# Can't find my ideal DAW



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

I've been on the search for a new DAW for a while but with each one I try there are some crucial things that don't work well for my needs.

Logic: Limitations of tracks (256) and frustrating way of dealing with multi-timbral VEP.

Cubase: Did not work well on my iMac and it had a lot of crashes and made my computer slow. (3,4GHZ, i5, 32GB)

Studio One: Does not have a better way of switching articulations than keyswitches, which I want to avoid. Does not support multi-core processing.

FL Studio: A limitation of mixer tracks (115!). Does not have a better way of switching articulations than keyswitches (on MAC). Extremely bad on CPU performance with VEP.

Digital Performer: Does not support VST3 plugins and does not have a better way of switching articulations than keyswitches.

If you know of ways to do any of this that I've just missed please let me know, or suggest a DAW you might think could be perfect.


----------



## lucor (Dec 29, 2018)

Reaper + Reaticulate doesn't have any of the problems you mentioned here.


----------



## tack (Dec 29, 2018)

Unfortunately no DAW is perfect. There will be plenty of things to find wrong with Reaper+Reaticulate. 

But it's worth an evaluation at least.

Ultimately this is all about deciding what compromises you're willing to make given your particular projects and workflow.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 29, 2018)

Without wanting to be rude...are you sure you're not just stalling here? The vast majority of users on the forum use one of the products you've listed and find workarounds or alternative workflows to deal with any issues that come up.

I know where you're coming from though. It's a trap I fall into frequently. I obsess about the small things and endlessly compare. It's easier to do that, than accept you already have the tools you need to move forward and make music. 

The only comment I can make re Logic, is that it's not really setup for multi-timbral use from a performance standpoint anyway. You might find a happy workflow with multi-articulation instruments and articulation maps. Happy to help further with this.

Good luck!
A


----------



## wst3 (Dec 29, 2018)

I found the PERFECT DAW years ago - Bars&Pipes Professional with the Sunrize Studio16 card. OK, I had to sync the computer to the tape deck for any serious audio work, but that was pretty much the only "limitation" and at the time it was not a big deal. If I had to do that again? I'd probably be a little less casual about it<G>!

I can't prove it, but most of the computer musicians - that is musicians that use computers, not the serious geeks - I know have felt less and less thrilled with the tools ever since someone had the bright idea of marrying audio and MIDI.

Think about it - MIDI is a record of events that occurred - key presses at the most basic level. It is infinitely editable, time and pitch and any other characteristic can be changed with minimal effort on the part of the musician or the software/hardware. 

Audio is a record of sound that happened. We've been able to manipulate it in multiple ways for years, but always within constraints. The computer has reduced the constraints - for example pitch shifts that would have been extreme 10 years ago are nearly transparent today.

And what about software plugins? Holy carp, is there anything we used to do that hasn't been captured in a plugin? (OK, reel rocking has not yet been replicated, but that is the only thing I can think of).

Somewhere along the way developers discovered that editing MIDI data could have a negative impact on the audio - one can get away with a bit more if one edits the audio, but there can also be negative effects on the MIDI. They are two entirely different domains, and working on one will impact the other, sometimes in ways we don't expect - or like.

And they have been trying to resolve this ever since. With fantastic results I might add. This is not meant as a swipe at the wonderful folks that bring us these tools. Just an observation that their task is challenging!

One other note - no one's fault really, except maybe ours as consumers... prices have fallen at an unpredictable, borderline unrealistic pace. Somewhere in the late 1990s (I think) I purchased my first 1GB hard disk for $1000 - I needed it to store my sound effects libraries, which cost significantly more than that. Today I can buy a 4TB drive for $100, and sample libraries are all but free. Now it really has become less expensive to manufacture disc drives and CPUs and so on, so lower costs are manageable.

The cost to sample an instrument has also fallen, because those recording the sound have access to the same lower cost technology. But the cost of the musician, and the space, and the microphones, and so on has not fallen anywhere near as much. And yet we (and I am just as guilty) expect the cost of libraries and plug-ins to continue to drop. Unless one has a compelling reason to purchase at full price most of us wait for sales. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does add downward pressure on prices, and therefore pressure on developers.

Does that same downward pressure apply to Apple or MOTU or Presonus or whoever? You bet it does. Why would I want to spend $500 on a DAW when I can get X on sale? Except that I want Y, and I'll wait, forever if necessary, for a discount. For a variety of reasons, but the expectation of a lower price is one of them.

OK, that's enough of a tangential rant for this morning, I need more coffee!


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 29, 2018)

wst3 said:


> I need more coffee!


I really don't think you do..


