Picking a DAW is hard…

[Basseldon]

I like Cubase and Ableton but the thing is there is a learning curve.

[harddaysnight]

Logic is the best value for money DAW on the market - I don't think it has any competition. Even Reaper, if you purchase it, is way worse value for money, when you consider everything you get in Logic...

... I tried them all and went back to Studio One. I've released like 80% of everything I've ever done in Studio One Artist, I just keep going back to S1 every time.

The DAW itself is perfect for me, I actually get things done in S1 and don't feel like I spend all my time messing around or trying to figure things out. Feels natural... feels like Logic but better, imo. More aligned with my own personal workflow tastes.

And now that Studio One is the same price as Logic Pro, it is the best value choice as well. Of course, it could be argued that Studio one Artist was way better value than Logic, as it was half the price yet probably contained 90% of the features. And if it has all the features you need, than it is twice as good as Logic on the value front because you aren't paying for as many things you will never use.

One of the biggest reasons for me to use Logic was for the Drummer, which S1 has nothing similar to.

That appeal disappeared once I got an electric drum kit though as I can just play them myself, and now I've got a Yamaha FGDP-50 that works beautifully as a MIDI controller so.. any reasons to use Logic, personally, are long gone.

I've upgraded to S1 Professional and just love it, haven't had any urge to try anything else or ditch S1 again since exploring other options and returning to it more recently (again).

There's just no point. S1 is a better version of Logic imo. Some of the changes in the newest S1 update moved things to share some more aesthetics with Logic and imo S1 is looking awesome and feeling awesome to use. I love how Logic literally looks, so seeing S1 incorporate a little bit of that is just *chefs kiss* for me because it gives me an aesthetic I love and a workflow that I gel with.

Something about S1 just has me actually making music, not messing around or trying to figure out how to do X or Y or wondering why Z isn't readily available or whatever.

[BONES]

You might need to go back and edit your quotes.

[harddaysnight]

You might need to go back and edit your quotes.

Done, lol.

[prismatic]

It's all about workflow. Switching to PC, I was looking for something similar to Logic. Went with Cubase and am very happy, although there is quite a learning curve. I think it is a great cross-platform choice.

[enroe]

It's all about workflow.

Absolutely true!

[Kalamata Kid]

For me it is workflow and features.
One DAW requirement is that it must have ARA implementation.

I am having a hell of a time picking between
Reaper
Studio One
Cubase
FL Studio. The have promised ARA.

[twal]

For me it is workflow and features.
One DAW requirement is that it must have ARA implementation.

I am having a hell of a time picking between
Reaper
Studio One
Cubase
FL Studio. The have promised ARA.

You don't want to stick with studio one?

[BONES]

What's so good about ARA? I really don't understand much about it but from what I've read, it seems to be the answer to a question that nobody was asking. It seems to hang its hat on the belief that you need to render a channel to audio so you can add effects to it, which is clearly bollocks. I do know that Presonus co-developed it, so I imagine their implementation in Studio One is probably superior to anyone else's. So maybe I use it all the time but it's so well integrated that I'm not even aware of it?

[Kalamata Kid]

For me it is workflow and features.
One DAW requirement is that it must have ARA implementation.

I am having a hell of a time picking between
Reaper
Studio One
Cubase
FL Studio. The have promised ARA.

You don't want to stick with studio one?

Yes and no.
The race is very close.
Reaper is very slightly ahead.
But on some days it is the opposite.

[machinesworking]

What's so good about ARA? I really don't understand much about it but from what I've read, it seems to be the answer to a question that nobody was asking. It seems to hang its hat on the belief that you need to render a channel to audio so you can add effects to it, which is clearly bollocks. I do know that Presonus co-developed it, so I imagine their implementation in Studio One is probably superior to anyone else's. So maybe I use it all the time but it's so well integrated that I'm not even aware of it?

You should probably read up on it. Melodyne was the first product to use it, and it's usually much better at pitch correcting audio than other solutions, ARA makes it happen like it's part of the DAW. Melodyne is also really good at taming sibilance etc. Honestly though for the kind of music you and I as well do it's not that useful. the only things I use it for is FSU type stuff.

[BONES]

Why would I need to pitch correct my audio? I play it in in tune and so it stays in tune. If it wasn't in tune, I'd fix it before I recorded it.

[BertKoor]

Why would I need to pitch correct my audio?

Who said you do? This thread is not about you, is it?

As much as I detest the effect, I know there are very popular genres where audible pitch correction on vocals is elementary.

Some producers apparently can't do without while others don't need it.

Now where's that other thread where someone told you that very same thing to sink into your brain. It just won't land appparently.

[BONES]

OK, then, why would YOU need to pitch correct your f**king audio? IIs that an easier question to answer?

[Jac459]

OK, then, why would YOU need to pitch correct your f**king audio? IIs that an easier question to answer?

It is an effect Bones. I guess like obvious vocal auto-tune but more generalized. (I don't like it by the way but that is beside the point).

I guess it is like 80 years ago somebody would ask "why do you let your sound by distorted? Because I like it". And rock-and-roll was invented.