Picking a DAW is hard…

[machinesworking]

With the rumoured cancellation of all legacy VST2 developer licenses from this point on, choosing a DAW has gotten a little easier.

DAWs with poorly implemented VST3 hosting should be avoided. That appears to include:
Ableton Live, Bitwig.

DAWs with solid VST3 implementation should be sought. That includes (but is not limited to):
Studio One, Cubase.

DAWs that don’t support VST3, but host other widely supported formats (AU, AAX), so are unaffected:
Logic, Pro Tools, LUNA

Maybe users of other DAWs not mentioned could chime in with their experiences with VST3 plugins in their respective DAWs.

Let's correct this shall we?
Live, AU is fine on Mac. VST3 seems to be slightly more stable on Windows than Mac. So Live is at most slightly affected.

Bitwig has plugin sandboxing, it hardly matters if a plugin is stable or not, you can still use it in the composition process, and since it has CLAP support you could do worse than it's built in instruments and U-He in a live situation. At least on Mac here, I don't really have any problems with 95% of VST3s so it might be a Windows thing.

Reaper, DP, and the various Other DAWs that host both AU and VST are not really that affected and in Reapers case you can turn on sandboxing for some dodgy VST3.

I would say probably Live and DP on Windows are the most affected by errant VST3's from reports in the field. In the case of Live the Suite is insane, if I was a Live Windows user I would be likely to mostly stick to M4L and the Suite instruments if some VST3 was being a trash heap. In sumary, there's nearly no reason at all to base your DAW choice on whether or not VST3 support is good or bad, most DAWs are offering solutions, and I will bet that solution is going to grow with CLAP.

[jamcat]

So as long as you don’t want to use anything other than built-in plugins or the extremely small handful of 3rd party plugins that support CLAP, you’re OK?

I stand corrected!

[_leras]

Are the general purpose DAWs not suitable for electronic music?

To make it very simple: Electronic music is mostly about repetition and pauses, as well as build-ups (e.g. muting channels and bringing them back, one by one or in full). The pattern-based method of 'modern' DAWs supports this.

You won't find a song structure like this in a pop song, though it deals with quiet and loud parts also.

Any DAW is fine for electronic music.

Lots of people start in an arrange mode anyway and just skip patterns in both Bitwig and Ableton. Every DAW has loops markers and can loop. They all have copy paste as well.

Some people like patterns, and sometimes they can be useful.

Any track will end up in arrange mode at some point. Really you need this to make the best of track structure and have better transitions.

Bitwig is my preferred DAW, but its not because of the pattern based part of it.

[Martin Simon]

I sure hope that OP has made up his mind by now. I started using Live in 2008 en haven't looked back since.

[dartfordyes]

like plug ins and daws , i think your best off starting a time period of trying things out let’s say a couple of weeks then just go with it because trust me you can get in the loop of just trying and playing with stuff and not making music at all

[_leras]

I sure hope that OP has made up his mind by now. I started using Live in 2008 en haven't looked back since.

Just choosing one and getting to know it well is probably the best way.

I've mainly switched from cubase to Bitwig, due to workflow, quicker to group and route channels and build FX chains, but people still make amazing music with cubase.

[havran]

(duplicate post)

[havran]

To paraphrase Dickens: the search for perfection is the enemy of doing anything else.

From another perspective: the perfect already exists in the abstract, and to make do with the imperfect is good enough, and it could be considered to be somewhat more than just good enough.

Dandelion crowns all around!

[vitocorleone123]

Picking a DAW shouldn’t be hard. Decide what you want to use it for primarily and secondarily. Then just read a bunch, watch some YT videos, and pick one that seems like it’d be the best fit and use the demo for a month. Unless you hate it, just use it for the rest of a year. Then decide if it’s worth the effort of switching.

All the DAWs are “known” for a few things/features.

[talby]

Recently Waveform reached quite high standards and usability again, and Linux, besides Win and Mac, is very well supported.

Instead of sticking to some historical hardware console and technician related organization with all modern features becoming packed into more and more nested submenus and pop up menus, the graphical design of Waveform supports a really intuitive, musician oriented workflow. Too often it appears that this different design of its main interaction page lets lose sight of its also available, typical, classic console mixing view. Highly underrated is also its tracking view showing easily to read from far distance the huge input meters horizontally spanning all a track's rail. And once learned how to work with its highly customizable effect racks, or its possibilites to create reloadable presets for almost everything, you won't want to work without these features anymore.

I for myself am using it mainly for tracking and mixing and am very happy with it!
Meanwhile, having discovered its extensive MIDI tools and some bundled instruments, I became infected to also entertain myself with self-made electronic music now. Did not expect this to ever happen ! I here don't yet have sufficient experience to judge on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if others chime in to confirm it to be capable to run serious electronic music projects, as well!

[stoopicus]

Just choosing one and getting to know it well is probably the best way.

This is what I always tell people, and then always wish I took my own advice.

But I am down to two so at least I have that.