What do you think of the DAW market right now and for 2020?

[machinesworking]

It's a piss poor drum machine, period.

Is that all it's meant to be? To me it seems like a fairly well equipped sequencer. It feels about as much like drum machine as FL Studio does. I'd have thought Battery was NI's drum machine.

Battery has no sequencer at all, it's hard for me to consider it a drum machine. Consider hardware, a Simmons electronic drum kit is never called a drum machine, and I cannot think of one thing I've ever called a drum machine that had no sequencer.
Yes, there's a good argument that Maschine, MPC2 etc. are more than drum machines. The legacy is hard to deny though, Maschine Studio, MKII, Mikro, all are basically modeled after MPCs VS Komplete Kontrol keyboards being sold without Maschine... MPCs also had sequencers powerful enough for hardware synths and MIDI connections etc.

I've owned it for years, the main flaw is it cannot do more than one time signature in it's song timeline. It fails at doing what drum machines from the 1980's could do.

Maybe but that's a fairly easy thing to get around if you really need to. In 37 years of song writing, I'v needed to do that exactly once and I don't think I actually did by changing the time signature, just by working out how many bars of 3/4 I'd need to mesh properly with the 4/4 around it.

It's sequencer doesn't allow for live pattern jamming as well. So you're stuck mousing arrangements around.

I don't see a problem there, that requirement is covered in plenty of other applications.

THere's a little bit of confirmation bias here, I don't need X feature so therefore. I use DP, a lot of film composers use DP, they like tablature improvements to DP, I support that because it's useful not because I need it. I can easily do odd time signatures in AKAI's MPC2, as well as rearrange the sequence of patterns quickly on the fly to finalize a song, so I use MPC2 over Maschine. In many ways Maschine is more advanced, but it's core song mode is weak.

What makes bigwig a "modern DAW"? I bought it thinking it might be that but I didn't enjoy the experience much. OTOH, Cubase feels like a thoroughly modern DAW to me. I realise there is a lot of legacy stuff in there as well but coming at it as a newbie in 2019, it feels really slick and modern compared to Orion (obviously), Bitwig or Maschine.

I think this is a case where you're thinking "modern DAW" means all the features etc. Bitwig and Maschine adhere to modern UX standards, Cubase does as well, but in the bigger picture work flow wise it's much more of a linear sequencer type environment VS Bitwig and Maschines pattern based approaches. All of this is marketing BS on the part of Bitwig, Maschine, Live etc. Yes, some modern UX things can separate an older DAW like Cubase, DP, Logic PT etc. from these other DAWs, but more adherence to WYSIWYG and other typical techniques to get you running quickly aren't going to keep you around ten years later. I don't think any off these DAWs are bad, but it's not like any DAW is truly "modern" or more likely to make you sound "modern"

[Noumena]

bitwig’s modulators, built ins, grid, mpe support, workflow and preset management are all in a world on their own. it’s easy to overlook these features if you use a different DAW, but once you see what’s going on it’s really something to use. i’m constantly floored by not just what’s possible, but what is easy and fluid.

[Noumena]

also fwiw i think that bitwig, the “driven by moss” flexi controller script and a BCF-2000 or similar is better than Kore. Like, way better. I used Kore for years and this workflow is more fluid more integrated and more powerful. The power of the modulator layer in BWs macro hierarchy with this excellent and free 3rd party controller script is really tremendous.

[machinesworking]

bitwig’s modulators, built ins, grid, mpe support, workflow and preset management are all in a world on their own. it’s easy to overlook these features if you use a different DAW, but once you see what’s going on it’s really something to use. i’m constantly floored by not just what’s possible, but what is easy and fluid.

It's lack of rewire, SysEx etc. also makes it "a world on their own", but for some people probably not for the reasons you were using that phrase.

I'm impressed with Bitwig, but as you can tell from Bones's posts above, not everyone is. All DAWs have strong and weak points, even the one you currently love and think is better than all the rest.

