Picking a DAW is hard…

[Nathanananan]

I’m trying to get back into music production after a few years away from it and I’m feeling overwhelmed.

I feel like I’ve trialed every DAW, but none of them is for me. Off the top of my head I’ve tried Ableton, Bitwig, Cubase, FL Studio, Logic, Reaper, Renoise and Studio One

you would be pretty much a fool to choose a real time non dual buffer DAW for a situation where 90% of the time you're mixing down in non real time recorded music.

Which DAWs are dual buffer?

[Nathanananan]

I’m trying to get back into music production after a few years away from it and I’m feeling overwhelmed.

I feel like I’ve trialed every DAW, but none of them is for me. Off the top of my head I’ve tried Ableton, Bitwig, Cubase, FL Studio, Logic, Reaper, Renoise and Studio One

you would be pretty much a fool to choose a real time non dual buffer DAW for a situation where 90% of the time you're mixing down in non real time recorded music.

Which DAWs are dual buffer? Is Dual Buffering what causes one daw to be more cpu intensive over another DAW?

[machinesworking]

I’m trying to get back into music production after a few years away from it and I’m feeling overwhelmed.

I feel like I’ve trialed every DAW, but none of them is for me. Off the top of my head I’ve tried Ableton, Bitwig, Cubase, FL Studio, Logic, Reaper, Renoise and Studio One

you would be pretty much a fool to choose a real time non dual buffer DAW for a situation where 90% of the time you're mixing down in non real time recorded music.

Which DAWs are dual buffer? Is Dual Buffering what causes one daw to be more cpu intensive over another DAW?

So pretty much all the old school DAWs are dual buffering, or pre-rendering your tracks with plugins on them. This would be Reaper, DP, Cubase, Logic, Studio One, Cakewalk etc. They basically hide latency behind the start button, i.e. you won't have latency on record enabled tracks, but you will have added latency on non record enabled tracks.

Conversely DAWs like Live and Bitwig are real time, they do not use more than one buffer or pre render behind the scenes, so you won't notice much difference at all when record enabling a track unless there's a VST on it that spikes audio etc. This means they barely spike the audio when adding FX and instruments while the sequence is playing,

The cost is obvious though, with non real time tasks like mixing and mastering the dual buffer DAWs are much more CPU efficient, the extreme is Live VS Reaper or DP, with Live etching out 90 tracks in a recent test VS 140 in Reaper and DP.

I have noticed that on Apple Silicon the margins are smaller, if you take out the Efficiency cores, Logic for instance only gets areound 107 tracks compared to Live, and neither are using efficiency cores.

Nerdy crap, but I roll like that I gues.

[Nathanananan]

I’m trying to get back into music production after a few years away from it and I’m feeling overwhelmed.

I feel like I’ve trialed every DAW, but none of them is for me. Off the top of my head I’ve tried Ableton, Bitwig, Cubase, FL Studio, Logic, Reaper, Renoise and Studio One

you would be pretty much a fool to choose a real time non dual buffer DAW for a situation where 90% of the time you're mixing down in non real time recorded music.

Which DAWs are dual buffer? Is Dual Buffering what causes one daw to be more cpu intensive over another DAW?

So pretty much all the old school DAWs are dual buffering, or pre-rendering your tracks with plugins on them. This would be Reaper, DP, Cubase, Logic, Studio One, Cakewalk etc. They basically hide latency behind the start button, i.e. you won't have latency on record enabled tracks, but you will have added latency on non record enabled tracks.

Conversely DAWs like Live and Bitwig are real time, they do not use more than one buffer or pre render behind the scenes, so you won't notice much difference at all when record enabling a track unless there's a VST on it that spikes audio etc. This means they barely spike the audio when adding FX and instruments while the sequence is playing,

The cost is obvious though, with non real time tasks like mixing and mastering the dual buffer DAWs are much more CPU efficient, the extreme is Live VS Reaper or DP, with Live etching out 90 tracks in a recent test VS 140 in Reaper and DP.

I have noticed that on Apple Silicon the margins are smaller, if you take out the Efficiency cores, Logic for instance only gets areound 107 tracks compared to Live, and neither are using efficiency cores.

Nerdy crap, but I roll like that I gues.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me (us). That was very useful information.

[Smasha]

They all have so many features,they become complicated.
I'm devoting my time on learning musical instruments than trying to learn the million "features" in a daw that seem to make that daw more harder to use anyway.

Crap like BFD's 3 Groove Editor with so many features,you just want the close the effer and Scaler 2 ,that plugin gives me migraines.

Rather just play the stuff in.

[Smasha]

I have enjoyed music that is poorly producerd but the Song was so good,who cares.

