# Why are DAWs so stubborn???



## jemu999 (May 27, 2016)

This is a bit of rant.... but I have a bone to pick with some of the DAWs and their development.

Over the past decade I have worked predominately with Cubase, Pro Tools, & Reaper. But very often, I will check out and research the other DAWS and their new features. 

And whenever any one of these DAWs comes up with a new feature, especially a feature that builds upon an existing workflow, thereby creating a clearly better workflow, other DAWs seem to stubbornly ignore the feature, _sometimes for years_.

At times, when users bring up features of other DAWS on their particular DAW forum, there seems to be a pushback by users and the devs. It is as though the mere mentioning of other DAWS and their features somehow makes you a disloyal user!

If Cadillac develops a windshield wiper, as opposed to ignoring it, Ford should say, "yup, that's a great idea, let's do the same thing, or make it even better!" 

At the end of the day, all of the DAWS are there to serve the exact same purpose. They all share basically the same workflow. IMO, developers should be very attentive to the features and developments of other DAWs, and accept a better feature as something to either reproduce, or better yet, build upon for something even better!

Rant Done.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2016)

This is misguided IMHO. They do ALL look at what their competitors brings to the table and it is more common than not for one to eventually add something if not the same, similar. And there is no such thing as a "a clearly better workflow," far too subjective a thing for there to be.

And they are selling products, so you cannot expect a Cubase developer to _publicly_ say, "Whoa, that is a GREAT new feature in DP, we have got to try to add that to Cubase."

That would not be smart business practice and if someone at Ford did that in your Ford/Cadillac example, the stockholders would be calling for the removal of his head from his torso. And rightly.

As Logic user since 1.0, I will not be switching but I have been frank in saying that I love DP's Chunks feature and hit point plotting, Cubase's Expression Maps, etc. Where I do tend to dig in my heals however, is when someone does not merely praise their DAW but knock mine.


----------



## tack (May 28, 2016)

I think the most frustrating part about software is when parts of it fit you like a glove, but the parts that don't are so aggravating they make you want to scream into a pillow. (I'm looking at you, Reaper.)

Ultimately it all comes down to resources and prioritization. Reaper is a tiny team, and this lets them iterate at blistering speeds when they are focused on a feature. But as a small team they have to be very judicious about what they work on.

Larger teams have more resources but the pace is slower if for no other reason than Brooks' law (which explains the quadratic complexity of team communication and "adding people to a late project makes it later"). Larger companies have more processes, internal politics, and other bureaucracy that slow their pace to a fraction of what those people could do individually. (And in my day job I have intimate experience with this mode of operation.)

Small teams are more likely to scratch personal itches, and I think we see this with Reaper (unfortunately their itches so rarely align with mine). But ultimately, both large and small, if backed by companies, will be most strongly influenced by large customers and other partnerships in where to direct their energy.


----------



## Vik (May 28, 2016)

Chunks and Expression maps seem to serve as two perfect examples of situations where Apple has *not* looked into what the competition has been doing (for years) and come up with something similar (let alone something better).

Sorry for "knocking" the DAW we both have been using since version 1, Jay.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2016)

Vik said:


> Chunks and Expression maps seem to serve as two perfect examples of situations where Apple has *not* looked into what the competition has been doing (for years) and come up with something similar (let alone something better).
> 
> Sorry for "knocking" the DAW we both have been using since version 1, Jay.


 Why would you assume that they have not looked into it, as opposed to just not been able to successfully implement? A lot of lines of code get affected. 

Actually, LP X Project Alternatives, while not as good as DP chunks, is a decent step in that direction.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2016)

tack said:


> I think the most frustrating part about software is when parts of it fit you like a glove, but the parts that don't are so aggravating they make you want to scream into a pillow .



I know that I am different from most people in that I rarely get to that point. I don't approach software expecting it to be perfect any more than I expect people to be. With both, I prefer to focus on what I like than what I do not.


----------



## Vik (May 28, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Why would you assume that they have not looked into it, as opposed to just not been able to successfully implement? A lot of lines of code get affected.
> 
> Actually, LP X Project Alternatives, while not as good as DP chunks, is a decent step in that direction.


Well, I don't know if they have not looked into it or if they have not been able to to successfully implement (or improve). But - referring to the original post ("other DAWs seem to stubbornly ignore the feature, _sometimes for years_"), it certainly looks like they stubbornly have been ignoring certain areas of Logic for years; for _a lot of_ years, actually. Film composers have been wanting to have a way to to have several cues - each with it's own, unique tempo map/timeline in Logic for ages now. If each of Logic's region folders could have it's own, independent tempo map (this could also have been implemented with cues appearing as "tabs" in the Arrange window), the problem would have been solved, and in a more elegant way than what MoTu seems to offer. Maybe there are even better ways to solve the problem, eg. by introducing the option to have an Arrange window which can be split horizontally - this would let us fully see and edit each of our cues at in the same window, while looking at the overlapping cues (in that same window). 
Cubase got Expression Maps when..... 2008? 2009? Logic still don't have them. So "other DAWs seem to stubbornly ignore the feature, _sometimes for years_" sounds like a good description to me. And don't get me started on score features....

It isn't really important, the way I see it, if they have ignored looking at the competition or have failed coming up with something similar or better. Whichever way you look at it, Apple is one of the most wealthy and powerful corporations on the planet, and they certainly could have done something with the score editor shortcomings/Expression Maps/independent timelines/chunks a long time ago - _if they wanted_ to, that is.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2016)

Well to be fair, film and media composers are a very small part of the Logic user base and so probably when they are allocating on what they need to spend their development hours working on, which is sometimes dictated by Apple to the Logic developers, their needs are not the highest priority. So I would not characterize that as "stubbornness", just following the money. 

And honestly, no developer wants their existing customers to be unhappy so if they do not add requested features it HAS to be because of either difficulty with existing code, higher priorities for development time, etc. They don't sit and say, "Well all these users want this feature, but dammit, we are not going to do it!"

Happily, Peter's SkiSwitcher 2 has made the lack of Expression Maps a non-issue for me.


