What do you think of the DAW market right now and for 2020?

[dellboy]

I tried Sonar out with the X1 version. Didn't like it much. It all seemed a bit thrown together, and there was really antique stuff in there... like the DX plugins.

That was 2011.

Like 8 years ago.

Its now free, so whats up with demoing it again ?

Go on, throw caution to the wind, live a little, give it a try

[vurt]

dubturbo ended the search for the perfect daw.

[chk071]

I tried Sonar out with the X1 version. Didn't like it much. It all seemed a bit thrown together, and there was really antique stuff in there... like the DX plugins.

That was 2011.

Like 8 years ago.

Its now free, so whats up with demoing it again ?

Go on, throw caution to the wind, live a little, give it a try

Why would i though? Super happy with Studio One.

[Forgotten]

dubturbo ended the search for the perfect daw.

I bought it based off this reviewer's comments:

[telecode]

dubturbo ended the search for the perfect daw.

I bought it based off this reviewer's comments:

You just got a thing for cute Asian gurlz

[Forgotten]

dubturbo ended the search for the perfect daw.

I bought it based off this reviewer's comments:

You just got a thing for cute Asian gurlz

What are you talking about? It's a solid, well-constructed review...

[yellowmix]

And very segmented, as if the market participants "agreed" they'd slice the cake in certain way and don't want to eat up into others' piece. What I mean? For example why won't Cubase add something like a clip launcher? Or more advanced modulation features? Or devices making it easier to generate or process stuff in parallel. All this is sort of possible, but often very cumbersome and limited, whereas is a breeze in Live or Bitwig. Or why won't those two add audio comping, more advanced MIDI editing, pitch correction? Their users have been begging for this for years already. It's kinda as if they've agreed "we'll take the bands & film composers, whereas you take the bedroom producers".

When a software tool becomes all-encompassing, it also incurs longer and deeper menus, more UI elements, and a slower and more frustrating workflow. There are more possibilities to cram into your finite mind, and you have to remember how to actually use that particular workflow. The more specialized the tool, the faster and easier it is.

So it's not so much that there's a cabal of developers staying off each other's turf, it's that they have their core audiences and don't want to make it more complicated for them with features they won't want. Look at the main criticism against REAPER, that it's too complicated, that the options are "buried", etc.. That's what you're asking for when you want every DAW to have every feature from other DAWs and it's not necessarily a good thing for everyone.

Additionally, it could alienate the core audience. Cubase in particular has composers and seeing clips implemented could be seen as draining resources from other long-standing issues and pandering to a particular style of music producer. You don't want to draw the ire of your bread and butter.

Some developers have a more heterogeneous base, so it's going to be a balancing act of spreading your development time to appease and energize the existing customers while enticing certain new customers. Make one mistake and you go bankrupt. So most will tread carefully, making it exciting to see when developers do bold things (or have deep pockets).

[yellowmix]

What are you talking about? It's a solid, well-constructed review...

How did you find that video? It's unlisted. The channel page itself has no public videos. Very low view count too. Is this someone you know outside of YouTube?

[THE INTRANCER]

So what's everyone's take on the DAW market? You thought about switching DAW's for another one? See any companies coming with a DAW next year?

I plan to reveal - HDSRS: A 'Hybrid Daw Sequencing Rack Synthesizer'. in 2020, but it's at odds with what I'm planning in the motion graphics field in whether I'll be able to pull it off or not. HDSRS is absolutely massive in size and complexity, that considering to rebuild it for higher resolutions and new vision of GUI design is a monumental task...

Studio One 4.5 currently ticks all the boxes for rapid music development... but nowadays, I need a purpose for creating music in the first place. I'm not really bothered by what comes in 2020 in terms of DAW tech... other than nice to haves, and bug free releases from Presonus.

[Forgotten]

What are you talking about? It's a solid, well-constructed review...

How did you find that video? It's unlisted. The channel page itself has no public videos. Very low view count too. Is this someone you know outside of YouTube?