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 29, 2018)

I really doubt that you will find a DAW that you're happy with if none of the mentioned isn't it. I'd be inclined to agree with Alex Frasers' earlier impression. Just pick a DAW and live with it, they're all a pain in the ass/perfectly OK.


----------



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

Perhaps not 'perfect', but a daw that does not have limitations on the number of instrument tracks or channel tracks, and a daw with some kind of articulation switching (not just keyswitches) and of course a daw that's stable on a mac. Reaper + articulate looks interesting. I see it's still just an alpha so I'm gonna see how ready it really is.


----------



## tack (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> Reaper + articulate looks interesting. I see it's still just an alpha so I'm gonna see how ready it really is.


I'm the developer of Reaticulate. The core is pretty stable. The main reason I'm still calling it alpha is:

The GUI editor for creating banks (what Cubase calls expression maps) isn't ready yet so you need to edit text files to create banks.
I'm not convinced I won't change something about the factory banks. I may even do away with the idea altogether and instead go with more of a Reaper Stash type of idea where the community can more easily share banks. (Stash is a place where Reaper users can share themes, scripts, icons, etc.)


----------



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

Alex Fraser said:


> Without wanting to be rude...are you sure you're not just stalling here?
> 
> Good luck!
> A



Oh, I'm definitely are, and I need help  I just know that I'm gonna invest a lot of time with a new DAW so I want to know which essentials functions it has that I know I'm gonna need.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> Oh, I'm definitely are, and I need help  I just know that I'm gonna invest a lot of time with a new DAW so I want to know which essentials functions it has that I know I'm gonna need.


Well, then let's try to help!

Let's discount Cubase then as crash prone software is no fun and life is too short.

Articulation management is clearly important to you, so that basically leaves Reaper and Logic, based on your research. 

I'd take a look at Logic's own articulation ID system. It might help you solve both your fears about multi-timbral operation (not required if you use multi-articulation kontakt libraries) and track count limits (drastically reduced track count required if you don't use one track-per articulation workflows.)

Maybe someone else can help you with Reaper too.

Does this help?
A


----------



## MrHStudio (Dec 29, 2018)

256 track limit on Logic isn’t something I’ve bumped into yet also if you only dont like one or two bits on each of the sequencers then your being too picky. If you want unlimited tracks you could go for Pro Tools HDX!


----------



## chibear (Dec 29, 2018)

I'm a recent convert to Studio One and, while nowhere near an expert, I was up and running in a couple of days without having to use the manual all that much....very intuitive. That came after spending a year trying to get comfortable in DP on the PC. It could be a great program but I have 1001 complaints beginning with it crashing often on opening, text that is readable only on a 30" monitor without using Windows magnifier and consistent lock up on exit. Mixcraft was my first DAW but has failed to grow up in the MIDI and automation departments.

As far as the keyswitch issue (I have no problem using them BTW) I have seen several workarounds in Kontakt using CC#s or host automation to change the articulations, or putting the keyswitches on a separate lane or track on the same MIDI channel in the instance of the player you are using.


----------



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

Alex Fraser said:


> Well, then let's try to help!
> 
> Let's discount Cubase then as crash prone software is no fun and life is too short.
> 
> ...



Thanks, the thing about Logic is that when I use VEP 6 I need to use it as a multi-timbral instrument, which means that muting, soloing, etc. applies to all channels in that VEP instance, and I feel this is not giving me a good workflow. 

I will check out Reaper!


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> Thanks, the thing about Logic is that when I use VEP 6 I need to use it as a multi-timbral instrument, which means that muting, soloing, etc. applies to all channels in that VEP instance, and I feel this is not giving me a good workflow.
> 
> I will check out Reaper!


Ah, fair enough. Can't help you with VEP as I'm not a user. Best of luck!


----------



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

chibear said:


> I'm a recent convert to Studio One and, while nowhere near an expert, I was up and running in a couple of days without having to use the manual all that much....very intuitive. That came after spending a year trying to get comfortable in DP on the PC. It could be a great program but I have 1001 complaints beginning with it crashing often on opening, text that is readable only on a 30" monitor without using Windows magnifier and consistent lock up on exit. Mixcraft was my first DAW but has failed to grow up in the MIDI and automation departments.
> 
> As far as the keyswitch issue (I have no problem using them BTW) I have seen several workarounds in Kontakt using CC#s or host automation to change the articulations, or putting the keyswitches on a separate lane or track on the same MIDI channel in the instance of the player you are using.



Do you know if I can use CCs to switch articulation in Spitfire libraries? If so I could set up my 16 drum pads to switch articulations. I tried it but with UACC the CC need to have a specific value, so I need to hit the pad to a certain value, which is difficult.