----------



## snattack (May 28, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Well to be fair, film and media composers are a very small part of the Logic user base and so probably when they are allocating on what they need to spend their development hours working on, which is sometimes dictated by Apple to the Logic developers, their needs are not the highest priority. So I would not characterize that as "stubbornness", just following the money.
> 
> And honestly, no developer wants their existing customers to be unhappy so if they do not add requested features it HAS to be because of either difficulty with existing code, higher priorities for development time, etc. They don't sit and say, "Well all these users want this feature, but dammit, we are not going to do it!"
> 
> Happily, Peter's SkiSwitcher 2 has made the lack of Expression Maps a non-issue for me.



I agree here. I was a Cubase user for 10 years, but switched to Logic half a year ago. Skiswitcher works better than expression maps ever did in Cubase.

Still, there are plenty of things LPX lacks that needs workaround. Especially in my 500+ tracks setup (with about 5000+ channels combined with Skiswitcher), the standard mixer is WAY to laggy to ever use, so I had to build one in the environment, which works fine.

IMO Steinberg abandoned professional users in Cubase 7 and forward just as much as Apple is "claimed" to have abandoned the professional userbase in LPX. Protools newer versions have recieved much hatered from collegues in the sound design business, as have DP. DAWs make no money off the small scoring userbase, so instead they're built more and more for "everyone" (which sometimes results in problems for the expert users).

So in the end it just seems one have to choose what they find is the least crappy DAW and carefully build a template with all necessary workarounds. None of the DAWs are really built for the massive setups some of us have (I have a 4 x 32GB slave + 64GB Main DAW system with VEP), so I guess it requires special tweaking rather than getting frustrated.


----------



## samphony (May 28, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Why would you assume that they have not looked into it, as opposed to just not been able to successfully implement? A lot of lines of code get affected.
> 
> Actually, LP X Project Alternatives, while not as good as DP chunks, is a decent step in that direction.


I find region folders do a decent job for such scenarios.


----------



## pmcrockett (May 28, 2016)

This all is pretty much why I switched to Reaper and started scripting my own workflow features. The major advantage is that I can add tools that aren't available in _any_ DAW; the major drawback, of course, is the huge upfront time investment needed to get everything working how I want it to.


----------



## Daniel James (May 28, 2016)

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. Saying this after working on a project where I had to use Cubase for its midi editing abilities, Ableton Live for EDM and sound design, Logic for video rendering and Pro Tools annoyingly just to interface directly with other people on the team. 

I am slowly starting to get used to the multiple DAW way of working but at first it really was endless frustration, now I try to approach it by asking which DAW if focused more on the type of music I am about to write, then use that one. Works a treat actually (cubase for midi orchestral scores and ableton live for sound design hybrid scores comes to mind)

-DJ


----------



## jemu999 (May 28, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> there is no such thing as a "a clearly better workflow," far too subjective a thing for there to be



I _completely_ & respectfully disagree. There are features which are CLEARLY superior.

1.Digital Performer : Chunks feature. Cubase has nothing close to it. DP is superior.

2.Cubase: Expression maps. Pro Tools doesn't have this feature. Thus, Cubase is superior in this workflow.

3.Pro Tools: Smart tool. Cubase pretty much lacks it. Pro Tools is superior.

4.Reaper: Asymmetrical Time Signature: Where by a rhythm like 7/8 can be odd-time: ABB-AB-AB ("A" is downbeat and click plays accordingly) Such a simple workflow. You can't do this in Cubase. Thus, Reaper is just simply superior.

5.Pro Tools: Trim automation feature. Cubase can't touch it. See this post where overwhelmingly users are asking for the exact same features of Pro Tools: https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=228&t=77469
Pro tools has had this feature for years! Thus, quite clearly, Pro Tools is superior.

I could go on and on and on with dozens of examples. And Im willing to bet that Daniel James and so many of us here can quickly come up with obvious examples where one particular feature of a DAW is CLEARLY superior to another.

To say that it "is just too subjective" to truly determine which work flow is better is a cop-out IMHO. In that case, you stifle any progress. Ive heard this type of attitude on DAW forums where die-hard users don't even want to hear about other DAWS and their features.

I submit that my original premise is valid: DAW devs need to pay closer attention to the competition to keep relevant in an increasingly competitive business. I contend that they need to accept a better workflow and enhance it if possible. And finally, pay more attention to the requests of its loyal users.

After all... we use these features on a daily basis for hours on end, day in and day out... years and years. Perhaps we know a thing or two... and perhaps we are smart enough to know, and admit, when one feature is clearly better than another?


----------



## Ashermusic (May 29, 2016)

Maybe we are talking about two different things. What you are pointing out are superior features that each DAW has that contribute to workflow, not a clearly overall better workflow. You cannot simply cherry pick a specific feature that one DAW has and presume that if they simply added it to another DAW it would improve its workflow because it has a ripple effect.

But would I love Chunks in Logic? Sure, but if they are not giving it to me, since they know that I am not alone in this, I assume that either they cannot without spending an inordinate amount of time that takes away from more revenue generating features or those wanted by more users, so they gave us Project Alternatives.

For a large percentage probably of the DAW user base, articulation switching is not something they will ever use. But I am glad that guys like Peter have stepped up to give Logic users a methodology that is apparently comparable (some say superior, I don't know) to Cubase's Expression maps.

The idea that they do not solely out of stubbornness is wrong and just ludicrous. I have known several of the Logic developers for many years and communicate with them all the time, and I can tell you that fine German fellows that they are, they want to make all of us Logic users happy and work hard to do so but sometimes there are competing interests, demands from Apple, lots of lines of code, etc.and there are only so many hours in a day.


----------



## Vik (May 29, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> I assume that either they cannot without spending an inordinate amount of time that takes away from more revenue generating features or those wanted by more users, so they gave us Project Alternatives.


I'd also like to assume that all their decisions are based an a proper evaluation more than just... lack of focus. Whether it's "stubbornness", lack of focus on certain areas or something else, I think it's great that Jemu999 brings up the topic of certain (all?) DAW makers sometimes ignoring certain areas over a long period of time. Jemu probably also knew, before he started this thread, that someone would chime in and say that if area X isn't being developed bu a certain developer, there's good reason for this, and like Jemu (?), I'd certainly rather use forums like this to post something which can inspire DAW makers to focus on areas many of us find important (and which have been ignored for a long time) that to "defend" the DAW makers based on assumptions. Hurray for Jemu!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 29, 2016)

If it makes you feel better, fine, but as is true with most of what I have seen complained about here, it is ineffectual. 

