All DAWs should have automation like this. Steinberg & PreSonus - take note please!

[LawrenceF]

Makes sense. Thanks.

I am personally not a fan of Reaper's automation system at all, it's way too rigid for my taste and preferences, the overall design, but I do agree that in that one regard it's better than some.

[tristan-]

Basically you're saying that FL Studio is EDM oriented hence it has excellent automation implementation, quick links, automation envelopes that can control any parameter (even a few at a time), automation envelopes which can be saved and recalled at any time, automations via bezier curves which are easy to edit.
On the other hand Cubase is more versatile for other styles, hence it should stick to an automation scheme from 20 years ago. Well said! seriously, Cubase is years behind in automation. Looking at it reminds me of AOL and ICQ.

[LawrenceF]

And off we go to KVR Disneyland.

No, I said that daws like PT (correctly) played more to their historical bases. Does FL have all of the advanced automation options of Nuendo and PT? No, because the user base doesn't really need it... or at least historically didn't. But times do change and now it's the case that every DAW is viewed as an electronic music production daw when some are just not very good at it.

Have you actually explored all of the automation options and modes in PT, Nuendo, Pyramix? Are those "less important" than what FL does? Not really, they're just for people with different needs or preferences, that's all.

You really can't view "all daws" through the somewhat narrow perspective of what's good for electronic music production hosts. Some Cubase user might say FL needs better automation editing if it doesn't have fill automation or trim or VCA coalescing of automation. Who's right about all that? Nobody.

[tristan-]

Is there a DAW that won't benefit from easier manual editing of an automation curve? (and that's purely to simplify the subject)

[elxsound]

Nothing to do with EDM - just having better editing tools that enable more precise control and quicker workflow.

Yeah, kinda. But (in my experience and of course yours may be different so I do allow for that) most people doing conventional automation writing are mostly writing it with faders, probably not editing automation with the mouse nearly as much as people doing electronic music.

FL Studio at it's root is an electronic music host so it probably does need that more. PT, maybe not so much.

Pretty much all the automation I use is directly recorded live knob tweaks on instruments and fx using latch or touch mode - I do not automate DAW sliders etc, nor do I draw in automation (usually) after the event. What I appreciate though in a host is the ability to quickly and effectively 'touch up' recorded automation - in S1 it is still very fiddly to do so as it draws hundreds of little nodes that can only be edited one by one or using the transform tools, which are too imprecise for me. This is where Reaper has the edge, although it is not as good as Podium which was my favourite for automation editing (and has tools very similar to a graphics app) but sadly is not on Mac, neither is FL (yet) which does look like it has excellent automation features - so yes I do agree with the OP that more host developers should take this more seriously.

I personally use both methods, hardware and drawing in automation.

I think some people forget that DAWs are used for so much more than how they personally use them. Right now I think the various companies should be working out how to do things easier. Remove steps and hassle. Its not so much every DAW should have the same features as DAW "X" but instead implement easier methods where possible.

I also like Reaper for this. It throws me off sometimes switching to Reaper (when I'm so familiar with other programs), but its an elegant system when you are accustomed to the shortcuts for adding/deleting points. Very fast and flexible.

I don't use FL, but I really like many of the features they've implemented like the automation tools and ghost notes. Both are features that I wish every DAW had.

[elxsound]

Is there a DAW that won't benefit from easier manual editing of an automation curve? (and that's purely to simplify the subject)

No, but you'll still get pushback from those who don't use it.

[LawrenceF]

Is there a DAW that won't benefit from easier manual editing of an automation curve? (and that's purely to simplify the subject)

Nope. I agreed with that. Having it is a plus.

My only objection was "all daws need". The only thing any daw needs is what most of it's customers want... to keep paying for it. No idea where this regular tendency to turn every daw product into a clone comes from. Some products target very specific user bases. Some might say that all daws need midi sequencing but the creators of Pryamix would certainly disagree with that.

But no, I wouldn't turn up my nose at FL's automation stuff in any host.

If you use Cubase maybe just say "I think Cubase needs this." I personally do think Cubase needs that fwiw. If you don't use the other 40, why does it matter to you if they have it or not?

I agree with the features, I think FL's automation clips and curves are great. But me saying... "I think all daws that assume to be suitable for being the center of a multitrack recording studio should have a professional level monitor facility like Ardour, or Cubase."... actually might not be a comment from left field, but it's something that just won't ever happen... so I don't... because... it's unreasonable to expect it to happen in every daw.

In most of these products you can't even solo a signal in the mains without cutting off the performers cues, so automation clips are not very high on my personal list. If they showed up I'd use them though.

[aMUSEd]

tbh it rather sucks for me that FL has such nice automation editing tools because a) it's not on Mac and won't be for a long time yet (if ever in 64 bit) and b) even if it was there are too many things I don't like about FL to make it likely I would switch to it. So I would love other DAWS to have this sort of feature, or for something as elegant as Podium's beautiful implementation.

[LawrenceF]

FL is really great. Love the Fruity for pattern arranging. I own Fruity Edition and just recently got the latest version. Nice.

But sure, in a perfect world every daw would have everything good from every other. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't ever work that way. Cubase is at version 19 or whatever (from Cubase Atari) and you still can't even directly move mixer channels around. It is what it is. Annoyances can be very personal things. What annoys Joe, Jack couldn't care less about.