[BONES]

Battery has no sequencer at all, it's hard for me to consider it a drum machine. Consider hardware, a Simmons electronic drum kit is never called a drum machine, and I cannot think of one thing I've ever called a drum machine that had no sequencer.

That's very old-style thinking. Drum machines had their own sequencer because there were no other sequencers to use with them when they first appeared. The earliest ones, like the Ace Tone Rhythm Ace, only had preset patterns. But if my TR606 and TR707 hadn't had their sown sequencer they would have been useless. And I suppose that's my frame of reference - TB303 had it's own sequencer but everyone considers that a synth, so if a synth can be a synth with or without a sequencer, why wouldn't it be the same with drum machines? Simmons made electronic drums and drum kits, it was an easy distinction from a drum machine.

Yes, there's a good argument that Maschine, MPC2 etc. are more than drum machines. The legacy is hard to deny though

Maybe if you are aware of it but I wasn't when I first installed it and started using it I had no idea what it had been like before v2.4. I suppose the fact it feels a lot like FL Studio is a clue but I had sort of assumed that was deliberate, rather than a consequence of it's heritage.

THere's a little bit of confirmation bias here, I don't need X feature so therefore.

Except I gave you an example of when I did need it it and how I did it. If you need to do it all the time, then fine, kludges might not be so helpful but you'd have to understand that you'd be in a small minority of users and shouldn't expect to much joy in those kinds of areas.

That was one of the reasons I abandoned Bitwig - it felt like it was being made for other people, with very different needs to me. The recent v3 upgrade has definitely confirmed that for me. So you have to decide whether you want to put up with development that will only improve it for you by coincidence or if there might be something else that does things the way you want to work.

And that's kind of my point in this thread - there simply isn't enough variety for everyone to be able to find that application. You basically only have a couple of camps - the Live/Bitwig way or the more traditional way of Cubase/Logic/Studio One/Reaper. There is a bit of theme and variation but that's about it. The ideal would be a continuum of products across a much broader range of needs but the way the market works doesn't foster that.

In many ways Maschine is more advanced, but it's core song mode is weak.

For you, not for everyone. Once we get an arrangement down, we don't change it much or often. If it is going to be a single we might do a cut-down radio edit and we might shorten it for our live set but that's about all. The whole idea of doing it like a DJ set is anathema to what we do. We're a rock band and people (hopefully) come to our shows to hear our songs. We are not there to keep the dancefloor packed, we're there to present our songs in a familiar, digestible way for our audience. Having done a lot of DJing over the years, the two things are fundamentally different, requiring very different approaches. I see Live and Bitwig as DJ tools, Maschine is much more a tool for rock bands.

I think this is a case where you're thinking "modern DAW" means all the features etc. Bitwig and Maschine adhere to modern UX standards, Cubase does as well, but in the bigger picture work flow wise it's much more of a linear sequencer type environment VS Bitwig and Maschines pattern based approaches.

Except it isn't. It certainly was the first time I owned it, at version 3.5, but today the way it works with clips makes way more sense to me than the way Live and Bitwig do it. I find it much better for working through ideas and putting down arrangements, mostly because there aren't the two modes you get in Live/Bitwig, you do it all from the same timeline window. It has been a true revelation to me and I think it is really, really good for the way we are used to working. Orion is pattern-based but we used that in a very different way to the way you work with clips in Live/Bitwig. To me that feels so clunky, where Cubase feels super-slick.

It's almost like the way Song Mode works in a Korg Trinity, where you can copy a pattern or you can "Place" it. When you Place it, it becomes a unique copy and you can change it without it changing all the other copies. Cubase does the same sort of thing, depending on the way you duplicate a clip it can either remain linked, so changing the original changes all of them, or it can be a standalone copy you can edit individually. Great for doing drum fills and stuff.