There are some smart people here but I don't think that I have read anything suggested here over the years for Logic e. g. that I don't know for a fact that they have not thought of or been aware of. Because they ALSO are very bright people, smarter and more knowledgeable than most here, and they do what they can and what they believe best. 

OK, Jay out. (drops the microphone)


----------



## dgburns (May 29, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> If it makes you feel better, fine, but as is true with most of what I have seen complained about here, it is ineffectual.
> 
> There are some smart people here but I don't think that I have read anything suggested here over the years for Logic e. g. that I don't know for a fact that they have not thought of or been aware of. Because they ALSO are very bright people, smarter and more knowledgeable than most here, and they do what they can and what they believe best.
> 
> OK, Jay out. (drops the microphone)


Ouch that mic drop hurt me ears matey!

Wonder what part of "feature chasing",or lack thereof is due to possible legal issues.Sometimes it's about having to find a way to implement a "feature" in such a way as to keep the licencing scenarios down,and the lawsuits far away.


----------



## Vik (May 29, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> I don't think that I have read anything suggested here over the years for Logic e. g. that I don't know for a fact that they have not thought of or been aware of.


Fair enough, but I don't thing this is about whether they have not been aware of or thought of changes many of us want. And I'm sure sure eg Cubase users see it the same way - when they find something in Logic they'd like to see in Cubase. 

The bottom line, I guess, is that one needs to find the DAW which seems to have the most strong focus on the kind of functionality each of use need, since several DAWs demonstrate that there are some areas that are important for them and others they hardly focus on. 

There are sometimes polls in forums about what kind of features people want to see in the next major update of their DAW (here are three new Logic polls: one/two/three), and often the features users really want actually are implemented in the next major release. Logic is the DAW I know the best, and I know for sure that long lists of wishes about score improvements have been ignored for many years now. 

And I don't think Apple ignores these wishes for the sake of being stubborn - of course there are other reasons, like eg. they don't think such features (or music teachers/students) are important enough, or that implementing more such features won't generate enough extra sales - and so on. 
One approach is of course to say that keep posting such ideas/wishes is "ineffectual", but if one encourage score users and virtual instrument users not not keep writing about stuff they miss in Logic (synth/loop/EDM users keep posting about stuff they want in Logic all the time), there will be a lack of balance (on forums). 

Since Logic lacks a lot of stuff eg Cubase has, and because lots of what we see in Logic isn't intentional at all (missing notes in score, wrong accidentals even in simple triads etc), my conclusion is the opposite of yours, Jay: don't give up posting about useful suggestions ("because they have already considered those suggestions"), but instead keep posting wishes in forums and directly to Apple which will serve as reminders about the stuff that has been ignored for so many years now. And I'd like to add: don't worry about whether it's ineffectual or not - instead, act as if writing about missing functionality does make a difference. 

And, as it happens, I happen to have heard - from an Apple guy which I know with 100% certainty that knows what he is talking about - that writing about missing functionality in forums (and sending stuff directly to Apple) *does* make a difference. 

I'm sure the same is true for Cubase/Performer etc users as well.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 30, 2016)

I used to be a Cubase warrior. Posted on the Cubase Mac forums, tried, along with some other dedicated musicians, to get Steinberg to listen. However, our main concerns were different- we just wanted the STUFF THAT WAS ALREADY THERE TO WORK. THAT was my battle, and it was exhausting and soul killing because they were mostly adding groovy new features and leaving the same bugs unfixed for years.

After a while though (been on Cubase since the first VST iteration in 1997) Cubase 6 came along, and it mostly worked and very very rarely crashed unless you insisted upon using every last k of RAM. So I figured out a flew workarounds, and there I am still. My last Cubase update was 2011, but my setup is much simpler than a lot of folks. Hundreds, thousands of tracks!! Boggles my tiny mind.

I Learned Happiness Through Acceptance and Got Off The Train. I get a lot of work done. The End.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 30, 2016)

Maybe you should try Reason. It's still years behind the budget DAW. You can't drag n drop midi on a track or change an instrument on a track. They still have their followers and create great stuff. They are the ones who work with limitations that's a blessing and a curse. I guess they don't let blaming the tools to get in their way. 
I have quite a few DAWs and realize I may know 10% of their capabilities. If the DAW police did a raid and said I could only keep one it would be FL Studio only because I never have to pay for an update. 
We tend to treat DAWs like religions and believe we have to stick with one. These fanatics are the ones who type idiotic statements on youtube, "don't be a noob, use Live". At one time on the Sonar forums you would get a beatdown from users when others criticize the problems. DAWs have become religions. You make note of it's inferiority and others will declare jihad. I've seen this with sample libraries too.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2016)

Agreed, Kitekrazy, it gets silly. There are no perfect DAWs and getting heated over someone preferring another to the one(s) you use only reveals some substantial insecurity. You don't see carpenters getting into heated discussions over which hammers and saws are better.

Ditto for sample libraries btw.


----------



## tack (May 30, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> You don't see carpenters getting into heated discussions over which hammers and saws are better.


I am not a carpenter, but I know a couple people in that space and how they relate to their power tools, and I have a feeling that this statement is wrong for nontrivial values of "hammers and saws."


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2016)

tack said:


> I am not a carpenter, but I know a couple people in that space and how they relate to their power tools, and I have a feeling that this statement is wrong for nontrivial values of "hammers and saws."




Then those carpenters are also chowderheads.


----------



## tack (May 30, 2016)

The point is, I think it's not surprising that people should develop strong opinions about the tools they use every day.

Although it's worth mentioning that nobody got heated on _this_ thread.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 31, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Agreed, Kitekrazy, it gets silly. There are no perfect DAWs and getting heated over someone preferring another to the one(s) you use only reveals some substantial insecurity. You don't see carpenters getting into heated discussions over which hammers and saws are better.
> 
> Ditto for sample libraries btw.



Artist endorsements have no influence of my decisions. I am amazed by how many people are insecure about their choices of DAW.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2016)

kitekrazy said:


> Artist endorsements have no influence of my decisions. I am amazed by how many people are insecure about their choices of DAW.




Exactly. If it works for you, it works for you. Don't be a sheep. Choosing a DAW is not running for Class President in High School.


