DAW with a "human" workflow?
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
My father used to have such a tape machine, I loved the way that BASF tape smelled
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Still, hardly anyone listened to electronic music in the 1940's, while now it is omnipresent. Up until the first hardware sequencers became available, common music was played live, even in the studio.inkwarp wrote: the daw is arguably part of methods of music involving computers etc. but only structurally. the advent of electronic music goes back to the late 1940s with the creation of musique concrète, even further if you look at he dada-ists and mainetti's art of noise etc. the seeds of the future sounds in there for sure.
i also don't think it's 'non-human' to talk about patterns, patterns are the basis of so much in our perception.
computer and electronic music is often seen as a pale imitation of an analog reality, and maybe it is in some respects, but it is also a medium of it's own with it's own fads and character and with it's context ( electronic dance music in a club is a very human thing).
seems to me you just should chuck the computer and go back to good old reel to reel.
-
- KVRAF
- 3227 posts since 4 Jan, 2005
I agree these 2 were easy to bond with. Tracktion Software Company has a new DAW called Waveform coming out really soon ... It's Tracktion with a mixer and a piano roll ... Tracktion had a inline or in track midi editor that was really clunky always hated it ... Over the years they did some things like step clips to compensate for the inline Midi mess ... Anyways Waveform seems.to have addressed that mess ...And the no mixer mess .... StudioOne is really nice , I wish they would've kept the StudioOne Producer line that was inexpensive but they ditched that on version3 roll out really my only complaint other than the included Drum Sampler Impact eats CPU still buggy piece of crap don't use Impact ... I'd say get Tracktion Waveform its coming soon or find a USED StudioOne 3 or StudioOne 2 license ...ero wrote:Try theese, both are human to me:
https://www.tracktion.com/products/t5-daw
https://shop.presonus.com/products/stud ... ne-3-Prime
Good luck!
-
- KVRAF
- 3227 posts since 4 Jan, 2005
Oh about your tempo issues .... This is a trick that works for me . Record you music idea scratch track not the whole song , figure out your tempo ....bpm ..... Now add a drum loop or midi drum loop to you song in that tempo/BPM and loop it for however long you want I usually go 4-6 mins but you can go as long as you want it's your song ... This drumloop track is just a scratch track for you to use with headphones instead of a metronome .... Problem solved !!!!! 
-
- KVRAF
- 9150 posts since 7 Oct, 2005
This also would help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo#Ita ... o_markings
I have learnt really a lot from learning Piano (and still of course). Classic music usually has one of the tempo above written, so you can imagine the speed. I found the different tempo names very useful indeed
First I try to identify the group which the tempo belongs, then narrow it to a number. In my workflow, this is the first I do, identifying the tempo. After that I just begin to build everything on it using both the metronome and the inner rhythm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo#Ita ... o_markings
I have learnt really a lot from learning Piano (and still of course). Classic music usually has one of the tempo above written, so you can imagine the speed. I found the different tempo names very useful indeed
First I try to identify the group which the tempo belongs, then narrow it to a number. In my workflow, this is the first I do, identifying the tempo. After that I just begin to build everything on it using both the metronome and the inner rhythm.Using: Cubase Pro 15, Bitwig 5, Tascam US-4x4HR, MODX6, DM12D, LaunchKey 49, Yamaha guitar(Pacifica 612v) and bass (BB234) and some virtual instruments and synths.
-
- KVRer
- 3 posts since 19 Dec, 2016
I'm a big fan of Reason, it's as simple or complex as you want it to be. Took me a while to bite the bullet on it due to no vst support (they have REs, same thing basically) but in the end I'm more than happy I did.
The vst thing is a non-issue, instead of chasing down the latest hottest thing I just throw a few synths on the racks and to work. With that said, I can't go back to the vst world now because flipping the rack around routing CVs and audio is just to much fun. It's like a like studio that automatically cleans itself up. So much experimentation. Sometimes you just want an envelope modulating an LFO that modulates some detune you know, and sometimes you find out you don't
With all that said, I recommend doing the 30 day trial at least, then maybe grabbing a trail of antidote, one of the korgs, and maybe the legend or something.
The vst thing is a non-issue, instead of chasing down the latest hottest thing I just throw a few synths on the racks and to work. With that said, I can't go back to the vst world now because flipping the rack around routing CVs and audio is just to much fun. It's like a like studio that automatically cleans itself up. So much experimentation. Sometimes you just want an envelope modulating an LFO that modulates some detune you know, and sometimes you find out you don't
With all that said, I recommend doing the 30 day trial at least, then maybe grabbing a trail of antidote, one of the korgs, and maybe the legend or something.
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
Well, though "not sure if" ..., reason has it's issues too. Two years ago I made it my one and only. Then they did a couple of nice updates. Then came 9, a joke with ONE workflow improvement...bounce in place. Nice, but not 129 bucks nice.
