VirtualDAW

[whyterabbyt]

From where do you get those "accepted definitions" ?

20+ years of experience, as well as comprehension of the use of the English language.

accepted
adjective
uk
/əkˈsep.tɪd/ us
/əkˈsep.tɪd/

generally agreed to be satisfactory or right:

definition
noun
uk
/ˌdef.ɪˈnɪʃ.ən/ us
/ˌdef.ɪˈnɪʃ.ən/
definition noun (EXPLANATION)
B2 [ C ]
a statement that explains the meaning of a word or phrase

:

Which ISO/IEC are you referring to?

dont be asinine. I said 'definition' not 'standard'.

My DAW will not be a full MIDI-Sequencer; since it will not accept analog MIDI-devices as input. You still can use MIDI Files as input.

whut?

And a common understanding is, that its not a physical device. And so soft synths and audio/media/MIDI files are no physical input.
Only a USB-microphone would be; And that may be implemented later.

and yet your DAW will use physical outputs, right?

From where do you get that information, that they could assert "anything" related to the word "virtual" ?

sigh.

[whyterabbyt]

Anyway, Im out of here. We've seen plenty of 'interesting' one-man DAW project announcements here, and plenty of developers who bristle with indignation at the slightest possibility a thing might not exactly be how they have decided it is. Im sure you'll do as well in your endeavours as most of them have. Enjoy your 'virtual' success in your endeavour, even though it seems that it will have no real-world input that you will allow.

[VirtualDAW]

From where do you get those "accepted definitions" ?

20+ years of experience, as well as comprehension of the use of the English language.

Which ISO/IEC are you referring to?

dont be asinine. I said 'definition' not 'standard'.

From where do you get that information, that they could assert "anything" related to the word "virtual" ?

sigh.

I respect your experience, but you made allegations and then after I asked you for the legal background of them, you are simply unable to contradict my statements.

[whyterabbyt]

you made allegations and then after I asked you for the legal background of them, you are simply unable to contradict my statements.

stop being a tit.

[BONES]

Are you trying to say that most major DAWs are too focused on hardware integration, or that they are not comprehensive enough for someone who doesn't use hardware?

Why would you assume that? My assumption s go the opposite way - maybe the whole point is that the major DAWs are too complex, offering way more features than anyone realistically needs to get the job done. I'd be all over a simplified, no-frills DAW that offers all the basic tools and nothing more. Sadly, I think this already goes too far by having scale and chord features.

Especially considering the fact that the list of features you posted, barely even scratches the surface of what a fully fledged and well developed DAW is capable of.

So what? What if you don't need all that shit? What if you find that most of that shit just gets in the way of getting your work done?

[SamDi]

I respect the will to make something new, but honestly, I think the market is too crowded to leave place for a further DAW. Furthermore DAWs are very complex programs developed with a team. There are some one-man-shows, but these guys are kind of geniuses and doing this as a full-time-job.. Don‘t know, if you belong to this group.

At least you should have a proper USP. A USP means to HAVE something what all others don‘t have. In your case it‘s to DON‘T HAVE something, what all others have. Why should it be important for anyone to not have physical inputs? If not needed, just don‘t use it. That are not the things, which make a DAW bloated. And people seldom complain, that a DAW has too many features. Mostly they complain, that a feature x is missing, or that something is not consistent or clumsy.

Honestly - a lightweight under-featured DAW is the last thing the world is waiting for IMHO. Maybe you should think about something smaller, e.g. a plugin, where you can load VSTs and effects and layer, combine, route and save them, similar like Unify. There are also some on the market, but all are far from perfect.

[VOODOO U]

I would shit my pants if there could be something like Xlutop's Chainer but with an inline piano roll.

[VOODOO U]

Actually you know what, yeah....something like VCV rack where one can load multiple VSTs onto a "rack" styled GUI and have Vdaw stock modules IE: piano roll module, MIDI modules (set key zones, splitter etc), tempo module, transport module (this way one can sync specific plugs to specific tempos, sequences and transport actions).
Then maybe down the line add an audio recorder module.

