Picking a DAW is hard…

[twal]

I don't see any point to use another daw other than Reaper if you know it unless you want a different experience another daw company wants to give or if there is a special capability/workflow you prefer. Probably other reasons but things like looping a selected group of items, and take fx (S1 just did get them), fast transport any item, instantly creating an automation item for any parameter, buttons to pick any plugin you want, auto coloring tracks, dry/wet knob for any insert... Probably other daws can do similar but not everything. With that being said S1 does look interesting, Bitwig, maybe Live nothing else does rn...

[vitocorleone123]

I don't see any point to use another daw other than Reaper if you know it unless you want a different experience another daw company wants to give or if there is a special capability/workflow you prefer. Probably other reasons but things like looping a selected group of items, and take fx (S1 just did get them), fast transport any item, instantly creating an automation item for any parameter, buttons to pick any plugin you want, auto coloring tracks, dry/wet knob for any insert... Probably other daws can do similar but not everything. With that being said S1 does look interesting, Bitwig, maybe Live nothing else does rn...

And I don't see the point of using Reaper unless you're an audio engineer and/or a masochist. But it's nice to have options!

Once again, picking a DAW isn't hard - it just takes time if you want to do it right. Spend time learning about each one online and in YT. Then demo the one(s) in order that seemed the most interesting, using them for a month at a time. Choose the one that not only doesn't get in the way of how you want to work, but, ideally, encourages it and even expands it.

[Opaque]

I've tried almost everything, used reaper for a few years and now settled on ableton.
I'd say both are good, but reaper is more like a tabula rasa, very good for flexible routing possibilities during mixing, for mastering, or sound design when working for media or games when there are hundreds of clips that have to be processed, batch exported and named with specific naming conventions, etc. - macro actions are very powerful here.
Ableton live is more like an instrument that you can push, and it's thought out and designed very very well imo. For production, there is no way I'd ever go back, Live makes your life so much easier here, whereas some of those tools in reaper are half-baked (e.g. modulation possibilities).

[twal]

I've tried almost everything, used reaper for a few years and now settled on ableton.
I'd say both are good, but reaper is more like a tabula rasa, very good for flexible routing possibilities during mixing, for mastering, or sound design when working for media or games when there are hundreds of clips that have to be processed, batch exported and named with specific naming conventions, etc. - macro actions are very powerful here.
Ableton live is more like an instrument that you can push, and it's thought out and designed very very well imo. For production, there is no way I'd ever go back, Live makes your life so much easier here, whereas some of those tools in reaper are half-baked (e.g. modulation possibilities).

You ended preferring Live over Bitwig why so?

[Opaque]

You ended preferring Live over Bitwig why so?

I think it's biggest advantage/selling point is the modulation system. The grid is like an integrated modular synth that can encompass everything from external vsts to bitwig's mixer controls like volume/pan, etc., and one can use it to build stuff from scratch using fundamental modules.
Now, modularity/flexibility to me is not a great important or great just by itself, it's about what purpose you are achieving with it, and it comes down to 3 things - building bespoke stuff that doesn't exist or does something unique from scratch, providing movement/interest by controlling parameters with complex modulations or creating dependancies within them, and doing let's say modular (fm) synthesis and adjacent stuff that relies on audio rate modulation.

For (1) building stuff from scratch, max is more flexible and low-level, (2) modulations providing movement/control are I think easy enough to do and chain in Live, and (3) for anything hardcore synthesis-wise, I just don't find any of the results that impressive for some reason. I've used Reaktor Blocks a lot and I think that sounds the best (Softube modular was also impressive), but maybe it's due to the rate of modulation (I'm not sure whether it operates or can do audio rate modulation) or something, maybe just personal taste, I just didn't find Bitwig compelling.

Apart from that, in terms of standard daw stuff or included content, I didn't test enough but feel like Live is probably more developed - e.g. integration with the browser, tagging, sound similarity, racks, automation selection in ableton having handles to manipulate akin to automation items in reaper, comping, audio to midi, resampling, polymeters in session view (automation and modulation), warping and time-stretch algorhithms, the new midi tools, etc. I'm sure Bitwig matches it in some aspects, but doubt it's as developed and polished in all of it, its main draw being the grid.