The other reason I consider Cubase to be a modern DAW is the depth of its audio features. In fact, that's why I consider it a DAW at all, because it really is a one-stop, end-to-end solution for music production.

[BONES]

bitwig’s modulators, built ins, grid, mpe support, workflow and preset management are all in a world on their own.

Yes, they are. Unfortunately, we all live in this world.

it’s easy to overlook these features if you use a different DAW, but once you see what’s going on it’s really something to use. i’m constantly floored by not just what’s possible, but what is easy and fluid.

Whereas I just found it convoluted and messy. Bitwig is targeted at a much more specific audience than most other hosts. If you're not into what they are into, it's pretty hard to see the point of it all. OTOH, I have been really impressed with how easy it has been to get into Cubase and get things done. I expected it to be even more impenetrable than Bitwig but it is quite the opposite. All the things I want to do are easy and mostly very obvious and intuitive. It's only when you ask an old hand how to do something that you find out there are a dozen other ways to work. By sticking to Cubase 10 tutorials, though, you can ignore al that stuff and just use the freshest, newest parts of the application. It's a case of ignorance is bliss.

[Forgotten]

bitwig’s modulators, built ins, grid, mpe support, workflow and preset management are all in a world on their own. it’s easy to overlook these features if you use a different DAW, but once you see what’s going on it’s really something to use. i’m constantly floored by not just what’s possible, but what is easy and fluid.

It's lack of rewire, SysEx etc. also makes it "a world on their own", but for some people probably not for the reasons you were using that phrase.

I'm impressed with Bitwig, but as you can tell from Bones's posts above, not everyone is. All DAWs have strong and weak points, even the one you currently love and think is better than all the rest.

There are also other DAWs with amazing features that Bitwig is nowhere near implementing. Its features are certainly nowhere near "in a world of their own".

[Noumena]

I'm impressed with Bitwig, but as you can tell from Bones's posts above, not everyone is. All DAWs have strong and weak points, even the one you currently love and think is better than all the rest.

Bones is hardly a barometer for the state of things here. And I don't think it is better -- you'll see that's not what I said. I just said that it supports some things in ways that the competitions does not and that may be easy to miss.

[Noumena]

bitwig’s modulators, built ins, grid, mpe support, workflow and preset management are all in a world on their own. it’s easy to overlook these features if you use a different DAW, but once you see what’s going on it’s really something to use. i’m constantly floored by not just what’s possible, but what is easy and fluid.

It's lack of rewire, SysEx etc. also makes it "a world on their own", but for some people probably not for the reasons you were using that phrase.

I'm impressed with Bitwig, but as you can tell from Bones's posts above, not everyone is. All DAWs have strong and weak points, even the one you currently love and think is better than all the rest.

There are also other DAWs with amazing features that Bitwig is nowhere near implementing. Its features are certainly nowhere near "in a world of their own".

I said that its support of MPE, modulators, built in effects and preset management are in a world of their own. That's not the same as saying that is does feature X better than DAW Y or that it is better than DAW Y. Don't put words into my mouth, pls. This kind of straw man argumentation is the mind killer -- KVR would be better off without it.

But just for an example -- I've used every DAW out there that supports MPE and Bitwig does it not just better, but profoundly better (profoundly meaning that so much better that it changes the way you think about things.) Does that mean that Bitwig does everything better? no.

[Noumena]

It's lack of rewire, SysEx etc. also makes it "a world on their own", but for some people probably not for the reasons you were using that phrase.

But you see.. that's just not what I said. I said that some of the features it does implement are wonderful and amazing, not that it was everything for everyone. I said it out of generosity, because I found out about these things quite by accident and am joyfully experiencing a rush of new thinking and building with a tool that I am fully of admiration for. THIS IS IN NO WAY A STATEMENT ABOUT OTHER TOOLS. Why is it that so many people in this community think to say that something is cool is to pick a fight. f**k that.