----------



## styledelk (Dec 29, 2018)

chibear said:


> I'm a recent convert to Studio One and, while nowhere near an expert, I was up and running in a couple of days without having to use the manual all that much....very intuitive. That came after spending a year trying to get comfortable in DP on the PC. It could be a great program but I have 1001 complaints beginning with it crashing often on opening, text that is readable only on a 30" monitor without using Windows magnifier and consistent lock up on exit. Mixcraft was my first DAW but has failed to grow up in the MIDI and automation departments.
> 
> As far as the keyswitch issue (I have no problem using them BTW) I have seen several workarounds in Kontakt using CC#s or host automation to change the articulations, or putting the keyswitches on a separate lane or track on the same MIDI channel in the instance of the player you are using.



I also get the crash on startup 80% of the time (basically hangs on External Devices. So far any of the solutions I've tried haven't worked. Just Force Quit and open it again. And again.)
But it's very intuitive otherwise.


----------



## MrHStudio (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> Do you know if I can use CCs to switch articulation in Spitfire libraries? If so I could set up my 16 drum pads to switch articulations. I tried it but with UACC the CC need to have a specific value, so I need to hit the pad to a certain value, which is difficult.


Yes you can you can set up various ways the instructions for each library are downloadable from the product page on their website and this will tell you how to do it

Also cant you set your drum pads to be notes and use normal keyswitching. I use the buttons on my x touch compact this way setting the notes and keyswitches from c-1


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> Thanks, the thing about Logic is that when I use VEP 6 I need to use it as a multi-timbral instrument, which means that muting, soloing, etc. applies to all channels in that VEP instance, and I feel this is not giving me a good workflow.
> 
> I will check out Reaper!



Use midi tracks feeding to multi instrument environment objects. Then you can at least mute solo the midi. You can also make thousands of midi tracks that way.

For articulation support you at least know the top three daws. They all have pros and cons. Pick one and work around the cons. I feel LPX is the best for articulation support because of articulation id’s and scripter. I am learning cubase now and expression maps have some of their own quirks that limit it a bit. Still better then nothing. Cubase is growing on me in some ways it has some cool tools and workflows, but so does logic. Liking cubase a bit more though. Yes cubase can do thousands of tracks and logic seems limited that way but really I have never made an LPX project that ran out of tracks or channels.

Reaper is cheap but super powerful if you spend the time to customize it and don’t mind the less eleagant gui. I still don’t get along well with reaper but it’s on my list to learn it and it provides extreme customization options.


----------



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

MrHStudio said:


> Yes you can you can set up various ways the instructions for each library are downloadable from the product page on their website and this will tell you how to do it
> 
> Also cant you set your drum pads to be notes and use normal keyswitching. I use the buttons on my x touch compact this way setting the notes and keyswitches from c-1



OK, if I can use regular CC and switch with my drum pads I think that's gonna work well. However, I can't figure out how to do that with Spitfire.


----------



## jbuhler (Dec 29, 2018)

styledelk said:


> I also get the crash on startup 80% of the time (basically hangs on External Devices. So far any of the solutions I've tried haven't worked. Just Force Quit and open it again. And again.)
> But it's very intuitive otherwise.


I don't have this problem with SO, but it does crash about 80% when I close the program. I much prefer my issue to yours! That would be a real pain. Sorry to hear it!


----------



## HeliaVox (Dec 29, 2018)

I loved Bars and Pipes Pro on my Amiga. Good times.


----------



## brenneisen (Dec 29, 2018)

you already did but you're running the wrong OS


----------



## MrHStudio (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> OK, if I can use regular CC and switch with my drum pads I think that's gonna work well. However, I can't figure out how to do that with Spitfire.


You cmd click the articulation and it gives you the options to set up keyswitches and it offers notes or cc settings


----------



## Mishabou (Dec 29, 2018)

ka00 said:


> I’ve never used Cubase, and when I looked into it recently, l was dissuaded by the performance issues on the MacOS version I read about.
> 
> @Mason if switching to PC is an option, maybe your main reason for discounting Cubase would be vanish? Macs can run Windows via bootcamp. No idea about performance issues with this, but could be worth looking into.



I've been using CB on Mac since version 8 and it runs great.


----------



## Mason (Dec 29, 2018)

MrHStudio said:


> You cmd click the articulation and it gives you the options to set up keyswitches and it offers notes or cc settings



I managed to set things up with my drum pads using UACC #32 so I guess that's a decent workaround no matter which daw.


----------



## Vik (Dec 29, 2018)

Mason said:


> Logic: I hate the limitations of tracks (256) and the multi-timbral system.


Hi, what is 'the multitimbral system'?


----------



## Mason (Dec 30, 2018)

Vik said:


> Hi, what is 'the multitimbral system'?



