DAWS....pros and cons of each

[joey2000]

A big topic obviously, but am curious as to other's experiences (please, don't just post what you heard from a friend of a friend or joe blow's web site, etc unless it's simply factual info, like cost or features). I'd esp like to hear from people who have used more than one and their impressions of one vs the other.

 

[miroslav]

These days...almost all DAWs can do all the basic things anyone would need from a DAW to record/mix audio.

So it really comes down to personal tastes...and for that...you need to download DAW demos and try out a few...and find the DAW that has a layout and workflow that suits YOUR tastes.
Me telling you that the DAW use is "better" than some other one, is pointless...because all the people that use that "other one" would probably say the opposite.

Honestly...you just have to try out a few yourself.

 

[joey2000]

Me telling you that the DAW use is "better" than some other one, is pointless...

Obviously. I was hoping for something a bit more specific. Like why you think one is better than the other, with some backing logic/information behind it. (For ex, "to do so and so, DAW X is easier than DAW Y because you only have 2 quick steps vs 5" or "this common method of doing ABC is automated in DAW X vs having to do it manually"....stuff like that)

 

[miroslav]

I've used maybe a half-dozen DAWs...before ending up with mine (Samplitude ProX).

As an example...a LOT of people use and like Sonar. I tried it, and just could not get comfortable with the layout, and the workflow.
When I tried Samplitude...it just felt good to me.

It's kind of hard to put that into specific good/bad steps. There was nothing really *bad* about Sonar...it just didn't feel as comfy to me, yet many other folks love it.
Like Cubase....I can work in Cubase without a problem since it was the first audio program I ever used, when it was still just a MIDI sequencer app, but when it became a full DAW, it still looked and felt like the original Cubase.
A lot of other folks hate the feel of Cubase.

This is why I say you should just download the free demos and give a few DAWs a try. I think even without getting in too deep, you will be able to tell which feel better/worse to you....and then if you narrow it down to one or two, hang on those user forums and see what the regular users are saying...which will help in your decision.

Around here...Reaper is the big winner. Lots of people like it it...it's very inexpensive, and it does most of the stuff any other DAW would do...but again...you might try it an simply not like the look of the GUI...or the workflow...etc
So try before you buy.

 

[XtenanetX]

I've only ever really gotten deep into using FL Studio. I've found the interface to be clean and easy to work with, but that may also only be due to the fact that I've used it so much. If you were going to use VST instruments often, this may be a good choice though. The FL Studio piano roll is very clean and organized when compared to many other DAWs. Otherwise, as far as actual functionality, there really isn't much different between DAWs.

 

[andrushkiwt]

Miroslav is right that most will do the same things. I would chime and say that one might be "better" than another by the stock plugs it comes with. Plugins are expensive, if you buy them. So having a good amount of quality plugs could be a deciding factor for some. I'm unhappy with my stock EQ, for example. Yes, I can download free ones, but I love having options of those things and a nice handful of stock plugs would be something I'd consider in my next purchase - if I ever decide to change.

 

[joey2000]

Great, appreciate the replies! I realize this is subjective and hardly an exact science. Again, was just looking for any specifics about why someone decided one was better than the other. I tried Reaper and frankly didn't care for it. As I tinker with others, I'll hopefully have some examples of what I mean that I'll post FWIW.

 

[gecko zzed]

MY first DAW was Logic. I became fluent with it, but was never fully comfortable with it. For various reasons I switched to Reaper, and never looked back. It suited me down to the ground.

Why one DAW is better than another is an impossible question to answer. That's because:

a) you need to be very familiar with any DAWs you are comparing. Otherwise you might, say, be critical of a lack of a feature in a DAW that you don't realise it actually has;and

b) you need to be able to define what 'better' is. For example, in the Cockos forums, some posters are critical of Reaper's GUI, which they regard as 'drab' and 'unprofessional'. For me, though, Reaper's appearance is just fine, because it doesn't interfere with the workflow, and I can find the things I need to use very easily. A DAW is better if it is programmed in a way that matches how you think about things.

But even if you are versed in several DAWs, the issue of primacy comes in. When I first started with Logic I knew very little about DAWs, and the learning curve was seriously steep. I did, however, find the midi relatively easy. But that was because I had already been doing stuff with midi, using Music-X on a Commodore Amiga. When I started using Reaper, it seemed way easier than starting Logic, but that's partly because the learning curve of Logic lessened the learning curve of Reaper.

 

[Armistice]

I've only ever used Reaper - and coming from a portable machine background I found it pretty easy to pick up, understand and use. You just need to work through finding where the main functions you use are, and once you know that, whatever you use will become second nature.

I think the only hard and fast rule we've ever established around here is that Hagstrom Les Pauls can only ever be recorded on Samplitude for some reason...

 

[Armistice]

b) you need to be able to define what 'better' is. For example, in the Cockos forums, some posters are critical of Reaper's GUI, which they regard as 'drab' and 'unprofessional'. For me, though, Reaper's appearance is just fine, because it doesn't interfere with the workflow, and I can find the things I need to use very easily. A DAW is better if it is programmed in a way that matches how you think about things.

This is an interesting point. As someone who designs computer interfaces as a day job, Reaper is perhaps a little drab, visually - which is why people go and design skins for it I guess - but it works fine and I can find everything easily enough, and do you want your processing power chewed up with cutting edge graphics, really, for an audio application?

It's like having a peg board in the tool shed with the outlines of all the tools marked on it - visually quelle horreur! but it works, and its just your tool shed. I'm also fairly relaxed about the colours of the handles on my screwdrivers - so long as it's a different colour for slot v. Philips, I'm good.