But while we are talking about it, I've absolutely no use for Rewire. I own Reason and think that it has a lot going for it, but cannot abide using a piece of software that doesn't save state with my project. But that's me. And I have no need for sysex in my DAW as I don't use hardware, because hardware doesn't save state with my project. But that's just me. I don't think anyone should think or work like me, although Im a pretty big fan of what I've got going on.

It's just too easy to make the negative statement, even when you misread someone asserting something positive. But the positive statement seems to trigger cognitive dissonance in many readers who have some FOMO response to their way not being the all singing all dancing best way. It's typical internet hater bullshit.

I've been hacking music software since 1983 and I for one want to hear about what is good and what is cool and new. About workflows that are so remarkably inventive and amazing that I would have never thought of them on my own. I didn't have a huge community of peers when I used Notator, or the OG Performer, or even Logic v1-5. Now there are so many people here, talking about this stuff and this is what everyone is doing with their time? Oy.

[Noumena]

bitwig’s modulators, built ins, grid, mpe support, workflow and preset management are all in a world on their own.

Yes, they are. Unfortunately, we all live in this world.

it’s easy to overlook these features if you use a different DAW, but once you see what’s going on it’s really something to use. i’m constantly floored by not just what’s possible, but what is easy and fluid.

Whereas I just found it convoluted and messy. Bitwig is targeted at a much more specific audience than most other hosts. If you're not into what they are into, it's pretty hard to see the point of it all. OTOH, I have been really impressed with how easy it has been to get into Cubase and get things done. I expected it to be even more impenetrable than Bitwig but it is quite the opposite. All the things I want to do are easy and mostly very obvious and intuitive. It's only when you ask an old hand how to do something that you find out there are a dozen other ways to work. By sticking to Cubase 10 tutorials, though, you can ignore al that stuff and just use the freshest, newest parts of the application. It's a case of ignorance is bliss.

Dude, I just don't know what to say. You speak with too much authority. You speak for exactly one member of this community. You obviously haven't spent time trying to learn one of the tools that you're talking about and you have spent time learning the other one. You also have something to say editorially about what this means re: the relative value of the two tools, but, as you have said yourself you didn't spend the time with one of them to understand it.

Why you feel the need to assert your POV into conversations on this forum like this is hard to understand. I have spent too much of my time over the many years reading you slagging on things that you yourself admit, directly or indirectly that you don't understand or asserting your preferences as statements of fact.

It's not neighborly. It doesn't build community. It doesn't share information or a positive creative spark. It's just bloviating, if you ask me. Which you didn't, because you wouldn't, because you have never expressed any interest, in the perhaps 1000 posts of yours that I have dutifully read, in what anyone else thinks. So what are you getting from this forum? And if you are getting value what value are you creating?

[reggie1979]

Yet one person here is on my foe list, and many others are not. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[machinesworking]

That's very old-style thinking. Drum machines had their own sequencer because there were no other sequencers to use with them when they first appeared. The earliest ones, like the Ace Tone Rhythm Ace, only had preset patterns. But if my TR606 and TR707 hadn't had their sown sequencer they would have been useless. And I suppose that's my frame of reference - TB303 had it's own sequencer but everyone considers that a synth, so if a synth can be a synth with or without a sequencer, why wouldn't it be the same with drum machines? Simmons made electronic drums and drum kits, it was an easy distinction from a drum machine.

Meh, I would be willing to bet most electronic musicians would consider drum machines to have their own sequencers. You're probably on your own with this distinction. Especially by the 90's when MPC's were being used as drum machines and "Music Production Centers", but only the biggest pedant would get snooty at someone for referring to it as a drum machine.

THere's a little bit of confirmation bias here, I don't need X feature so therefore.

Except I gave you an example of when I did need it it and how I did it. If you need to do it all the time, then fine, kludges might not be so helpful but you'd have to understand that you'd be in a small minority of users and shouldn't expect to much joy in those kinds of areas.