I shot the footage personally in my living room as she was so intent on getting a Dub Turbo review out there...

[BONES]

For example why won't Cubase add something like a clip launcher? Or more advanced modulation features? Or devices making it easier to generate or process stuff in parallel. All this is sort of possible, but often very cumbersome and limited, whereas is a breeze in Live or Bitwig.

Why would they? There are already a dozen different ways to do anything you need to do in Cubase, why add even more cruft and clutter? I could understand why something like Bitwig or Ableton Live might need more stuff, the workflow isn't anywhere near as flexible, but Cubase absolutely does not.

Or why won't those two add audio comping, more advanced MIDI editing, pitch correction? Their users have been begging for this for years already. It's kinda as if they've agreed "we'll take the bands & film composers, whereas you take the bedroom producers".

Really? You'd rather have 20 versions of the same thing than 20 different things?

I guess what I'm saying is I'd gladly welcome more competition in the field, which would only benefit the users. Currently many have to use 2-3 DAWs to complete a project (for example Reason for sound design and song sketching, Cubase for mix & master, Live for live performance) and that's probably not ideal.

Those are choices you make. I am completely confident I will have no trouble at all using Cubase on stage, just as I have no problem at all doing sound design and everything else in Cubase.

I came here to say the exact opposite - the problem with the market is that there is far too much overlap between products and nowhere near enough diversity. When Rich killed Orion, there was nothing else even remotely like it that we could migrate to. The choices were basically 10 different products in two distinct categories - one for musicians/producers and one for people doing dance music. After trying to make Bitwig work for us for 6 months we abandoned that side of the market and went back to Orion, until we decided to try the other side with Cubase. Cubase is amazingly powerful, I doubt we'll ever do more than scratch the surface, but it's workflow still involves many, many compromises on the perfect workflow of Orion. Still, it's not as bad for us as Bitwig was so it has becomes the least poor choice. But it would have been nice if there was something else that prioritised workflow and sound quality over feature parity with the competition. Something where I could actually see what was going on without everything being hidden away behind tabs on windows that are too small to show the full picture.

[dj bubbles]

In 2020 Image-Line will sell Fruityloops to Radio Shack, and rename the company to Fruit Shack and start selling Fruit Smoothies.

[whyterabbyt]

So what's everyone's take on the DAW market? You thought about switching DAW's for another one? See any companies coming with a DAW next year?

I plan to reveal - HDSRS: A 'Hybrid Daw Sequencing Rack Synthesizer'. in 2020, but it's at odds with what I'm planning in the motion graphics field in whether I'll be able to pull it off or not. HDSRS is absolutely massive in size and complexity, that considering to rebuild it for higher resolutions and new vision of GUI design is a monumental task...

Uhuh. So what's it going to be written in?

[crimsonwarlock]

Look at the main criticism against REAPER, that it's too complicated, that the options are "buried", etc..

At the same time it is also one of the most cited praises of reaper

...it's not necessarily a good thing for everyone.

Horses for courses obviously. Any particular difference between products might be a selection driver for a particular user.

[crimsonwarlock]

... but it's workflow still involves many, many compromises on the perfect workflow of Orion.

That's why I moved to reaper. I think reaper's focus is on 'no compromise' when it comes to functionality. That indeed means it is somewhat of a nightmare to people who want to 'dive in and make music' (there are typical other DAWs for that) but it is a godsend for someone who wants to setup a no-compromise workflow (and won't shy away of some manual diving and setting up macros and such).

Most linear DAWs are very track-view oriented, but I got onto Orion back then because of its mixer-centric approach. Looking at a track-view occurs to me as looking at a multitrack recorder. Its a great way to edit tracks on the 'recorded stuff' level (beats the hell out of tape slicing), but for me it isn't useful for anything else. This means, for me, like 90% of my studio work is done on or around the mixer. Reaper was the only DAW that gave me the possibility to setup a mixer-centric workflow that came close to Orion (and eventually surpassed it even).