# Will plugin developers ever create their own daws?



## MarcusD (Jun 20, 2017)

Here's a question I've been pondering, do you think companies like Waves, Slate Digital Izotope, etc... will eventually create their own dedicated DAWs? That utilize all their plugin technology to create something unique. 

I can imagine it would open up some new creative avenues with their tech and how it integrates with the mixer. A simple example, instead of inserting loads of different plugins to re-create the signal chain of a console, you could click a button and switch between a number of renowned mix consoles which have been fully modeled off real life counterparts, recreating the exact signal chain without using inserts.


----------



## jemu999 (Jun 20, 2017)

Only developer I wish would create a DAW is VSL. Their software & support is excellent. Plus with VE Pro, they would be far ahead of the others.


----------



## Saxer (Jun 20, 2017)

Native Instruments already have a DAW in Maschine. It's pattern based and not very helpful for orchestral stuff but the EDM and Hiphop guys can do a full production on it.


----------



## enCiphered (Jun 20, 2017)

MarcusD said:


> Here's a question I've been pondering, do you think companies like Waves, Slate Digital Izotope, etc... will eventually create their own dedicated DAWs?



Please no!! It´s like sample library developers would suddenly start to build desks!


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 21, 2017)

enCiphered said:


> Please no!! It´s like sample library developers would suddenly start to build desks!



Nothing wrong with branching out, so long as the product's good!



Saxer said:


> Native Instruments already have a DAW in Maschine. It's pattern based and not very helpful for orchestral stuff but the EDM and Hiphop guys can do a full production on it.



Yeah, Machine has been out for a while. I'm just surprised there isn't anything else being developed thats more tailored towards people creating music using sample libraries blurring the line between notation software and a standard DAW.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jun 21, 2017)

Haven't Steinberg and Apple already done this? Not to mention Cakewalk. They all write stand alone plugins and instruments. What is the gap That only a small developer could fill? A full featured DAW is not a trivial undertaking. Writing a VST is very small work by comparison.


----------



## dathyr1 (Jun 21, 2017)

I am kind of with Nathaneal on vst developers creating a DAW. it would take allot of doing to catch up to the established big boys such as Logic, Pro Tools, Studio one, Cubase, etc and get enough market share. It is easier for a DAW company to create a Synth/effect than the other way around and make it good. Maybe someone could do it, but it would take allot of resources as Nathanael also said. 

Also would you want to spend time learning a new DAW over the DAW you already know and used for years.


----------



## galactic orange (Jun 22, 2017)

I wouldn't mind it if FabFilter gave a DAW a shot. That would be something.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 22, 2017)

VR is going to be added to DAWs long before everybody rolls their own.
Cortana will place melodies by voice commands.


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 23, 2017)

dathyr1 said:


> I am kind of with Nathaneal on vst developers creating a DAW. it would take allot of doing to catch up to the established big boys such as Logic, Pro Tools, Studio one, Cubase, etc and get enough market share. It is easier for a DAW company to create a Synth/effect than the other way around and make it good. Maybe someone could do it, but it would take allot of resources as Nathanael also said.
> 
> Also would you want to spend time learning a new DAW over the DAW you already know and used for years.



I agree it would be quite an undertaking, and what would the real benefits be? Well, you could argue cost. If a plugin developer, such as Waves, decided to make a DAW and have the majority of their plugins built into the architecture, for an attractive price, it could potentially mean that dedicated DAW developers get undercut. Why buy a DAW then expensive plugins when you could cut the cost and go with an all-in-one solution from a plugin developer? Granted, if they were lacking in features it would cause you to give it a miss and stick with the tried and tested, but look at some of the newer DAWs like Studio One, they're really taking shape.

Also, from a pure mixing point-of-view, the whole reason why people buy 3rd party plugins because they sound better than stock tools and offer more functionality. But even with companies like Steinberg, to use their premium tools you still have to pay for them, for example, the Rupert Neve EQs..


I was looking around on the net today and discovered something quite interesting. There's a DAW called Harrison MixBus, the DAWs mixer is modeled off a console and it sounds awesome! This is exactly the kind of thing I can see other companies developing unless they partner with current developers for integrating their tools into the architecture. Like PreSonus and Melodyne.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 23, 2017)

enCiphered said:


> Please no!! It´s like sample library developers would suddenly start to build desks!