When using VEP it needs to be inserted as a multi-timbral instrument unless you have one instance of VEP for each instrument, and this means that tweaking the Volume or Pan buttons as well as activating Mute or Solo here will affect the whole VEP instance.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 30, 2018)

It doesn’t have to be that way if you setup midi tracks feeding into environment multi instrument objects. Then you can mute and solo the midi tracks and automate midi. You only get the problems you mentioned when you try to use logic’s default multi timbral mode of operation from the new track wizard.

I agree though there are various other reasons logic has poor support for multi timbral instruments.


----------



## Matt Riley (Dec 30, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> It doesn’t have to be that way if you setup midi tracks feeding into environment multi instrument objects. Then you can mute and solo the midi tracks and automate midi. You only get the problems you mentioned when you try to use logic’s default multi timbral mode of operation from the new track wizard.
> 
> I agree though there are various other reasons logic has poor support for multi timbral instruments.


Are there downsides to doing it this way? Is it buggy?


----------



## Mason (Dec 30, 2018)

Matt Riley said:


> Are there downsides to doing it this way? Is it buggy?



From what I've heard on the VSL forums it should be avoided.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 30, 2018)

No I don't think its buggy. I have been using it that way with some orchestral templates..including my own version of VSL's multiport macro...working fine here. The version that VSL put out originally is buggy, the multiport macro thing, but if you avoid the multiport macro and just use simple environment multi's, they work fine. The reason people are scared of them has more to do with having to manually set it up in the scary environment.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 30, 2018)

here are some templates I made, with and without the multiport macro... give it a try:

https://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=137085


----------



## JPQ (Dec 30, 2018)

wst3 said:


> I found the PERFECT DAW years ago - Bars&Pipes Professional with the Sunrize Studio16 card. OK, I had to sync the computer to the tape deck for any serious audio work, but that was pretty much the only "limitation" and at the time it was not a big deal. If I had to do that again? I'd probably be a little less casual about it<G>!
> 
> I can't prove it, but most of the computer musicians - that is musicians that use computers, not the serious geeks - I know have felt less and less thrilled with the tools ever since someone had the bright idea of marrying audio and MIDI.
> 
> ...



I have such audio interface still in my Amiga.saddly freeversionoars&pipes dont play first note place.basic reason (anotehr is my audiointerface has weird probelem) why i switchd pc and then mac and slowly go back pc side. powerul mac with suitale amout of ram is too pricey to me when i know cannot fix it if i get hardware problems.


----------



## Matt Riley (Dec 30, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> here are some templates I made, with and without the multiport macro... give it a try:
> 
> https://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=137085


This is really interesting. You must be a serious MIDI wiz! Having a series of single ports would be the way I would probably go. It’s pretty much what I am doing now without the environment method. Is 24 the max you can have? Are there any issues with bouncing in place? I also use skiswitcher. Do you anticipate any problems with that?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 30, 2018)

You can do more then 24 it just means More vep instances. 24 multi’s is 384 tracks total.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 30, 2018)

Something else you may want to consider...

I developed a more composer-friendly workspace for Reaper called Orchestral Template for Reaper (OTR). I originally released it at $129, but due to its success and being true to the Reaper community, i have recently converted it to a free/donation only project. While Reaticulate is not included in it yet, it can easily be added if you would like. Once @tack settles in on a non-alpha status, I’ll look at formally integrating it with OTR. FWIW, there are a number of big name composers who are using OTR.

http://otr.storyteller.im

Jonathan


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Dec 30, 2018)

ka00 said:


> I’ve never used Cubase, and when I looked into it recently, l was dissuaded by the performance issues on the MacOS version I read about.
> 
> @Mason if switching to PC is an option, maybe your main reason for discounting Cubase would be vanish? Macs can run Windows via bootcamp. No idea about performance issues with this, but could be worth looking into.


I recently switched to windows after using mac for years - cubase runs about the same for me on either os.


----------



## JamieLang (Dec 31, 2018)

The Cubase thing, IME, is that the performance on OSX varies a lot version to version....where Windows it's consistent. I've had versions that performed basically the same on either...and versions where the OSX was dreadful compared to Windows.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 1, 2019)

Mason said:


> I've been on the search for a new DAW for a while but with each one I try there are some crucial things that don't work well for my needs.
> 
> Logic: I hate the limitations of tracks (256) and the multi-timbral system.
> 
> Cubase: Did not work well on my iMac and it had a lot of crashes and made my computer slow. (3,4GHZ, i5, 32GB)



Excuse me but...

These two things don't make sense to me when you sum them up. You evidently have a rather limited computer but at the same time state that 256 tracks is not enough for the work you do.