----------



## Synthmorph (Jun 14, 2016)

jemu999 said:


> 5.Pro Tools: Trim automation feature. Cubase can't touch it. See this post where overwhelmingly users are asking for the exact same features of Pro Tools: https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=228&t=77469
> Pro tools has had this feature for years! Thus, quite clearly, Pro Tools is superior.


This works in Cubase, although a bit undocumented:
https://synthmorph.com/blogs/news/183221383-cubase-jump-automation-the-easy-way


----------



## dgburns (Jun 14, 2016)

-silly post-

I got Cubase mostly cause the RC crowd are using it-and I think it looks purdy.(confession)
I still mostly work in LPX because I'm faster in it,and I'm getting work done.

but I get a little suckered a bit by the "who's using what" thing.it's true.

-silly post off-


----------



## garyhiebner (Jun 15, 2016)

So instead of there being a best DAW. The other option is to use multiple DAWs to get the job done. I find I work differently for example when using Logic, than when I jump across to Ableton. So use each DAW for its strengths instead of pointing out its weaknesses. The only problem with this is you get stuck in a lot more updates and upgrades. But its worth it. My 2 cents.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 15, 2016)

I will say this. IMHO it is less important which DAW you use than how well you know it. I meet with a lot of self-taught Logic users, some well known and doing high level work, who do not use it nearly as efficiently as they can. After an hour, one said to me, "You just changed my life."

Not shilling for work here, just stating an example of how much it means to _really_ know your DAW of choice.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Jun 15, 2016)

garyhiebner said:


> So use each DAW for its strengths instead of pointing out its weaknesses. The only problem with this is you get stuck in a lot more updates and upgrades. But its worth it. My 2 cents.



James Newton-Howard uses Ableton Live.


----------



## Synthmorph (Jun 15, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> James Newton-Howard uses Ableton Live.


Next to Cubase and Protools.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Jun 15, 2016)

Synthmorph said:


> Next to Cubase and Protools.



yes


----------



## novaburst (Jun 19, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> I will say this. IMHO it is less important which DAW you use than how well you know it. I meet with a lot of self-taught Logic users, some well known and doing high level work, who do not use it nearly as efficiently as they can. After an hour, he said to me, "You just changed my life."
> 
> Not shilling for work here, just stating an example of how much it means to _really_ know your DAW of choice.


So so true these words, its why I have stuck with cubase 5 for so long, but picked up cubase 6 from eBay a few weeks ago such an incredible software, 

I see alot of features in 5 and 6 that are in cubase 8, I will probably be using 6 for a very long time too, 

Once you know what your Daw can do it is a wondering why any would upgrade so soon when the new upgrade comes out, and does not really offer much more in features than a new look.


----------



## jonnybutter (Jun 19, 2016)

<i>3.Pro Tools: Smart tool. Cubase pretty much lacks it. Pro Tools is superior.</i>

I'm not at my workstation right now (and I don't use this feature), but you can do this in LPX too - it's a tool preference.

The one DAW about which the OP might have a point is LPX.

MY complaints about Logic: a.) long-standing bugs that never get fixed, and b.) New bugs/broken features introduced with each new version. There are some things which really do feel like stubbornness, but I understand that it may just be lack of time vis a vis the priorities they have in Cupertino. 

Logic is a little different from some of these others; it and Apple's video apps are such a tiny part of their business that they could lose $ on them for decades and it wouldn't touch Apple's overall financial health. MOTU, AVID, Steinberg, et. al. don't have that luxury. I think there might be an 'optional' problem at Apple. Look at the FCPX fiasco - that was a certain kind of arrogance, not strictly worries about ROI (of course divisions aren't _supposed_ to lose money, but do you think Apple's CFO was kept up nights worrying about all the people who switched to Premiere? Doubt it). I wouldn't blame the actual Logic team though - it's probably an Apple thing.

I am a longtime Logic user BTW, and I intend to keep being one (although I sometimes use others just for fun - like Tracktion). But it does make me curse a little too regularly. It's a love/hate relationship. There are irritating problems, but so much to love too...e.g. I'd pay $200 just for Alchemy.

BTW, I'm new to VI-control, and so happy to have found you. Only been here for a few days and have already learned some good stuff. Great to have fellow composers share experiences (like how the new version of Logic is!).

cheers

Jon


----------



## novaburst (Jun 19, 2016)

jonnybutter said:


> <i>3.Pro Tools: Smart tool. Cubase pretty much lacks it. Pro Tools is superior.</i>



Hahaha yer what a statement my guess is me and many many others will never ever know if this statement is true becuase we probably will never ever try protools and probably will never need to, 

I guess Cubase is is a tool that provides a very good workflow especially for midi edit and crafting, 

But as in other post get to know the ability of your Daw weather it be Cubase, Logic, or ableton, or FL or cakewalk or studio, reaper,

The key is get to know what your Daw can do .


----------



## Vik (Jun 20, 2016)

novaburst said:


> The key is get to know what your Daw can do .


I agree that up to a certain point it's mainly about how well you know your DAW. But if you know your DAW really well, and still find that important stuff is missing or has a cumbersome workflow, and that it has been that way for many years, the term "DAW stubbornness" could actually make sense.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 20, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> James Newton-Howard uses Ableton Live.


JNH is a well-known Cubase user. He's using Live in ReWire mode and uses Pro Tools for stem printing and video hosting.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 20, 2016)

Vik said:


> I agree that up to a certain point it's mainly about how well you know your DAW. But if you know your DAW really well, and still find that important stuff is missing or has a cumbersome workflow, and that it has been that way for many years, the term "DAW stubbornness" could actually make sense.



"Important stuff" is subjective. None of the major DAWs lack something that most of its users consider _that_ important or it would no longer be their DAW. And if Logic is typical of the others , most of the cumbersome comes from people not knowing the best ways to accomplish tasks and incorporating them into their workflow and building them into their templates.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Jun 20, 2016)

AlexRuger said:


> He's using Live in ReWire mode



but he's using


----------



## Vik (Jun 20, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> "Important stuff" is subjective. None of the major DAWs lack something that most of its users consider _that_ important or it would no longer be their DAW.



Well, DAWs aren't only about "most of it's users". And as we know, a number of users migrate from one DAW to another due to features/workflow etc (in the other DAW) which they find important enough to make such a dramatic move. This includes people who have been using Logic/PT/Cubase for a decade or two, so it's not an easy decision.


