# Multiple MIDI DAW users only - which DAW helps you get the job done fastest and why ?



## Elephant (Nov 27, 2015)

Hi All
A post by jonathanwright in the thread on making Logic Pro MIDI editing more fluid, prompts me to ask this question, as he uses both Logic and Cubase, I am approaching this from the perspective of someone who is used to single pane DAWs like Tracktion, Garageband, etc, who wants to up their game in producing MIDI mockups, but wants to spend the least amount of time needed to do so. I would like to find out which DAWs are actually fastest to use, from people who have strong experience with more than one. And what features or attributes in your view make using that DAW particularly fast in producing the MIDI element of a good mockup. How important are features like VST Expression Maps in C8 for example, in achieving the speed goal. The more specific we can get, the better. (Most of my mockups are acoustic instrument small endemble work, and may also veer into full orchestral.)
Many thanks !
Elephant


----------



## kdm (Nov 27, 2015)

With any DAW the key to becoming fast and efficient is spending time learning not just key commands and functions, but how to apply them to a workflow that works for you. You really have to learn how each DAW approaches specific tasks (not just features, but say, opening and closing an editor, accessing edit functions to scale velocity or alter CC data and moving to another track - all combine multiple key commands and functions to create a process that is either going to keep you working efficiently or slow you down. The result often depends on what workflow appeals to you as most DAWs cover most of the same functions, but in with different twists and turns.

I've used most of the major DAWs at one time or another in the process of finding the one that suits my needs best, and they all have strengths and weaknesses. And honestly, most of the time, those strengths and weaknesses often do not overlap where it would make picking one over the other a simple decision. It comes down to what works for you personally.

I currently use Nuendo 7, but also recently dropped Expression Maps from my template and went back to separate tracks per articulation. The reason is that Exp Maps, while great in some respects, weren't saving me any time. For Exp Maps to work with key switches, it can require some editing from time to time to shift starts, add a default key switch, and planning articulation switching to allow for some small delays. But there are times that doesn't work - such as layering a short art with a sustain or legato for extra attack, or overlapping where transitions with key switching doesn't sound natural. In past projects we ended up setting up multiple key switch/Exp Maps for just this reason, and that can work, but it depends on the project.

Another example - quick recall of controller lanes is a noticeable timesaver for me when editing midi. That's easy in Cubase/Nuendo. Digital Performer just added a key command to recall controller lane views in the midi editor in v9. Previously, that was a deal breaker. That's just one example, and just one of many considerations when I chose to work in Nuendo. You really have to take the whole process into account: setting up your template, recording parts, editing, working/syncing to picture, navigating the program, exporting to notation if needed, etc.

The fastest DAW to use is going to be the one you like at first glance, learn extensively, and still like once you've done a few projects with it. I know that isn't a simple "this is better" answer, but it is the best way to figure out what works for you. I would try the Cubase 8 demo if you haven't already. DP9 also has a demo, and then there is Reaper, which some love (I still find it too convoluted for fast work - takes way too much customization, though it can be great if you have the time and patience). As you are a Mac user, Logic is definitely worth considering. It may be the most familiar to you coming from Garageband as Apple seems to be working to maintain some interface similarities among it's audio applications.


----------



## Elephant (Nov 27, 2015)

kdm said:


> The fastest DAW to use is going to be the one you like at first glance, learn extensively, and still like once you've done a few projects with it. I know that isn't a simple "this is better" answer, but it is the best way to figure out what works for you.


Only one problem. I do not yet have the experience to know what I should be looking for. I am trying to piggyback on people's experience here and thus avoid months of horror in trying things that eventually lead to a dead end. I am really interested in hearing specifics about what is fastest for people here and why, and from people who are well-enough versed in what they have tried to be able to offer a meaningful view. 

That way I can learn before actually trying stuff and it will make my choices of what I try that much more informed. Clearly I expect to have to invest time, but I want to do that knowing that my learning will not be wasted because of some gotcha that makes the workflow needed on that DAW significantly more convoluted than it need be. I am not asking the question as to which DAW will work fastest for me, just what others' experience is for them. Then I can better decide what I try out.