[Phorous]

FL is really great. Love the Fruity for pattern arranging. I own Fruity Edition and just recently got the latest version. Nice.

But sure, in a perfect world every daw would have everything good from every other. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't ever work that way. Cubase is at version 19 or whatever (from Cubase Atari) and you still can't even directly move mixer channels around. It is what it is. Annoyances can be very personal things. What annoys Joe, Jack couldn't care less about.

Which is why one should pick a DAW for what it is, rather than what it is not.

I know, would nice to have it all too, but can you imagine if Cubase had every nice feature from every other DAW in addition to the massive amounts of features it already has?

Frankendaw. Not sure if I would want to use it to tell you the truth

[elxsound]

FL is really great. Love the Fruity for pattern arranging. I own Fruity Edition and just recently got the latest version. Nice.

But sure, in a perfect world every daw would have everything good from every other. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't ever work that way. Cubase is at version 19 or whatever (from Cubase Atari) and you still can't even directly move mixer channels around. It is what it is. Annoyances can be very personal things. What annoys Joe, Jack couldn't care less about.

Which is why one should pick a DAW for what it is, rather than what it is not.

I know, would nice to have it all too, but can you imagine if Cubase had every nice feature from every other DAW in addition to the massive amounts of features it already has?

Frankendaw. Not sure if I would want to use it to tell you the truth

Its not about becoming a Frankendaw...

I don't understand the thinking here. We're talking about something that is already implemented, becoming better.

And this idea that because a DAW might be on version 19, no one should bother asking for something new. If that were true then why would they bother offering upgrades and why would anyone pay for them (if they didn't offer something new)?

And why post 10 times to say you don't use it so don't ask for it? If it received an update it wouldn't affect you so why the campaign to deter someone for asking for it?

Anyway, I agree... always buy for what it it is and not what you want it to be, but as far upgrades and feature requests go... Nothing will get better unless people request what they want. Many times people don't realize that something can and could be different until they see a better way of doing things.

[tristan-]

Frankendaw or not, I want to easily manually edit automation curves like in FL Studio or such, while staying with Cubase.

[ericj23]

Is it just me who never saw the appeal of Bezier curves - there are some circumstances where drawing some shapes is quicker, but I found just as many where the curve didn't move quite how I wanted. This meant it was slower than just using a line.

Can someone explain what these automation editing tools actually do BTW? - I personally find the Cubase ones very easy to use so what exactly does the fruity system that is better?

[Phorous]

I don't understand the thinking here. We're talking about something that is already implemented, becoming better.

Well, for one I have no idea how "automation clips" would be integrated into the Cubase workflow as the entire automation system is heavily track based. Maybe they would add a new type of track called "automation track"? Then from there you would need to have routings to a certain parameter on a certain track? Or what it just use what is already there, but rather behave more like a MIDI clip?

The more types of automation curves the better I agree. Cubase has how many different kinds of volume metering for example... if it can add faster/useful workflow without becoming convoluted its a good thing. If it is integrated in a clunky manner and gets in the way of what is already there on the other hand, it wouldn't be a worthwhile addition.

I could personally see an entire upgrade based on improved automation in general for Cubase. I don't think there shouldn't be upgrades

EDIT:
Was more making a general statement about feature requests from other DAWs rather than feature requests in general.

[LawrenceF]

FL is really great. Love the Fruity for pattern arranging. I own Fruity Edition and just recently got the latest version. Nice.

But sure, in a perfect world every daw would have everything good from every other. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't ever work that way. Cubase is at version 19 or whatever (from Cubase Atari) and you still can't even directly move mixer channels around. It is what it is. Annoyances can be very personal things. What annoys Joe, Jack couldn't care less about.

Which is why one should pick a DAW for what it is, rather than what it is not.

I know, would nice to have it all too, but can you imagine if Cubase had every nice feature from every other DAW in addition to the massive amounts of features it already has?

Frankendaw. Not sure if I would want to use it to tell you the truth

Its not about becoming a Frankendaw...

I don't understand the thinking here. We're talking about something that is already implemented, becoming better.

And this idea that because a DAW might be on version 19, no one should bother asking for something new. If that were true then why would they bother offering upgrades and why would anyone pay for them (if they didn't offer something new)?

And why post 10 times to say you don't use it so don't ask for it? If it received an update it wouldn't affect you so why the campaign to deter someone for asking for it?

Anyway, I agree... always buy for what it it is and not what you want it to be, but as far upgrades and feature requests go... Nothing will get better unless people request what they want. Many times people don't realize that something can and could be different until they see a better way of doing things.

It's almost impossible to post here without someone twisting your words into something else.

I never said or even implied, "don't ask for it". I was only chuckling at the idea that everything we find useful should be in "every daw", as if we'll actually even use or even want to use "every daw", that's all.

Try to focus on that. The idea of me telling every other daw user on the planet what the thing they actually bought that I never even owned or used, "needs"... because I need it in product x, somehow that means everybody everywhere needs it in every other product also because.... ?

Do you know what I "need" in Studio One? Nope. You'd only know that if I told you, you can't learn that by assuming what you need is what I need.

All I was saying is that daws, commercial products, should have whatever their customers want, within reason, not everything every guy who compares every single daw on the planet thinks, but what the actual users think, because that benefits the people selling them.

I, for example, personally have no idea what most Samp users want.

Sorry for the edits. IPad thumbs.