That was one of the reasons I abandoned Bitwig - it felt like it was being made for other people, with very different needs to me. The recent v3 upgrade has definitely confirmed that for me. So you have to decide whether you want to put up with development that will only improve it for you by coincidence or if there might be something else that does things the way you want to work.

Of course, and that's why I'm using the MPC now, it's just that every other sequencer and DAW that I know of has a timeline that can handle multiple time signatures. I seriously didn't even think any company would put out a percussion based music sequencer and workstation like Maschine without this feature, but they did. Believe me after that I spent months going over the MPC before spending a dime on it.

And that's kind of my point in this thread - there simply isn't enough variety for everyone to be able to find that application. You basically only have a couple of camps - the Live/Bitwig way or the more traditional way of Cubase/Logic/Studio One/Reaper. There is a bit of theme and variation but that's about it. The ideal would be a continuum of products across a much broader range of needs but the way the market works doesn't foster that.

I think it's more a matter of short sightedness on the part of developers coupled with a fickle market that's hard to cater to.
especially if you start in one DAW X or sequencer Y etc. you expect those features out of DAW Z, this leads to the lack of focus you have in most music applications in general. I mostly use DP, but I dabble in Live, Reaper, and just using the MPC. They all have strong points and a lot of overlap, but none are free of half realized features, because the developers are chasing the latest trend.
That said, all of them are much better than what I used as a kid, and I should be grateful.

In many ways Maschine is more advanced, but it's core song mode is weak.

For you, not for everyone. Once we get an arrangement down, we don't change it much or often. If it is going to be a single we might do a cut-down radio edit and we might shorten it for our live set but that's about all. The whole idea of doing it like a DJ set is anathema to what we do. We're a rock band and people (hopefully) come to our shows to hear our songs. We are not there to keep the dancefloor packed, we're there to present our songs in a familiar, digestible way for our audience. Having done a lot of DJing over the years, the two things are fundamentally different, requiring very different approaches. I see Live and Bitwig as DJ tools, Maschine is much more a tool for rock bands.

Sorry, you just really missed your mark there, my stuff is far more rock that yours. That's not a dis, it's just a fact. I also write in a lot of odd time signatures, which a lot of rock bands do. I use Live almost as much as DP, because rock music far more than EDM, EBM, IDM electronic music in general follows an Intro, main, verse, chorus, break etc. style of writing, which lends itself to testing out variations of a song, not for DJ reasons but because the vocalist wants to try out ideas etc. In general I find Clip and Session style programs to be useful during that phase.
So yeah, Maschine is for pop rock bands anyway. Pink Floyd, Meshuggah etc. have no use for it for sure.

It's almost like the way Song Mode works in a Korg Trinity, where you can copy a pattern or you can "Place" it. When you Place it, it becomes a unique copy and you can change it without it changing all the other copies. Cubase does the same sort of thing, depending on the way you duplicate a clip it can either remain linked, so changing the original changes all of them, or it can be a standalone copy you can edit individually. Great for doing drum fills and stuff.

That's been around for years in Cubase and Logic, it's a cool feature for sure. It's not at all like Clips and Session view in Live, Bitwig though.
I'm not at all trying to convince you that your approach is wrong, it's just at some point you like a feature or you do not. I find Clips to be useful sometimes. There is no wrong answer there. Cubase IMO is looking all grown up these days, I hear no gripes about it being an unstable mess for quite some time now, or too PC or Mac centric like you heard over the years. Dongles live though, I would rather use something else live, I have an iLok and an eLicenser but I print that stuff to audio.

In fact to me that's a huge reason to use Bitwig or Live (Or Reaper for that matter. ) in a live situation for backing tracks and VSTi hosting, because both of them are fully unlocked for everything except saving, as demos. You could lose your whole laptop, and if you had a cloud host with a copy of your set load it into a replacement laptop without having to even authorize the DAW. etc.

