Bitwig 5.2 BETA available

[Milkman]

So far so good. Im definitely finding the GUI a bit cleaner and neater, and my damaged eyes and I appreciate this. The plugin undo feature is nice! I cant recall the last time I deleted a plugin without intending to, though this added layer of safety is good for when it happens. Going to check out the new tempo mapping/grid stuff now, but first I wanted to mention--

On first run of 5.2, after startup indexing completed, it would not see most (34 items) of my Bitwig 5.1.8 stock library. I verified locations and verified the files were installed within 5.1.8, but 5.2 wouldnt see them. Then, after I closed and reopened 5.2 a few times, all stock content showed up without me needing to download them again. I think 5.2 needed a few minutes to validate all the content before recognizing it. All is well now, and Im super excited to try out the new stuff. Comp+ sounds great and seems to be a little beefier than regular comp, and I dont see any CPU issues with it. Will post any issues I find.

[anoise]

Accelerated GUI... at last. Now it feels solid, fast and snappy. Big meters in the mixer are still laggy with big projects though. Sculpt sounds good, can replace other Pultecs for free.

[vroteg]

Tempo matching a project to an audio file is a big deal for me. I sure hope it works well!

I can confirm it doesn’t. Guys tested it and it missing transients, and think 172 tracks are some 68.43 for DNB and 133 tracks are 126.34 for 4/4 house beats. So no. It doesn’t work.

[Trancit]

Tempo matching a project to an audio file is a big deal for me. I sure hope it works well!

I can confirm it doesn’t. Guys tested it and it missing transients, and think 172 tracks are some 68.43 for DNB and 133 tracks are 126.34 for 4/4 house beats. So no. It doesn’t work.

Tbh... I would have been more surprised if it would work...

[kvrsw2424]

I don't believe it, i throw in for example Painter Man that i know for sure is a pain in the X (drifting) and it lign up well - haveto tripple check and re-rip my CDs - can't believe it! haha

Not sure I'm getting you right - would that mean the new tempo mapping would work even for audio which was not recorded to a click/grid??? That would be a really big one ...

Yeah - thats why i posted above that the tears are real hehe - feel free to help me confirm it is real (with your own drifting songs) so people wake up
I used Boney M - Painterman as an example and it you drag it in and then go Edit and Tick the Stretch button, you can see if Bitwig has added markers good or bad

Sure will test once I have it installed (might wait until out of beta, so thanks for the answer!!) Have improvised recordings to test on ... sure hope that over the course of the betas they will still improve on what Trancit and vroteg have observed ...

[mrfrenkie]

Another one. Why is the track zoom so discrete but the automation panel zoom on the same track is smooth? We are one step away from a normal vertical zoom but it is still not there.

[pekbro]

Hmm graphics engine likely needing some more work on Win 11 Intel Iris Xe graphics, seemingly...

[kurt008]

The goal was to offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use, not making the graphics more flashy

Ok boys and girls, if I now need a full featured combined graphics high performance CPU high performance... this and that.....

offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use

this was surely not the question. My AMD graphics card, which also isn't installed with a fully compatible graphics driver (because I highly suspect there's non available (and guess why? What do you know how many different GPU's are already running out there? And how many different CPU's...? May be there are several times more types of GPU's running than CPU's...?!?
So my guess is, that simply a lot of graphics hardware never will get a 100% proper compatible set of drivers - that simple it is.
For Microsoft the manufacturers get cash in some way, making them write drivers for MS Windows right from the hardware's start. But Linux...?

This is my guess but... I refuse - on the other hand - to follow up all the wet dreams of especially manufacturers of hard- and software, because such a machine has to be payable. And I'm not the Billionaire looking for a fancy hobby - sorry. If for a DAW there's a need of several specific components, which are even not known to many people, then such a DAW becomes unusable for me - because I can't and even if - I'd refuse to - afford timely and financially to waste my resources for building such a "power machine" from scratch or buy a specially built one (for most likely an also very special price...).

And as long as I even don't know, if there is any compatible hardware fulfilling such demands like asked for there will be no more machine in my household running Bitwig Studio - period.

