# Main Differences between DAWs



## NormkbPlayer (Nov 27, 2019)

I've never truly understood the difference between the Major DAWs .

Eventually all get the same job done. 
Right?


----------



## jbuhler (Nov 27, 2019)

They each optimize different workflows. They each come with a different set of stock plug-ins. None of those things is minor, and I work differently in each of them because of that. But sound quality—no, I haven't noticed any difference to the basic engines.


----------



## d.healey (Nov 27, 2019)

Workflow and features.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Nov 27, 2019)

I’m starting to think of them as all one big DAW or just add on’s to Cubase. 

Cubase for recording audio, wrangling midi (expression maps), and just all around what I’m used to.

Reaper for CPU (applying Nebula/Acustica plugins to tracks), plenty of editing and rendering options that I’ve barely looked at yet, routing (SPAT), etc

Logic bc other people use it, great sounds, Sculpture, etc. I use if to host video on another machine. 

Ableton for mangling and m4l.

PT bc everyone uses it and for editing, delivery, etc

Figure out what makes the most sense to you and go from there.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 27, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> They each optimize different workflows.


That's the only real diff I ever noticed (which is huge). Overall they are more alike than different, but that difference can really matter


----------



## kitekrazy (Nov 27, 2019)

Live, Reason, and FL Studio are different from the traditional DAW. Some cater more to specific genres. I also like to look at licensing. There's plenty of difference there.


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 27, 2019)

Well... I'll help everyone out. The differences are... Cubase is King and everything else is Dogs Brown.


----------



## d.healey (Nov 27, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Well... I'll help everyone out. The differences are... Cubase is King and everything else is Dogs Brown.


Careful, we might end up in the drama zone


----------



## NekujaK (Nov 28, 2019)

More than anything, it comes down to workflow, and what's most compatible with the way you make music. I've used Cubase, ProTools, Reason, Reaper, Harrison Mixbus and a handful of lesser known DAWs, and achieved similar results with each, which isn't surprising since at their core, all DAWs have the same basic recording, arranging, and mixing functions.

But each DAW definitely feels different to work with, and ultimately the one that best matches my work style (Reason), may not be ideal for someone else.

Fortunately, we have so many excellent DAWs to choose from these days!


----------



## Bluemount Score (Nov 28, 2019)

d.healey said:


> Workflow and features.


This, and costs.


Somehow they all get a great job done.


----------



## Consona (Nov 28, 2019)

The _free_ version of Studio One has _unlimited_ audio, midi and VI tracks, for example.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 28, 2019)

Bluemount Score said:


> This, and costs.
> 
> 
> Somehow they all get a great job done.


Which is why it's amazing and baffling to me how widely varied they are in price. To each their own and if it really works that much better for them I guess it's worth it, but I see the excessive cost of some of these and just shake my head...how they stay in business I'll never know when there are DAWs that can do what they do 99% of the time for SO much less.


----------



## d.healey (Nov 28, 2019)

bill5 said:


> Which is why it's amazing and baffling to me how widely varied they are in price. To each their own and if it really works that much better for them I guess it's worth it, but I see the excessive cost of some of these and just shake my head...how they stay in business I'll never know when there are DAWs that can do what they do 99% of the time for SO much less.


A lot of people believe "you get what you pay for". I don't, otherwise sales would make no sense


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 28, 2019)

d.healey said:


> Careful, we might end up in the drama zone



I wake and it hasn't happened yet? Wow, this is the most grown up DAW thread I think I've ever seen!


----------



## Chris Richter (Nov 28, 2019)

Well, they may all get the job done. The question is of how much pain you are willing to go through. Some DAWs click more with some people than others. I personally have tried Cubase, Studio One, DP and I am now super happy with Reaper for orchestral work and I think it beats all other DAWs I tried. But I needed to take two attempts to arrive there as Reaper lately came a long way (Version 6 is around the corner and it improves CC work a lot even though it worked fine before - there are great scripts out there). And it actually has Features that are life savers for some guys that other DAWs just don't have. Check the Reaper forum and you'll find great stuff. In addition it has one of the most generous licensing models on the market.

Apart from workflow things there actually _are _sonic differences. Check this:





DAW v. Daw - Part 1: Automation and Fades


The same content... different renders?You hear it again and again. ALL DAWS SOUND THE SAME. Set them up properly and you can null them, no difference.That’s ...




www.admiralbumblebee.com




How much of an issue that is has to be decided by everyone for themselves I guess.

