Bitwig audio routing know-how limitations are ... severe.

[kurt008]

I'm happy to totally disagree.

- With the Audio Receiver, you can pick audio from any point in your project, from very specific positions in any chain, from specific outputs of multiout VSTs and what have you. And since you can put those receivers everywhere (groups, layers etc.) you can basically transfer audio from everywhere to everywhere.

- Inside of groups you can have FX-tracks. All tracks inside the group or in groups nested deeper can send to those FX-tracks. And those group-FX-tracks can send to all FX-tracks above them and the global FX-tracks. This allows for some very flexible grouping and routing - heck, I do surround sound in Bitwig this way and it's actually easier as it ever was in Live.

- The only thing the developers of BWS decided to not allow is feedback. Yes I get why it can be cool to have in some situations but on the other hand, it can destroy equipment fast in the hand of the unaware.
But there are plugins that allow it like plogue bidule, so even that isn't a hard wall if you really need it. And several of the Bitwig devices, especially delays, have slots for having other plugins and devices in their feedback loops, so a lot can be done even with just factory tools.
And of course you can always use a physical feedback loop through an output of your interface and back in - which is what Eno etc. probably did in the first place

And since you can have any device in any order in BWS device chains, I normally need much less tracks than I did in Live back when I was still using it (Live 4-8).

So: Careful with that "not possible" meme.

And if something really is impossible, write a mail to support and make a feature request.

Cheers,

Tom

Excuse me to also disagree, because you obviously didn't recognize my post completely. Again: I do know the Audio Receiver quite well and make use of it in my projects as well, but: A sub-mix can only be made by it using a workaround, which is my statement. A simple audio mix shouldn't need a workaround in a Digital Audio Workstation. If you need workarounds in other kind of programs (like in Adio Editors like Audacity..., ok, I agree. But in a DAW such a simple task should be as simple a creating a grouped track - but is isn't.
If it is: Tell me, what I haven't seen for some years now.

[mholloway]

but: A sub-mix can only be made by it using a workaround, which is my statement. A simple audio mix shouldn't need a workaround in a Digital Audio Workstation.

Wait, your 'statement' was really just about a sub-mix? You're completely changing your story now. Here's what you actually wrote in the OP:

In Bitwig you simply cannot do most of this. Yes, you can create delays with plugin inline, yes there is an audio-sender plugin, but the lack of modular audio routing is a huge limitation.

You made an assertion (the bolded part) that is quite literally incorrect, and this is what Thomas responded to, and addressed comprehensively. You said there is a "lack of modular audio routing," which again, is also quite clearly incorrect, as Thomas's reply lays plain.

But now you are 'disagreeing' with him, because (magically) your point wasn't actually "Bitwig simply can't do most of this", but really it was just about submix workarounds....uhh OK. Maybe next time leave out the broad, false assertions and get to the point?

And on the submix point, FWIW, I'm still not even clear what you're actually wanting to do.

[pdxindy]

...and what's wrong with Audio-Receiver plugin (just because the setup above can be recreated with it...) ?

Nothing, except that I didn't talk of it. I mentioned it, because it is used for "grabbing audio" from anywhere, but it isn't useful for my issue. Please read my post correctly - sorry

It is easy to mixdown say 3 tracks to one and no Audio Receiver device needed.

If I make a group out of these 3 tracks - right. Other solution...?

No need to group the 3 tracks either... add a track, I use an FX track named 'bounce' (call it mixdown if you want) and set the input as master and then solo the 3 tracks you want to mix down. Very easy

If you have FX on the Master track and don't want them in the mixdown, put a tool device first on the Master track and on the mixdown track use the Master -> Tool as the track input.

My default project template has that as part of the setup so it is ready to go in any project. Really could hardly be easier!

[kurt008]

Guys, you count up one workaround after the other - don't you realize that simple fact?