Interesting point kdm on the VST expression maps, and the quick recall of controller lanes - that is exactly the kind of thing I am trying to identify. One thing is for definite that I will be using a tablet with a touch screen and something like Lemur or TouchOSC as a controller to make things quicker.


----------



## kdm (Nov 27, 2015)

Well, there is no easy way to accomplish your goal as I understand it - creating more realistic midi mockups. That requires skill and practice, and most DAWs will provide the opportunity to develop your skills, but none will shortcut that process for you. It's honestly better to use what you have and figure out where you think you are limited - then you will have a problem to solve with a new DAW, and a way to pick which one (you don't want to waste money on guesswork, or even taking someone else's preference and advice that may not apply to you).

But to give you my experience - I use Nuendo. It works very well. So does Digital Performer. I've also had great success with ProTools, though it lacks the midi editing tools of Nuendo. Nuendo is more cpu/ASIO efficient than DP or PT; but DP has slightly better tools for some aspects of film scoring; Nuendo's GUI is much easier on the eyes than DP's tiny GUI. I can work in either with no problem.

But which is the most important may depend on not just preference, but how adept you are with midi, orchestration, arranging, mixing. I don't use Exp Maps, but I will qualify that by saying as a skilled pianist/keyboard player, it is simply faster for me to record articulations than work with key switches and edit them. There are a lot of composers using Expression Maps in Cubase, and a lot using Logic, DP, Studio One, or ProTools with superb results, but different preferences and tradeoffs. 

Given your background, if you can demo Logic, you should. You should also demo Cubase (Artist would be a good place to start), and perhaps Studio One. Read enough of each manual to start doing basic tasks and then you will likely develop more specific questions you need answered and problems you want to solve. I'm not trying to be dismissive at all - your query is really just a bit to broad to actually help. Cubase is probably the safest bet as it is probably the most well-rounded DAW at the moment. It also isn't overly costly to start with Artist and upgrade to Cubase Pro later, or start with Pro if the $600 isn't a big deal and you like the demo.

Maybe others will chime in with specific pros/cons of their DAW of choice to help you build a list to compile and compare.


----------



## jonathanwright (Nov 28, 2015)

I guess I'd better chime in 

Elephant, just so you know, I worked with Logic for around 9 years before moving over to Cubase around 2 years ago. Over the last few months I've been back in Logic again part of the time due to various projects I'm working on, so I've worked for a fair bit in both DAW's independently before using both at the same time.

I'm afraid there's no real way to give you a definitive answer. I can say that you can do pretty much the same things in both DAW's. Cubase is better at some things, Logic is better at some things. Cubase has the Logical Editor, Logic has the Environment. After using both in tandem for a few months I can say I never think 'I wish I was using the other DAW'.

Many other factors come into play. Such as which orchestral libraries you use, do they require keyswitching, or MIDI channel switching? Logic has it's own alternatives to Expression Maps now (in fact I tend towards Logic so I can use SkiSwitcher when working with East West libraries as I find EM's a bit clunky).

As you mention you've already worked in Garageband, Logic X may be the way to go initially. When booting up for the first time it's actually in 'Garageband Mode' until you go into preferences to enable the advanced features. You'll also be able to open your old projects in it. Unfortunately there's no demo, but it really is very good value for money.

Once you've used Logic for a while, maybe download the demo of Cubase?

If you've got the cash to buy and learn both, I can recommend the Mac Pro Video tutorials as they'll get you up to speed on the basics very quickly.

Studio One 3 is definitely another consideration. I've been using it a bit on personal projects and it really is very easy to learn.


----------



## dtonthept (Nov 28, 2015)

The above answers are very spot on and absolutely right.

But I'll come right off the fence and suggest you learn Reaper.

The exact details of your work flow will emerge as you practise, you'll find a way to achieve the results you need regardless. But having used pro tools for decades, and spent a lot of the last year on logic, cubase, and reaper, I felt that for me, investing time and money in Reaper feels like the best investment. 

