Live 12 or Bitwig 5.1

[vertibration]

Neither, get FL.....free updates for life and tbh....when you know what you are doing, you can accomplish everything and more when you compare Live and BW

[Trancit]

Do it without LFO.

What he said??
How shall I test the M4L LFO without using the LFO???

I think it’s Operator (it’s a beast compared to others)

A beast compared to Sytrus?? Not really... it´s more like Sytrus' little brother

And, you should do testing with real projects: what you actually implement in your music, and then test other DAWs.

These unrealistic tests are useless unless they reflect your music needs.
I’ve seen people loading up legions of Diva for testing. Nice, but then their music is perhaps 10 tracks in total

These tests aren´t realistic of course... that´s not the aim...
But if you test 3 DAWs with more or less the same scenario ( in the framework of their own possibilities) and 2 are passing the test without any problem but the third one fails as it if there is no tomorrow, it does me give at least the hint that there is some trouble zone there which might affect me... perhaps not...

CPU and RAM are still the biggest bottlenecks in music production and if you have to rely on some devices which turn out as absolute waster of important resources, is for me at least something which leaves a bad taste in my mouth... especially when differences are that huge...

All advantages beside... this test result and the long loading times of M4L devices alone doesn´t help to trust this system more as I can throw my house...

These tests aren´t realistic but they give you a clear picture

[liquidsound]

Do it without LFO.

What he said??
How shall I test the M4L LFO without using the LFO???

I think it’s Operator (it’s a beast compared to others)

A beast compared to Sytrus?? Not really... it´s more like Sytrus' little brother

And, you should do testing with real projects: what you actually implement in your music, and then test other DAWs.

These unrealistic tests are useless unless they reflect your music needs.
I’ve seen people loading up legions of Diva for testing. Nice, but then their music is perhaps 10 tracks in total

These tests aren´t realistic of course... that´s not the aim...
But if you test 3 DAWs with more or less the same scenario ( in the framework of their own possibilities) and 2 are passing the test without any problem but the third one fails as it if there is no tomorrow, it does me give at least the hint that there is some trouble zone there which might affect me... perhaps not...

CPU and RAM are still the biggest bottlenecks in music production and if you have to rely on some devices which turn out as absolute waster of important resources, is for me at least something which leaves a bad taste in my mouth... especially when differences are that huge...

All advantages beside... this test result and the long loading times of M4L devices alone doesn´t help to trust this system more as I can throw my house...

These tests aren´t realistic but they give you a clear picture

I said without LFO because Operator is the taxing beast compare to FM4.
Sytrus is the best FM synth I own of course.

Long ago I made a test with dozens of LFO in Bitwig and Live using Modulat as a source of LFOs, meaning the LFO were loaded in Modulat so they had to go through it to reach the destinations, which should’ve be more taxing (or maybe not if they were coded better than the ones built in) but I don’t know because I didn’t tested the ones you used (but I think it should be the same since are all M4L devices).
Anyhow, the CPU results were exactly the same in both DAWs.

What I’m saying is that you may confuse “modulations taxing” vs devices themselves that you are modulating. That’s another story because Ableton is not the most efficient DAW out there for sure.

But again… try to produce with it and see if the advantages are more or less worth the production workflow and ultimately the final quality life in the music making.

Perfect DAW? Are you kidding me? There is only “close to perfect” adaptation.

[PieBerger]

Perfect DAW? Are you kidding me? There is only “close to perfect” adaptation.

I'd go a step further and say there is only the least sh!t DAW, according to your needs and tastes. Perfect isn't even on the map

[liquidsound]

Perfect DAW? Are you kidding me? There is only “close to perfect” adaptation.

I'd go a step further and say there is only the least sh!t DAW, according to your needs and tastes. Perfect isn't even on the map

That's an easy thing... Pick the cheapest one and become a genius!

EDIT: EnergyXT was good too

[Trancit]

I said without LFO because Operator is the taxing beast compare to FM4.

Just as a comparrison:

24 tracks with just the same Operator patch like before:
1% CPU and 5.41 gigs of RAM...

So no, it´s not Operator... it´s M4L. At least the LFO...

[EnGee]

Now, since the release of DAW Project, I would export to DAW Project, open it in Reaper and use Reaper's midi export functions to export midi files. Assuming it is not a bug ridden new feature, that will work much better than trying to export midi from Bitwig directly.

Good idea!

I have tested the export midi with one automation for cutoff of Artutia Acid. It exports one kind of midi (i don't remember what it's called, midi 0 or midi 1) that contains all the midi tracks, no option to export individual files to each track and no automation exported. However, when I import the midi file into Cubase, it shows the positions of the midi clips correctly. For me, I can live with that! I wish it could write the automation inside the midi file though.

[liquidsound]

I said without LFO because Operator is the taxing beast compare to FM4.

Just as a comparrison:

24 tracks with just the same Operator patch like before:
1% CPU and 5.41 gigs of RAM...

So no, it´s not Operator... it´s M4L. At least the LFO...

Then Modulat did a better job in using modulations (a very powerful device actually, but I'm not using it anymore because I find designing sounds on my synths is more than I ever need).

Regardless, you may consider the fact that most, actually close to ALL, of the M4L devices have no equivalent in BW or other DAWs (beside the ones that do the usual tasks common to some DAWs such as LFO, basic Seq etc.).

So... comparing M4L consumption (beside LFO in your case) is utterly useless because you can't reproduce the same devices anywhere else (some amazing stuff...), and if that's what you want and need, you will have to deal with the pros and cons of those devices.

