Bitwig VS Ableton

[liquidsound]

^^^ for me Protoculture's changing (after 10 years of Cubase usage ... on the video) was the biggest motivation

Let’s see if he can stick with BW for the next 10 years

[xbitz]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

[liquidsound]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed

No. I really think he’s having a refreshing great time with it, like Dash Glitch (another Cubase fugitive )

[EnGee]

It has been sometime now, maybe a year or little bit less. I don't miss Bitwig and I'm using S1 more than Live.

I feel more comfortable using S1 now than any DAW, but sometimes I use Live especially for fast ideas and for things that are missing in S1, but between the two DAWs I don't feel any reason to waste my time on other DAWs. Sometimes I run Logic, but it's getting less and less.

[anttimaatteri]

bitwigs browser is a great tool to keep your vst files sober. actually the sole reason i open bitwig. the ableton vst browser is probably the worst of all. it sort vst2s and vst3s, thats it. oh sort by name is ...and color it...i mean ...in 2023? cmon ableton, really? at least a reveal function?
ableton likes to end up in natives empty grave me thinks.

[_leras]

The most logical shortcuts are those you can bind yourself.
I, for example, like to have all tools mapped to letters like z, x, c, a, s: this way access is instantaneous and they're not scattered around. As a matter of fact, to me it makes more sense to map keys to buttons in similar places as they appear on the screen. You always have the best cheat-sheet you can have – the UI itself.

Bitwig just has these on 1-5.

Changing main windows F1-F5

Pretty simple

[billcarroll]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

[Tj Shredder]

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

It introduces not noticeable uncompensated latency of approximately 4 samples…
If you trust your ears instead of measures, just use it…

[PieBerger]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

They are a multi DAW user and probably just prefer/most comfortable using Pro Q. Apart from the uncompensated latency issue, which only affects parallel processing chains, EQ+ is a great device, it's my go to personally. I bought FF Total years ago, way before I used BWS, before it even existed actually but if I was starting from scratch again today I probably wouldn't get Pro Q because it's surplus to requirement.

I use it mostly as an FFT analyser and for checking collisions these days, not as an actual EQ as I prefer the convenience/workflow of EQ+. I don't think I've used more than 8 bands on any sound before, ever and with Audio Sidechain modulators I can make any band dynamic with greater control/flexibility compared to Pro Q, because you can set the Rise and Fall times and sidechain frequency range per band. In fact you can zero right in on a single harmonic, so it doubles up as a dynamic EQ/multiband compressor and a resonance suppressor.

[billcarroll]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

They are a multi DAW user and probably just prefer/most comfortable using Pro Q. Apart from the uncompensated latency issue, which only affects parallel processing chains, EQ+ is a great device, it's my go to personally. I bought FF Total years ago, way before I used BWS, before it even existed actually but if I was starting from scratch again today I probably wouldn't get Pro Q because it's surplus to requirement.

I use it mostly as an FFT analyser and for checking collisions these days, not as an actual EQ as I prefer the convenience/workflow of EQ+. I don't think I've used more than 8 bands on any sound before, ever and with Audio Sidechain modulators I can make any band dynamic with greater control/flexibility compared to Pro Q, because you can set the Rise and Fall times and sidechain frequency range per band. In fact you can zero right in on a single harmonic, so it doubles up as a dynamic EQ/multiband compressor and a resonance suppressor.

He uses EQ2 all the time, along with Pro-Q 3

[PieBerger]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

They are a multi DAW user and probably just prefer/most comfortable using Pro Q. Apart from the uncompensated latency issue, which only affects parallel processing chains, EQ+ is a great device, it's my go to personally. I bought FF Total years ago, way before I used BWS, before it even existed actually but if I was starting from scratch again today I probably wouldn't get Pro Q because it's surplus to requirement.

I use it mostly as an FFT analyser and for checking collisions these days, not as an actual EQ as I prefer the convenience/workflow of EQ+. I don't think I've used more than 8 bands on any sound before, ever and with Audio Sidechain modulators I can make any band dynamic with greater control/flexibility compared to Pro Q, because you can set the Rise and Fall times and sidechain frequency range per band. In fact you can zero right in on a single harmonic, so it doubles up as a dynamic EQ/multiband compressor and a resonance suppressor.

He uses EQ2 all the time, along with Pro-Q 3

Well I don't want to put any more words in his mouths and speculate further as to why that is. He posts here as marulamusic, maybe he will chime in at some point to set the record straight. In any case "producer X doesn't use this" for whatever reason, is not a strong enough argument on its own, not to use a plugin/device/DAW/whatever. The 4 samples uncompensated delay bug/feature is a non-issue for standard serial use-cases until there is convincing evidence to prove otherwise and no, "it looks wrong in Plugin Doctor" etc. is not convincing evidence. If 10 people for example, can accurately and reliably pick out EQ+ vs Pro Q in a mix context, specifically that the 4 samples of uncompensated delay is having an appreciable negative effect, in a double blind test then there is some discussion to be had.