[email protected]@@!!! 'very timely joke


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 23, 2017)

imo there woudlnt be much of a market for newcomers in a traditional daw setting for the mount of work that involves a daw. 

but like mentioned above , NI branches out to do something different. I think thats where there could be a potential hit. something different and useful. it happened with ableton live where the clip view window was different and had different workflow... they also kept the traditional sequence window but if it was a traditional daw type like Logic Pro or cubase they wouldnt had a chance. but those clip view enabled DJs to do live sets. 

Waves is branching out to live venue equipment so there might be something there soon as a lot of bands gets recorded live and they have live plugins being recorded to tape (radar/PT)


----------



## NoTBaTMaN (Jun 23, 2017)

enCiphered said:


> Please no!! It´s like sample library developers would suddenly start to build desks!


https://output.com/products/platform
There you go :D


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 23, 2017)

Let's play a game. I just received two emails, guess which one I opened first.


----------



## Saxer (Jun 23, 2017)

MarcusD said:


> Let's play a game. I just received two emails, guess which one I opened first.


Pizza!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2017)

Both Kontakt and Vienna Instruments have pattern sequencers, and Stylus RMX pays MIDI files. That's a start, right?


----------



## dathyr1 (Jun 23, 2017)

Good explanations MarcusD. That is the first I have heard of Mixbus. Looks pretty cool and closer to actual hardware control mixing.

On your game First I would open the Pizza email and then the Desk email to eat the Pizza on. <hehe>

Cool stuff,
Dave


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 24, 2017)

Saxer said:


> Pizza!



Actually, I opened the email about Platform because I was curious to see if they had another variation of the desk called Stilleto.

If you're reading this Output, you need to name every desk after a female shoe...


----------



## Daniel Petras (Jun 24, 2017)

I hope they do. Some of these companies are really creative and I think the more iterations we have, the more companies will be willing to push what DAWs are capable of.


----------



## dathyr1 (Jun 24, 2017)

Sonorityscape said:


> I hope they do. Some of these companies are really creative and I think the more iterations we have, the more companies will be willing to push what DAWs are capable of.



Maybe the more selections in Good DAWs could make it more competitive and maybe pricing could come down. Not too sure if/how that works in the music software arena- if possible. I know there are sales from time to time.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jun 24, 2017)

How much cheaper do DAWs need to be? Reaper is $60...Logic is $200...Cubase is $500. They are cheaper than good string libraries... I'm still not sure what problem is trying to be solved? A DAW is workflow...not sound quality. Why would a plugin vendor be better at workflow than companies with feedback from thousands of users for many years? This seems like a good way for great plugin companies to go broke...


----------



## Karsten Vogt (Jun 25, 2017)

MarcusD said:


> Actually, I opened the email about Platform because I was curious to see if they had another variation of the desk called Stilleto.
> 
> If you're reading this Output, you need to name every desk after a female shoe...


Now let me ask you: which one disappointed you the most? 

About Logic being cheap: don't forget: Logic is owned by Apple. Their primary interested is selling hardware not software. Logic is massively subsidized. Reaper costs more if you earn money with it. Imho THE fairest pricing model.

DAW devs hiring good plugin devs for native support of their software is a great way. Ableton licensing Cytomic's stuff is absolutely great.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 25, 2017)

Why not hire Microsoft to make an audio only OS without the excessive permissions.
We would only need a 2GHz quad CPU.
My DSPs run at 400MHz and chew up audio in realtime.
Reduced instruction sets.


----------



## Karsten Vogt (Jun 25, 2017)

It seems some people here have never seen a line of code or ever coded a little application. 
Create a DAW? A complete OS for music production? It is possible but the user base is way too small to fund an endeavor like that.

Why would Microsoft be interested? Divide their product line for a couple of music producers? That's not where the money is. There was an approach to create a "multimedia OS" called BeOS. In theory it was awesome but it never got the support it deserved (small user base again).

And why your DSP is so fast: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-among-CPU-GPU-APU-FPGA-DSP-and-Intel-MIC

Bitwig studio - the latest modern DAW - was released early 2014; they started developing in 2009. And Bitwig studio lacks SO many features. Just like Maschine which isn't even close to be a full fledged DAW. All that developing takes a huge amount of resources, especially time.

I really don't know where the real problem is. Look at where composers were 10 years ago and look where we are now. We are going to reach a point of luxury problems; this is whining on highest level. Yes, things can always be improved and that's great; that's how humans are made. But the cool things we can achieve now (and at what price!) is really awesome.