----------



## jonnybutter (Jun 20, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> And if Logic is typical of the others , most of the cumbersome comes from people not knowing the best ways to accomplish tasks and incorporating them into their workflow and building them into their templates.



This is of course the bottom line. It's probably nowhere more true than in Logic (so take some training!). Lots of stuff hiding in plain sight, as it were. All the modern DAWs are incredibly powerful, esp. compared to how they used to be.

BTW, I didn't start using Logic until about 10-12 years ago (don't remember the version number, but it was a 'Gold' version), but I did use its precursor, Creator/Notator, which had a very cool arrangement feature - a queue you could put your sequences into, and they would play/repeat in that order. I loved that and used it all the time.

Also am thankful for the new 'Alternatives' feature in LXP. Used DP for many years and liked chunks. Alts is very useful.


----------



## novaburst (Jun 21, 2016)

Vik said:


> Well, DAWs aren't only about "most of it's users". And as we know, a number of users migrate from one DAW to another due to features/workflow etc (in the other DAW) which they find important



I think that most if not all Daws have coverd the most important features,

But would say that I have seen some users of Daws Cubase,protools, scream at developers in forums, they would even go as far as to write very abusive language becuase of glitchs, stability problems, blue screen and more,

At the same time other would not at any one time be experiencing these problems,

Some users have big conflicts when using Daws and are very unlucky while many are using the same Daw quite happily with little or no problems,

But by far this is the course of Daw migration,


----------



## Vik (Jun 21, 2016)

novaburst said:


> I think that most if not all Daws have coverd the most important features


Yes and no, if you agree that "most important" isn't a global, commonly agreed upon phenomenon. Pro Tools, for instance, doesn't have a score editor. Only Cubase has built in Expression Maps. Line has features others don't have (relevant for those who use their DAW for live(-ish) work). Only Performer has Chunks, highly relevant for those who do film work. Sibelius isn't a DAW, but I've considered moving from Logic to Sibelius due to some important features (not really score features, even) which Logic doesn't have. 
But what's most important for me probably isn't most important for me, and vice versa. So DAW makers simply need to remember that people use DAWs in different ways, and therefore have different needs.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 22, 2016)

Vik said:


> Pro Tools, for instance, doesn't have a score editor.



Avid would disagree. It's called "Sibelius."

Greedy bastahds.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2016)

Avid has a score editor, Pro Tools doesn't... right? Or have I missed something? Is there a score editor in Pro Tools now?


----------



## Thorsten Meyer (Jun 22, 2016)

Vik said:


> Avid has a score editor, Pro Tools doesn't... right? Or have I missed something? Is there a score editor in Pro Tools now?


No you buy Avid's additional product Sibelius


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2016)

Thorsten Meyer said:


> No you buy Avid's additional product Sibelius


Sure - but if we are talking about DAWs which may have features that are important for some users, Pro Tools (unlike eg Logic and Cubase) doesn't have a built in score editor. I know Avid has one, but that's a different story, at least for many of us. Being able to edit your composition (and print it out) from within your DAW - using notation - was one of the reasons Logic became so popular. 

Sibelius (and the upcoming Dorico) is of course better, in many ways, than the score editors that come inside DAWs like Cubase and Logic, but it's very useful to have them inside the actual DAW instead if need to export/import your MIDI to another app to see/edit it.


----------



## Thorsten Meyer (Jun 22, 2016)

Vik said:


> Sure - but if we are talking about DAWs which may bot have features that are important for some users, Pro Tools (unlike eg Logic and Cubase) doesn't have a built in score editor. I know Avid has one, but that's a different story, at least for many of us. Being able to edit your composition (and print it out) from within your DAW - using notation - was one of the reasons Logic became so popular. Sibelius (and the upcoming Dorico) is of course better, in many ways, than the score editors that come inside DAWs like Cubase and Logic, but it's very useful to have them inside the actual DAW instead if need to export/import your MIDI to another app to see/edit it.



For Avid this comes down to positioning and product strategy.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2016)

Sure, Thorsten, what I commented was Novaburst's "I think that most if not all DAWs have covered the most important features"... we don't all have the same opinion about what's important and what's not.


----------



## Thorsten Meyer (Jun 22, 2016)

Vik said:


> Sure, Thorsten, what I commented was Novaburst's "I think that most if not all DAWs have covered the most important features"... we don't all have the same opinion about what's important and what's not.


I wonder as well how Steinbergs newest product fits into the mix


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2016)

Dorico isn't out until Q3 this year - I'm sure it will be good, there's some info here and there about it, but like Sibelius, it comes as a standalone program. For instance (and unfortunately), it doesn't have audio tracks.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 22, 2016)

Vik said:


> Avid has a score editor, Pro Tools doesn't... right? Or have I missed something? Is there a score editor in Pro Tools now?



I was making a joke.


----------



## chrysshawk (Jun 22, 2016)

I think and hope the way forward is a way these DAWs can be linked in a way similar to what VEP did with plugins and also what Ableton Link has started doing. But bugs might become a nightmare, and the companies have never wanted to collaborate towards such anneffort.

Currently I do multidaw all the way, but the process is way too manual innterms of integrating them and coming up with an intelligent workflow that uses the best features of yourself and each daw.

But the lack of development in the daw world has been mindboggling. It would take a decent programmer a couple hours to make a midi editing window where you could add as many midi cc curvea innthe same area, with different color for each, so that anyone can edit 10 midi cc curves instantly. But nobody has implemented this for 20 years. Stuff like this makes me seriously wonder, all the time I suspect I'm not the only user who despises the process of manipulating CC curves.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2016)

I also wonder about the thing you mention, chrysshawk, and about a lot of similar things. It feel sometimes as if the daw developers aren't aware of what's happening in the area we are working with.


----------



## chrysshawk (Jun 22, 2016)

Vik said:


> I also wonder about the thing you mention, chrysshawk, and about a lot of similar things. It feel sometimes as if the daw developers aren't aware of what's happening in the area we are working with.


Maybe so, but take Ableton for instance. People make EDM with it and need midi CC to manipulate their softsynths. But if there ever was a shitty midi CC implementation, Ableton is it! Made me purchase Cubase for that feature only.


