Bitwig VS Ableton

[pdxindy]

I frankly cannot understand how anyone could prefer Lives browser over Bitwigs.

Live's browser is slow and tedious... folding and unfolding stuff constantly. I was happy using Live. It was only the lack of MPE support that caused me to switch, but the browser was one of the lowlights.

[perpetual3]

Anyway, I found that typing what I want is much faster (in both browsers) than keep filtering or scrolling! For samples it is nightmare if you don't filter it with words like Kick or Snare especially if you have thousands of each!

The browser is the least I spent my time with, but I like the arrangement in Live more especially how to handle cue markers and how to navigate. I also begin to like the "simplicity and speed", as liquidsound said, in editing midi and clips which takes the most of my time.

I actually can have only Live Suite without any 3rd party synth or effect! Wavetable can cover most of what I need from synths while there is an excellent library of basic orchestral instruments that covers most of what I need. The drums overall is fantastic. The more time I spend with Live and its devices, the more I'm uninstalling things in my PC and Mac! I might end up selling most of what I have and concentrate on making music within Live mostly

I also prefer the arranger in Live, but the Bitwig browser is absolutely faster.

[perpetual3]

I frankly cannot understand how anyone could prefer Lives browser over Bitwigs.

Live's browser is slow and tedious... folding and unfolding stuff constantly. I was happy using Live. It was only the lack of MPE support that caused me to switch, but the browser was one of the lowlights.

Same experience here.

[liquidsound]

I frankly cannot understand how anyone could prefer Lives browser over Bitwigs.

Simplicity and speed if you know your thing.

Like I said, can’t understand it. Used Live from 1.5 to 10.

Maybe because you didn't start at v1.0?

Seriously, I work with Live's browser quite fast and have nothing to complain about (I would love the Aliases back though).
Bitwig has a very "Unique?" browser but it leaves me cold and annoyed.

It's all a personal workflow issue, compiled with the fact that Ableton workflow is sublime and "To The Point", for me, of course and.... for millions (?) of other users...

[perpetual3]

I frankly cannot understand how anyone could prefer Lives browser over Bitwigs.

Simplicity and speed if you know your thing.

Like I said, can’t understand it. Used Live from 1.5 to 10.

Maybe because you didn't start at v1.0?

Seriously, I work with Live's browser quite fast and have nothing to complain about (I would love the Aliases back though).
Bitwig has a very "Unique?" browser but it leaves me cold and annoyed.

It's all a personal workflow issue, compiled with the fact that Ableton workflow is sublime and "To The Point", for me, of course and.... for millions (?) of other users...

Yeah, there are things I prefer in Live, like the arranger and piano roll. But the browser is not one of them. If speed and simplicity is important, then the Bitwig browser is objectively better.

[liquidsound]

I frankly cannot understand how anyone could prefer Lives browser over Bitwigs.

Simplicity and speed if you know your thing.

Like I said, can’t understand it. Used Live from 1.5 to 10.

Maybe because you didn't start at v1.0?

Seriously, I work with Live's browser quite fast and have nothing to complain about (I would love the Aliases back though).
Bitwig has a very "Unique?" browser but it leaves me cold and annoyed.

It's all a personal workflow issue, compiled with the fact that Ableton workflow is sublime and "To The Point", for me, of course and.... for millions (?) of other users...

Yeah, there are things I prefer in Live, like the arranger and piano roll. But the browser is not one of them. If speed and simplicity is important, then the Bitwig browser is objectively better.

[cel4145]

It seems to me that many people don’t really understand the Bitwig browser.

I agree. I switched from Bitwig to Live this past fall for a variety of reasons. But it wasn't the browser. I prefer the Bitwig browser.

[pdxindy]

Yeah, there are things I prefer in Live, like the arranger and piano roll. But the browser is not one of them. If speed and simplicity is important, then the Bitwig browser is objectively better.

I would say objectively faster (better is itself a subjective term)

I can keep the side browser closed which is a bonus for space. If I am adding a new track then use Cmd-T, B, type 'hi' down arrow and return and Hive is on the track and whole thing took 3 seconds and I did not have to even touch the mouse or look at anything on the screen... so my focus doesn't have to shift in any way.

It's freakin brilliant.

[apoclypse]

There is a lot to parse here so I'm going to address just on thing.

A plugin browser which makes sense to me and is imho much more ergonomic is as already said the one of Reaper:
Reaper.jpg

You said you want to reduce mouse movement but in your example you've increased it and ambiguity as well as now you have to click though submenu upon submenu to get something you can't easily visualize, like you can in Bitwig as you flow from left to right.