----------



## dathyr1 (Jun 25, 2017)

Karsten Said "Bitwig studio - the latest modern DAW - was released early 2014; they started developing in 2009. And Bitwig studio lacks SO many features. Just like Maschine which isn't even close to be a full fledged DAW. All that developing takes a huge amount of resources, especially time."

Besides my main Studio One 3 Pro DAW, I picked up both Bitwig Studio and Maschine Studio to learn which when they were on sale and I agree with Karsten that Bitwig Studio lacks allot of features Studio one provides but I can still lay down tracks of music. Maschine Studio/Maschine 2 I really like because it is specialized in doing Sampling and Beat/music making in Scenes/Groups which you can then port over to a DAW like Studio One and continue with the Song.

I could get into a couple other neat Music creating software which I have, but each of these and all the DAW's we have talked about here have their own specialized features that each of us use and picked to suit our needs and really like.

Sorry I got into pricing, usually that is not the main issue unless your kinda like me and retired and watch my budget a little bit. 

Anyway, back to my music,
Dave


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 25, 2017)

Karsten Vogt said:


> Now let me ask you: which one disappointed you the most?
> 
> About Logic being cheap: don't forget: Logic is owned by Apple. Their primary interested is selling hardware not software. Logic is massively subsidized. Reaper costs more if you earn money with it. Imho THE fairest pricing model.
> 
> DAW devs hiring good plugin devs for native support of their software is a great way. Ableton licensing Cytomic's stuff is absolutely great.



I was more disappointed by the £10 off voucher because I couldn't spend it on the Output store.



Karsten Vogt said:


> It seems some people here have never seen a line of code or ever coded a little application.
> Create a DAW? A complete OS for music production? It is possible but the user base is way too small to fund an endeavor like that.
> 
> Why would Microsoft be interested? Divide their product line for a couple of music producers? That's not where the money is. There was an approach to create a "multimedia OS" called BeOS. In theory it was awesome but it never got the support it deserved (small user base again).
> ...



I don't think there's a problem as such, I know we're all spitting ideas out without really thinking about the amount of work involved, but the general point of this thread was to discuss whether or not plug-in developers could diversify and create software applications which are either mixing or composing orientated, utilizing their tech in new and creative ways.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 25, 2017)

My problem is I've had what I need for years now, I use the SDK to make Modules and devices for specific purposes.
The problem is the developer is building Solaris these days and OS updates haven't happened since 2009.
Bought Windows 10 and Z170/H170 and the ASIO drivers shut down after 20 seconds.
Bought more Z97 builds so I'd be covered for years.

Got brave and built a Z270 last week relieved to see the RME AIO and XITE-1 drivers are good to go with Windows 10/8.1/7 etc.

Guess living in the planned obsolescence era ain't so bad.


----------



## dtonthept (Jun 27, 2017)

More DAWs would mean we would lose even more time trawling online forums questioning ourselves about one of the most fundamental tools in our creative arsenal


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 28, 2017)

Really it's the other way around: DAW developers create plug-ins for their DAWs. Or they buy smaller companies that make them.


----------



## greggybud (Jul 2, 2017)

MarcusD said:


> Here's a question I've been pondering, do you think companies like Waves, Slate Digital Izotope, etc... will eventually create their own dedicated DAWs? That utilize all their plugin technology to create something unique.



I hope not. Let 3rd parties do what they do best by specializing. Just one example is Fab Filter....wonderful...let them carry on. 

But as a 3rd parties grow they often become less appealing. For example I loved NI 15 years ago because they were so far ahead of the game. IMO they were at the top of their innovation peak with Kore about 10 years ago, and Kore to this date has never been replaced or emulated. Instead, NI took some very simple concepts in Kore and tossed them in Maschine to sell to a mass market where there was a huge demand. Stephen Schmidt, one of the founders and brains behind Reaktor and Kore left NI shortly after. James Walker Hall who was behind Maschine is attempting a Kore replacement, but is probably years away from what I see currently.

I'm just guessing but I would not doubt if Maschine (plus all the Maschine siblings) have sold 100 to every Kore unit. And that doesn't even mention the endless Maschine sound packs. You can't blame NI...it's marketing toward the prosumer and that's where the money is at. Today it's more about samples, soundpacks, presets, and buy-out agreements such as NI and Soft Tubes tools. Sure, Reaktor blocks is fun...a bit innovative, but how far does that place you beyond users who want more than EDM?

