If you had to stick to one DAW, which one would it be?

[antic604]

Oh No, no clip launcher. what whilst I do with my self. There's no point to the universe, shut it all down.

I never said that. It's you who sounds like this

Obviously the poll is subjective - some can't live without clip launchers, other can't without staff notation. Thus they will choose different "only" DAW. I thought that's pretty clear

[antic604]

Is it subjective though?

Yes.

It could just as easily be equatable... What is our philosophy depth here? It could go either way, if we put it in a more dire context, like the Earth surviving a catastrophe.. We'd probably come up with an equation for the best DAW.

No, we couldn't. It would be a compromise most people wouldn't be happy with.

[dellboy]

Oh No, no clip launcher. what whilst I do with my self. There's no point to the universe, shut it all down.

I have used a "clip launcher" for years and have never "launched" anyone else's clips. A lot of people who laugh at clip launchers have probably never been shown how to record in real time with them.

When used as a real time loop recorder they can be great for quickly building ideas. I could just as easily do a similar thing in Studio One or Cubase, and often do, copying and pasting bars, but its nice to be able to just jam with a clip launcher sometimes. I have already bought Cubase Pro 12 and am waiting to see what new things are in it, but I very much doubt it will have a clip launcher which is a shame as it would be my number one feature request.

[skijumptoes]

So no metrics exist to figure out the best overall DAW and we couldn't ascertain this in lieu of the entire earth being destroyed? It could easily be measurable for all we know, we say, a 1000 person study.

Surely the best overall would be whatever can be most customised to suit all individuals?

At that point Reaper becomes the standout, as it's almost limitless in features when you consider the modular aspect to it's extensions and actions system. But at it's core it's also very simplistic for those that just want to record a guitar & mic - tape recorder style.

Imagine how great we'd have it looking, sat on the moon, with nothing else to do! haha

[Michael L]

https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/DAW-Chart.html

[dellboy]

Check out Groove Agent patterns for a bit of "clip" fun, there's also LoopMash which is a bit too doinky for my taste.

there's a thread somewhere on Steinberg forums that suggests Groove Agent should become an Ableton killer and feature clip launching. https://forums.steinberg.net/t/marketin ... owd/685803

I try groove agent every now and then but find it cumbersome. How do you record into it in real time with different instruments and clips of different lengths? I somehow doubt that this can be done. The same goes for loopmash. They are not remotely like the clip launchers in Live, Bitwig or Logic which are integrated into the work flow.

[antic604]

So no metrics exist to figure out the best overall DAW and we couldn't ascertain this in lieu of the entire earth being destroyed? It could easily be measurable for all we know, with say, a 1000 person study.

It's an interesting philosophical thread we're on but I'm having a bit of trouble expanding on it with you.

Sure it could exist. We'd "just" have to survey all musicians about what features they need, grade all DAWs in how they address those needs and somehow weight the votes with "importance" of said musicians, because obviously Hans Zimmer's vote weighs a lot more than mine

But in the end you'd still end up with a compromise that'd probably only satisfy minority of users (because it would happen to be their main DAW anyway).

Maybe if we take the polls hypothetical scenario a bit further, and put it in the context of "If the entire world/human race could only have one DAW to record and produce all music", would your answer or perception on the conundrum of which you're responsible for birthing us change?

The poll poses already a hypothetical question. Many - maybe most? - users especially here own and use more than one DAW, either because they like to change things up, or because one DAW works better for some aspects of their workflow than the others, e.g. they sound design in Bitwig, arrange in Cubase and mix/master in ProTools. The question was - of those three which one would be sufficient.

If world came to a state where there can be only one DAW, then making music - with a DAW - would probably be the last thing on my mind

[antic604]

Yeah to be honest, the main thing I use GrooveAgent for is sample playback and making. You can have up to 32 layers per pad, and have an entire spectrum of sound manipulation features per each layer or on the total pad. Incredibly powerful, total sleeper though.

Perhaps it's a "sleeper" because that's nothing extraordinary anymore? Even standalone MPC hardware can have multiple layers per drum pad with both separate and common FX chains. Not to mention other DAWs.

[antic604]

Damn, Cubase in the lead again

[antic604]

I'm not sure what you mean? That you're not committed to music regardless of a DAW, ie, if there were no DAW or recording deviced, you wouldn't just play a lute or something?

Yes. I'm not Aphex Twin who'd - allegedly - go mad if he couldn't translate music in his head to some other medium

I'd miss it for sure, but I'd be just fine doing something else.

[antic604]

There's more to a product than just the specs.

Indeed. Despite all of Groove Agent's features, its workflow & GUI reminded me of the 90s, therefore I avoided it like a plague in Cubase

[antic604]

You might not be qualified for this deeper discussion then.

Or alternatively - your passion for music blinds you and you're not fit for such a discussion either.

[skijumptoes]

It would have to be a multi-varied analysis. I mean, just to make a rudimentary example... A highly customized rocket that explodes on launch is not better than the proprietary rocket full of IP protected tech that actually makes it to the moon.

But we're talking about establishing a "one" rocket design that can be launched by anyone, from anywhere. The more adaptable that is to the individual or the location they're in the more suitable the end product deployed would be.

Even from a multi-varied analysis point of view there are elements which sit in juxtaposition of other elements. This is why universal systems are generally dumbed down to the lowest common denominator - i.e. education being a prime example of that.

It's easy to create a list of what a "Single" DAW should have, it's the implementation and scaleability where the problem comes.

This is such a surreal conversation btw, have a joined a stoners group by mistake!?

[dellboy]

You might not be qualified for this deeper discussion then.

Or alternatively - your passion for music blinds you and you're not fit for such a discussion either.

It could also be said that your passion for technology blinds you to music.

In fact, after following your rather good posts on KVR for a number of years, I would suggest that is where your heart truly lies, in technology. Truth is, you are very good at it. The music is just a part of the equation for you. Your dream job might be to design DAWs and other stuff, rather than pursuing a musical career? Or maybe writing about music tech for a music technology magazine.

You would not be alone in this, many here seem to love the tech side of music technology more than actually making music. The tech is the hobby. Speaking personally, the way for me to actually knuckle down and make music would be to get rid of the tech.

[dellboy]

That being, tape reels and machines are definitely not the poor mans medium. Technology has opened up music to a lot of people, and allowed for global music success even out of the lowest income areas.

Pretty much most of the time I use Cubase like a glorified tape recorder - hit record and play stuff in real time. The advantage over a tape recorder being that you have instruments, drums, bass, synths, cut-n-paste and FX etc. Its easy to forget that decent outboard FX cost a small fortune back in the day.