Why can't you simply agree, that some for a typical, usual DAW simple task can not be done without workarounds in Bitwig Studio?
Yes, I also know the discussion, "what makes a typical DAW?"... but again: If I speak about an Audio Workstation, it doesn't mean a MIDI-Workstation,, a DJ-Mixing-solution, a Play-Station, it means Audio Workstation, right? So should Audio not at least be the most functional part...?

[kurt008]

Sorry, double posting ... because of a little problem in the browser...

[pdxindy]

Guys, you count up one workaround after the other - don't you realize that simple fact?

Why can't you simply agree, that some for a typical, usual DAW simple task can not be done without workarounds in Bitwig Studio?
Yes, I also know the discussion, "what makes a typical DAW?"... but again: If I speak about an Audio Workstation, it doesn't mean a MIDI-Workstation,, a DJ-Mixing-solution, a Play-Station, it means Audio Workstation, right? So should Audio not at least be the most functional part...?

When the workaround is fast and easy, I wouldn't call it a workaround. Then that is just how it is done in the particular DAW. As I described (twice now in the thread) I can do a mixdown of any arbitrary tracks (no need for grouping or audio-receivers) as fast as can be done in any DAW.

[mholloway]

If I speak about an Audio Workstation, it doesn't mean a MIDI-Workstation,, a DJ-Mixing-solution, a Play-Station, it means Audio Workstation, right? So should Audio not at least be the most functional part...?

Most modern DAWs don't even include typical destructive-audio editing capabilities. You can modify audio with inserts and bounce it, which is typical modern DAW workflow. You can do very basic edits like reverse and crop. But they are not audio editors. Audition is an audio editor. Wavelab is an audio editor. Their functionality isn't included in most modern DAWs. That's just a fact. But you're crowing about what an "Audio Workstation" should be based on, checks list, a couple features you personally need. Got it.

Cubase has an -actual- audio editor inside it. So does Renoise. Ableton doesn't. Bitwig doesn't. Do you complain about this fact? That these "Audio Workstations" don't even include actual audio editors?

Or maybe -- hold on to your seat here -- maybe the definition of 'Audio Workstation' isn't a fixed, 100% agreed upon thing. Maybe you are mixing up "The Stuff You Personally Want" with "The Broad, Totally Agreed Upon Definition of What a Thing Should and Must Be."

[kurt008]

Guys, you count up one workaround after the other - don't you realize that simple fact?

Why can't you simply agree, that some for a typical, usual DAW simple task can not be done without workarounds in Bitwig Studio?
Yes, I also know the discussion, "what makes a typical DAW?"... but again: If I speak about an Audio Workstation, it doesn't mean a MIDI-Workstation,, a DJ-Mixing-solution, a Play-Station, it means Audio Workstation, right? So should Audio not at least be the most functional part...?

When the workaround is fast and easy, I wouldn't call it a workaround. Then that is just how it is done in the particular DAW. As I described (twice now in the thread) I can do a mixdown of any arbitrary tracks (no need for grouping or audio-receivers) as fast as can be done in any DAW.

Well, then I would want to ask you, why does somebody ask the development for solutions at all? Enjoy everything, because... almost everything is available if someone is willing to fumble around enough... sorry, but that's my impression.

[billcarroll]

Bitwig is terrific for giving you the components and tools to solve almost any problem. Modular. This is what gives Bitwig flexibility. Devices are meant to be combined. The possibilities are endless. I believe this is Bitwig's focus, perspective, and what make it unique.

[pdxindy]

Guys, you count up one workaround after the other - don't you realize that simple fact?

Why can't you simply agree, that some for a typical, usual DAW simple task can not be done without workarounds in Bitwig Studio?
Yes, I also know the discussion, "what makes a typical DAW?"... but again: If I speak about an Audio Workstation, it doesn't mean a MIDI-Workstation,, a DJ-Mixing-solution, a Play-Station, it means Audio Workstation, right? So should Audio not at least be the most functional part...?