I really don't think a (really rather high) limitation on the number of tracks available is going to be a bottleneck for you unless you reach hundreds of gigabytes to run such an amount of tracks simultaneously. And if your template exceeds that number of tracks at this point I sincerely believe you should re-examine your workflow.

This honestly seems more like an unhelpful mental hang-up than an actual practical problem.

My advise would be to re-evaluate what it *actually* is you need to get your work done and if a track limit of such proportions should really be a bottleneck.
Personally, I'd sooner work with multiple different templates than I'd ever want to reach such a number of tracks in my projects.


----------



## Mason (Jan 1, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Excuse me but...
> 
> These two things don't make sense to me when you sum them up. You evidently have a rather limited computer but at the same time state that 256 tracks is not enough for the work you do.
> 
> ...



I have two computer so this is the master computer who only runs the daw and the audio. Im planning to upgrade the master but even though the templates can get large only a small fraction of it plays at the same time.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 1, 2019)

Mason said:


> I have two computer so this is the master computer who only runs the daw and the audio. Im planning to upgrade the master but even though the templates can get large only a small fraction of it plays at the same time.



In that case I stand by my previous statement, this seems like either an unhelpful mental hangup or a misuse of your templates. You really shouldn't be using over 200 tracks in any template, I don't think.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 1, 2019)

I'm just saying, you should pick a daw and learn to work around its limitations, not the other way around. I use both Live and Cubase depending on the situation. Your voyage to find the "perfect daw" is singularly unhelpful.

Because it probably doesn't exist


----------



## Mason (Jan 1, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> In that case I stand by my previous statement, this seems like either an unhelpful mental hangup or a misuse of your templates. You really shouldn't be using over 200 tracks in any template, I don't think.



It’s not a mental hangup. I just want to do proper research and testing before I settle with a daw to avoid becoming an idiot user. 

The track limitations are not the most important although FL Studio’s limitation of 115 tracks is too little for most orchestral templates.

I don’t want to use Logic because how it handle multi-timbral instruments, Cubase did not perform well on my Mac (as many others with a Mac have experienced), and now I’m currently demoing Studio One. I like it so far but are worried that it can’t handle bigger templates well because of the lack of multi core work.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2019)

Mason said:


> Logic: I hate the limitations of tracks (256) and the multi-timbral system.



It would be much easier just to buy 15 more computers, sync them to the one with the poxy 256 tracks, and you'll have 4096.

I couldn't work with only 4096, but I recognize that some people are on a budget.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 1, 2019)

Mason said:


> I like it so far but are worried that it can’t handle bigger templates well because of the lack of multi core work.


Never had a problem with its performance from the standpoint of playback on lots of tracks, but I do think the program gets increasingly kludgy as you increase track count. (I find 40 to be about the maximum I can use, not because of performance, but because of how it organizes instrument plugins. But maybe I just don't have it set up properly; the manual is not very helpful on a lot of things, and there are many more or less undocumented features that I pick up from watching YouTube videos and in the Presonus help forum. But it also does not have nearly as large a user base as most of the other DAWs so it can be hard to troubleshoot and get useful tips.) The program is also not optimized at all for midi editing. On the other hand it has some really great features for moving things around cues and the scratch pad is also fabulous.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 1, 2019)

The 256 limitation is not really a barrier as many people think. First of all the statement above is not even accurate. LOGIC IS NOT LIMITED TO 256 TRACKS! You can have thousands of tracks in LogicPro!

It is limited to 256 instrument channels. If those are 16 channel multi-timbral instruments, then already you could have over 4000 tracks feeding into 255 multi-timbral instruments with 4000 distinct sounds. (255 because one inst channel is normally used by the metronome, but you don't have to if you don't want to).

However there is also a limit to 256 AUX channels, so if you need to bring all the 4000 instrument sounds back to separate LPX channels for mixing in the LPX mixer, then really you're talking about 510ish mixable instrument sounds. The other 3500 distinct instrument sounds would need to be mixed inside the actual instrument plugins, which in many cases can certainly be done, for example drum plugins usually provide their own mixer for submixing the drum kits in there rather then in LPX, as long as you're happy with the effects they provide. You can also use plugins from BlueCatAudio or PlogueBidule to do enormous amounts of submixing in the plugin if you so desire to mix more than 500 sounds at a time.

And of course if you want to use VEP, then you can submix thousands of instrument sounds in VEP and bring them back to as many as 510ish channels of Logic if you really need to mix them in the Logic Mixer.

And if you want to use VSL's multi-port macro with VEP, then you have many more thousands of distinct instrument sounds that you can direct thousands of tracks to, to the point that its a moot point, nobody does that.