 

[rayc]

I used Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.3 for several years. I used the free & simple Audition or something for about a week but couldn't get my head and expectations around it. Cakewalk was my 1st real go at using a DAW. I ran it on a W2000 PIII with 250ish Gig RAM. It worked wonderfully with that limited power and I did some good work with it (for me that is). I moved to Reaper when I needed to collaborate with people who were using it. It wasn't essential but we could communicate better if using the same pallet.
The move from one to the other was reasonably smooth. I had to ditch some older sytle VSTs and the expensive VST Wrapper I'd bought but after the 1st project (which coincided with a catastrophic computer crash) I've been happy with everything I've had to use in Reaper as well as the forums, Utub videos and such. Oh, I bought it after finishing the 1st project.

 

[gecko zzed]

This is an interesting point. As someone who designs computer interfaces as a day job, Reaper is perhaps a little drab, visually - which is why people go and design skins for it I guess - but it works fine and I can find everything easily enough, and do you want your processing power chewed up with cutting edge graphics, really, for an audio application?

It's like having a peg board in the tool shed with the outlines of all the tools marked on it - visually quelle horreur! but it works, and its just your tool shed. I'm also fairly relaxed about the colours of the handles on my screwdrivers - so long as it's a different colour for slot v. Philips, I'm good.

I like the fact that Reaper is highly customizeable. People can change things around to suit themselves. And being able to personalise it is a good way of getting ownership. I also like trying out the many themes that have been created. However, the GUI should be designed to help you get where you want to go. The Reaper theme that does this the best for me is the V4 default theme, for other people are very boring one:


The theme below is not atypical of the many available. It looks interesting and attractive enough, but it is very busy with high contrast, which makes it harder to find stuff, is graphically distracting, and ends up giving me a headache.


Then again, you could always go for this nightmare. This has glitz and glamour, but is more migraine than your usual headache. Most car designers know how to design dashboard instrumentation that informs without distracting.

 

[Bobbsy]

I think the best answer was the very first one from miroslav: download some free trials and see how you get on. Pretty well all of them can do the job so it comes down to personal preference on the interface.

Having said that, one big thing to consider is how much you rely on MIDI vs how much will be various recordings with a microphone. At opposite ends of the spectrum are programmes like Sonar or Ableton which are basically MIDI sequencers with an audio capability compared to Adobe Audition which is great for recording, mixing and editing but has no MIDI whatsoever. In the middle are a whole load of DAWs (including Reaper) which do both MIDI and audio.

From a compromise point of view you should certainly try Reaper. Dollar for dollar it can't be beaten. However, you can download and try most of the common DAWs so it's worth seeing if any of the interfaces seem easier/better to you than others.

 

[rayc]

Bobbsy is spot on. When I set up my computer & DAW I was not interested in MIDI at all.
After the missus bought me an eDrum kit and I found some use for BandInABox I had a reason for using MIDI. Reaper can handle it very easily but I didn't really set the computer up for it so must now use workarounds.
Lack or foresight - probably but I was antiMIDI big time and now I'n just Midi disinclined unless I can't avoid it.

 

[Greg_L]

"Drab" is one of the things that makes Reaper great IMO. Reaper doesn't need to look like an anime cartoon. None of them do, but some people just have to have the fancy trim package. Reaper is a drag car. Purpose-built for one thing for people that know what they want without the visual fluff.

 

[Bobbsy]

Agree 100% with Gerg.

Something I really dislike is making the controls for a DAW or VST plugins try to look like a box in a rack. Invariably it's easier to adjust on a panel created for a computer, not one that's trying to look like something it isn't.

 

[RFR]

I have both Reaper and protools. Just a few months now, as I'm new to digital.

At first I prefered reaper because there are lots of videos available on using it.
Also the availability if plugins and 3d party free plugins was very appealing.

What I didnt like was that somethings on the daw are really hard to read.

At this point, I'm almost 100% using PT.
It just seems easier and more intuitive coming from a tape background.
The plugin limitations don't bother me cause i don't use that many and the stock plugs are just fine.

I know some bitch about PT, but so many pros use it and most importantly, my bandmate has it which makes it easy to work with each other.

I'd be willing to guess any daw nowadays is good. So just find one you like and learn it inside and out.

I think that's the key.

 

[Greg_L]

I know some bitch about PT, but so many pros use it and most importantly, my bandmate has it which makes it easy to work with each other.

I'd be willing to guess any daw nowadays is good. So just find one you like and learn it inside and out.

I think that's the key.

This is really the key to all of it. The lesson to be learned here is they're all the fucking same. Use whichever one makes you happy and comfortable because they all do the same shit.

 

[joey2000]

Having said that, one big thing to consider is how much you rely on MIDI vs how much will be various recordings with a microphone. At opposite ends of the spectrum are programmes like Sonar or Ableton which are basically MIDI sequencers with an audio capability compared to Adobe Audition which is great for recording, mixing and editing but has no MIDI whatsoever.

Good point.

Here's an example of what I was talking about/looking for......with Cakewalk, you must have an account and be logged in to use it. ? That's stupid. Not enough in itself to scratch if off my list, but it is a strike.

Re. the comments on how "pretty" the interface is, certainly it's a secondary thing at most, but I really did hate Reapers. But again I just didn't care for it in general. I've downloaded a few others and will mess with them as time allows....

 

[JimmyS1969]

I have some limited experience with older versions of Protools and Reaper. I now am happy with Cubase but it may not be the right DAW for everyone. If you are programming drums tho, I would say it does that better than the other DAW's I have used.