What's a good DAW to switch to from Cakewalk?

[Kongru]

Cubase would be a good choice for midi editing, I'd argue that it's peerless in that regard.

[Azura]

...
If Reaper has a downside, it's configurable almost to a fault.
For the less tech-savvy, initial configuration can be daunting.
...

I want to add that this "daunting initial configuration" is not mandatory. Except for less than 10 shortcuts and mouse modifiers that I added/modified, I have kept Reaper in its default configuration, and I'm very comfortable with it. Excellent post BTW.

Have a nice day,
Marc

[3ptguitarist]

should check your prios
http://www.admiralbumblebee.com/DAW-Chart.html

Reaper has a bit garage-tuning feeling (needs some time till your customize) , I would check Cubase and S1, and Logic if u have Mac

S1 has a rent-to-own option https://splice.com/daws/38650984-studio ... y-presonus don't know the others

Thanks for the website chart. Reaper beats them all out, but cubase wasn't too far behind. Cakewalk didn't do too well and I've been using it for a long time lol.

[enroe]

... something that is more industry standard other than pro tools.

Haha ... Protools is THE industry standard!

Why? Not because it is the best DAW. Others are at least as good as Protools.

It is the "industry standard" because in the nineties it was the FIRST
disc-recording system for less than 20.000 $. So every studio jumped on that
horse.

[Burillo]

i should note that just because it gets a high rating doesn't mean it'll fit your workflow. for example, no matter how hard i tried, i could never gel with either Sonar or Studio One or Cubase, but REAPER instantly clicked with me, even though back then it was at version 2.x and lacked pretty much the majority of its features. i came with no baggage, so to me, REAPER's approach to tracks (a track is just that - a track; what you put on it is entirely up to you) made much more sense than other DAW's antiquated mono/stereo/quad/surround/aux/MIDI/send/return/FX/bus/yourmom track type galore. this alone i am so used to that i couldn't switch to any other DAW even if i try. i love Studio One's clean interface and overall workflow, but this one feature of REAPER i'm so used to that i get irritated extremely quickly when working with other DAW's, Studio One included.

similarly, for you, REAPER may have loads of features on paper, but maybe they're not discoverable enough, or you just don't like the workflow and would rather prefer a "well thought out" and "designed" workflow like Studio One, as opposed to "your dad's garage" REAPER workflow. people are different, and have different preferences.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Thanks guys. I'm hoping to find something that is more industry standard other than pro tools. I've thought about Cubase as I want good midi editing. Ableton live is also on my list.

I've heard of reaper, but never showed a real interest in it. Maybe I'll try it out.

I don't have a Mac so I won't be able to get Logic.

Demoing sounds like a good plan.

That helps to know. So my take (as a former Sonar user myself - but I left at X1 - maybe even 8.5)...

1. Studio One is easy to use and get up and running and has basic MIDI covered pretty well. What it lacks are things like a notation view, list editor, a smart tool for the PRV. The Drum and Pattern editors recently introduced are still not very mature either IMO. I don't think Sonar had a MIDI Input Transformer/Logical Editor, but Cubase does and Studio One doesn't (so take that for what it is). That said, on the audio side of the house, Studio One is pretty damn advanced and I particularly enjoy editing/comping.

2. Cubase is harder to get up and running with due to the sheer number of options/preferences/menus. On the MIDI side, it's got about everything I can think of except a Smart Tool. On the audio side, it's pretty advanced too, though I find things like comping group tracks to be messy compared to Studio One. It's the most "like Sonar" in that it's got a huge featureset based on a ton of legacy code and how that isn't always a good thing.

3. Reaper is a different paradigm entirely IMO. Very light on tools and heavy on keyboard shortcuts, and understanding "actions," which I can never really wrap my head around (I guess they're just macros you're supposed to keybind to do stuff you do a lot). That said, it's incredibly efficient from a CPU perspective, and if you can "get it," there's a lot there and a lot to like. They even built in notation recently, so kudos to those guys. If it had more traditional tools and a Studio One-like workflow I could understand, I'd have made it my primary DAW years ago. I keep an active Reaper license around, "just cause" (testing plugins, wanting to support the devs, thinking one day I'll get it and switch).