[machinesworking]

Now there are so many people here, talking about this stuff and this is what everyone is doing with their time? Oy.

You just puked up a couple pages of triggered reactionary response to people not agreeing with you.

Look at how me and Bones argue or communicate. I've never felt the need to get angry at him, I accept his rough edges and deal, not a huge issue IMO. If I don't have anything to say back or I'm not interested in the conversation I don't respond. It's what we should be doing here, trying to control the conversation or what is talked about never occurred to me.

I point out what's missing in Bitwig, it helps someone make a decision about it, just as much as pointing out the positive. You're reacting like there's some sort of "way" to react to a post, and attempting to dictate the way people respond to your posts. You're going to be very very frustrated by this place.

[BONES]

Dude, I just don't know what to say. You speak with too much authority. You speak for exactly one member of this community.

That would be why I use phrases like "I found it convoluted and messy" and not "it is convoluted and messy".

You obviously haven't spent time trying to learn one of the tools that you're talking about and you have spent time learning the other one.

That's true but it's not the way you think. I bought a box copy of Bitwig after spending a few weeks assessing the 8-track version that shipped with my first Roli Seaboard. Then I spent about six months actually using it, porting a lot of material over from our old host and trying to make it work acceptably in Bitwig. In 7-8 months total, I had very little success. I think I go tone song sounding OK and that was about it.

OTOH, I only bought Cubase a few months ago, when it was half-price, and I've only really spent a few weeks actually using, because I've been busy with other things. But in what I estimate to be about 10% of the time I spent with Bitwig, I've actually managed to get slightly more done and I already feel far more comfortable in Cubase's environment than I ever did in Bitwig. I kept waiting for everything to click in Bitwig but it never did, so I went back to using Orion. But with Cubase, I feel right at home after just a few days. Maybe that was down to finding a few excellent videos to get me started but I think it is more about Cubase being much better suited to the way I work.

You also have something to say editorially about what this means re: the relative value of the two tools, but, as you have said yourself you didn't spend the time with one of them to understand it.

Again, it is Cubase I have spent far less time with, not Bitwig.

Why you feel the need to assert your POV into conversations on this forum like this is hard to understand.

Why do you? Why does anyone? I've been doing this longer than pretty much anyone else here, I think I probably have a little more of value to contribute. I certainly have far broader experience in many areas, which means I can be a lot more objective about most things.

I have spent too much of my time over the many years reading you slagging on things

Not according to your profile you haven't. You only joined in May.

It's not neighborly. It doesn't build community.

Why would I give a flying fig about that? I'm not running for Mayor, it's not any kind of a popularity contest. I just present information as clearly as possible, that idiots can't parse it without running it by their ego first is their problem, not mine.

It doesn't share information or a positive creative spark.

Again, woop-de-f**k.

It's just bloviating

No, what you're doing is bloviating. Not one word in this post I'm responding to, for example, is relevant to the topic at hand. And to be clear again, it's only ever people like you who go off on tangents like this, I keep my comments relevant to the topic at hand whenever possible.

if you ask me. Which you didn't, because you wouldn't, because you have never expressed any interest, in the perhaps 1000 posts of yours that I have dutifully read, in what anyone else thinks.

On the contrary, I go to ridiculous lengths to try and get useful information out of people like you. Sometimes it feels more akin to pulling teeth but, like everyone else, I mostly come here in the hope of learning something. Doesn't often happen but we live in hope.

So what are you getting from this forum? And if you are getting value what value are you creating?

Well, in 14 minutes my shift will be over and I'll be able to go home. So interacting with you is a means of passing the time more effectively than just staring at the clock. As for the value I create, it seems far greater than your own. Just read your posts on this topic, for example. Instead of trying to engage with people who have a different view to your own, to double-down on examples and such, you instead get stuck into people for daring to disagree with you.

Anyway, it's 1700, I'm outta here.