Live 12 or Bitwig 5.1

[audiouser720]

I have been just reading the same discussion on Gearspace and they are saying over there that PDC has been spot on in Betwig opposed to Live’s still useless PDC but it is now broken in Bitweg 5.1 and it is shite just like in Live. I have not experienced this. Anyone else?

[SLiC]

I have been just reading the same discussion on Gearspace and they are saying over there that PDC has been spot on in Betwig opposed to Live’s still useless PDC but it is now broken in Bitweg 5.1 and it is shite just like in Live. I have not experienced this. Anyone else?

There have been latency issues reported before 5.1 with Bitwig native devices as well like EQ+ (not sure if this is fixed now?). There are lots of posts on Bigwig PDC issues as well if you viewtopic.php?t=406913&start=60 if you go looking for posts on 'issues' you will surely find them!

After 20 years of doing this stuff with computers I don't believe what read on forums regarding problems with latency, CPU use, crashing etc...I only believe what I see for my self on my system and what affects my work. None of this stuff has ever bothered me on Live or Bitwig.

[WasteLand]

I have been just reading the same discussion on Gearspace and they are saying over there that PDC has been spot on in Betwig opposed to Live’s still useless PDC but it is now broken in Bitweg 5.1 and it is shite just like in Live. I have not experienced this. Anyone else?

There have been latency issues reported before 5.1 with Bitwig native devices as well like EQ+ (not sure if this is fixed now?). There are lots of posts on Bigwig PDC issues as well if you viewtopic.php?t=406913&start=60 if you go looking for posts on 'issues' you will surely find them!

After 20 years of doing this stuff with computers I don't believe what read on forums regarding problems with latency, CPU use, crashing etc...I only believe what I see for my self on my system and what affects my work. None of this stuff has ever bothered me on Live or Bitwig.

EQ+ is fixed for 5.1.....

i use both (and other DAWs) and never had problems with PDC, or the other DAWs (Reaper, Cubase Pro, Reason), except; Bitwig; with the 2000ms PDC limit.... yes it is quite a lot, but for accSone Crusher-X 10 (and lower), not....
a pity. so i can't use latency enabled in Crusher-X,when it is higher than 2000ms, which can limits the use.

i think more effects can achieve this, certainly in chains...

[syntonica]

a pity. so i can't use latency enabled in Crusher-X,when it is higher than 2000ms, which can limits the use.

I think at 2 seconds latency, it's time to bounce. or, get a less lazy plugin.

The only time I've had issues with latency was with one of the first versions of Logic that Apple put out after their buyout of Emagic. I updated and all of my timings are broken AF. Suddenly, the project I was working on was completely unusable. Unfortunately, at the time, I was still struggling with learning the program and had no clue what was broken and how to fix it.

I just nudged clips on the timeline until they sounded right.

[pdxindy]

I have been just reading the same discussion on Gearspace and they are saying over there that PDC has been spot on in Betwig opposed to Live’s still useless PDC but it is now broken in Bitweg 5.1 and it is shite just like in Live. I have not experienced this. Anyone else?

PDC is not broken in 5.1

If there are a few edge case PDC issues, they will be fixed in 5.1.1 or 5.1.2 etc.

[Trancit]

nevermind

[Trancit]

nevermind

[muzicxs]

... but with Live 12, which is supposedly coming out in February, the competition becomes one-sided

Stating an opinion as a fact...

It's not as objective as you like to believe it is. Both parties are strong in different areas, and that's perfectly fine. Choose the whatever works for you. Or whatever is a non-negotiable for you. It's that simple.

[liquidsound]

Oh and ANY test not to failure is absolutely worthless, DAW CPUs do not work linearly, so you're not getting the actual use. In Live it hit 70% super quick, then will sometimes be able to load twice as many as currently loaded. In practice every DAW I've tested has lived up to it's results, as in DP Reaper etc easily beat Live and Bitwig in CPU efficiency.

That was my point with Trancit.
Trying to do tests with no real life production material is useless.
Oh… my DAW X fails after 100 instances of Diva while DAW Y can handle 120 instances of Diva but in reality I use perhaps 20 instances of Diva because that’s the way I make 99% of my music production…

Test to failure are the real deal but I may NEVER even come close to that situation, and if that happens, I’ll take some antidepressants to deal with Reaper

Somehow Ableton is among the most use DAW out there, and v12 may even brake their own record, but it’s impossible to produce music because of the CPU…

I wonder, those hundreds of thousands producing with Ableton must have access to Quantum computers some how…

[liquidsound]

I understand a beginner trying to get into music production but for someone that has produced for years and has established its own tools, style and workflow, it should be extremely easy to decide on a DAW once the workflow has been explored.

