Digital Performer 10 is now Ableton Live

[machinesworking]

All that has been the argument for Live being a pig for years, but Reaper proves it's an outdated argument. You can do all those things in Reaper and it still outperforms Live and Bitwig by massive margins. You can even set up Reaper to fire off markers in the timeline with Live/Bitwig style quantization.

Yeah, I've seen the videos - it was clunky and awkward at best.

Show me an example where it's more complex than simply replaying sample loops, where you have numerous MIDI tracks with random modulation of parameters, with on-the-fly (and random) switching of instruments playing single MIDI data, audio-rate modulation between tracks, etc.

Sure, I can agree that Live or Bitwig are not smart enough and burn the precious CPU cycles even if the project at hand is a linear playback of simple audio stems, but - on the other end - Reaper can't burn those Cycles if you'd want it to. In the end it's about music I guess - if you need a massively parallel sessions, like recording of bands, where things are pretty much predetermined then you should choose Reaper, Cubase or S1; but if you want your music to contain lots of unpredictable elements, that are roughly defined but never play the same twice and it's more like jamming, then Live, Bitwig or Reason are a better choice.

I really don't care if someone can play 10 instances of Serum and I only 5, when I can do way more interesting things with those 5 instances - at least for my taste in music.

Well first off, it's not my job to disprove a negative. I'm saying Reaper and now DP can do a lot of the things that Live and Bitwig can. It's all out there. Möss makes a fantastic Bitwig and Reaper application for using Push 2 etc. that does all of what you think a linear DAW can't do... the main thing Bitwig and Live have that most DAWs do not is modulation via Clips, that's changed with DP adding it in. The whole argument that Bitwig/Live need to burn CPU for their real time performance features is IMO BS at this point, it made sense back when CPUs were weak, but that's long since passed.

It's not like your DAW is passing down creativity to you, and pretty much to be flat honest, no DAW is about anything more complex than loops or tracks. I've used Live for long enough to know what it's limitations and advantages are, and in the end of the day, it's the least significant part of the equation, and it really really should be.

[quietzone]

[deleted by user]

[Dewdman42]

no

[quietzone]

[deleted by user]

[Monkey Man]

Same applies to all DAW's; proprietary plugins are exclusive.

Sometimes, such as was the case with DP's MasterWorks Collection (I think that's what it was called), plugins are made available to all platforms.

[v1o]

I've been playing around with the demo version on Mac. I'm sure it is a very powerful DAW under the hood but the GUI looks like a toy.

[ClemHarvey]

DP bests its track record once again with the release of the outstanding Version 10.

[L.B.]

I've been playing around with the demo version on Mac. I'm sure it is a very powerful DAW under the hood but the GUI looks like a toy.

I chose DP because the user interface is extremely customizable. Also I like the user interface a lot.

[Monkey Man]

Indeed, I wonder if v1o tested the many skins provided by-default.

Then there's the Consolidated window and many options for configuring panes and also the option to dispense with it altogether...

[Puddi]

Sure, I can agree that Live or Bitwig are not smart enough and burn the precious CPU cycles even if the project at hand is a linear playback of simple audio stems, but - on the other end - Reaper can't burn those Cycles if you'd want it to.

What's that supposed to mean?

In the end it's about music I guess - if you need a massively parallel sessions, like recording of bands, where things are pretty much predetermined then you should choose Reaper, Cubase or S1; but if you want your music to contain lots of unpredictable elements, that are roughly defined but never play the same twice and it's more like jamming, then Live, Bitwig or Reason are a better choice.

I really don't care if someone can play 10 instances of Serum and I only 5, when I can do way more interesting things with those 5 instances - at least for my taste in music.

Could you elaborate on this unpredictable music that's not possible to make in more traditional DAW's? AFAIK you can lay out clips in a linear arrangement however you want and to any degree of unpredictability. And what can you do with those 5 Serum instances that another one can't do with 10? I'm genuinely curious since I use both Reaper and Ableton.

[antic604]

In the end it's about music I guess - if you need a massively parallel sessions, like recording of bands, where things are pretty much predetermined then you should choose Reaper, Cubase or S1; but if you want your music to contain lots of unpredictable elements, that are roughly defined but never play the same twice and it's more like jamming, then Live, Bitwig or Reason are a better choice.

I really don't care if someone can play 10 instances of Serum and I only 5, when I can do way more interesting things with those 5 instances - at least for my taste in music.