There have been a couple of threads about this recently, including one active one I am updating about my gradual switchover to Reaper for commercial work. At present I'm still playing with it in my downtime more than full time. 

This may or may not help, but at the end of the day you'll be golden whichever way you turn if you invest the time. For my stuff, I feel reaper will give me the best return on investment. 

Check out the videos on the reaper site, and reaperblog.net for good videos on very specific features, the depth and configurability of reaper is stunning, and quite opposite to what I originally perceived the daw to be about.


----------



## Elephant (Nov 28, 2015)

Thanks Jonathan, appreciated. Whilst it seems that all the major DAWs CAN produce a good quality result, I'd like to know which one(s) are fastest. Maybe we can quantity it - x hours per 3 minutes of orchestral music with 22 staves for example, working from a printed sheet of music as an input (i.e. a pre-done arrangement suitable for live musicians). I am just trying to get a feel for this. Which one is the fastest for them out of the ones you have had decent experience on. It's not a trick question !! Is Logic faster than Cubase for you Jonathan for example, or the other way round ? By how much ? Or is S1 faster for you than both the others ? I would really like to get some impressions on this from a few people.


----------



## dtonthept (Nov 28, 2015)

DAW are not like cars, there isn't a way of measuring 0-100mph empirically.


----------



## Brendon Williams (Nov 28, 2015)

Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as you're trying to make it. What makes one DAW faster for one person can be exactly what makes it slow for another person. When it comes down to it, any of the major DAWs can be quite fast to work with it as long as you know as many key commands as possible and know your DAW as thoroughly as possible. Don't just learn the basics of whichever DAW you choose - study it in depth, either using a course or the manual. There are often multiple ways of accomplishing the same tasks, but it's not until you know all of those ways that you can know you're doing something as efficiently as possible. 

Personally, I find Logic to be the most comfortable to use, and the fastest for my workflow. I've also used Digital Performer, Pro Tools, FL Studio, and Sonar enough to use relatively efficiently, and Logic is just the most comfortable for me even though it's not the one I started with. But I know composers who prefer all of the other DAWs I mentioned, and yes, speed is one of the reasons for them.

I know this is not the answer you're looking for, but it's the truth! If things were as simply as you're trying to make them, most people would use the same DAW.


----------



## Elephant (Nov 28, 2015)

dtonthept said:


> DAW are not like cars, there isn't a way of measuring 0-100mph empirically.


True. But one DAW will be faster than another for the same individual, given what else they have in their rig. It has to be that way because they are not all the same. That's equally obvious.

Brendon, you have found Logic to be faster for you given your workflow than the others you mentioned. Can you shed some light on what specifically about your workflow and which features in Logic make it faster for you ?
That is exactly the kind of info I am looking for, and from someone who does MIDI mockups as a pro as one of the services you offer, that feedback will be invaluable.

Thanks v much
E


----------



## kdm (Nov 28, 2015)

I think the answer most professional composers will give you is that no DAW is faster for them, but they may say one is faster simply because it is the one they have used for years and know best.

Which DAW is faster usually isn't a relevant question until you have been scoring for real world clients for at least 5 years - i.e. to the point at which certain tasks become part of your typical day. Then a specific DAW might be more efficient at that task (e.g. fewer key strokes), but even then we are talking 5 seconds. Added up over a day or a week, it makes a difference, but only if you have an efficient workflow and write quickly, with deadlines already.

For me the simple answer is "none". The complex answer is this:
1 - DP is faster for setting up cues to pictures; using it's notation editor (Quickscribe) for quick arrangement overview; and modifying CC data and tempo changes with curves.
2 - Nuendo is faster for mixing, automation and GUI access.

Here is a quick story on "which is faster" that I found in real world work:

I moved to DP9 for one project due to an issue with Nuendo - out of situational necessity rather than frustration or seeking a faster alternative. I learned DP quickly, setup an identical template, and got back to scoring (yes, this was faster than solving the issue as I already knew DP fairly well). At the time, DP seemed faster in some areas of my work - editing CC data, window management, using Quickscribe (which is better at interpreting raw midi data than Cubase/Nuendo's score editor), and of course Chunks for versions and multiple cue access. After the project I went back to Nuendo to solve the issue I ran into previously, leading me to rebuild my template and prefs, again identical to my DP template simply to have two options if ever needed. I also spent a day or two adapting some features I liked and found faster in DP, to my Nuendo workflow, albeit in slightly different ways.