TL;DR - I'm not a big fan of the sound of the grid when it comes to typical modular stuff (much prefer Reaktor blocks) which seems to be its main advantage, also not a fan of the UI for some reason

[Kalamata Kid]

The US congress or better yet the UN security council/general assembly should pass a law that if a developer makes a third party module for Max4Live then they must also make one as a VST. If not I will forever have my sights on Live just to get my hands on M4L. Better yet they should make M4L available as a VST.

Seriously if Live was not so expensive it would be on top of my DAW list even though I lacks ARA support.

[twal]

You ended preferring Live over Bitwig why so?

I think it's biggest advantage/selling point is the modulation system. The grid is like an integrated modular synth that can encompass everything from external vsts to bitwig's mixer controls like volume/pan, etc., and one can use it to build stuff from scratch using fundamental modules.
Now, modularity/flexibility to me is not a great important or great just by itself, it's about what purpose you are achieving with it, and it comes down to 3 things - building bespoke stuff that doesn't exist or does something unique from scratch, providing movement/interest by controlling parameters with complex modulations or creating dependancies within them, and doing let's say modular (fm) synthesis and adjacent stuff that relies on audio rate modulation.

For (1) building stuff from scratch, max is more flexible and low-level, (2) modulations providing movement/control are I think easy enough to do and chain in Live, and (3) for anything hardcore synthesis-wise, I just don't find any of the results that impressive for some reason. I've used Reaktor Blocks a lot and I think that sounds the best (Softube modular was also impressive), but maybe it's due to the rate of modulation (I'm not sure whether it operates or can do audio rate modulation) or something, maybe just personal taste, I just didn't find Bitwig compelling.

Apart from that, in terms of standard daw stuff or included content, I didn't test enough but feel like Live is probably more developed - e.g. integration with the browser, tagging, sound similarity, racks, automation selection in ableton having handles to manipulate akin to automation items in reaper, comping, audio to midi, resampling, polymeters in session view (automation and modulation), warping and time-stretch algorhithms, the new midi tools, etc. I'm sure Bitwig matches it in some aspects, but doubt it's as developed and polished in all of it, its main draw being the grid.

TL;DR - I'm not a big fan of the sound of the grid when it comes to typical modular stuff (much prefer Reaktor blocks) which seems to be it's main advantage, also not a fan of the UI for some reason

Ah, got it. Thanks for the thorough explanation. Live to me does certainly seem more steamlined/developed- it's been around longer so makes sense to some degree because of that; but they have had probably a better mapping for the future and hemogeniety within its own ecosystem; is this so because it perhaps has a more so set development goal early on and/or bigger company obligation to fulfill? I don't know, but Bitwig developers left Live to do things more "their way" but I am not sure how this all coincides. Live seems to me to look more like a "complete product" than the other daws.

Most music doesn't need all the intricacies of the Grid and modular open endedness and appears Live does enough of it. I did not like Bitwig UI until I actually tried it, and the same for Live, but I ultimately prefer Live's. I also prefer the overall systematic approach to racks in Live. Does Bitwig have the same type of marketplace/sharing place/what have you that Live (for racks) does? I see that people develop racks and you can integrate them into your own setup, is it the same for Bitwig's whatchamacallits? I believe there is a site for Bitwig that allows sharing of BItwig synth stuff, but forgot exactly what goes on there (come to think of it it's called "Bitwiggers"- cool site)..

This is all coming from a person who just now so started looking at daws after a long time only using REAPER (except 2 months in Reason and 2 months in FL older versions)...

[Opaque]

Ah, got it. Thanks for the thorough explanation. Live to me does certainly seem more steamlined/developed- it's been around longer so makes sense to some degree because of that; but they have had probably a better mapping for the future and hemogeniety within its own ecosystem; is this so because it perhaps has a more so set development goal early on and/or bigger company obligation to fulfill? I don't know, but Bitwig developers left Live to do things more "their way" but I am not sure how this all coincides. Live seems to me to look more like a "complete product" than the other daws.

Most music doesn't need all the intricacies of the Grid and modular open endedness and appears Live does enough of it. I did not like Bitwig UI until I actually tried it, and the same for Live, but I ultimately prefer Live's. I also prefer the overall systematic approach to racks in Live. Does Bitwig have the same type of marketplace/sharing place/what have you that Live (for racks) does? I see that people develop racks and you can integrate them into your own setup, is it the same for Bitwig's whatchamacallits? I believe there is a site for Bitwig that allows sharing of BItwig synth stuff, but forgot exactly what goes on there (come to think of it it's called "Bitwiggers"- cool site)..