All in all, of the four DAWs I'm familiar with (Studio One, Cubase, Reaper, Sonar), each has different strengths and weaknesses. None are perfect. Each could benefit to steal some ideas from the others to improve their own product. I'll flip between Studio One 3.5 and Cubase 10 depending on the project just because if it's going to be more audio based, I prefer to work in Studio One, whereas I like Cubase for MIDI based projects.

[AsPeeXXXVIII]

I'm going to recommend REAPER. It's light on the resources and highly customizable, and the licenses are very affordable as well.

[voidhead23]

Coming from a guy who just deleted Reaper off his computer in frustration today...i would recommend Reaper. It's not my cup of tea and it hates my system with a passion, but i can't think of a better program for a hobbyist who wants a complete recording and editing suite on the level of Pro Tools for only 60 bucks. Also, i'm on Mac. If you're using Windows, i think your Reaper experience will be better than mine.

But i would also hang on to your copy of Live Lite and slave it into Reaper via ReWire, because even for people focusing on guitar music (like me), it's such a creative tool and helps a lot with songwriting, even if you're not into the loop-based EDM crap. Reaper solves a lot of practical and technical issues other DAWs have, but solves nothing for me creatively. Live does, and it does it incredibly well. Also, i think Lite still comes with Drum Racks and Simpler? Both incredible tools to have.

[Cap'n Spanky]

I went from Sonar to Cubase. I'm sticking with Cubase, because I don't want to have to learn (yet) another DAW.

But if I were doing it all over, I'd go with Reaper.

[jancivil]

I don't know why Reaper would suit someone straight from Cakewalk. I had Cakewalk way back when, not a real user of it but I stared at it a couple of times.
Cakewalk is 'already designed', Reaper is... not, really.

I started with Cubase, and for probably 99% of what I ever do it's something I did not need to read the manual for. If I trash and rebuild preferences there are some 20 defaults I have to change. I don't have to trash preferences like I used to. It likes my new machine.

I'm not sure the OP is coming from a blank slate like this is supposed in some of this. I don't know. If you want to go into clips/patterns arrangements you want Ableton or FLS. Cubase can do but here is def. one area which gets complicated fast.
But one person's 'complicated' is another's 'flexibility'.

I don't want a MIDI track to be its consequential Instrument Channel. It's a matter of to [the instrument] vs from, in basic architecture. Two objects.
I don't want a MIDI track to be where you decide pre- vs post-fader for sends or FX, or to have CC7 a default for the volume of the consequent audio from the instrument. I want more flexibility and control. I don't want to have to tell the DAW I want this and work for it needing a lot of reading and wondering. For some that 'customizing' is good, I prefer not.

[jancivil]

Demo the things, no one knows you but you.

[husker37]

I'm a Midi guy. I moved to Cubase from Sonar last Christmas.

[MattmaN]

Cakewalk probably still ranks around top 5 in all daws feature wise. The only major flaw I have found is it's a lot to learn. It's vast!

[xbitz]

not easy to choose between them for ex. I using Bitwig just because of this one row (modulation):

Live:2 (bit better with M4L) ,Cakewalk:0, Cubase: 0, S1:0, Reaper is limited compared to BWS, FL Studio has limited macroing ability, Reason has VST performance issue, Wave has limited MIDI editing so ...have to find which workflow you like and should choose DAW which serve it best

ps. and because Bitwig supports Push but it's an other story ...

[Burillo]

I don't want a MIDI track to be its consequential Instrument Channel. It's a matter of to [the instrument] vs from, in basic architecture. Two objects.
I don't want a MIDI track to be where you decide pre- vs post-fader for sends or FX, or to have CC7 a default for the volume of the consequent audio from the instrument. I want more flexibility and control. I don't want to have to tell the DAW I want this and work for it needing a lot of reading and wondering. For some that 'customizing' is good, I prefer not.

what you described is less flexibility and control, not more. in other words, you have a preferred workflow, and you want your DAW to follow that particular workflow. REAPER can do that if you like (yes, you do need to set it all up manually, but it is possible!), and it also can, you know, not do that, if you prefer some other workflow. i, for example, prefer the workflow you've described as "undesirable". other DAWs can't offer alternative workflow if you don't like current one - hence less "flexible" and less "control".

i mean, i don't disagree with your preference, you do you - just don't mislabel things as "control" and "flexibility" when they're clearly not.