We are getting anal in a very anal World nowadays where perfection is paramount but most of the over produced stuff I have in my music collection is the stuff that dates the quickest.

[mixyguy2]

If there are objectively bad GUIs (and there most certainly are), then there must also be objectively good GUIs. I think if they are functional and efficient they are objectively good, regardless of aesthetics.

But mixguy2 never passes up an opportunity to be a jerk.

You know I was about to say basically "shove it" but re-reading my post you were referencing, I was out of line. My bad. Then again, "never passes up an opportunity" is an idiotic exaggeration, so I'd say you aren't exactly faultless jerk-wise. That all said...note in your last sentence how you said "I think if..." which means it's your opinion. Subjective...not objective. There are no objectively good or bad GUIs, or DAWs, or choir libraries, or reverbs (I could go on).

There is a target audience for every daw and features they prioritize in their development team according to their target and user base.

Nope. Most DAWs do not have a target audience...in fact, they're trying to appeal to as broad of an audience as possible, because that means making the most sales.

Bitwig on the main page says it's a "music production" software,

? As opposed to all those DAWs that aren't music production software?

while Reaper highlights the suitability for multitrack record, mixing and mastering.

Again, how is that different from other DAWs? I suspect people recording, mixing, and mastering just one track is a small demographic to say the least.

The trick is to not limit yourself to one

But seriously, I think most producers end up owning multiple DAWs, even if there's one they use much more than the others.

I think you've got to trust your gut and just make a decision, then learn what you have rather than worrying about what you might be missing out on

? How does "your gut" have the vaguest clue which DAW might or might not be the best one for you? It doesn't. That's like someone lining up 10 bottles of wine and asking you which you prefer but doesn't let you taste them, going "trust your gut." The only way to know which DAW might be the right one for you is to try them (as the OP has done, to an extent).

[Michael L]

There is a target audience for every daw and features they prioritize in their development team according to their target and user base.

true

Developers have limited time and money to add features, and Users also have limited time to learn and navigate a DAW.

So… excess features get in the way of usefulness for its target users. DAW expert Admiral Bumblebee says a DAW should have as few extra features as possible that you do not need. Ableton has a clear focus, and a lab to test if new features enhance usability. OTOH a bloated DAW can be customised to increase efficiency, e.g. Reaper guru Kenny Gioia has eight different 'portable installs.'

So it is impossible for Developers to provide all things to all Users. However, "picking a DAW" can be “hard” when Users are not fully present in their own creative process, so they do not know what they need and can want unnecessary features

[fedexnman]

I wonder if the OP ever settled for a DAW to use? We are really spoiled I get that it is hard . I use whatever DAW like a multi track recorder so it's not complicated for me to just pick one . They all do that one thing pretty good . Drums are pretty much the only thing I fool around with midi editing or moving notes around you can do that easily in about every DAW now . To the OP I hope your making your next hit and have moved on from the hunt of the perfect DAW . They are all perfect for someone .

[kev7506]

I’m trying to get back into music production after a few years away from it and I’m feeling overwhelmed.

I feel like I’ve trialed every DAW, but none of them is for me. Off the top of my head I’ve tried Ableton, Bitwig, Cubase, FL Studio, Logic, Reaper, Renoise and Studio One

I have found stuff that annoys or hinders me on every single one of these DAWs. Some of them would be FL Studio’s mixer organization and “pattern based” workflow, Logic’s file browser, Bitwig’s UI (for some reason), Reaper’s need for customization beforehand, etc.

I’ll admit I haven’t given some of these a proper shot. I’ve only started the Studio One trial a few days ago and I didn’t really try to use Cubase (it doesn’t do full screen on a Mac, apparently)

If any of you have a recommendation for me regarding this, I’d appreciate it. Whether it is a magical fix for my (possibly petty) issues or another DAW for me to trial (gotta try ’em all)

Hi there!
Maybe my opinion can help you make the right choice.
I've only used Ableton and FL Studio. I started with Ableton, which is really a great DAW when you understand its workflow, session view etc.
The great thing is that it has very few floating windows. You see all your plugins directly at the bottom, for each track, no need to route each track to an insert in your mixer like FL Studio. That's great! The basic plugins are superbly designed, especially the EQs.
I mainly do drill/hip hop, and I don't compose with a keyboard, only a mouse keyboard.
And there's the rub: Ableton's piano roll isn't great.
And even then, when I was using it, it didn't have the Scale function.