The point is, this 256 limitation is not really a limitation as it has been portrayed. There are some inconveniences that Cubase, for example, does not deal with since it supports virtually unlimited tracks and channels, VST3 support for feeding many midi tracks into a single multi-timbral instrument, etc. But if the performance sucks, then its a moot point too isn't it? How many tracks do you really need to play anyway?

In my mind Cubase could be better choice if you want to have a 3000 track orchestra template online and ready to play every sound you own by simply clicking on the track and playing your keyboard. If that is what you really want, then I don't think Logic is the right choice, cubase is much better. But in order to do that you will probably need some VEP slaves, just sayin'.

I would also encourage the op to look a little deeper at Logic's existing multi-timbral support before writing it off. There are a number of ways to handle multi-timbral instruments beyond what you get with the new track wizard and you may find its not a deal breaker. Certainly a 500 track template with 500 channels of mixable instrument audio is possible in LPX without much trouble or need for any third party anything. LPX has tremendous support for articulation management and if that matters to you, then I think its the best choice as of right now for that.

you won't find one DAW to rule them all. This has been shown to be the case countless times


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 2, 2019)

Let me chime in on this. I have been running Logic for years and now I'm using Cubase. I have been on the same "quest" like the Mason. But consider this: If you are going to buy a car for every day transport, how much attention should you pay to the fact the trunk is difficult to open and very small, compared to that the gear shift in the car is really nice and the stereo plays wonderful?
I mean the MIDI editor in Cubase is the best you can get, you can do every kind of set-up to accommodate your personal work style. Okay the performance under OSX isn't that good as in Logic, but in my workflow I increase the buffer size from 256 to 512 when the system begins to perform bad.
My point here is that you that the annoyance you might experience now and then in any DAW should be measured against the benefits this particular DAW has. In Studio One you just drag in the VI but the tempo track editor might not be as useful as the one in Logic, but if all your music plays in static tempo's then it doesn't matter right.
I think that in my workflow, Cubase right now is a bit ahead of Logic, but the moment that Logic gets multiple CC lanes in the editor, better support for VI's using VEPro, improved MIDI editor, a really thoroughly thought out articulation switching system then I will probably take a look again.


----------



## Vik (Jan 2, 2019)

stigc56 said:


> the moment that Logic gets multiple CC lanes in the editor


This will probably come at some point, but IMO it has helped that one can cycle through used automation parameters in the main window, using key commands.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Jan 2, 2019)

I keep coming back to Cubase despite its flaws - it's just that polished MIDI behaviour and the overall package that keeps me in


----------



## Mason (Jan 2, 2019)

Which other DAWs other than Digital Performer can handle more than 32 outputs from one instance of VEP?


----------



## styledelk (Jan 2, 2019)

I'm not even sure which midi features from Cubase I'm missing out on. I feel like I've used every DAW except Cubase. 
Working with CC automation curves is always annoying in everything.
I enjoy "explode all notes to tracks" in Studio One.

But I feel like the thing missing is actually some element of AI: "extract the melody", "extract chords and accompaniment", "take inner voice of chord and put it in this other track." 
Instead of those things, it's "drag select this stuff, but try not to get overlapping notes. Copy-paste it up to this other track."

I can't imagine that any DAW is that smart about MIDI editing in a way that's composer and arranger oriented rather than being "MIDI is a technology of events, and we let you select and edit those events!" It's always dictated way too closely to the technical underpinnings rather than the goals we're trying to accomplish with it.


----------



## rhye (Jan 5, 2019)

What are those midi editing features people keep mentioning in Cubase that don’t exist in Logic besides multiple cc lanes?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 5, 2019)

I bought Cubase recently and have been learning it and I'm wondering the same thing


----------



## JamieLang (Jan 5, 2019)

rhye said:


> What are those midi editing features people keep mentioning in Cubase that don’t exist in Logic besides multiple cc lanes?



Drum editor...all that comes with but including remapping on note level. And yes, I'm aware I can go into the Environment and create custom routings of anything to anything. I can select C1 and tell it to go a to another Drum library in Cubase...done. Also function of the drum editor--the view without length. The invented it 25 years ago--other DAWs have ripped it. Except Logic which still has no drum editor....

Articulation maps....Logic got this like, this last year. It didn't work well until at least one point release...but, Cubase that's been there and fully functional for 10 years. I kind of like the way Logic's new one works (once the map is set up)...but, still--this wasn't there until this past year.

Score editor: in Logic it's a single line/track. In Cubase I can select several harmonies and they display and can be edited on the same grand staff, just like when I wuz in school.  

Hermode Tuning....in concert with defining the chord structure with the Chord Track, actually functions...where Logic's doesn't, because it tries to self define the harmonic context on the fly with a buffer...and fails miserably. I mean did you want your strings and horns to intonate properly, or not? 