Absolutely NOTHING since. They only care about getting mo' cash now. Good program, needs a ton of love in workflow, obviously NEVER going to get it.
Absolutely NOTHING since. They only care about getting mo' cash now. Good program, needs a ton of love in workflow, obviously NEVER going to get it.
-
- KVRist
- 48 posts since 24 Nov, 2009
I'll chime in with my thoughts about workflow and how they've developed over time. For the longest time, when I was younger, I figured it was a matter of having the more expensive gear, or more time, or something. I was chasing after the polished sounds I heard on old recordings but all I had were some shitty samples or early, low-quality plugins. And I thought, "maybe I need a real MIDI controller, that'll do it", or "maybe I need lower latency recording" or "maybe I need a hardware synth." At the same time I had low appreciation for the things I was actually making, which I made relatively slowly and with great effort.
And while it was true that the plugins were a bit crashy and the sound quality I was getting was mostly bad, but sometimes unique, I think now that that is a separate issue from good workflow. Workflow starts with being able to deliberately clean up what you're doing - learning more about the software each time you use it, collecting, archiving, backing up your samples and presets(I invested in automatic backup recently and it changed everything). Gradually collecting scraps of material and archiving those instead of letting them go. Then when you have done those things and are at high energy, trying very hard to write in a more substantial way.
The DAW itself is more incidental. As long as you have material that ends up in a data format you can move elsewhere(usually MIDI or stems) they are all pretty good. Top level linear vs. scene-based tends to be the only major point of dispute, and a lot of software has followed Ableton's lead to give you both(Renoise has it, Mixcraft has it). Some are better at working with loops. Some allow for more complicated mix routing, and you want that when you go to mix, but when you're going for writing flow, you probably shouldn't be mixing in more than a basic "volume fader" way, unless you are intentionally going for sound design. Most other DAW features have to do with large session recording, which isn't the purview of most electronic producers. If you can record one track, you're good.
But then, everyone likes having sequencing tools, and there, the editing process is critical. I think this is where people start going DAW shopping; but your options are actually much, much bigger than getting a new DAW these days. You don't have to jump to Renoise, if you can attach Redux as a plugin. You can get a "hardware CV sequencer" feel by adding B-Step. You can build up larger progressions against arpeggio-style lines with Sundog Scale Studio. You can write keybindings or MIDI filters to change your input device to use a different scale or layout - this was how I freshened up things last year, by rebinding OpenMPT to use an isomorphic layout.
All the different methods put emphasis on different things. Some are more obviously exploratory, others detail-oriented and "direct from brain to ears". Know which one want you want and use each tool depending on your situation and how intensely you want to commit to an intentional vs explorational mode. Lately I've actually been using 2Beat Oscilab when I have my phone out - it is very much in the exploratory mode and ditches a lot of "standard things" in DAWs. But it's right for the small format and for casual experimentation. There are lot of more powerful apps I've tried and I bounce right off of them because they expect me to poke around on the touchscreen too much.
And while it was true that the plugins were a bit crashy and the sound quality I was getting was mostly bad, but sometimes unique, I think now that that is a separate issue from good workflow. Workflow starts with being able to deliberately clean up what you're doing - learning more about the software each time you use it, collecting, archiving, backing up your samples and presets(I invested in automatic backup recently and it changed everything). Gradually collecting scraps of material and archiving those instead of letting them go. Then when you have done those things and are at high energy, trying very hard to write in a more substantial way.
The DAW itself is more incidental. As long as you have material that ends up in a data format you can move elsewhere(usually MIDI or stems) they are all pretty good. Top level linear vs. scene-based tends to be the only major point of dispute, and a lot of software has followed Ableton's lead to give you both(Renoise has it, Mixcraft has it). Some are better at working with loops. Some allow for more complicated mix routing, and you want that when you go to mix, but when you're going for writing flow, you probably shouldn't be mixing in more than a basic "volume fader" way, unless you are intentionally going for sound design. Most other DAW features have to do with large session recording, which isn't the purview of most electronic producers. If you can record one track, you're good.
But then, everyone likes having sequencing tools, and there, the editing process is critical. I think this is where people start going DAW shopping; but your options are actually much, much bigger than getting a new DAW these days. You don't have to jump to Renoise, if you can attach Redux as a plugin. You can get a "hardware CV sequencer" feel by adding B-Step. You can build up larger progressions against arpeggio-style lines with Sundog Scale Studio. You can write keybindings or MIDI filters to change your input device to use a different scale or layout - this was how I freshened up things last year, by rebinding OpenMPT to use an isomorphic layout.