[billcarroll]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

They are a multi DAW user and probably just prefer/most comfortable using Pro Q. Apart from the uncompensated latency issue, which only affects parallel processing chains, EQ+ is a great device, it's my go to personally. I bought FF Total years ago, way before I used BWS, before it even existed actually but if I was starting from scratch again today I probably wouldn't get Pro Q because it's surplus to requirement.

I use it mostly as an FFT analyser and for checking collisions these days, not as an actual EQ as I prefer the convenience/workflow of EQ+. I don't think I've used more than 8 bands on any sound before, ever and with Audio Sidechain modulators I can make any band dynamic with greater control/flexibility compared to Pro Q, because you can set the Rise and Fall times and sidechain frequency range per band. In fact you can zero right in on a single harmonic, so it doubles up as a dynamic EQ/multiband compressor and a resonance suppressor.

He uses EQ2 all the time, along with Pro-Q 3

Well I don't want to put any more words in his mouths and speculate further as to why that is. He posts here as marulamusic, maybe he will chime in at some point to set the record straight. In any case "producer X doesn't use this" for whatever reason, is not a strong enough argument on its own, not to use a plugin/device/DAW/whatever. The 4 samples uncompensated delay bug/feature is a non-issue for standard serial use-cases until there is convincing evidence to prove otherwise and no, "it looks wrong in Plugin Doctor" etc. is not convincing evidence. If 10 people for example, can accurately and reliably pick out EQ+ vs Pro Q in a mix context, specifically that the 4 samples of uncompensated delay is having an appreciable negative effect, in a double blind test then there is some discussion to be had.

It's not a fixed 4 samples of delay. EQ+ uncompensated delay changes with the sample rate.

Let's think of some scenarios in Bitwig where a user (who knows nothing about the fact EQ+ leads a double life as a delay) might run into issues with phase. How many users who use Bitwig might make use of some layer or splitting device even on one channel? How many of these users are aware that EQ+ can't be used on just one of those parallel chains without causing phase issues?

Remember, phase becomes a bigger and bigger issue with low frequencies, which most people can't hear well because of monitoring limitations. Small shifts in phase at low frequencies have big implications.

Bitwig, like Ableton, is made to encourage parallel chains all over the place on the same audio signal. If you truly understand phase (the trap), and understand most users aren't aware of the EQ+ delay issue (the booby), then you begin to understand why most users will end up creating a phasey mess of a mix when using EQ+ across a session. Booby + Trap = a mix with phase issues, many in the low end where monitoring and "using your ears" will fail most Bitwig users.

[PieBerger]

^^^ yepp, I've also worried but he still uses it after dunno 1-2 years
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture
https://www.sonicacademy.com/courses/te ... otoculture

so fingers crossed anyway seems it's working


although I can count the used BWS native fx devices using my 10 fingers but it was mentioned zillion times in this topic

Notice how protoculture avoids EQ+ like the plague. I wonder why that is?

They are a multi DAW user and probably just prefer/most comfortable using Pro Q. Apart from the uncompensated latency issue, which only affects parallel processing chains, EQ+ is a great device, it's my go to personally. I bought FF Total years ago, way before I used BWS, before it even existed actually but if I was starting from scratch again today I probably wouldn't get Pro Q because it's surplus to requirement.

I use it mostly as an FFT analyser and for checking collisions these days, not as an actual EQ as I prefer the convenience/workflow of EQ+. I don't think I've used more than 8 bands on any sound before, ever and with Audio Sidechain modulators I can make any band dynamic with greater control/flexibility compared to Pro Q, because you can set the Rise and Fall times and sidechain frequency range per band. In fact you can zero right in on a single harmonic, so it doubles up as a dynamic EQ/multiband compressor and a resonance suppressor.

He uses EQ2 all the time, along with Pro-Q 3

Well I don't want to put any more words in his mouths and speculate further as to why that is. He posts here as marulamusic, maybe he will chime in at some point to set the record straight. In any case "producer X doesn't use this" for whatever reason, is not a strong enough argument on its own, not to use a plugin/device/DAW/whatever. The 4 samples uncompensated delay bug/feature is a non-issue for standard serial use-cases until there is convincing evidence to prove otherwise and no, "it looks wrong in Plugin Doctor" etc. is not convincing evidence. If 10 people for example, can accurately and reliably pick out EQ+ vs Pro Q in a mix context, specifically that the 4 samples of uncompensated delay is having an appreciable negative effect, in a double blind test then there is some discussion to be had.

It's not a fixed 4 samples of delay. EQ+ uncompensated delay changes with the sample rate.

Let's think of some scenarios in Bitwig where a user (who knows nothing about the fact EQ+ leads a double life as a delay) might run into issues with phase. How many users who use Bitwig might make use of some layer or splitting device even on one channel? How many of these users are aware that EQ+ can't be used on just one of those parallel chains without causing phase issues?

Remember, phase becomes a bigger and bigger issue with low frequencies, which most people can't hear well because of monitoring limitations. Small shifts in phase at low frequencies have big implications.