When the workaround is fast and easy, I wouldn't call it a workaround. Then that is just how it is done in the particular DAW. As I described (twice now in the thread) I can do a mixdown of any arbitrary tracks (no need for grouping or audio-receivers) as fast as can be done in any DAW.

Well, then I would want to ask you, why does somebody ask the development for solutions at all? Enjoy everything, because... almost everything is available if someone is willing to fumble around enough... sorry, but that's my impression.

In this case, they ask for solutions cause they don't know how make use of the tools already there. In some cases there are real limitations. This is not one of them.

I gave you a solution that works just as fast as any DAW. Instead of being pleased, you are stubbornly arguing that you are right.

[kurt008]

If I speak about an Audio Workstation, it doesn't mean a MIDI-Workstation,, a DJ-Mixing-solution, a Play-Station, it means Audio Workstation, right? So should Audio not at least be the most functional part...?

Most modern DAWs don't even include typical destructive-audio editing capabilities. You can modify audio with inserts and bounce it, which is typical modern DAW workflow. You can do very basic edits like reverse and crop. But they are not audio editors. Audition is an audio editor. Wavelab is an audio editor. Their functionality isn't included in most modern DAWs. That's just a fact. But you're crowing about what an "Audio Workstation" should be based on, checks list, a couple features you personally need. Got it.

Cubase has an -actual- audio editor inside it. So does Renoise. Ableton doesn't. Bitwig doesn't. Do you complain about this fact? That these "Audio Workstations" don't even include actual audio editors?

Or maybe -- hold on to your seat here -- maybe the definition of 'Audio Workstation' isn't a fixed, 100% agreed upon thing. Maybe you are mixing up "The Stuff You Personally Want" with "The Broad, Totally Agreed Upon Definition of What a Thing Should and Must Be."

Again: No, I don't want to edit Audio on that low level (BTW, Reaper also allow low-level Audio editing, but... that's something not really useful for most purposes in a every-day-routine (except for some ... sorry fumbling freaks, I claim).

There's too little communication between users and development - at least in the case of Bitwig and Bitwig Studio.
This might concern other DAW's too, but is not the point of discussion.
I also don't claim that Bitwig Studio is too heavily limited (that would include, that there are nearly no workarounds - what is wrong, as several times said), but there are some visible limits and flaws and I simply want to see solutions for them and no simply cherry-picking users, who seem to be satisfied with everything everywhere at every time.

It is good to see that you all seem to be happy with what you got. But luckily (for those, who want to enhance this program) there are others who are not completely satisfied and tell this. Because amongst others they make this tool change over time... even though you satisfied people won't ever understand even one of them

[antic604]

If I make a group out of these 3 tracks - right. Other solution...?

Myself and @pdxindy gave you 2 ideas 2 pages ago :duh:

Just bounce-in-place the master when those 3 tracks are soloed:

[kurt008]

Ok, you know what? Now I understand the reason, why Bitwig closed their forum.
Criticism is to most of you what holy water is to the devil.

[mholloway]

It is good to see that you all seem to be happy with what you got. But luckily (for those, who want to enhance this program) there are others who are not completely satisfied and tell this. Because amongst others they make this tool change over time... even though you satisfied people won't ever understand even one of them

For the record, I actually have no freaking clue what you are talking about. I was addressing your very specific workflow concerns, and in response, you're spouting totally vague generalities about "you all seem to be happy" and then asserting your superiority over us because of it. Cool story, dude. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

[antic604]

Ok, you know what? Now I understand the reason, why Bitwig closed their forum.
Criticism is to most of you what holy water is to the devil.

I've no idea why they closed it, but if - like you demonstrate here - you come to criticise and don't accept any ideas that solve the problem but don't work 100% like you want, then there's no discussing things, indeed

Bitwig isn't perfect, but - oh boy! - neither is Reaper. If routing audio is 90% of what you do then stick with it. Otherwise weight all the "extra" time you need spending with Bitwig doing workarounds vs. time it saves you in other areas. If that math doesn't give you a positive result, don't use Bitwig.