Unfortunately the major DAW's are held hostage by the prosumer market. IMO what would be optimum is a developer to focus only on only core DAW functions, and instead of competing with 3rd party developers like they all do...negotiate more agreements/licenses where 3rd party tools work more seamlessly in the DAW. Cooperate with 3rd party developers. We don't need more features in DAW's that are found with 3rd parties. But we get more features in DAW's that are found in 3rd parties because the prosumer wants everything in one box...until those new features manifest new bugs and then the horrible upgrade/bug cycle begins.

Imagine if a developer simply made a core DAW where when ordering you could customize your DAW the way you want it? Seamlessly integrate an SSL instead of buying it as a plug-in? Integrating mix consoles from UAD, Waves, or Harrison? Providing professional support to every-day users? I can dream!


----------



## dathyr1 (Jul 2, 2017)

greggbud Said:
{I'm just guessing but I would not doubt if Maschine (plus all the Maschine siblings) have sold 100 to every Kore unit. And that doesn't even mention the endless Maschine sound packs. You can't blame NI...it's marketing toward the prosumer and that's where the money is at. Today it's more about samples, soundpacks, presets, and buy-out agreements such as NI and Soft Tubes tools. Sure, Reaktor blocks is fun...a bit innovative, but how far does that place you beyond users who want more than EDM?}

I hear what you are saying. NI Maschine products are specializing in targeting the amazing Beatmakers and modern music composers. I also bought a Maschine Studio to learn for the sampling capabilities and a great way to come up with song segments which are set up in Scenes/groups. It is a pretty cool device. Yes there are allot of Maschine sound packs and samples available. Bear with me, I also have Presonus Studio one 3 Pro for my main DAW activities. 

Never did get into the Kore hardware other than having the Kore software player/sounds that came with the NI Komplete packages.


----------



## greggybud (Jul 2, 2017)

dathyr1 said:


> Never did get into the Kore hardware other than having the Kore software player/sounds that came with the NI Komplete packages.



Just one cool aspect of Kore is that it accommodated all 3rd party VST's and VSTI's. You could even batch import hundreds of patches in seconds. The only difference is that NI had sounds that were already tagged and classified. The Maschine browser is more simplified from Kore technology. For myself the biggest feature was sound design and morphing between whatever controllers you desire in real time. Even morphing between patches but a bit more involved. Then playing it back in your DAW and making the finer edits.

So if a developer like NI, Waves, or Slate went the DAW direction, I would think it would have to be totally open architecture. Even NI's KK line could not import 3rd party VSTI's for the first few months, and I think they realized very quickly that would not work. 

For it to be closed architecture, I think it would have to be absolutely mind-blowing powerful...or very inexpensive.


----------



## dathyr1 (Jul 2, 2017)

Hi greggybud,

Thank you for the info on Kore. I was more dug into the trenches with the Kontakt and Absynth world at that time.
We will see what the developers bring us in the future. You see what Reason did with their product
opening up to VST's. We can always hope for new things with the developers.

take care,


----------



## rrichard63 (Jul 2, 2017)

greggybud said:


> ... For it to be closed architecture, I think it would have to be absolutely mind-blowing powerful...or very inexpensive.



Propellerhead built a successful business on a closed architecture. They only opened up Reason to VST plugins about a month ago. We'll see how that works out for them. I think Reason is very good (among other things, it is rock-solid stable), but I wouldn't describe it as mind-blowingly powerful or inexpensive.

Looking at the OP's original question from a DAW developer's point of view, I think the primary motives would have to be (1) to lock users into proprietary plugins and other add-ons, and (2) better stability resulting from not having to keep up with all of the weirdness of VST, VST3, AU, AAX, etc. -- plus all of the weirdness that results from hundreds of developers each making their own separate mistakes implementing those formats. Given these motives, it doesn't make business sense for Waves, Slate, etc. to develop yet another VST (etc.) host. (Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that it would be nice to have even more DAWs to choose from than we already do. I disagree. I think we have plenty.)

A DAW start-up wanting to take this approach today would have a very steep hill to climb. Users expect the zillion plugins and VIs they already have to keep working when they switch DAW's. Propellerhead got away with it because they started when the market was less mature.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 1, 2017)

Propellerhead Reason has been doing this for years!


----------