----------



## samphony (Jun 23, 2016)

chrysshawk said:


> But the lack of development in the daw world has been mindboggling. It would take a decent programmer a couple hours to make a midi editing window where you could add as many midi cc curvea innthe same area, with different color for each, so that anyone can edit 10 midi cc curves instantly. But nobody has implemented this for 20 years. Stuff like this makes me seriously wonder, all the time I suspect I'm not the only user who despises the process of manipulating CC curves.



In Logic Pro you can edit your 10 or 20 CCs in the tracks area of you toggle automation view and switch from Track to Region automation.


----------



## novaburst (Jun 23, 2016)

Vik said:


> Yes and no, if you agree that "most important" isn't a global, commonly agreed upon phenomenon


I do believe that there are features on certain Daws that are very attractive depending on what music you are producing,

So for instance dance music would not necessarily need notation, so it become none and voice, but the main features of cubase would be necessary, but these main features can be found in most Daws.

Daws do have additional features but alot of these features that come inside the Daw can be purchased as 3rd party plugins as they tend to work better than the Daws built in features,


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2016)

novaburst said:


> alot of these features that come inside the Daw can be purchased as 3rd party plugins as they tend to work better than the Daws built in features,


True, but if you ask 100 composers who use a DAW and a score editor if he would rather work in one app instead of two (eliminating the need to switch/transfer files, learn two different workflows/key commands etc) - how many would prefer to work in two if they could get just as good results using 1?


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2016)

samphony said:


> In Logic Pro you can edit your 10 or 20 CCs in the tracks area of you toggle automation view and switch from Track to Region automation.


Yes, but the workflow where you can, in any editor you want, see multiple lanes of CC automation at the same time makes much more sense once you have tried it, at least for many of us.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 23, 2016)

Vik said:


> Yes, but the workflow where you can, in any editor you want, see multiple lanes of CC automation at the same time makes much more sense once you have tried it, at least for many of us.




You can do that in Logic's Step Editor.


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2016)

Sure. But it can't in the editors I actually use.


----------



## rgarber (Jun 23, 2016)

Interesting thread. I switched from Sonar (Skylight interface where I just could not grasp the thing) to Studio One (the retailers were saying pretty much the same thing, it's new, it's built from scratch using new technology and so forth) so that's what I switched to. What made the decision the right "thing" was seeing productivity which dropped to almost zero with Skylight to bunches and bunches getting done.

For the most part I'm pretty content with Studio One but that's not to say I haven't thought about still using Sonar, so I bought the latest version and it's collecting dust. Not because there's anything wrong with it but as others have pointed out, seems like it be an organizational nightmare keeping up with two DAWs instead of one. Like for instance, how do you know what to backup, where the final copies of each are stored and so forth. Heck, I can't even get organized with one DAW.

I think Sonar is real pretty. Sometimes that graphical edge beats the plain if not just to keep motivated. I think the folks who said just get better at what you have is probably the best advice. I've seen others say that too about Sample libraries. Get good at what you have and stop buying everything in sight. Unfortunately I had already bought everything in sight. You'd be surprise how many Christmas cards I get...

Speaking of Sibelius, I thought those guys threw in the towel. I prefer Notion, it's so easy to input notes. Needs more beef in the format department though.

Rich


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 23, 2016)

Vik said:


> Sure. But it can't in the editors I actually use.




As I have said many times, presumably, we are smarter than software so we need to adapt to how the software works best instead of expecting the latter. Or switch to software that is more in line with what we want.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Jun 23, 2016)

rgarber said:


> Interesting thread. I switched from Sonar (Skylight interface where I just could not grasp the thing) to Studio One........
> Rich



This goes to prove Jays earlier point, to each his own. I love Sonar. I bought Cubase and hated it. I watched Studio One videos and did not like what I saw. Cakewalk programmers think like recording engineers. The others think like computer programmers, at least that is what it seems like to me.


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> As I have said many times, presumably, we are smarter than software so we need to adapt to how the software works best instead of expecting the latter. Or switch to software that is more in line with what we want.


A guy I know who works in Apple actually said the opposite - that it's a good idea to write about and start discussions about missing features in Logic - in public forums. But sometimes it almost sounds as you have something against posting about Logic's shortcomings in forums. However, I'm sure you are not.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 23, 2016)

I am not. ALL software has a design philosophy that has aspects we like or may not like and almost none will have unanimous agreement, even if the developers could just simply implement a theoretically unanimous laundry list.

We HAVE to be smarter than software or only use a very limited amount that works almost exactly as we wish, whether it is DAWS or plug-ins or be constantly frustrated. I choose _not_ to be constantly frustrated and simply adapt.


----------



## chrysshawk (Jun 23, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> We HAVE to be smarter than software or only use a very limited amount that works almost exactly as we wish, whether it is DAWS or plug-ins or be constantly frustrated. I choose _not_ to be constantly frustrated and simply adapt.


Smarter than software? I literally have no clue what you're talking about!  But sure, I rarely try to be more stupid than it, as if a software even has the trait of "smartness".

However, we will all work with what is available. Time is for instance available to a limited extent. Because of that, limitations in software will not give me any other grief than to realize it will either take more time to make something work great, or I will spens less time making it less great. Consequently, limitations in DAWs will limit the amount of quality music outputted.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 23, 2016)

Vik said:


> Sibelius isn't a DAW, but I've considered moving from Logic to Sibelius due to some important features (not really score features, even) which Logic doesn't have..



I'm curious !!


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 23, 2016)

chrysshawk said:


> Smarter than software? I literally have no clue what you're talking about!  But sure, I rarely try to be more stupid than it, as if a software even has the trait of "smartness".
> 
> However, we will all work with what is available. Time is for instance available to a limited extent. Because of that, limitations in software will not give me any other grief than to realize it will either take more time to make something work great, or I will spens less time making it less great. Consequently, limitations in DAWs will limit the amount of quality music outputted.




Pretty simple: smart=adaptable.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 23, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Pretty simple: smart=adaptable.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 23, 2016)

Elephant said:


>





Funny, when I was growing up in Massachusetts, my nickname was Yogi


----------



## Elephant (Jun 23, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Funny, when I was growing up in Massachusetts, my nickname was Yogi


Don't mind me, I was just having a laughing meltdown as I started to rewite the lyrics ("Composers must be smarter then the - av'rage DAW") - I think I'd better leave you good folks in peace so you can all get back on topic ...........