The end result is that I sped up my workflow in Nuendo as well. DP still is superior for tempo editing, and slightly better for tempo mapping (they are different tasks if you follow the process). Chunks are still highly advantageous. But Nuendo is more cpu/ASIO efficient. So there is a tradeoff that only applies in certain circumstances, but not as a general rule even for one type of music or project. I've used Nuendo for years, so I will stick with it mainly because DP's GUI is harder to read for long hours.

Net result - neither is faster - it's all in how you use the tools each has to offer and apply it to specific tasks YOU want to accomplish. Until you know what those tasks are, faster/slower for someone else is meaningless.

But sticking with one DAW and learning it well is almost always going to be more productive than switching, or basing your choice on someone else's opinion. Ask 10 Logic, Cubase, or Reaper users how fast they write 5 minutes of a specific style of music and you will get 10 different answers. The same applies to any DAW - it depends on the user, the material, and the circumstances. 

I think until you dive into scoring for picture, learn the musical and technical mechanics, and then spend some time doing it under pressure, no "my DAW is faster because of x" answers are going to have any real world meaning for you. It might seem helpful, but honestly you would be just as well off putting names in a hat and drawing one out.

Why not start with Logic since you are on Mac? It is also inexpensive. But far from being a "starting point", Logic can take you as far as you might progress in your career without skipping a beat.


----------



## dtonthept (Nov 28, 2015)

Elephant said:


> True. But one DAW will be faster than another for the same individual, given what else they have in their rig. It has to be that way because they are not all the same. That's equally obvious.



The one they know best will be fastest, the human element is a huge variable here. 

The above post sums it up perfectly, even if you could point to one thing that's cool in a certain DAW you could adapt your work flow elsewhere to compensate. 

But I'll go back to my original reply anyway, which is that you should try Reaper. It's an incredibly efficient piece of software and incredibly easy to modify to your liking, so on both a technical and human level it's incredibly fast. It's not as established as Logic or Cubase so there may not be as much information out there about how to achieve specific tasks, but that also places it at an advantage as it's not built on ancient paradigms and code. 

I found that Cubase is very much set up in a way that reminds me of a hardware setup - no value judgement either way on this fact, it's just something evident about the paradigm. 

Similarly, Pro Tools is built off a tape editing and analogue engineering paradigm. 

Logic is... Well, it's "logic" 

Good luck!


----------



## Elephant (Nov 28, 2015)

Thanks guys. Interesting discussion. Nice anecdotes as well. 
E


----------



## jonathanwright (Nov 29, 2015)

Elephant said:


> Is Logic faster than Cubase for you Jonathan for example, or the other way round ? By how much ? Or is S1 faster for you than both the others ?



I can only +1 the points that have already been made.

To answer your specific question, after working with both Cubase and Logic in tandem for the last six months, I can safely say there is no difference in the speed in which I can compose in each one, simply because I'm used to them both now.

Studio One 3 is very fast to work with, but if you need a score editor/Expression Map like functionality ignore it, it doesn't have those features yet.