Could you elaborate on this unpredictable music that's not possible to make in more traditional DAW's? AFAIK you can lay out clips in a linear arrangement however you want and to any degree of unpredictability. And what can you do with those 5 Serum instances that another one can't do with 10? I'm genuinely curious since I use both Reaper and Ableton.

By "unpredicatable music" I mean music that sounds different every time you hit play: there will be free-running LFOs, some random LFOs, some parts will be played by random instruments, some notes or their properties (e.g. velocity or length) might differ, some notes might not play at all because they're randomly triggered, some song's sections might be skipped over or looped, while others might change their order, and so on. I mean it will sound similar (obviously it's the same song), but a bit - or more than just a bit - different every time.

Those things are mostly impossible to do in linear DAWs (unless the VST one would use somehow support that), whereas they're what Live, Bitwig or Reason were created for. Obviously, you can very well use those DAWs to create normal, linear compositions and that's fine, but especially when comparing performance profiles between DAWs you should take that into account. It's a bit like complaining that a Mercedes is much more comfortable for driving kids to school than a 4x4 Jeep. Sure, because the latter has made some concessions to excel at things you don't use it for

Sure, I can agree that Live or Bitwig are not smart enough and burn the precious CPU cycles even if the project at hand is a linear playback of simple audio stems, but - on the other end - Reaper can't burn those Cycles if you'd want it to.

What's that supposed to mean?

I wrote it clumsily, but I meant that I've no use for the CPU cycles that were saved by linear DAW, if I can't use those cycles for it to do what I wanted & what I described above.

[Puddi]

By "unpredicatable music" I mean music that sounds different every time you hit play: there will be free-running LFOs, some random LFOs, some parts will be played by random instruments, some notes or their properties (e.g. velocity or length) might differ, some notes might not play at all because they're randomly triggered, some song's sections might be skipped over or looped, while others might change their order, and so on. I mean it will sound similar (obviously it's the same song), but a bit - or more than just a bit - different every time.

Those things are mostly impossible to do in linear DAWs (unless the VST one would use somehow support that), whereas they're what Live, Bitwig or Reason were created for. Obviously, you can very well use those DAWs to create normal, linear compositions and that's fine, but especially when comparing performance profiles between DAWs you should take that into account. It's a bit like complaining that a Mercedes is much more comfortable for driving kids to school than a 4x4 Jeep. Sure, because the latter has made some concessions to excel at things you don't use it for

I wrote it clumsily, but I meant that I've no use for the CPU cycles that were saved by linear DAW, if I can't use those cycles for it to do what I wanted & what I described above.

Fair enough. I imagine they're easier for that purpose although I wonder how many Ableton/Bitwig users actually make use of all those things regularly in their music. I have watched hundreds of studio videos with Ableton users and the vast majority seems to just use them as linear DAW's and in that department I'd argue that they lag behind other DAW's and offer no real benefits.

[antic604]

Fair enough. I imagine they're easier for that purpose although I wonder how many Ableton/Bitwig users actually make use of all those things regularly in their music. I have watched hundreds of studio videos with Ableton users and the vast majority seems to just use them as linear DAW's and in that department I'd argue that they lag behind other DAW's and offer no real benefits.

I agree w.r.t. Live, but Bitwig users really take advanage of all this stuff because it's easier to use than in Live. Check my (criminally unfinished) course in my signature to get a flavour of this.

And I too agree that both lag tremedously behind Cubase or Logic in terms of features geared towards the linear workflow

[Puddi]

I agree w.r.t. Live, but Bitwig users really take advanage of all this stuff because it's easier to use than in Live. Check my (criminally unfinished) course in my signature to get a flavour of this.

And I too agree that both lag tremedously behind Cubase or Logic in terms of features geared towards the linear workflow

Yeah, I agree that Bitwig is probably the most inviting DAW for general sound exploration. I do miss the device ecosystem in both Ableton and Bitwig with how easy it is to create macros and parallel chains, but there's still too many things I love about Reaper to abandon it.

[L.B.]

Indeed, I wonder if v1o tested the many skins provided by-default.

Maybe not. The layout of DP10 is classic in a positive way. Form follows the function. For me this approach is contemporary (I do not use the word modern intentionally) and, from my point of view, works best for a creative project management tool. I'm not a fan of layouts like Bitwig or Studio One. To each his own.