Just off the top of my head--as someone who uses Cubase on Windows and Logic on OSX fairly regular like...

Also note that the instrument buffer implementation works (IME) WAY more effectively/consistently and efficiently in Cubase. I saw someone say that modern machines can all run without latency...who is a long time Cubase user...and I kind of wanted to jump in to say CUBASE, runs VI input without latency on most anything. You used to have to use an Instrument track...now they've connected any live MIDI track input to the VST RACK....which, is also a thing--Logic's super weird way of handling multitimbral VIs is just that--super weird. 

On the "huge win for Logic"....the AI based Drummer Track. My MacBook is now my auto tempo mapping drum machine for making song demos.


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 6, 2019)

The way you colourize events in the editor can be very useful. Ex. Grid match will set the color according to how close the event are to the grid, it will be super easy to spot events that are off grid. When you change the swing factor, the grid are adjusted accordingly. It's very easy - and built in - to create almost any kind of changes to a number of velocity of events, like crescendos and even maintain the already existing differences in a group or sequence of midi events. Iterative Quantize is by far the most valued function. The iterative Q will "drag" midi events towards the grid little by little again maintaining the differences between the selected notes, and a little detail - if you hit Q without selecting specific events, all events will be moved, if you select specific events, then only those events will be affected.
But I miss the drummer track!!


----------



## Vik (Jan 6, 2019)

JamieLang said:


> Score editor: in Logic it's a single line/track.


Hi, please elaborate... In Logic you can show as many tracks you want, in three different modes, and save combinations of tracks ("score sets") you want to see?


----------



## 5Lives (Jan 6, 2019)

There is no such thing as a perfect DAW. I've owned PT, Cubase, Logic, Studio One, and Ableton - sometimes all at once, and that's the only thing that I've learned. You'll always be frustrated about something with the DAW you have and love something about another DAW - and vice versa. Instead of individual features, focus on the workflow and philosophy of each DAW and just make it work.

For example, Ableton is really meant for loop-based ideation and utilizing creative effects. While they have improved their arrangement page, their core philosophy is not to be a tape recorder type of DAW.

Pro Tools has improved a lot in the past 2 years, but they are still very much focused on audio recording and mixing. MIDI and production tools will likely never be their focus and so they will always lag behind. Really well thought out implementation though - I wish more DAWs adopted an edit cursor.

Cubase is a behemoth - lots of features, but in my humble opinion, a bloated workflow to go with that. Lot of clicks to get things done. However, the best MIDI editor in the market and clearly focused on writing / production. If you jive with their workflow philosophy, hard to beat this.

Logic is exactly what I imagine an Apple product to be. I personally find it very well thought out, refined, and yet super deep (without becoming cluttered). Their strength is MIDI and production tools - I keep discovering new things that they've added recently (that I used to complain about it lacking). Their smart tool is one of the best in the game. In terms of limitations, plenty of professional composers get along with it fine.

Studio One is my pick for most improved in the shortest amount of time. The amount of area they've been able to cover is amazing - and really thoughtfully done. If they added more composer-friendly features and clean up the UI, they could be the "perfect" DAW IMO for my purposes. However, I doubt they will be able to support the advanced features that something like Cubase has any time soon.

Good luck in your search.


----------



## JamieLang (Jan 6, 2019)

Vik said:


> Hi, please elaborate... In Logic you can show as many tracks you want, in three different modes, and save combinations of tracks ("score sets") you want to see?



Here's what happens in Cubase--I select the cello and violin lines on two different tracks, right click "score editor" and it displays both together on a grand staff. Then if I want to leave that score editor open, it combines the viola and cello if I highlight that instead. 

I've never gotten Logic to combine selections on the fly. Maybe I'm missing a window or method? Do teach the secret handshake!


----------



## Vik (Jan 6, 2019)

JamieLang said:


> Do teach the secret handshake!


This area is important in Logic (not really secret, but many aren't aware of it):






You can create 'score sets' manually, but the V1/Va set you see here, was created by selecting two regions (on two different track) and select Open Score Editor (or Command-3) when the two were selected.

This will open a separate score editor (not a small editor under the main area) with these two instruments displayed.

If you rather want to see this under the main area, go there, and select the V1/Va score set Logic created automatically. All these score set are remembered, so if you later have lots of tracks, you can go back and select any combinations that have been created automatically, or make others. To switch between the score set you look at and full score, double click in the score background or on an instrument which is part of the score set (in the score editor). Not perfect, but quite good. 


https://support.apple.com/kb/PH24603?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

There's also a key/menu command called 'Create Score Set from Selection', so if you look at lots of racks represented in Score, select those you want to see, and use that command, and Logic will create a new score set with this instrument and activate it.