CPU issues are quick to discover while testing with your own music, as you have produced so far, and so, test to failure are overshooting.

You are creating unrealistic situations that your music production would never face as you can easily test BY PRODUCING your music

[syntonica]

CPU tests are important, both for overall usage and in specialized niches, if only to inform the user that There Be Dragons Here. If you need to use a different instance of a reverb on each track for your final mix, you will know there's a crap ton of CPU going to be used. If you're making a Carlos-esque orchestral piece with Diva playing each part, there's a crap ton of CPU going to be used.

Older versions of DP were CPU pigs. Did it stop me from using it? No, but having that knowledge allowed me to make informed decisions on how to achieve some effects, which tracks needed to be printed before final mix, etc. Knowing that M4L may eat your CPU for breakfast for certain tasks is important to know. Knowing that massive contraptions built in the Grid with certain components is going to leave your CPU sobbing in the corner is important to know.

Having the caveats at hand regarding CPU usage and desired capabilities is important. They may inform your choice of DAW, but more likely, you're looking at the important things like workflow and does my DAW support a dancing anime girl?

[liquidsound]

CPU tests are important, both for overall usage and in specialized niches, if only to inform the user that There Be Dragons Here. If you need to use a different instance of a reverb on each track for your final mix, you will know there's a crap ton of CPU going to be used. If you're making a Carlos-esque orchestral piece with Diva playing each part, there's a crap ton of CPU going to be used.

Older versions of DP were CPU pigs. Did it stop me from using it? No, but having that knowledge allowed me to make informed decisions on how to achieve some effects, which tracks needed to be printed before final mix, etc. Knowing that M4L may eat your CPU for breakfast for certain tasks is important to know. Knowing that massive contraptions built in the Grid with certain components is going to leave your CPU sobbing in the corner is important to know.

Having the caveats at hand regarding CPU usage and desired capabilities is important. They may inform your choice of DAW, but more likely, you're looking at the important things like workflow and does my DAW support a dancing anime girl?

Again, that type of road test is actually real (if it’s a real situation you are thinking is in your realm of possibility) but running dozens of the same plugins to fail? If that’s your production style, sure! Do it. But if you never going to work that way…
And if you end-up picking a DAW for the “exception” then you suffer for the “norm” (your typical music production) that the other DAW was providing up to the “Test to Fail”.

Pick your poison or go Reaper.

[syntonica]

Again, that type of road test is actually real (if it’s a real situation you are thinking is in your realm of possibility) but running dozens of the same plugins to fail? If that’s your production style, sure! Do it. But if you never going to work that way…

Are you production-shaming people?!?

And if you end-up picking a DAW for the “exception” then you suffer for the “norm” (your typical music production) that the other DAW was providing up to the “Test to Fail”.

One man's exception is another man's rule.

[...]... or go Reaper.

Them's a-fightin' words!

[liquidsound]

Again, that type of road test is actually real (if it’s a real situation you are thinking is in your realm of possibility) but running dozens of the same plugins to fail? If that’s your production style, sure! Do it. But if you never going to work that way…

Are you production-shaming people?!?

And if you end-up picking a DAW for the “exception” then you suffer for the “norm” (your typical music production) that the other DAW was providing up to the “Test to Fail”.

One man's exception is another man's rule.

[...]... or go Reaper.

Them's a-fightin' words!

Shaming the shamed
There are only exceptions on KVR
Reaper… I wish I was one of those lucky bastards that can produce with it

[machinesworking]

I understand a beginner trying to get into music production but for someone that has produced for years and has established its own tools, style and workflow, it should be extremely easy to decide on a DAW once the workflow has been explored.

CPU issues are quick to discover while testing with your own music, as you have produced so far, and so, test to failure are overshooting.

You are creating unrealistic situations that your music production would never face as you can easily test BY PRODUCING your music

I get your point but you’re literally making up a scenario to give it credibility. I’ve been using Live since 2003, I first started doing CPU tests because I noticed I could not use plugins like Reaktor in Live without a lot of planning and skimming here and there. None of that was an issue in Logic and DP.
Only the latest Mac Studio I bought completely solves all CPU issues with Live. Yes you can get by with lower CPU overhead plugins, and people since Suite was introduced have gone all embedded instruments etc. but again none of this was ever an issue in Logic, DP, Cubase etc. etc.

There is 100% a trade off with Live, Bitwig, the MPC’s, and other non pre-rendering secondary buffer having DAWs in terms of raw power, but all of us who use them accept that for all the advantages. I love DP as you all well know but adding an instrument to a project while the sequence is going always creates a momentary dropout in the audio and it never does in Live among other things that Lives high overhead affords.

I will always be interested in the limits of the DAWs considering that I don’t always produce the same kind of music.