@Vik - interested in your rationale for Sibelius. I still use it for lots of things even though a DAW will give me a better sounding mockup. Maybe Dorico will be the answer ........


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2016)

Elephant said:


> @Vik - interested in your rationale for Sibelius. I still use it for lots of things even though a DAW will give me a better sounding mockup.


First, bear in mind that I think the two most underrated elements in any good composition is harmony and something as vague as "inspiration". One can always construct a good song, but I still believe that there's something called inspiration and that the listener can recognise it in a good musical piece. Sibelius has a good solution for inspired moments, you can save single or multitrack snippets of a song/idea/improvisation in ab "Ideas hub", and this can be accessed from within all other projects. All DAWs/music should IMO be centered around good musical ideas, and Logic has no good solution for this. Sibelius has, and even includes a score preview of all your ideas when browsing them.

And regarding the composing/editing itself, Sibelius has a few things which are brilliant for editing, which logic doesn't have. The most important I can think of right now are:

1) Experienced users work faster with key commands than when using a mouse. But when they change a pitch in Logic, they hear only that pitch. Maybe that's fine for people who aren't into fine tuning the harmonic context of a piece, but for anyone who want to change a note in a piano composition, Sibelius' ability to change that note with a key command AND hear the whole chord when doing that is a godsend. So if I change the G to a G# in a C maj 7 using that key command, I'll hear C E G# B, not only the G#. I know how what a G# sounds like, what I want to know is how a G# will sound in that context. Well, I know that too, but you know what I mean. 

2) Logic has for more than two decades now given new generations of musicians a feeling that they are bad sight readers. That's because Logic doesn't follow normal rules in terms of how sharps and flat shall be displayed. Result: even simple chords are hard to recognise fast enough, because they aren't display in the correct (and easiest to read) way.

3) One should also be able to transpose chords diatonically in a program for composers. Logic can't do that.

4) Likewise, if you move left/right with you key commands, Sibelius will (again) play the full chord, if there is one. Logic doesn't (and this is different than what I described in #1). 

Programs for composers should of course have many other useful tools as well, like key commands for spreading out a chord vertically (so, counting from the lowest note CEG becomes CGE, or invert them (so CEG becomes EGC) - and so on. There are tons of things which could have been improved in Logic from a... _musical_ perspective.

Apple seems to hide behind a idea that "amateurs don't need this and pros will know how to do it manually", but the truth is that amateurs need better automatic solutions because they don't know how to do it, and pros who do these things all day, want an as fast and intuitive way to do things.


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> We HAVE to be smarter than software or only use a very limited amount that works almost exactly as we wish, whether it is DAWS or plug-ins or be constantly frustrated. I choose _not_ to be constantly frustrated and simply adapt.


So you feel that you need to either do the best thing you can with the software you have OR share frustrations about it's shortcomings? Why not do both?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 23, 2016)

Vik said:


> So you feel that you need to either do the best thing you can with the software you have OR share frustrations about it's shortcomings? Why not do both?



You certainly are free to do precisely that. I am just personally not a big fan of venting, not much privately and even less so publicly.

More of a "Oh, just get on with it" guy.


----------



## Vik (Jun 24, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> You certainly are free to do precisely that. I am just personally not a big fan of venting, not much privately and even less so publicly.
> 
> More of a "Oh, just get on with it" guy.


Fair enough, I just don't see it as "venting", but more as an discussion about how there could be better solutions.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 24, 2016)

Vik said:


> First, bear in mind that I think the two most underrated elements in any good composition is harmony and something as vague as "inspiration". One can always construct a good song, but I still believe that there's something called inspiration and that the listener can recognise it in a good musical piece. ...................



Very useful thoughts Vik. Thanks for the exposition. BTW I think it is absolutely right to go to the DAW manufacturers with specific requests and demands for bug fixes, given they want our $$$. It's called customer feedback. Of course you work with what you have got, but why settle for second, third or 4th best ? No sense in that.


----------



## rgarber (Jun 24, 2016)

Vik said:


> First, bear in mind that I think the two most underrated elements in any good composition is harmony and something as vague as "inspiration". ...



Sorry to butt in but in general I think why the Sibelius approach wouldn't work for the developers of such things is because it inhibits their ability to cater to markets like the "loops" guys. I'm not a "loops" guy and I like the Sibelius idea, if for no other reason than to get back to the traditional method of scoring. As a music major in college, a long long time ago, there's a part of me that wants to master the traditional way of composition. But I also like our contemporary approach as well. For one thing, in a DAW, why would anyone want to go back to scoring in the first place? To answer that question for me, I would, because I want to be able to print a written record of my effort. But for me as well, I would also want it intuitive enough that scoring would give me the same immediate results I get from inputting into the piano roll.

For me, as I was keenly interested in the thread here at VI-control.net about using Sibelius as a host and then using the DAW as a "kind of client" - that idea seemed perfect to what I think you was referring to. In the end I didn't try to incorporate the two only because of time restraints.

I don't do classical music and frankly not sure how you'all who do the classics and soundtrack stuff guys keep up with so many tracks. I can't see how possibly this could be done using Sibelius either. And if Sibelius is impractical for this kind of effort, like the "loops" guys, why even have it?

To me the issue of scoring for DAW would only fit a niche crowd, is this not true?

Just thinking out loud, btw. - Rich


----------



## Vik (Jun 24, 2016)

rgarber said:


> the Sibelius approach wouldn't work for the developers of such things is because it inhibits their ability to cater to markets like the "loops" guys.



But is it really an either/or situation? Couldn't large companies like eg Apple cater both for those who rely on loops and synths and those who compose in other ways=

"in a DAW, why would anyone want to go back to scoring in the first place? To answer that question for me, I would, because I want to be able to print a written record of my effort."

Me too, but also: notation, for me, is just a language, taylor made for music. Millions of people can read that language, so IMO it would be wrong to not implement it, properly, in a major DAW. 

"I would also want it intuitive enough that scoring would give me the same immediate results I get from inputting into the piano roll." Yes! We need both, in one app. There's no need to think of DAWs and score apps as two different things anymore. 

"using Sibelius as a host and then using the DAW as a "kind of client" - that idea seemed perfect to what I think you was referring to." But then again, also not perfect, because switching between a DAW and a score editor is very last century.  