This is all coming from a person who just now so started looking at daws after a long time only using REAPER (except 2 months in Reason and 2 months in FL older versions)...

Oh yeah, also the fact that it relies on a subscription model (although I know it has a one-time license as well), but that attempt from a year or so ago when they tried introducing new plugins that would be a separate paid addition didn't really sit well with me.

But you pinpointed well, they are slower to attempt/implement new things, but imo these have mostly been well thought out and implemented, without jumping on the bandwagon and half-assing things.

edit: they did fumble a bit with tagging initially, and the solution to make the UI more flexible in live 12 is a bit clumsy imo, so there are obviously things to criticize as well

[iBrellianKahilae]

The closest thing to what you are describing will be the daws that don't come as plugins. They will be the closest to what you are looking for in the field.

[santixolas]

Oddly enough.....Pro Tools .....''the choice of the industry'' is NEVER a part of the discussions.

It's an "industry standard" for mixers, not for music production.

I think for most genres that are not electronic Pro Tools is up there.

And for post production there's really nothing close to it.

It's my main DAW for work. I don't think anything comes close to it for recording, audio editing and mixing. It's still the closest thing to the studio in a box paradigm.

Its achille's heel is definitely in the midi area although it's nowhere near as bad as people make out.

I use Ableton for creativity and fun.

Tottaly agree.

I'm on similar boat. Cubase can be the best second overall Daw. But as you said For recording and post production ProTools is also my main choice.
Been using both for more than 20 years now.

Best of Luck

[twal]

Most "aficionados" in here complain about midi editors. Many a hit records that only used midi were produced in Pro Tools. We're all just "masochists" who use the tools we want to use I guess...

[BERESHIT]

tested most, have settled on Ableton Suite.

[BONES]

I tried out Soundbridge last night. I don't think I like it much. The workflow is really bad, there are controls all over the place and they seem proud of the fact there are no contextual menus, so your attention has to flit all over the interface to do simple things. You have to keep too many windows open to be able to work, it's not good. I'll have another play around tonight but I can't imagine keeping it on my machine. It feels like I am stuck with Studio One for the foreseeable future.

[JO512]

I really like Reaper and feel at home in it (it was my first DAW), but I bought and have been using Bitwig some too, mainly for two things: micro-pitch expression drawing on the piano roll and the extensive modulation system. Micro-pitch expression was the single biggest selling point for me. I don't know why other DAWs don't have this yet. I really don't click much with Bitwig so far otherwise. And I find editing MIDI in its piano roll rather annoying and lacking in features. But micro-pitch expressions! To be able to draw precise pitch bends to specific notes is a game changer.

The Grid is pretty awesome too. But I don't actually use it much. I also really like that in Delay+, you can put your own plugins inside the feedback loop. You can set up something functionally similar in Reaper with a routing loop with feedback, but it takes multiple tracks to set it up. Not super convenient.

[_leras]

I really don't click much with Bitwig so far otherwise. And I find editing MIDI in its piano roll rather annoying and lacking in features. But micro-pitch expressions! To be able to draw precise pitch bends to specific notes is a game changer.

You'll be pleased to hear Bitwig have said that updating the arranger and piano roll are in the works.

In the meantime I'd suggest looking at the short cuts keys are they are pretty handy at making the piano roll more fluid.

Bitwig started to click with me when I basically inverted my thinking and instead of mixing with a predefined grouping structure just went with the Bitwig nested grouping. Ctrl+g is so easy to group both channels and FX chains.

I'd also say that as part of that I created my own group bus FX chains that I grouped and saved as presets, which works really well in Bitwig. I now have a library of FX chains, for single channels, groups, FX sends, gating that I can use as starting points. Super useful.

And my favourite thing, you can add an FX channel inside a group and send things from that group into it. E.g. group backing vox, add a reverb channel inside the group, have control of levels of each channel to send to this, and you can then level the FX channel still inside the same group. This is so very nice.

I'd recommend Bitwig to almost anyone, and definitely anyone making electronic music.