Objective Differences: Ableton Live 9.5 vs Bitwig?

[xbitz]

created a bit longer post about how internal routing is working currently in Bitwig (best practice based) http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6#p6331726
if somebody interested in it

[Orbit-50]

Thank you very much xbitz! You are the man.

[ceasless]

that's not the arrange but the audio editor and they aren't ez fades ready to adjust sorry. And i can see still no proper vertical resize on the arrange, you need to have automation open. Bitwig is unusable to me, live is 100000x better. We are all different.

It's been pointed out already, but you do get resizing in the 'Edit' view, which can contain the entirety of your arrangement (or whatever cross-section of it you choose to select).

It took me a long time to dig into 'Edit', but from now on I am hoping against all hope that they do not destroy the arrangement view with resizable tracks. If people can't be bothered to explore the existing potential of the DAW (read: you already have 100% of the arrangement possibilities with resizable track heights in the Edit view), then these people are not the ones the developer should be catering towards.

As you say, we are all different. Same with DAWs. It's worth some time to develop a real relationship, in either case.

[ThomasHelzle]

that's not the arrange but the audio editor and they aren't ez fades ready to adjust sorry. And i can see still no proper vertical resize on the arrange, you need to have automation open. Bitwig is unusable to me, live is -0.1 x better. We are all different.

It's been pointed out already, but you do get resizing in the 'Edit' view, which can contain the entirety of your arrangement (or whatever cross-section of it you choose to select).

It took me a long time to dig into 'Edit', but from now on I am hoping against all hope that they do not destroy the arrangement view with resizable tracks. If people can't be bothered to explore the existing potential of the DAW (read: you already have 100% of the arrangement possibilities with resizable track heights in the Edit view), then these people are not the ones the developer should be catering towards.

As you say, we are all different. Same with DAWs. It's worth some time to develop a real relationship, in either case.

[elxsound]

that's not the arrange but the audio editor and they aren't ez fades ready to adjust sorry. And i can see still no proper vertical resize on the arrange, you need to have automation open. Bitwig is unusable to me, live is 100000x better. We are all different.

It's been pointed out already, but you do get resizing in the 'Edit' view, which can contain the entirety of your arrangement (or whatever cross-section of it you choose to select).

It took me a long time to dig into 'Edit', but from now on I am hoping against all hope that they do not destroy the arrangement view with resizable tracks. If people can't be bothered to explore the existing potential of the DAW (read: you already have 100% of the arrangement possibilities with resizable track heights in the Edit view), then these people are not the ones the developer should be catering towards.

As you say, we are all different. Same with DAWs. It's worth some time to develop a real relationship, in either case.

And if they add it in, will you suggest that anyone who doesn't like it should understand that Bitwig wasn't catered for them (possibly including you)?

I really don't get that line of thinking. Theo is talking about a workflow issue, that for some due to their line of work will need to adjust on the fly quickly, so digging in isn't always the optimal way to do things (and no I don't buy this us vs them camp, since they have features that suggest these people should be included too).

I'm sure the BW people are smart folks capable of taking lots of input in, eliminating things that don't fit and for the rest applying features in ways that improve it without destroying the features their core base of users like.

[ceasless]

And if they add it in, will you suggest that anyone who doesn't like it should understand that Bitwig wasn't catered for them (possibly including you)?

If they add it in, I will be patient to an inverse of the amount of bugs this unnecessary addition introduces.

I really don't get that line of thinking. Theo is talking about a workflow issue, that for some due to their line of work will need to adjust on the fly quickly, so digging in isn't always the optimal way to do things (and no I don't buy this us vs them camp, since they have features that suggest these people should be included too).

I am saying that it is an imaginary workflow issue. If Theo wants arrangement with resizable track heights, it's already there. I raised the point again because he simply brushed off the Edit view gif and I wanted to make sure that he understands that what he wants is right there. Maybe that will make a difference to his workflow.

Like I said, I didn't think much of the Edit view myself until recently. But it is very powerful and seemingly misunderstood, given how many people want to arrange with variable track heights and don't seem to realize that this is already possible.

I'm sure the BW people are smart folks capable of taking lots of input in, eliminating things that don't fit and for the rest applying features in ways that improve it without destroying the features their core base of users like.

Which is exactly why I like their software -- we have similar attitudes towards design and that tends to revolve around finding the right "peg" to hang a given feature from. Not everything needs to dangle from the same peg, and maybe some folks haven't investigated the other rooms in the Bitwig house enough to realize that their needs have already been catered to.

I like the two browsers, I like the clean Arrange and the messy-as-I-wanna-be Edit view, and I like the fact that they are sticking to their own instincts.

[elxsound]

And if they add it in, will you suggest that anyone who doesn't like it should understand that Bitwig wasn't catered for them (possibly including you)?