For example in your Reaper screenshot you have VST FX, but if you've never used Reaper before you have no clue what the results are so you have to click on the menu to see the categories. Okay, hey there is a midi effects category, but in-order to see what your midi effects category contain you have to click on it yet again to get a long list of items. In Bitwig the results are always visible in the far right pane of the browser. There are visual color coded icons that make it easy to tell what you are actually looking at (you won't mistake an instrument for a midi effect for example) and as you filter items down that list gets smaller.

Bitwig's browser doesn't need to change the browser size to display a long list of items if you happen to have a lot of plugins. My synth category has 50+ plugins. Reaper can't fit them all on the screen. Bitwig's browser is the same size always so they always fit on screen and the rules to get to them are the same (just scroll). The browser doesn't change height depending on content so click and scroll targets are always consistent. So why is that important?

Mouse movement. You say less mouse movement is used in Reaper but you'e actually increased mouse movement with your Reaper example. If you have a long list you need to move your mouse vertically to traverse the list. In Bitwig horizontal movement is increased a bit but horizontal travel is actually less strenuous than vertical travel on a mouse/trackpad. I can traverse Bitwig's browser interface without ever lifting the mouse to reset the position (or in my case my finger as I use a trackpad). In Reaper lists are vertical. I can't reach the very top of the list and then the very bottom of the list without having to reset my position or move whole arm as the list takes almost the full height of the monitor. Meanwhile full monitor horizontal movement on most trackpads/mouses can be traversed with a flick of a wrist without resetting position (raising the mouse or finger). I don't know for sure but seems like that would be a good design decision behind Bitwig's browser and why it works horizontally.

[mholloway]

I don't like the browser much in either of them, tbh.

But at least Live let's me create folders in the User Library, which exist at a system-level. I vastly prefer working that way then dealing with the abstracted 'collection' concept where you have to 'target' a collection then click stars on items. Not for me. I just create folders in my User Library, name them accordingly, and drag-n-drop everything I need into them: instruments, racks, clips, anything and everything. Sub-folders as needed. It's my hierarchy, I know my way around, I keep it simple and it's always fast. And it's all *literally* created on the OS-level, and can therefore be managed there as well. For me, personally, this is always the best approach, and try as I have to 'like' bitwig's 'collections' and 'stars', I have always found it very slow and cumbersome. Which I've also felt about other daws that similarly abstract the concept of folder organization (e.g. Maschine's 'tagging' system...ughhhhhhh).

[pdxindy]

I vastly prefer working that way then dealing with the abstracted 'collection' concept where you have to 'target' a collection then click stars on items.

You don't have to target a collection and click stars...

Seems like Bitwig could use a better browser tutorial cause lots of people posting don't know how to use the browser.

[EnGee]

But honestly, it's not because of the browser that some people prefer Live over Bitwig

And to be more honest, I can do music with Bitwig without a major problem (I have already done that in the past), but for the reasons I mentioned (and in short), I feel better with more pleasure and better results when I work with Live now.

[Fannon]

I vastly prefer working that way then dealing with the abstracted 'collection' concept where you have to 'target' a collection then click stars on items.

You don't have to target a collection and click stars...

Seems like Bitwig could use a better browser tutorial cause lots of people posting don't know how to use the browser.

Actually, the way how the star system works in Bitwig got me really confused. Only understood it a few days ago. It's not exactly intuitive to be fair.

Just the fact that it looks like a star, but in reality it's an assignment system to any chosen collection. What you need to do is right-click on a collection and "choose as a target collection". Then, the stars you assign to the right side will define what is part of your collection and what isn't. You can apply this to the default "Favorites" of course, too - in that case it does behave like favorites. (Just pointing this out, maybe it helps other to un-confuse themselfes, too).

[liquidsound]

Or just Right-Click and assign/remove the choose item to/from a collection.

[Fannon]

Yes, that's possible, too.

But what threw me off is actually the visual part. I assumed that the star is reserved for marking something as a favorite. In reality, it's reused and what is displayed as starred depends on the selected collection. Here I would prefer a simple predefined set of colors you can assign, like with Ableton, Arturia or u-he. As a visual person, that helps you find your way and you can make up your own semantic. Bitwig reuses one concept (starring) to actually do two, imho different things at the same time.
Not that this is able to properly replace collections and smart collections. This is where I assume Ableton falls short.