----------



## Elephant (Nov 29, 2015)

Thanks Jonathan.
Rgds
E


----------



## stigc56 (Nov 29, 2015)

I have been on that journey too! After so many years of using Logic and before that C-Lab Creator and Notator I got tired of some of Logics flaws. Sitting in front of a DAW 10 hours a day for months gives you a certain insight in the design errors. My choice was to try them all: Reaper, Cubase 8, DP8 & 9, Pro Tools and Studio One, and I must say that Cubase 8 is the most complete DAW for my work which is much the same as yours.
The Midi Editor is far more sophisticated than Logic, but maybe DP 9 is on par here. But in DP9 you HAVE to adapt to the work flow, it's cumbersome to hide tracks you're not using, it's difficult to read the text in the GUI, it's not that efficient on the CPU and the paradigm with midi tracks having the main focus was very hard for me to adapt to. The mixer is kind of clever but then again if you want to solo a track you have to press solo on the midi track and not on the channel where it returns!
And then there is Expression Maps (EM), the holy grail in Cubase. If you want to use a lot of keyswitching VI's then EM is where you invest your "design a template" time, especially VSL libraries which have a ton of articulations. Cubase 8 has its share of errors too, but when it comes to midi editing I think everyone who has tried them all will agree that it's just a tiny bit better.
I know I'm the only one in this thread (until now  who has been ready to announce my favourite but given the kind of work you plan to do and that being very much like my own situation, I think it's all right. Anyway there will be tons of threads that you can waste so much time on, that will tell you that every DAW basically is same standard, but that is not true. They are all indeed very different and will be advantageous for very different jobs.


----------



## Tonberry (Dec 1, 2015)

Just wanted to chime about Reaper 

Quick CC recall keybinds are also present in Reaper, and like another user said, they're amazing! Once you get used to them, it's hard to imagine working without them.

Shortcuts are really what makes Reaper one of the fastest DAWs around - since everything is so customizable and even the most ridiculous actions can be assigned to a key (with the free SWS extension, there's literally more than a thousand of them). Another example is individual commands to solo MIDI channels in MIDI editor. You can assign separate key to a channel and solo it at will. More than that - you can assign keys to toggle MIDI channel visibility. In other words, if you just want channel 3 and 7 to be visible, you press two keys and it's done  Quickly mute the rest (with another assigned key) to solo-tweak CCs of those two channels without jumping to the mixer and back - often quicker even if you have mixer on full screen on second monitor.

Not only Reaper has those three things mentioned, but it has all three and those alone speed things up nicely.

One thing to keep in mind though is how effective you are with shortcuts. Someone who forgets bindings and doesn't spit keyboard combos with his eyes closed will not be able to utilize the amazing speed potential of Reaper and will benefit so much more from a program that's intuitive. And about that...

Reaper is an endless list of "blocks" of which you yourself have to build a workflow. It takes time and patience. If you are a person that wants a software that's well thought out and intuitive out of the box, avoid Reaper like the plague, it's the opposite of that! Many people expect developers to provide ready and effective workflow instead of wasting time on endless tweaking - Reaper doesn't do that and probably never will. It takes a lot of time to "get there" with Reaper.

Another thing is that every major modern DAW is super capable so no matter what choice you will make, it will be a good choice


----------



## dtonthept (Dec 1, 2015)

Beautiful summary above about what excited me the most about Reaper, and why I feel it's the daw that will provide the greatest return on investment of time to learn and shape it to your vision.


----------



## kitekrazy (Dec 1, 2015)

Never tried Cubase but working with other DAWs on PC I found Studio One is the easiest to transition to. I collect DAWs like people collect VSTs. I find them all quite different and some are more inspiring to different genres.


----------



## Vik (Dec 2, 2015)

stigc56 said:


> And then there is Expression Maps (EM), the holy grail in Cubase. If you want to use a lot of keyswitching VI's then EM is where you invest your "design a template" time, especially VSL libraries which have a ton of articulations. Cubase 8 has its share of errors too, but when it comes to midi editing I think everyone who has tried them all will agree that it's just a tiny bit better.
> I know I'm the only one in this thread (until now  who has been ready to announce my favourite but given the kind of work you plan to do and that being very much like my own situation, I think it's all right. Anyway there will be tons of threads that you can waste so much time on, that will tell you that every DAW basically is same standard, but that is not true. They are all indeed very different and will be advantageous for very different jobs.


Regarding your "that is not true" – I totally agree. 
Yes, many people state either that the ADW they happen tu use is the best, or that they are all equally good if you only learn them, but IMHO that's plain wrong. I have had a couple of months with Cubase, and I know Logic really well, but unfortunately: after very short time of trying out Cubase, I found it faster and easier to use (in many ways related to composing with virtual instruments) than Logic.