If they add it in, I will be patient to an inverse of the amount of bugs this unnecessary addition introduces.

I really don't get that line of thinking. Theo is talking about a workflow issue, that for some due to their line of work will need to adjust on the fly quickly, so digging in isn't always the optimal way to do things (and no I don't buy this us vs them camp, since they have features that suggest these people should be included too).

I am saying that it is an imaginary workflow issue. If Theo wants arrangement with resizable track heights, it's already there. I raised the point again because he simply brushed off the Edit view gif and I wanted to make sure that he understands that what he wants is right there. Maybe that will make a difference to his workflow.

Like I said, I didn't think much of the Edit view myself until recently. But it is very powerful and seemingly misunderstood, given how many people want to arrange with variable track heights and don't seem to realize that this is already possible.

I'm sure the BW people are smart folks capable of taking lots of input in, eliminating things that don't fit and for the rest applying features in ways that improve it without destroying the features their core base of users like.

Which is exactly why I like their software -- we have similar attitudes towards design and that tends to revolve around finding the right "peg" to hang a given feature from. Not everything needs to dangle from the same peg, and maybe some folks haven't investigated the other rooms in the Bitwig house enough to realize that their needs have already been catered to.

I like the two browsers, I like the clean Arrange and the messy-as-I-wanna-be Edit view, and I like the fact that they are sticking to their own instincts.

You're belittling someone simply because they insist on a feature that you don't agree is necessary.

So you've affirmed that for your needs, this is covered, but it doesn't mean it's an imaginary workflow issue for another user.

My point (that was sorely missed, and was instead seemingly interpreted as an opportunity to respond with the same point you already made in a longer form) was that part of what makes things better are criticisms including (and IMO especially inclusive of) workflow issues.

It doesn't mean that BW needs to adopt what a single user likes in a particular host in an attempt to become the DAW of all DAWS, but if there's opportunity for improvement then cool... why stop it, especially if it doesn't destroy what you already like and simply just makes it better.

[ceasless]

Okay, if you say so... I was attempting to point out that he might have totally missed the fact that this feature already exists in Bitwig and TheoM's dismissal of Edit view seemed to me to demonstrate that he had not explored it thoroughly.

EDIT: You also seem to completely gloss over my points about new bug vectors and the fact that until recently I also had not explored the Edit view thoroughly.

EDIT 2: And yes, I do consider a workflow issue to be imaginary if that workflow is already possible, just under a different name. But maybe there is some deeply compelling aspect of the Arrange view that is not in the Edit view and I just haven't noticed it myself.

[inkwarp]

ceaseless: can you explain what you mean about the resizing in the edit. i just had a look and for the life of me cannot figure out what you mean. i cannot seem to select multiple selections and get them in view. unless i am totally misunderstanding your meaning.. thx

[Cyoon]

ceaseless: can you explain what you mean about the resizing in the edit. i just had a look and for the life of me cannot figure out what you mean. i cannot seem to select multiple selections and get them in view. unless i am totally misunderstanding your meaning.. thx

he just means grabbing the edit window to resize.

[inkwarp]

ah, ok.. i misunderstood, i thought he was saying you could have multiple items open at the same time. my bad : )

[ceasless]

mutliple_events_edit_view_3.gif

Actually Suloo, that's not what I mean.

Hopefully this gif will make it more clear. If not let me know, as I'd be glad to clear up this confusion. It is really hard to fit a good gif into 256KB! Kudos to everyone who's made it looks so easy!

The most important bit is to toggle 'Layered Editing'. Then you can choose to edit these as 'Clips' or 'Complete Timeline'. The former lines up all the clips as if from beat 1, while the latter is effectively the Arrange view but with resizable track heights and a more 'edit' focus (fitting name to call it the Edit view, eh? ).

EDIT: I've bound the three view modes to cmd + 1/2/3, which has really opened up the 'Edit' view by making it so easy to access. I rarely bother with the edit pane that Suloo's gif shows anymore, because the full view is more comfortable. For the gif I wanted to make the clicking of 'Edit' explicit, so I didn't use my shortcut.

[Cyoon]

nice one!

[ceasless]

nice one!

Note that both of these buttons are also available in the edit pane in your gif as well, Suloo

It's just a bit more cramped than I've gotten used to with the full Edit view. But all the functionality is available there as well.

The only real limitation/difference from the arrangement that I have noticed is that currently you can only edit multiple audio or MIDI events, but not both audio and MIDI events at the same time. That could be a deal breaker for some folks, but I haven't found it to be a problem so far. I do the arranging in the arrange view and then fine tune stuff where I want more details on the clip(s) in the 'Edit' view.

[ceasless]

EDIT: wanted the edit button, not the quote button