Features/Capability vs Limited but more comfortable and fun to work in

[mgiambro]

Say you have 2 DAWs. One of them can do everything. It's extremely efficient and very tightly coded. Difficult to fault, but can be tedious and not particularly enjoyable to use. The other is quite simple and lacks some features you'd like, but working in it is a more enjoyable experience. Bearing in mind that you may hit a wall with the simple/fun DAW, which would you commit to for your music production?

In other words. What's more important, features or workflow?

[crimsonwarlock]

My answer is in my signature

[jancivil]

the 2 DAWs is just a story you wrote up

[summer2000]

For me it's Nuendo by a mile. It's not perfect but it checks off most of the features I need more than any other DAW I own. If Nuendo did not exist I would settle for Logic Pro.

[summer2000]

Just pick the one you're most comfortable and productive with, stick with it, and stop looking at the grass on the other side of the fence.

[mgiambro]

nm.

[csscp]

Another factor to take into consideration is that a user's understanding of their needs are dictated partly by the DAW's paradigm. For example, an average Ableton Live user will probably think the project in terms of clips, whereas a Cubase user will not depend on clip launchers.

No single software will be able to achieve all possible functionalities, because software depends on paradigms. If a developer tries to provide too much functionality into a single piece of software (e.g., DAW) the result will be a broken paradigm, with half-baked ideas that do not serve the user's needs. A very flexible structure will not be able to hold any shape at all.

[Winstontaneous]

I've converged on Apple Logic and Ableton Live. I find Live much simpler (ha!) and direct, I love the fact that I understand maybe 80% of its features. It's also the single best environment I've found for my resampling-based workflow I picked up with AudioMulch. So easy to sample anything from stereo mix to any combo of tracks/busses, then tweak, slice, break out to Drum Racks, Simpler/Sampler/Impulse and so on. Its integration with so many controllers, and Push (I have a Push 2) are IMO a standout among DAWs.

Logic does so much, and dang I paid $199 for it back in 2012. Algorithmic Drummer and now Session Bass/Keys are all very helpful, stock plugins are top-notch. I don't use Score Editor often but I'm glad to have it. Logic has a Session view type clip mode now but it's no where near as polished as Live, and Logic controller support is literally the worst I've seen of DAWs I've used. But the iOS app is great, if nothing else as a wireless remote transport control. I also think there are fundamental areas of PDC that need fixing, and I've had issues twice with tracks recorded at an external pro studio in Digital Performer drifting slowly but noticeably over the course of a tune when imported to Logic...didn't in Live.

I feel like I understand maybe 6% of Logic's features, and several years ago when I wrote/produced/mixed 15 songs for a professionally mastered release - the 2 I mixed in Logic were really painful, while the rest just came together with Live/Push even though "the Arrangement view sucks and you shouldn't mix in Live."

[mgiambro]

Just pick the one you're most comfortable and productive with, stick with it, and stop looking at the grass on the other side of the fence.

Yup. That's what I need to do. Problem is that I'm indecisive and fickle. I have two daws. I like them both. Both have pros and cons. I assume from your response, you'd prioritise workflow over features.

[funky lime]

I question the premise; just because a software is efficient and tightly coded and complex beneath the hood doesn't mean it's tedious or difficult to use. And even if that were the case, just get good with the complex DAW until it becomes quick and fun to use. As a long-time Reaper user, I find it the best of both worlds (good workflow and packed with features), for me anyway.

On the other hand, trying to do even a moderately complex task in an overly simplistic (or narrowly-focused) software, now that can get very tedious very quickly.

[eLawnMust]

Simple with better workflow is BETTER, FUN is BETTER plus making music in simple sequencers-trackers is more rewarding & there is a challenge factor...

How can one NOT make decent music in modern DAW? They practically do it for you... BORING!

Nope, I like this-



Or perhaps this-


Now you are talking simple & challenging & plenty other has done good music in them...

"What One Man Can Do Another Can Do!"...

[jancivil]

I question the premise; just because a software is efficient and tightly coded and complex beneath the hood doesn't mean it's tedious or difficult to use.

This seems so obvious. It's why my response was 'this is just a story you wrote up'. It's a strawman looking for an argument to call home and the result is what we call a false dilemma. ("workflow vs features" is another.)

I know my way around Cubase so it's not tedious. Feature-rich or I would find something that is. My use case is not going to suit a simple cut-down DAW.

[mgiambro]

I question the premise; just because a software is efficient and tightly coded and complex beneath the hood doesn't mean it's tedious or difficult to use.

I was not saying that being efficient, tightly coded and capable is what makes it tedious to use. Clearly those things are positives. I agree that Reaper is not difficult to use. It's more about comfort. Personally, for midi editing which is what I do mainly, I don't find it the smoothest experience, despite heavily customising it. It's perfectly usable. The zoom behaviour in the midi editor when switching between midi items is an example of things that I find irritating.

And even if that were the case, just get good with the complex DAW until it becomes quick and fun to use. As a long-time Reaper user, I find it the best of both worlds (good workflow and packed with features), for me anyway.

That's indeed the argument for Reaper. It would be a one-stop shop and I'd prefer to do everything in the same DAW. I know my way around Reaper quite well. I've had it for years. I just can't get it to the point where the workflow is as smooth as it is in my other DAW, MuLab (for me), whose sequencer is pretty basic, but well designed imo.

On the other hand, trying to do even a moderately complex task in an overly simplistic (or narrowly-focused) software, now that can get very tedious very quickly.

Therein lies the dilemma, which is why I have been bouncing between the two of them.

[mgiambro]

I question the premise; just because a software is efficient and tightly coded and complex beneath the hood doesn't mean it's tedious or difficult to use.

This seems so obvious. It's why my response was 'this is just a story you wrote up'. It's a strawman looking for an argument

I'm the one looking for an argument?? Why people take this stuff so personally is beyond me.

[jancivil]

I have nothing whatsoever personal at stake. You just invented that bit. Do you know what "a strawman" is? it's ok if you don't, but learn to read: I said what_you_wrote is a strawman looking for an argument to call home. It means there was no case of a DAW that is feature-rich but a drag to us and there was no case of a cut-down feature-poor DAW that's "fun".

I's beyond unnecessary to make it personal. But this was such a boring exercise that now that you show *yourself* I know from specificity to avoid the shit.