The same goes for plugins etc. You use them with that in mind and so you negotiate or use something else... End Results. That's what counts, and there is a price for it, and you'll pay regardless of what system you will use.

You pick based on "your" end results.
Can you make music the way you feel confortable with your workflow in an effective and , of course, efficient way in a DAW? If yes, then, use that one.

[_leras]

Please talk me in our out of one if these.

. I record a lot of HW synths and so seamless integration is key. I have recently demoed Bitwig again (did it a couple of years ago and left it there) and my first impression was that it wasn't as intuitive and fast as Live (for creating melodies, putting BEATSSSS together etc), however, there is something about it that makes it very appealing. First of all the way I can integrate hardware and modulate it is absolutely amazing. I hate to say this, and 100% placebo, but it sounds better? I read opinions before stating that Bitwig is much 'tighter' than Live, especially with HW, and this has been my impression too, so this can kinda make it sound 'better' in a way. There is, however, something inviting about Bitweg.

Anyway, I want to buy into one of these babies as there are good sales going on both sides atm. My fingers are burning to press BUY NOW. Don't expect people to decide on behalf of me. Just to wash my brain and influence me. Betweg or Abelton that is the question

For me I prefer Bitwig. I also think it hooks really well with hardware.

I have good set of plug ins so don't need the built in of either, so this doesn't factor into my choice.

My biggest plus for Bitwig is the two monitor layout, which is great to work with, and also the general workflow. Groups including FX sends inside groups, great and intuitive utility plug ins. I just find working with it extremely fluid. It stays out of the way, except when it's helping me! The built in drum machine is really great. The way you can make containers with chains of synths and/or FX is also really great, and these can be saved as presents to recall later.

[pdxindy]

Just as a comparison:

24 tracks with just the same Operator patch like before:
1% CPU and 5.41 gigs of RAM...

So no, it´s not Operator... it´s M4L. At least the LFO...

That's pretty definitive.

A handful of other people have made similar tests and come to the similar result.

[liquidsound]

Just checked:
10 Vital instances on both Live and BWS with each instance using a LFO on Vital Volume and a C Major chord.
Ableton slight better on the System.
iMac Ableton 11 Bitwig 4.3.1

[xbitz]

Please talk me in our out of one if these.

. I record a lot of HW synths and so seamless integration is key. I have recently demoed Bitwig again (did it a couple of years ago and left it there) and my first impression was that it wasn't as intuitive and fast as Live (for creating melodies, putting BEATSSSS together etc), however, there is something about it that makes it very appealing. First of all the way I can integrate hardware and modulate it is absolutely amazing. I hate to say this, and 100% placebo, but it sounds better? I read opinions before stating that Bitwig is much 'tighter' than Live, especially with HW, and this has been my impression too, so this can kinda make it sound 'better' in a way. There is, however, something inviting about Bitweg.

Anyway, I want to buy into one of these babies as there are good sales going on both sides atm. My fingers are burning to press BUY NOW. Don't expect people to decide on behalf of me. Just to wash my brain and influence me. Betweg or Abelton that is the question

For me I prefer Bitwig. I also think it hooks really well with hardware.

I have good set of plug ins so don't need the built in of either, so this doesn't factor into my choice.

My biggest plus for Bitwig is the two monitor layout, which is great to work with, and also the general workflow. Groups including FX sends inside groups, great and intuitive utility plug ins. I just find working with it extremely fluid. It stays out of the way, except when it's helping me! The built in drum machine is really great. The way you can make containers with chains of synths and/or FX is also really great, and these can be saved as presents to recall later.

I think check out the community wishlist of Bitwig, if you can manage without them then Bitwig.

Képernyőfotó 2023-12-09 - 8.48.12.png

https://bitwish.top/c/features/5/l/latest?order=votes

As I see it, except for the patterns, everything is there in Live...I think in the case of Live11 vs Bitwig5.1, it was still questionable which one to choose, but with Live 12, which is supposedly coming out in February, the competition becomes one-sided, Of course, if you only need those features that are currently in Bitwig, then Bitwig is the right choice. Somehow, it feels like Bitwig is better put together, or has a newer codebase or something

[machinesworking]

Just checked:
10 Vital instances on both Live and BWS with each instance using a LFO on Vital Volume and a C Major chord.
Ableton slight better on the System.
iMac Ableton 11 Bitwig 4.3.1

There are a lot of bragging rights to Live, but CPU efficiency isn't one of them. I've never done a single test to failure in the last 5 years where Live came out with more plugins than Bitwig. To be fair both are awful compared to the dinosaur DAWs like Reaper and DP etc. Recent tests with the Logic online test with Diva comes up with 80 in Live compared to 95 in Bitwig. Both are sad pandas compared to DP and Reaper which get 135 or even 140 with some red on their meters and no audible artifacts.

I'm still currently in the Live camp, current songwriting partner is a huge Live user, but in no way can we claim any CPU strength over Bitwig, and this is with the strongest sandboxing settings.

At this point though, in neither have I ran out of CPU, for years. If I end up wanting to do orchestral style stuff I use an old school DAW, but anything besides that just doesn't tax modern CPUs enough to worry about 15-45% hits even.

[machinesworking]

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.

[Jac459]

Live has a nicer ecosystem with the push and an iOS app... And then there is the M4L (that never really appealed to me)...

Everything else is way better (for MY workflow) in Bitwig and it keep getting better. To me the v5 (not 5.1) was the real revolution with the modulation concept extended to a crazy level. Then the spectral effects and all... It is an every day blast, there isn't one thing I would change in it.