As a matter of fact, I doubt that there are many DAWs out there which are as counter-intuitive as Logic when it comes to entering and editing Dynamics/Vibrato (etc) automation as Logic.

There were actually things I could do faster after two days with the Cubase demo than I could do after 22 years with Logic.

But maybe that's a topic for a different thread?


----------



## dtonthept (Dec 2, 2015)

Ha on many levels I agree with the above statement RE Logic, but having seen so many other people use it happily and effectively I filed it under "different strokes for different folks" 

Having spent a few months learning Cubase on the side, seeing how effective other people were on it, I was persuaded to try reaper briefly, and almost immediately found it more effective than Cubase had been after all that time. 

So, ugh, at the risk of sounding a bit kumbaya, it's all which one is better for you as the user. Let's hug it out


----------



## Vik (Dec 3, 2015)

dtonthept said:


> at the risk of sounding a bit kumbaya, it's all which one is better for you as the user


Well, that's a matter of fact, but the topic is about more than that. 

For instance, we can't discuss if Logic or Cubase has the best implementation of Expression Maps, because Logic doesn't have any. So I'm all for skipping the Kumbaya-layer, and looking at hard facts only – in this case.


----------



## jonathanwright (Dec 3, 2015)

Vik said:


> Well, that's a matter of fact, but the topic is about more than that.
> 
> For instance, we can't discuss if Logic or Cubase has the best implementation of Expression Maps, because Logic doesn't have any. So I'm all for skipping the Kumbaya-layer, and looking at hard facts only – in this case.



..and this is where the whole subject can get even more complicated.

I _much_ prefer the combination of SkiSwitcher2 and Logic X to using Expression Maps in Cubase, as Cubase has a habit of reverting to MIDI channel 1 when stopping and starting the transport. Something of workflow killer for me.

However I prefer the MIDI editing features in Cubase. So, as always there'll always be a trade off one way or the other.


----------



## Vik (Dec 3, 2015)

There are several (4? 5?) add-on products for Logic which all do some of the stuff that hasn't been implemented in Logic, and that's great – but the real problem is IMO not only that Logic doesn't have this built in (I often go back to old projects, their backups/versions/alternatives etc, and would of course prefer a solution which doesn't mean installing extra objects into these projects), plus: None of the 3rd part solutions support Logic's own Articulation ID parameter (because they don't seem to talk to 3rd part plugins), and relying on eg. MIDI channel switching for switching articulations means that anything which needs Logic's polyphony feature (where each MIDI channel represents one of the polyphonic voices) is of course impossible if the MIDI channels are tied up to articulations. 

A workaround is a workaround. It's too bad that Steinberg hasn't fixed that Channel 1 bug, but most likely, it's more realistic to hope for a Cubase fix than to assume that Apple will implement proper articulation control in Logic. This, and the fact that Steinberg as 12+ people working on a new score app (which of course will be taylor made for working closely with Cubase) is another argument pro strongly considering Cubase - for composers who use the score editor.


----------



## jonathanwright (Dec 3, 2015)

I think the point I'm trying to (confusingly) make is that - for now - I prefer Cubase in some respects and Logic in others, and as every composer has a different workflow and brain process, it's very difficult to definitively say one is better than the other to someone who's used neither.

What may look like great features on paper might baffle me, but others will love them. What I consider a fantastic functionality might make others want to throw their DAW under a bus.



We're just lucky to have the choice I guess.


----------



## EuropaWill (May 4, 2017)

dtonthept said:


> Ha on many levels I agree with the above statement RE Logic, but having seen so many other people use it happily and effectively I filed it under "different strokes for different folks"
> 
> Having spent a few months learning Cubase on the side, seeing how effective other people were on it, I was persuaded to try reaper briefly, and almost immediately found it more effective than Cubase had been after all that time.
> 
> So, ugh, at the risk of sounding a bit kumbaya, it's all which one is better for you as the user. Let's hug it out


Can you explain how Reaper is more effective at articulation and CC automation in a midi-mockup than Cubase?


----------