Bitwig, like Ableton, is made to encourage parallel chains all over the place on the same audio signal. If you truly understand phase (the trap), and understand most users aren't aware of the EQ+ delay issue (the booby), then you begin to understand why most users will end up creating a phasey mess of a mix when using EQ+ across a session. Booby + Trap = a mix with phase issues, many in the low end where monitoring and "using your ears" will fail most Bitwig users.

All valid points, which I did not argue against , I specifically said "serial use-cases" i.e. not parallel chains. 99% of the time I use EQ+ in a serial chain, so the uncompensated delay is simply not a problem. I acknowledge that it is a problem though, for all of the reasons you stated and I hope they fixed it, but I don't I or anyone else should stop using it because of it.

Maybe Nate is consciously avoiding it, so as not to promote its use and thus help people avoid running into the aforementioned issues, but I can't and won't speak on his behalf to confirm as much either way.

EQ+ is a great device, in terms of sound quality (it's as good as any digital EQ like Pro Q, EQ8 etc.) and workflow. It's not perfect and it fails hard for parallel processing, something I hope they fix so that it can become perfect

[xbitz]

at least chatGTP can be used for something useful I think Bitwig EQ2 are pure digital ones without any colorization so the can be good for cutting low-end freqs ... and done

could you give me a list of the "not offer all of the same features or tonal characteristics as their third-party counterparts" ?

Sure, here are some examples of features or tonal characteristics that may not be present in Bitwig's stock EQ plugins compared to third-party EQ plugins:

Analog modeling: Some third-party EQ plugins use analog modeling to simulate the sound of classic analog hardware EQs, which can add warmth, character, and saturation to the sound. Bitwig's EQ plugins do not have this feature.

Unique filter types: Some third-party EQ plugins offer unique filter types, such as phase-shift, formant, or comb filters, which can be useful for creative sound design or specific EQ tasks. Bitwig's EQ plugins do not have these filter types.

Visualizations: Some third-party EQ plugins offer detailed visualizations of the EQ curve or frequency spectrum, which can help with precise EQ adjustments or understanding the frequency content of the audio. Bitwig's EQ plugins do have a spectrum analyzer but may not offer as detailed or customizable visualizations.

Mid/side processing: While Bitwig's EQ plugins do offer mid/side processing, some third-party EQ plugins may offer more advanced mid/side options, such as separate processing for mid and side channels, or the ability to solo or mute individual channels.

Match EQ: Some third-party EQ plugins offer a "match EQ" feature, which can analyze the frequency response of a reference track or recording and apply that response to the current track. Bitwig's EQ plugins do not have this feature.

Surround sound: Bitwig's EQ plugins are designed for stereo processing, but some third-party EQ plugins may offer surround sound processing for 5.1 or 7.1 mixes.

It's worth noting that these are just some examples of differences between Bitwig's stock EQ plugins and third-party EQ plugins, and that the specific features and tonal characteristics of different plugins can vary widely depending on the manufacturer and model. Ultimately, the choice of which EQ plugin to use will depend on the specific needs and preferences of the user, as well as the context of the project and mix.

ofc, also asked about the workarounds more or less it gives correct answers

Many of the tasks that can be accomplished with third-party EQ plugins can also be achieved with the stock EQ plugins in Bitwig. Here are some examples:

Equalizing individual tracks: Bitwig's EQ5 and EQ2 plugins are both capable of shaping the frequency response of individual tracks in a mix, allowing the producer to balance the tonality and create space for other elements.

Carving out frequency notches: The dynamic EQ feature of Bitwig's EQ+ and EQ2 plugins can be used to selectively reduce frequencies that are causing issues, such as resonances or masking.

Mastering EQ: Bitwig's EQ5 and EQ+ plugins are capable of precise, surgical EQing for mastering applications, allowing the producer to achieve a balanced and professional sound.

Mid-side EQ: Bitwig's EQ5 and EQ+ plugins include mid-side processing capabilities, allowing the producer to independently adjust the EQ for the stereo and mono components of a mix.

Harmonic generation: Bitwig's Saturator plugin can be used to add warmth, character, and harmonic distortion to tracks.

Dynamic EQ: The dynamic EQ feature of Bitwig's EQ+ and EQ2 plugins can be used to create movement and energy in a mix by adjusting the frequency response in response to changes in the audio signal.

Resonant filters: Bitwig's Filter and EQ+ plugins include a range of resonant filter types that can be used to create interesting tonal effects, such as formant shaping.

De-essing: The dynamics processing section of Bitwig's Multiband FX-2 plugin includes a de-esser module that can be used to reduce harshness in vocal tracks or other high-frequency content.

Stereo enhancement: Bitwig's Stereo FX-2 and Mid/Side FX plugins include controls for adjusting the perceived width of the stereo image.

Phase alignment: Bitwig's Phase-4 and Multiband FX-2 plugins include controls for adjusting the phase relationship between different tracks in a mix, helping to improve clarity and punch.

While third-party EQ plugins may offer some additional features or a different tonal character, the stock EQ plugins in Bitwig are capable of handling most EQ-related tasks in dance music production.

[perpetual3]

What contours does Multiband FX - 2 have for adjusting the phase?