----------



## JamieLang (Jan 6, 2019)

Cool. Good to know. I will try that out next time I need to use LPX for MIDI strings.


----------



## jonathanwright (Jan 6, 2019)

stigc56 said:


> Iterative Quantize is by far the most valued function. The iterative Q will "drag" midi events towards the grid little by little again maintaining the differences between the selected notes, and a little detail - if you hit Q without selecting specific events, all events will be moved, if you select specific events, then only those events will be affected.



It’s not exactly the same thing, but I have become a fan of Smart Quantize in Logic, especially on piano and string shorts.


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 7, 2019)

Could you maybe specify? Or do you have a video or other that could "elaborate" on the issue?
I'm always on te way back to Logic!!


----------



## jonathanwright (Jan 7, 2019)

stigc56 said:


> Could you maybe specify? Or do you have a video or other that could "elaborate" on the issue?
> I'm always on te way back to Logic!!



Sure, just hover over the word 'quantize' in the inspector click on it, then select 'Smart Quantize'. From there it works in the same way as regular quantize. You can change the strength etc, but I rarely need to touch it.


----------



## JamieLang (Jan 7, 2019)

Now, in terms of quantizarion, Id give Logic props for a simple reason: you can quantize midi to audio with a handful of clicks....rather than a grid. You can interchangeably quantize the audio to other audio and obivously midi....all of this can be done in Cubase via extracting “groove templates” from audio, but by nature its a kind of musical experiement—which means a few clicks, works or doesnt....move on....where I never found myself using it in Cubase becuase its a longer process that statistically isnt going to work anyway—but, when it DOES....its what quantize SHOULD BE. Grids are EDM music. Theyre a kind of....an abstract...two musicians wont inhereintly agree on the pulse of music (meaning on a huper granular level)....but, getting the “grid” to represent it is considerably harder than people think it is....

Anyway....I use both. I love aspects of Logic. So, dont take my list above as anything more than insight from one user of both. There are plenty of things I think Logic does better, else I wouldnt have it.


----------



## ghostnote (Jan 7, 2019)

I'm using Cubase, but Ableton Live and Bitwig are both very nice DAWs in my opinion.


----------



## oxo (Jan 7, 2019)

Mason said:


> Which other DAWs other than Digital Performer can handle more than 32 outputs from one instance of VEP?



i am not a VEP user, but i think reaper can handle 64 outputs (vst3) in the current version.


----------



## Olivier1024 (Jan 7, 2019)

oxo said:


> i am not a VEP user, but i think reaper can handle 64 outputs (vst3) in the current version.


You're right. Reaper v5 can handle 64 outputs so it's means 32 stereo output per Vienna Ensemble Pro Plugin.
Reaper v5 can handle 16 Busses/Midi Ports with 16 midi channel (256 midi channel) per Vienna Ensemble Pro Plugin.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2019)

stigc56 said:


> Could you maybe specify? Or do you have a video or other that could "elaborate" on the issue?
> I'm always on te way back to Logic!!



Peter, Logic has percentage quantizing.

Now, in my experience that doesn't always sound the way you'd expect - it still sounds quantized if you go 50% a lot of the time. But it's certainly useful for avoiding perfect timing between two parts, etc.


----------



## Matt Riley (Jan 9, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Peter, Logic has percentage quantizing.
> 
> Now, in my experience that doesn't always sound the way you'd expect - it still sounds quantized if you go 50% a lot of the time. But it's certainly useful for avoiding perfect timing between two parts, etc.


Yeah I love this feature. It cleans up my sloppy playing just enough and keeps it from sounding robotic at the same time.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 9, 2019)

jonathanwright said:


> Sure, just hover over the word 'quantize' in the inspector click on it, then select 'Smart Quantize'. From there it works in the same way as regular quantize. You can change the strength etc, but I rarely need to touch it.


Smart Quantize is a tool from the gods. It basically translates "what I played" into "play back what I meant." Good for the lazy pianist, i.e me.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jan 10, 2019)

Re the title: ha, yeah, neither can I.

Cubase is the closest I've come to the perfect DAW. If your only issue was crashing on your iMac, I'd give it another shot with a fresh installation. Cubase has historically been rock solid for me on both OS X and Windows, so I'd venture to say that your issue here isn't Cubase, but probably an issue with your computer, or more likely, a plugin gone rogue screwing things up.

But, I've started to get into Reaper. It's crusty and a little rough around the edges, but you really can sort of "make your own DAW," which is hugely appealing to me. Plus, it's an insanely resource-efficient DAW, very well-coded. It's just not pretty. If those pros/cons appeal to you, though, a better use of our time may be trying to build your perfect DAW in Reaper, rather than fiddling around with 5 different DAWs.


----------