"To me the issue of scoring for DAW would only fit a niche crowd, is this not true?"
*Many* niche crowds. Music students, people who learn an instrument, the education market, hobbyists who have learnt notation at some point, brass bands, choirs, composers...


----------



## rgarber (Jun 24, 2016)

Vik said:


> But is it really an either/or situation? Couldn't large companies like eg Apple cater both for those who rely on loops and synths and those who compose in other ways=



You're just addressing adding notation to a DAW, right? In other words, you would prefer the notation software way of entry, adding notes, versus the piano roll. Now at entry I prefer the piano roll because I do jazz and we fudge the beat all the time. And how much of a fudge, while subjective, is still a fudge I must have the final say over. +1 piano roll.

To just highlight one point though... "But is it really an either/or situation? Couldn't large companies like eg Apple cater both for those who rely on loops and synths and those who compose in other ways..."

I would think in their minds they think they are doing just that. Possibly to them scoring is an art form for those who pursue where it's most needed, like printing music. Most of us don't print our music and judging from the size of Sibelius and Finale, it must take a lot of code to print music. So is it necessary to expand the DAWs capability into areas, take Sibelius for instance, that went belly-up? I've been through half of Sibelius and Finale's manual and most of it covers how to format and print music.

On the support side of a DAW, there's probably a good case to be made that maybe most would prefer the techs fixing the bugs operational to the DAW rather than on the music printing side of it if it were added. When you wrote "many niche crowds", those you mentioned to are usually sold at discounts and such. Personally I would prefer the DAW developers push the envelope for people like us who pay retail.

IMO, I thought the thread of using Sibelius as a host and the DAW as client made the most sense for the person who wants to input music that way. It may take two programs to do it but so what? Generally with integration you get a dilution of the product. With programs specializing on what they do best, you get more features covered indepth.

Just talkin...

Rich


----------



## Vik (Jun 24, 2016)

rgarber said:


> To just highlight one point though... "But is it really an either/or situation? Couldn't large companies like eg Apple cater both for those who rely on loops and synths and those who compose in other ways..."
> 
> I would think in their minds they think they are doing just that. Possibly to them scoring is an art form for those who pursue where it's most needed, like printing music.


Well, Logic can print music (maybe Cubase too?), and in many cases, it's not looking bad at all. It has been doing that since the first version which came on a floppy disc circa 25 years ago! 

But printing is only a part of it. Most of the time Logic users use the score window, the plan isn't to print it, but to edit/compose ideas. 


"most would prefer the techs fixing the bugs operational to the DAW rather than on the music printing side of it if it were added."
Since several DAWs have notation already, it's not really a question of adding it, but I don't think (especially i Apple and Steinberg's situation) it's a question of either fixing general bugs or fixing score bugs. Steinberg has 14 people working a new score editor now, and this process started 3.4 years ago IIRR. But at last in the initial version later tgis year, it comes as a standalone app. 

"When you wrote "many niche crowds", those you mentioned to are usually sold at discounts and such. 
Personally I would prefer the DAW developers push the envelope for people like us who pay retail."
Logic used to cost what... circa $2000-$3000 with all that comes with it, and it is now sold for $199, so everybody gets it at a massive discount. But the 14 people, for instance, which work on Dorico, wouldn't fix CC automation bugs if they wouldn't be working on a score editor, they wouldn't have worked for Steinberg at all. 

"using Sibelius as a host and the DAW as client made the most sense for the person who wants to input music that way". 

I think all composer edit both the mix, the arrangment, the composition as such etc all the time. So needing to swap between two apps to get this done doesn't really make sense - and the day the first DAW maker presents a program that both is a complete DAW and has a proper score editor inside, I think nobody would want to use something else. 

"With programs specializing on what they do best, you get more features covered indepth."

Well, what if Steinberg already is planning Dorico and Cubase 9 as products which at some point will behave totally as one single app - in the sense that Dorico would work as a score editor inside Cubase, but with all the options which are available in the standalone version. Then there wouldn't be any in depth features missing.


----------



## rgarber (Jun 24, 2016)

Vik said:


> Well, Logic can print music (maybe Cubase too?), and in many cases, it's not looking bad at all. It has been doing that since the first version which came on a floppy disc circa 25 years ago!
> 
> But printing is only a part of it. Most of the time Logic users use the score window, the plan isn't to print it, but to edit/compose ideas...



Okay, now you got me confused because I thought you said in your earlier post this composing stuff was missing. But it seems now that you're saying it's there, just not enough of it?

What I'm saying is I don't see is adding scoring is practical for a) apparently not enough users to support as possibly evidenced by Sibelius demise, b) that the moment you add just a touch of scoring, someone will be asking to to enhance that feature to include printing professional sheet music/scores like Sibelius did. To the developer it would make more sense to develop programs that specialized in their repsective area than having one program do it all. Granted they already do that to some extent.

Rich


----------



## Vik (Jun 24, 2016)

rgarber said:


> I thought you said in your earlier post this composing stuff was missing. But it seems now that you're saying it's there, just not enough of it?


Several DAWs have score editors, most of them have some functions which could be described as "compositional", but the development is way too slow (in Logic, which is the only DAW I really know). So loads of brilliant features which could have been in there aren't in there.

"I don't see is adding scoring is practical for a) apparently not enough users to support as possibly evidenced by Sibelius demise, b) that the moment you add just a touch of scoring, someone will be asking to to enhance that feature to include printing professional sheet music/scores like Sibelius did."


Sibelius still does that, it's probably the most used Score app out there, along with Finale. But it really isn't a "professional" or "non-professional" thing the way I see it. A DAW doesn't need to have each and every feature of Finale and Sibelius to succeed. The best solution IMO is still to have a dedicated, pro score editor, which has all the features score users need, maybe enabled at different leves of complexity the same way Logic allows users to define how many of the pro features they'll see. There's already a lot of work put into Logic's score editor, but many of the things which are missing, and which users have been asking about for years now, are just as useful for noobs as they are for experienced users.




> To the developer it would make more sense to develop programs that specialised in their respective area than having one program do it all.


Logic already has tons of stuff many of us never use. I don't think anyone wants Logic to have only features which at least 50% of the users need regularly. But again: many of the missing things aren't obscure functions which only a little group of hardcore composers need.

But - many of the missing things are about composing (in any possible way), not about notation.


----------