I want to make music, but I refuse to accept the participation in a race for compatible hardware.
Once tracker software made music on a text based screen. Now even a usual graphics card has to be replaced by a gamer card for proper 3D-performance...

Folks, in a reasonable DAW 3D capability simply is at least highly questionable If one only wants to make use of the multi core GPU for maths this shouldn't make 3D-capability necessary - right?
3D on the other hand in my eyes is a poor trial to give a technical opportunity to make something look more colorful, more "attractive" to new customers - what basically meets Bitwigs policy since a very long time... and that is permanently new invents instead of enhancing existing stuff to a high professional level. Bitwigs reality since a very long time: After invention almost everything is simply abandoned - there are numerous examples, what speaks the exact same language, because new stuff can be presented, while enhancing old stuff looks "too little new" and is less effective for new customers.

And if indeed performance is an issue: Why not coding the time critical components in an "adult" programming language and on a machine level (like C or at least c++ and like practiced by other DAW makers) instead of this 'Basic for pseudo-professionals' called "Java" ?!?!? Even c++ - if properly coded - makes by far faster software. But instead... we users are asked to buy more and more ... what kind of hardware?

Again: Nobody can tell me if there is a fully compatible graphics card present at all - right? On the other hand Bitwig wanted to offer a native-Linux DAW... so what?!?!? I guess, Bitwig even was on the "first promise, later perhaps regret" path long ago!

I can and will not risk to make my work machine unusable again for this dream. I will abandon Bitwig Studio long before, which is by far not the only existing DAW and... one of only a few asking me to install a gamer graphics card (which btw. I first have to find). Because there's one thing I surely will never do: Installing a new MS product - never again!
I depend on a proper running and reliable PC, but I'm not addicted to Bitwig Studio!

[wilkins_micawber]

[Jac459]

The goal was to offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use, not making the graphics more flashy

Ok boys and girls, if I now need a full featured combined graphics high performance CPU high performance... this and that.....

offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use

this was surely not the question. My AMD graphics card, which also isn't installed with a fully compatible graphics driver (because I highly suspect there's non available (and guess why? What do you know how many different GPU's are already running out there? And how many different CPU's...? May be there are several times more types of GPU's running than CPU's...?!?
So my guess is, that simply a lot of graphics hardware never will get a 100% proper compatible set of drivers - that simple it is.
For Microsoft the manufacturers get cash in some way, making them write drivers for MS Windows right from the hardware's start. But Linux...?

This is my guess but... I refuse - on the other hand - to follow up all the wet dreams of especially manufacturers of hard- and software, because such a machine has to be payable. And I'm not the Billionaire looking for a fancy hobby - sorry. If for a DAW there's a need of several specific components, which are even not known to many people, then such a DAW becomes unusable for me - because I can't and even if - I'd refuse to - afford timely and financially to waste my resources for building such a "power machine" from scratch or buy a specially built one (for most likely an also very special price...).

And as long as I even don't know, if there is any compatible hardware fulfilling such demands like asked for there will be no more machine in my household running Bitwig Studio - period.

I want to make music, but I refuse to accept the participation in a race for compatible hardware.
Once tracker software made music on a text based screen. Now even a usual graphics card has to be replaced by a gamer card for proper 3D-performance...

Folks, in a reasonable DAW 3D capability simply is at least highly questionable If one only wants to make use of the multi core GPU for maths this shouldn't make 3D-capability necessary - right?
3D on the other hand in my eyes is a poor trial to give a technical opportunity to make something look more colorful, more "attractive" to new customers - what basically meets Bitwigs policy since a very long time... and that is permanently new invents instead of enhancing existing stuff to a high professional level. Bitwigs reality since a very long time: After invention almost everything is simply abandoned - there are numerous examples, what speaks the exact same language, because new stuff can be presented, while enhancing old stuff looks "too little new" and is less effective for new customers.

And if indeed performance is an issue: Why not coding the time critical components in an "adult" programming language and on a machine level (like C or at least c++ and like practiced by other DAW makers) instead of this 'Basic for pseudo-professionals' called "Java" ?!?!? Even c++ - if properly coded - makes by far faster software. But instead... we users are asked to buy more and more ... what kind of hardware?