[VirtualDAW]

It might not be a DAW for anyone. But why would those, who have full equipped (home-) studios and a lot of gear be interested in a virtual DAW?
I clearly stated, that my DAW will be made for those, who want to start making modern music and who only have a laptop and maybe some headphones. That's how creativity starts.
And the modern styles I design this DAW for (EDM, HipHop, Dance, Techno, Trance and similar) simply do not necessarily need any physically analog devices. There are very good soft-synths and royalty-free samples out there.
Even for vocals you simply can use royalty free samples or if you do official remixes (e.g. for contests), you simply get stems, which then you modify and extend with plugins.

And therefore the DAW will be much more affordable, since the device driver communication part for those analog devices is not needed to be implemented.

I please all of those, who simply do not need a lightweight and streamlined "virtual" DAW to no longer call me names. Thank you for your input, but you are not the ones, my project will be made for. I want to help those, who really struggle to afford all that expensive gear.
Thank you for your understanding.

[jens]

I would shit my pants if there could be something like Xlutop's Chainer but with an inline piano roll.

This existed twenty years ago already... (energyXT)

[BONES]

Furthermore DAWs are very complex programs developed with a team.

Orion wasn't and it comes closest to meeting my needs of all the host applications I have tried.

Honestly - a lightweight under-featured DAW is the last thing the world is waiting for IMHO.

Certainly if it is under-featured but if it has all the basics and does it well, I think there is plenty of scope for it to be successful. There is currently no product on the market, at least nothing I am aware of, that comes close to giving me what I want from my DAW. I doubt I use even 10% of the features of Studio One but I have had to pay for all of them and I have to deal with the fact of their existence every time I work.

Maybe you should think about something smaller, e.g. a plugin, where you can load VSTs and effects and layer, combine, route and save them, similar like Unify.

Unify is utterly f**king useless. It lacks any kind of sequencer and is full of VSTs I don't need and won't use.

[VOODOO U]

I clearly stated, that my DAW will be made for those, who want to start making modern music and who only have a laptop and maybe some headphones. That's how creativity starts.
And the modern styles I design this DAW for (EDM, HipHop, Dance, Techno, Trance and similar) simply do not necessarily need any physically analog devices. There are very good soft-synths and royalty-free samples out there.
Even for vocals you simply can use royalty free samples or if you do official remixes (e.g. for contests), you simply get stems, which then you modify and extend with plugins.

Heck you don't need a virtual DAW to do what you want. AI music generators can do it with text prompts. One can even upload a vocal sample for the AI to generate any instrument sound. No midi controllers, no vsts, no learning curves (other than knowing more advanced prompts).

But if you really want to.go the DAW route then you need to come up with something that offers more than, for example:

https://serato.com/studio

At $249, it's affordable and offers a lot.

[lfm]

FFS just post the site https://sites.google.com/view/virtualdaw

Started reading this thread and thought the same.

So we already know what support would sound like for a future customer
- RTFM
- instead of helping out

[VirtualDAW]

FFS just post the site https://sites.google.com/view/virtualdaw

Started reading this thread and thought the same.

So we already know what support would sound like for a future customer
- RTFM
- instead of helping out

When an application is not self-explaining, its bad. So you normally do not need such a "fine" manual, if the UI is well designed. That's why I asked in my initial post, how people prefer the UI to be. Especially what anyone understands under a smooth UI, since taste is different.

As you might noticed, I'm new on this forum. So posting links in my first posts is no good idea nowadays on many platforms. It can be seen as spam. That's why I was referring to my profile.

[No_Use]

And therefore the DAW will be much more affordable, since the device driver communication part for those analog devices is not needed to be implemented.

I please all of those, who simply do not need a lightweight and streamlined "virtual" DAW to no longer call me names. Thank you for your input, but you are not the ones, my project will be made for. I want to help those, who really struggle to afford all that expensive gear.
Thank you for your understanding.

Well there's e.g. Ardour (free), REAPER (very reasonably priced imo) which you'd have to compete (and both have analog audio input).