editing experience. Grid is nice but quite limited too. Most people would just load VST like Serum or PhasePlant and get happy faster.

When I used FL Studio, a lot of friends moved to Live including myself. After getting used to trash piano roll, most of them were happy because it had better sound design capabilities and project management was much more easier.

Now what if Bitwig gets smoother and more streamlined user experience, better piano roll, more editing features, midi grid, better native devices?
Say just you can just focus on making music "fast"? I believe that's the only way Bitwig can stay competent in the market. With further improvement of Grid, like midi grid, MSEG, grid container, external VST as grid module etc, it can really become an ultimate creative DAW.

[mholloway]

Live is heavily towards "Live" performances.

This is still the oldest, tiredest, dumbest false-belief / misinformation of the DAW world. Sad to see that it's still circulating around here.

[pdxindy]

What's missing: usable size of the faders (I don't need huuuuge meters but big faders), better routing of audio (why do I need to use audio receivers to see the levels), saveable ranges (to loop), busses (no, groups don't cut it) and VCAs (or at least saveable groups of faders/knobs, but saving automation is a PITA using them), saveable channel views in the mixer, saveable mixer states (including automation), a monitor bus, options like 'Solo Safe' for channels, the ability to add aux channels at the sending channel, so you don't need the extra clicks, and other stuff I forgot, because I never use Bitwig (or Live) to mix. I don't really enjoy mixing that much, so at least I try to keep the process as smooth as possible.

All that this laundry list makes clear is that you're simply using the wrong daw. Everything you list above is old-school, 'classic studio in a box' stuff, totally covered, right now, by Cubase and Studio One. Bitwig was not made for people who say they 'need' these things. And in my personal opinion, that's a good thing. Bitwig, like live, was conceived as an alternative to that kind of DAW. If it had everything you just listed, 90% of it's base would never touch it and consider it pure bloat. You'd be much better served by Studio One, frankly, if this stuff is such High Priority stuff for you.

That's how it is for me. I don't care about that stuff and would never use most of it. Bitwig meets my mixing needs reasonably well as is. I'd like the mousewheel to work on the faders.

[pdxindy]

Live is heavily towards "Live" performances.

This is still the oldest, tiredest, dumbest false-belief / misinformation of the DAW world. Sad to see that it's still circulating around here.

Yup...

[lokanchung]

Live is heavily towards "Live" performances.

This is still the oldest, tiredest, dumbest false-belief / misinformation of the DAW world. Sad to see that it's still circulating around here.

Take a look at their update log, half of them are m4l version up, new controller script, fixing controller script etc.
By saying that I'm not denying that live is a fully featured DAW.

[liquidsound]

Live is heavily towards "Live" performances.

This is still the oldest, tiredest, dumbest false-belief / misinformation of the DAW world. Sad to see that it's still circulating around here.

Take a look at their update log, half of them are m4l version up, new controller script, fixing controller script etc.
By saying that I'm not denying that live is a fully featured DAW.

You probably need to dive deep into both DAWs (AL-BW) and then reflect on what your saying. That would suits you better.

[lokanchung]

You probably need to dive deep into both DAWs (AL-BW) and then reflect on what your saying. That would suits you better.

Well if you say so. But I've used Live for 3 years and pretty sure that I know almost every bit of it. Live's main priority has always been "live", it's pretty obvious when they are focusing on push rather than fixing their sluggish UI framework, adding piano roll features and so on.