After a while, it got on my nerves, and I was only watching FL tutorials, so I thought it was time for a change!
I have no regrets whatsoever about my choice, its piano roll is by far the best of all DAWs. Everything is so fluid, you learn a few shortcuts and that's it, you can do anything.
So if you ever do a lot of keyboard/mouse composing, I'd recommend FL.
If not, and you handle a lot of audio, then Ableton would be the best choice.
Some positive points about the two DAWs:
FL :
+ :
Piano roll
Workflow, effects management
- :
Buses complicated to set up
Lots of windows everywhere

Ableton:
+ :
Mixer, simplicity of buses, groups, ...
Top-notch workflow
High-quality internal effects
Audio management (warp, ...)
- :
Piano roll, shortcuts, ...
Simplicity

[machinesworking]

There is a target audience for every daw and features they prioritize in their development team according to their target and user base.

true

Developers have limited time and money to add features, and Users also have limited time to learn and navigate a DAW.

So… excess features get in the way of usefulness for its target users. DAW expert Admiral Bumblebee says a DAW should have as few extra features as possible that you do not need. Ableton has a clear focus, and a lab to test if new features enhance usability. OTOH a bloated DAW can be customised to increase efficiency, e.g. Reaper guru Kenny Gioia has eight different 'portable installs.'

So it is impossible for Developers to provide all things to all Users. However, "picking a DAW" can be “hard” when Users are not fully present in their own creative process, so they do not know what they need and can want unnecessary features

I think it's more about the individual. There are multiple ways to approach a DAW, some people just want the interface to be uncomplicated and approachable when they first learn it, and they will be OK if it takes a bit more hoops to jump if they then later want complexity without fuss. Others want their DAW to be a one stop shop, to facilitate anything they need and don't mind if the DAW is ridiculously deep.

Case in point, I've been using Live for decades now, and the initial experience for most people is that it's super easy to get up an running in Live, almost any function in it is mouse-able, you could use it forever without learning any key shortcuts, and it doesn't have many hidden features. If you want more from it, it offers Max4Live, which ramps up the learning curve from 0 to 100.
On the other hand I also use Digital Performer, it's pretty much the exact opposite. It takes a while to get used to the interface, the initial layout, and the features are endless, but you don't need to learn an object oriented programming language to get those features. Things like articulation maps and SysEx are not something you have to cobble together in M4L if you want that sort of functionality.

Of course it's arguable with these examples to say that the "do everything" DAWs are less popular but Cubase and Logic are still pretty dammed popular, and Reaper is as well. All I'm saying is there's still room for both approaches. Both have their downsides, I tend to bounce between old school do everything DAWs and DAWs like Live and Bitwig, mostly depending on the size of the project, large projects are just easier to manage in a DAW like DP, Logic etc.

So picking a DAW I think comes down to knowing what type of projects you like working on, what tyope of music you make and how you input audio and MIDI. Personally if you're doing orchestral mockups I wouldn't want to use a DAW that didn't have articulation mapping, and pre-rendering for extra CPU power. Conversely DAWs like Live and Bitwig have fantastic support for modulation, and quick control surface access to the most used parameters etc.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

[Michael L]

There is a target audience for every daw and features they prioritize in their development team according to their target and user base.

excess features get in the way of usefulness for its target users...a DAW should have as few extra features as possible that you do not need.

picking a DAW I think comes down to knowing what type of projects you like working on, what type of music you make and how you input audio and MIDI

Obviously, picking a DAW is not hard

[paramita123]

Picking a DAW might be like picking a life partner.
You try one, if it doesn't work you move on try another one.
When the right one comes in you just know it.

I "dated" Reason, then Fruity Loops, even had a short fling with Logic and Live ..
Now I've been "married" to Cubase for 22 years
And yes I'm eyeing the younger ones, like hot sexy bitwig and its big modulators, but I stick to my production spouse, she rocks my world

[ahuman]

I "dated" Reason, then Fruity Loops, even had a short fling with Logic and Live ..
Now I've been "married" to Cubase for 22 years
And yes I'm eyeing the younger ones, like hot sexy bitwig and its big modulators, but I stick to my production spouse, she rocks my world

Slut!

[Adrivenmind]

The best DAW is the one you know how to use best. The one that feels "organic" for you. I started off using Nuendo, back in 2003 or so. I basically locked myself in with a friend for about half a year and learned everything we needed to know in order to make somewhat decent recordings. I stayed on Nuendo for quite some time, but then switched to Cubase, since it was basically the same and I didn't need the extra features that Nuendo had. At some point along the road, I bought Pro Tools, because, you know, all the pros were using it etc... I tried for a few months, but I could never really get the hang of it. So I went back to Cubase and have been using it ever since. It serves my needs well, and I can get around it pretty fast, which is not without importance in regards to creativity. There's nothing worse than having an idea in your head and not being able to realize it, because you have to figure out how to do this and that, first.

So yeah, I think in order to be most creative and effective in your workflow, the best DAW is the one you're familiar with. I am afraid there is no way around investing the time to familiarize yourself with the DAW of your choice, though.