Again: Nobody can tell me if there is a fully compatible graphics card present at all - right? On the other hand Bitwig wanted to offer a native-Linux DAW... so what?!?!? I guess, Bitwig even was on the "first promise, later perhaps regret" path long ago!

I can and will not risk to make my work machine unusable again for this dream. I will abandon Bitwig Studio long before, which is by far not the only existing DAW and... one of only a few asking me to install a gamer graphics card (which btw. I first have to find). Because there's one thing I surely will never do: Installing a new MS product - never again!
I depend on a proper running and reliable PC, but I'm not addicted to Bitwig Studio!

I think almost every developer in the world would burst laughing when reading your views on languages. Java is certainly not my favourite language but it is absolutely a reasonable choice when it comes to develop complex applications (and as such used in 90% of banks) and for example.... Android... Lol.

Then hardware acceleration for cards (which has been invented maybe 25 years ago if I remember the voodoo) is not only for 3D.

Generally your understanding of techniques seems very limited so why bothering writing big rents?

Also, did you understand it is a beta? It is ok to not now what a beta is but you have a ton of disclaimers when you download. Just read them.

[pdxindy]

I can and will not risk to make my work machine unusable again for this dream.

Maybe take a deep breath... relax.

In previous versions, the Bitwig GUI was mainly drawn by the CPU.

Now, with 5.2, it is mainly drawn with your computers GPU. That doesn't mean you need an expensive gaming GPU or some such. It doesn't mean you need to change anything on your computer. Bitwig screen redraw will just work better now with nothing needed from your side (and it has nothing to do with 3D).

[perpetual3]

The goal was to offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use, not making the graphics more flashy

Ok boys and girls, if I now need a full featured combined graphics high performance CPU high performance... this and that.....

offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use

this was surely not the question. My AMD graphics card, which also isn't installed with a fully compatible graphics driver (because I highly suspect there's non available (and guess why? What do you know how many different GPU's are already running out there? And how many different CPU's...? May be there are several times more types of GPU's running than CPU's...?!?
So my guess is, that simply a lot of graphics hardware never will get a 100% proper compatible set of drivers - that simple it is.
For Microsoft the manufacturers get cash in some way, making them write drivers for MS Windows right from the hardware's start. But Linux...?

This is my guess but... I refuse - on the other hand - to follow up all the wet dreams of especially manufacturers of hard- and software, because such a machine has to be payable. And I'm not the Billionaire looking for a fancy hobby - sorry. If for a DAW there's a need of several specific components, which are even not known to many people, then such a DAW becomes unusable for me - because I can't and even if - I'd refuse to - afford timely and financially to waste my resources for building such a "power machine" from scratch or buy a specially built one (for most likely an also very special price...).

And as long as I even don't know, if there is any compatible hardware fulfilling such demands like asked for there will be no more machine in my household running Bitwig Studio - period.

I want to make music, but I refuse to accept the participation in a race for compatible hardware.
Once tracker software made music on a text based screen. Now even a usual graphics card has to be replaced by a gamer card for proper 3D-performance...

Folks, in a reasonable DAW 3D capability simply is at least highly questionable If one only wants to make use of the multi core GPU for maths this shouldn't make 3D-capability necessary - right?
3D on the other hand in my eyes is a poor trial to give a technical opportunity to make something look more colorful, more "attractive" to new customers - what basically meets Bitwigs policy since a very long time... and that is permanently new invents instead of enhancing existing stuff to a high professional level. Bitwigs reality since a very long time: After invention almost everything is simply abandoned - there are numerous examples, what speaks the exact same language, because new stuff can be presented, while enhancing old stuff looks "too little new" and is less effective for new customers.

And if indeed performance is an issue: Why not coding the time critical components in an "adult" programming language and on a machine level (like C or at least c++ and like practiced by other DAW makers) instead of this 'Basic for pseudo-professionals' called "Java" ?!?!? Even c++ - if properly coded - makes by far faster software. But instead... we users are asked to buy more and more ... what kind of hardware?

Again: Nobody can tell me if there is a fully compatible graphics card present at all - right? On the other hand Bitwig wanted to offer a native-Linux DAW... so what?!?!? I guess, Bitwig even was on the "first promise, later perhaps regret" path long ago!