All the different methods put emphasis on different things. Some are more obviously exploratory, others detail-oriented and "direct from brain to ears". Know which one want you want and use each tool depending on your situation and how intensely you want to commit to an intentional vs explorational mode. Lately I've actually been using 2Beat Oscilab when I have my phone out - it is very much in the exploratory mode and ditches a lot of "standard things" in DAWs. But it's right for the small format and for casual experimentation. There are lot of more powerful apps I've tried and I bounce right off of them because they expect me to poke around on the touchscreen too much.
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
The good thing about bitwig is nothing is easier to simply get ideas and then arrange in a linear way. Live isn't even close imnsho. The groove, loops, clips, recording audio or midi is the best.
The bad thing is the devs don't give a rats ass about any problems that you have so if it's not working for you as-is, you are SOL.
The bad thing is the devs don't give a rats ass about any problems that you have so if it's not working for you as-is, you are SOL.
-
Winstontaneous Winstontaneous https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=98336
- KVRAF
- 2598 posts since 15 Feb, 2006 from Another Green World
For me Ableton Live has the most "human" workflow.
It's incredibly easy to capture arbitrary combinations of channels as audio on the fly.
Has the best contextual help and by far the best window handling of any Mac program I've ever used, scalable graphics and control surface support are also remarkable.
It's incredibly easy to capture arbitrary combinations of channels as audio on the fly.
Has the best contextual help and by far the best window handling of any Mac program I've ever used, scalable graphics and control surface support are also remarkable.
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Thanks for all your input and views, especially if you invested some time writing longer posts. I have read them all, even if I don't know what to reply.
Not sure what to do now re DAW's. So for the time being I will likely not do anything and continue to dislike using DAW's, thus ultimately not making music...
Not sure what to do now re DAW's. So for the time being I will likely not do anything and continue to dislike using DAW's, thus ultimately not making music...
-
- KVRAF
- 3495 posts since 25 Apr, 2011
hahahaha...awesome post!fluffy_little_something wrote:Thanks for all your input and views, especially if you invested some time writing longer posts. I have read them all, even if I don't know what to reply.
Not sure what to do now re DAW's. So for the time being I will likely not do anything and continue to dislike using DAW's, thus ultimately not making music...
-
- KVRAF
- 2357 posts since 24 Nov, 2012
Focus on the fundamentals. Ask yourself what do you most enjoy about making music? What are you doing at those times when you most enjoy music? Do you need anything to support that? Maybe you do, but maybe you don't. Or at least don't need to buy any products.fluffy_little_something wrote:Thanks for all your input and views, especially if you invested some time writing longer posts. I have read them all, even if I don't know what to reply.
Not sure what to do now re DAW's. So for the time being I will likely not do anything and continue to dislike using DAW's, thus ultimately not making music...
-
- KVRAF
- 6159 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
"Workflow" is a moving target.
That is to say, there are certain obvious things like not having mute or solo buttons will affect workflow or an app crashing every 10 minutes will affect that, but beyond the more obvious stuff, there's a point where it starts to become progressively more and more subjective and personal.
As relates to how a particular random person thinks, or reasons, or what kind of work they do, or how they prefer to work, and last but not least what they're maybe most accustomed to methodology and comfort wise from the past.
It's like "beauty", often largely subjective beyond a certain point.
That is to say, there are certain obvious things like not having mute or solo buttons will affect workflow or an app crashing every 10 minutes will affect that, but beyond the more obvious stuff, there's a point where it starts to become progressively more and more subjective and personal.
As relates to how a particular random person thinks, or reasons, or what kind of work they do, or how they prefer to work, and last but not least what they're maybe most accustomed to methodology and comfort wise from the past.
It's like "beauty", often largely subjective beyond a certain point.
-
- KVRAF
- 2357 posts since 24 Nov, 2012
Workflow is supported by the product design and design has a long history with many methods for supporting workflow. There are endless journals and conferences where designers share their ideas and solutions. Some of the solutions take the form of heuristics and some take a more determined and algorithmic form. Most can be and often are supported by empirical studies.LawrenceF wrote:"Workflow" is a moving target.
That is to say, there are certain obvious things like not having mute or solo buttons will affect workflow or an app crashing every 10 minutes will affect that, but beyond the more obvious stuff, there's a point where it starts to become progressively more and more subjective and personal.
As relates to how a particular random person thinks, or reasons, or what kind of work they do, or how they prefer to work, and last but not least what they're maybe most accustomed to methodology and comfort wise from the past.
It's like "beauty", often largely subjective beyond a certain point.
There seems to be a strong myth out there in the public (and to bring up Reaper yet again, particularly amongst Reaper users in the popular forums ) that it's all subjective and there are no universals etc etc.
That is wrong. It is easy to measure if software supports user goals and it is easy to compare the ability of different software to support user goals. For naive and experienced users alike. There is also variation between users - but that does not imply any huge reservoir of subjectivity that overwhelms the widespread benefits of good design.