Picking a DAW is hard…

[tapper mike]

I've become interested in cinematic classical and the only way that happens in a daw for me is Cubase.

[stoopicus]

I've become interested in cinematic classical and the only way that happens in a daw for me is Cubase.

Or maybe Digital Performer. But yeah, that's a prime market of Cubase for sure.

[tapper mike]

I've become interested in cinematic classical and the only way that happens in a daw for me is Cubase.

Or maybe Digital Performer. But yeah, that's a prime market of Cubase for sure.

My favorite "cinematic" youtube teacher uses Cubase. It's a lot easier to follow along when you use the same daw

[Mabomavo]

MAGIX is great—just kidding, don’t take my word for it.
Honestly, just use the same DAW your favorite artist uses. That’s probably your best bet.

[cryophonik]

Honestly, just use the same DAW your favorite artist uses. That’s probably your best bet.

Yup, and for my fans who don't already know, I use Logic.

[jamcat]

I've become interested in cinematic classical and the only way that happens in a daw for me is Cubase.

Or maybe Digital Performer. But yeah, that's a prime market of Cubase for sure.

First things first, it’s not cinematic classical, it’s contemporary symphonic orchestra. Cinematic has to do with moving pictures, and classical is a bygone era that adhered to very specific rigid rules of composition and instrumentation which are no longer strictly followed, not even by John Williams. Classical is really about a limited set of compositions for a limited set of instruments from a limited set of composers that were composed from 1750 to 1820. Beethoven started as a classical composer, but ended as a romantic composer. Not just in time, but also in style.

So there is no such thing as “cinematic classical” because no classical composer wrote for film. Nor could they have.

Now to the actual reason for my post: what makes Cubase or Digital Performer uniquely positioned for composing orchestral music that other respectable DAWs lack? I’ve seen this claim before, particularly involving Digital Performer.

I use Studio One for orchestral composition, and I really can’t think of anything else I need from it, and I imagine any linear DAW with a tempo track, automation, and score could do the job equally well, but maybe I’m missing something.

[KBSoundSmith]

I've become interested in cinematic classical and the only way that happens in a daw for me is Cubase.

Or maybe Digital Performer. But yeah, that's a prime market of Cubase for sure.

First things first, it’s not cinematic classical, it’s contemporary symphonic orchestra. Cinematic has to do with moving pictures, and classical is a bygone era that adhered to very specific rigid rules of composition and instrumentation which are no longer strictly followed, not even by John Williams. Classical is really about a limited set of compositions for a limited set of instruments from a limited set of composers that were composed from 1750 to 1820. Beethoven started as a classical composer, but ended as a romantic composer. Not just in time, but also in style.

So there is no such thing as “cinematic classical” because no classical composer wrote for film. Nor could they have.

Now to the actual reason for my post: what makes Cubase or Digital Performer uniquely positioned for composing orchestral music that other respectable DAWs lack? I’ve seen this claim before, particularly involving Digital Performer.

I use Studio One for orchestral composition, and I really can’t think of anything else I need from it, and I imagine any linear DAW with a tempo track, automation, and score could do the job equally well, but maybe I’m missing something.

Hmm, I've used Studio One Artist in the past (version 5), but I never used it for any video or orchestra projects, so I can't speak to the experience of using it specifically for that (although I'm aware of some of the functionality it has for it).

That said, I did switch back to Cubase as my primary DAW, and I've recently entered a few contests where it was used for scoring film with/without orchestra. I found the experience pretty much frictionless (also using Dorico alongside Cubase). As you say, I don't doubt most linear DAWs can handle the job adequately, but I've simply found the job in Cubase to be really easy. You can have multiple Marker tracks, for example, so you can use one marker track to break up the video into sections, then use an additional marker track for specific hits, etc. Cubase also has a warp tool which makes it easy to set/change tempos for the various sections/hitpoints. You can have multiple ruler lanes, so you can always see timecode and bars/beats simultaneously. Also, the Control Room functionality is unlike anything I've seen in other DAWs -- I haven't explored it as much as other sections of the program up to now, so I'd do a poor job of describing it, but check out some videos on it, there's some useful stuff.

Also, I suspect the Expression Maps are ultimately going to be rehauled in future versions, now that the Dorico team is working on updating the Cubase Score Editor.

If someone already has a workflow that's working well for them, it makes no sense to switch DAWs. But if someone is looking, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Cubase. If you had specific questions or shared experiences about working with Studio One, I may be able to comment more by screwing around in Cubase and exploring the differences.

[machinesworking]

Now to the actual reason for my post: what makes Cubase or Digital Performer uniquely positioned for composing orchestral music that other respectable DAWs lack? I’ve seen this claim before, particularly involving Digital Performer.

There are dozens of film score specific features in Digital Performer, adjustments for tempo to markers in cues, even flash overlays can be added on to the video, then there's the concept of Chunks that specifically allow for fast rearrangement of 3 hour films etc. MOTU have concentrated on score features for decades, likely only Cubase has near the amount of video features, that at this point might be useful only for re-scoring older films, or arcane use case scenarios that specifically would be advantageous if you scored TV shows weekly. It's not that Studio One, or any other full featured DAW can't accomplish the same things, but dinosaur DAWs like Cubase and DP do have some advantages for movie scoring based on their decades longer existence.

On that point and with no malice meant towards your DAW, a good friend who scores films moved from Studio One to Reaper because of limitations in Studio One in terms of 90 minute scores. It could be something that is already solved in an update for sure, but it does say that at least last year film work wasn't enough of a priority for Prosonus to make sure in beta that S1 didn't have issues with sluggishness when doing huge projects etc. (likely it was a GUI issue, since that's an area that Reaper is super lite with)

[whassup]

Honestly, just use the same DAW your favorite artist uses. That’s probably your best bet.

Yup, and for my fans who don't already know, I use Logic.

[mixyguy2]

Honestly, just use the same DAW your favorite artist uses. That’s probably your best bet.

Poor advice tbh. That's like saying "buy whatever peanut butter your favorite artist likes." Whatever they like has nothing to do with what works for you. Try as many as you can and decide for yourself.

[D112025]

I've just tried them all out and cubase offers the best bang for buck imo. (Despite everybody telling me to switch to Ableton!)

[jamcat]

Isn't Cubase among the most expensive at $580?

[Awats]

I use Texture.

[stoopicus]

Isn't Cubase among the most expensive at $580?

Not if you buy it as a license transfer. A few folks (including me) are selling Cubase Pro 14 right now in the Buy/Sell forum for less than half that.

[jamcat]

And DAWs that are half the price of Cubase sell used for less than a quarter of that, I'm sure. Everything is cheaper when you buy it used, except for Reaper. So what's the point in bringing it up?