I can and will not risk to make my work machine unusable again for this dream. I will abandon Bitwig Studio long before, which is by far not the only existing DAW and... one of only a few asking me to install a gamer graphics card (which btw. I first have to find). Because there's one thing I surely will never do: Installing a new MS product - never again!
I depend on a proper running and reliable PC, but I'm not addicted to Bitwig Studio!

[cfernn]

The goal was to offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use, not making the graphics more flashy

Ok boys and girls, if I now need a full featured combined graphics high performance CPU high performance... this and that.....

offload CPU processing of the GUI to the GPU to lessen overall CPU use

this was surely not the question. My AMD graphics card, which also isn't installed with a fully compatible graphics driver (because I highly suspect there's non available (and guess why? What do you know how many different GPU's are already running out there? And how many different CPU's...? May be there are several times more types of GPU's running than CPU's...?!?
So my guess is, that simply a lot of graphics hardware never will get a 100% proper compatible set of drivers - that simple it is.
For Microsoft the manufacturers get cash in some way, making them write drivers for MS Windows right from the hardware's start. But Linux...?

This is my guess but... I refuse - on the other hand - to follow up all the wet dreams of especially manufacturers of hard- and software, because such a machine has to be payable. And I'm not the Billionaire looking for a fancy hobby - sorry. If for a DAW there's a need of several specific components, which are even not known to many people, then such a DAW becomes unusable for me - because I can't and even if - I'd refuse to - afford timely and financially to waste my resources for building such a "power machine" from scratch or buy a specially built one (for most likely an also very special price...).

And as long as I even don't know, if there is any compatible hardware fulfilling such demands like asked for there will be no more machine in my household running Bitwig Studio - period.

I want to make music, but I refuse to accept the participation in a race for compatible hardware.
Once tracker software made music on a text based screen. Now even a usual graphics card has to be replaced by a gamer card for proper 3D-performance...

Folks, in a reasonable DAW 3D capability simply is at least highly questionable If one only wants to make use of the multi core GPU for maths this shouldn't make 3D-capability necessary - right?
3D on the other hand in my eyes is a poor trial to give a technical opportunity to make something look more colorful, more "attractive" to new customers - what basically meets Bitwigs policy since a very long time... and that is permanently new invents instead of enhancing existing stuff to a high professional level. Bitwigs reality since a very long time: After invention almost everything is simply abandoned - there are numerous examples, what speaks the exact same language, because new stuff can be presented, while enhancing old stuff looks "too little new" and is less effective for new customers.

And if indeed performance is an issue: Why not coding the time critical components in an "adult" programming language and on a machine level (like C or at least c++ and like practiced by other DAW makers) instead of this 'Basic for pseudo-professionals' called "Java" ?!?!? Even c++ - if properly coded - makes by far faster software. But instead... we users are asked to buy more and more ... what kind of hardware?

Again: Nobody can tell me if there is a fully compatible graphics card present at all - right? On the other hand Bitwig wanted to offer a native-Linux DAW... so what?!?!? I guess, Bitwig even was on the "first promise, later perhaps regret" path long ago!

I can and will not risk to make my work machine unusable again for this dream. I will abandon Bitwig Studio long before, which is by far not the only existing DAW and... one of only a few asking me to install a gamer graphics card (which btw. I first have to find). Because there's one thing I surely will never do: Installing a new MS product - never again!
I depend on a proper running and reliable PC, but I'm not addicted to Bitwig Studio!

It's like an autistic fever dream, like a page right out of Neuromancer

[Funk Dracula]

Another one. Why is the track zoom so discrete but the automation panel zoom on the same track is smooth? We are one step away from a normal vertical zoom but it is still not there.

Probably behaves this way to ease getting everything back to a uniform size across all tracks after you increase or decrease the size of one track. Imagine the OCD that would be triggered in so many people if they could never get that ONE track to match the size of everything else after increasing it's size to edit something. Make sense? haha

[ThereatGrumbleMorn]

Nice update, beta already feels miles snappier to me than 5.1.x. Maybe not as appearent, but could be one of the most important updates in future proofing. Important updates are rarely the shiny ones. EQs sound nice though, aswell. Well done.