There's also a DAW Chart which tries to compare DAWs, you might find that also interesting:





The DAW Feature Chart


Things that you want which you can't find anywhere else




www.admiralbumblebee.com





There's great in-depth stuff on that site, highly recommended.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 28, 2019)

d.healey said:


> A lot of people believe "you get what you pay for". I don't, otherwise sales would make no sense


lol, thanks someone else gets it. Marketing depts and advertisers hate us though


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 28, 2019)

d.healey said:


> A lot of people believe "you get what you pay for". I don't, otherwise sales would make no sense



Not everything is “you get what you pay for”. Absolutely. But there are things that absolutely are worth what you pay for. Altiverb for example. That is never on sale. Omnisphere is never on sale. I bought a pair of very good headphones by Audeze recently. Also never on sale. And there’s a very good reason for this. These examples are exactly worth what you pay for. Quality.

An example of software I find the opposite are libraries from 8Dio. It’s not that they aren’t excellent, it’s just that they put a sale on a product multiple times each year often slashing 80% of what it was months earlier and this kind of behaviour just leads me to thinking they are only financially worth what the cheapest sales price is.

As for DAW prices and getting what you pay for, the DAW is the brain of all musical operations so the value comes with how it makes someone create music (or do whatever it is they do with a DAW).


----------



## d.healey (Nov 28, 2019)

hbjdk said:


> Don't the various companies usually steal each other's good ideas and incorporate them into their own DAW?  That's what I heard anyway.


All software is based on ideas of software that has gone before it. Often you start off as a user of a piece of software and get frustrated by a certain limitation. So then you write your own that has all the bits you think are good from similar products plus your additional ideas that you come up with during development.

This is pretty much the case for any type of software, they all have the same basic elements and functionality but each has it's own unique stuff too. This is why there are different email clients, web browsers, operating systems, accountancy software, calculators, etc. This is not something unique to DAWs and in fact there aren't that many DAWs compared to some other types of software (text editors for example).


----------



## Bluemount Score (Nov 28, 2019)

bill5 said:


> Which is why it's amazing and baffling to me how widely varied they are in price. To each their own and if it really works that much better for them I guess it's worth it, but I see the excessive cost of some of these and just shake my head...how they stay in business I'll never know when there are DAWs that can do what they do 99% of the time for SO much less.


And many of the most valid plugins like EQ, Reverb and Compressor are usually bought separately afterwards from 3rd party promoters. Stock plugins aren't that big of a deal.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2019)

NormkbPlayer said:


> Eventually all get the same job done.
> Right?



Right. You can write great music or total rubbish with any of them.


----------



## Montisquirrel (Nov 28, 2019)

The main difference is that FL Studio is the only one which is fun all the time.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Nov 28, 2019)

Montisquirrel said:


> The main difference is that FL Studio is the only one which is fun all the time.


Finally somebody got it :D


----------



## NormkbPlayer (Nov 28, 2019)

Montisquirrel said:


> The main difference is that FL Studio is the only one which is fun all the time.



Quite a While ago I had a funny experience with FL Studio. 
Similar to J Bridge. 

I had to Open FL Studio 32 Bit inside FL Studio 64 bit. 
To get a SF2 Plugin running 
Lol.


----------



## Quasar (Nov 28, 2019)

Consona said:


> The _free_ version of Studio One has _unlimited_ audio, midi and VI tracks, for example.


Wow, I had no idea Studio One even _had_ a free version. I looked at the version comp chart and the feature array is pretty generous and probably a smart way to lure people into their ecosystem...

If it wasn't 32-bit I might even be almost tempted to try it out...


----------



## José Herring (Nov 28, 2019)

via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## kitekrazy (Nov 28, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Well... I'll help everyone out. The differences are... Cubase is King and everything else is Dogs Brown.



Pro Tools is the industry standard. Professional engineers started on that long before you came into this madness. Workflow is often confused with familiarity. They can make magic in a short time because they know it so well. Cubase sucks when it comes to flexible licensing. You need that small piece of delicate hardware to use it. That's the only thing I don't like about it and those .5 updates you need to buy. It's really not a low budget hobbyist DAW.


----------



## kitekrazy (Nov 28, 2019)

d.healey said:


> All software is based on ideas of software that has gone before it. *Often you start off as a user of a piece of software and get frustrated by a certain limitation.* So then you write your own that has all the bits you think are good from similar products plus your additional ideas that you come up with during development.
> 
> This is pretty much the case for any type of software, they all have the same basic elements and functionality but each has it's own unique stuff too. This is why there are different email clients, web browsers, operating systems, accountancy software, calculators, etc. This is not something unique to DAWs and in fact there aren't that many DAWs compared to some other types of software (text editors for example).



Most people don't know in the late 90's there was Pro Tools Free for PC. Few people ever got it to run.


----------



## Consona (Nov 29, 2019)

Quasar said:


> If it wasn't 32-bit I might even be almost tempted to try it out...


What's wrong with 32-bit audio-processing resolution?


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 29, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> Pro Tools is the industry standard. Professional engineers started on that long before you came into this madness.




My comment was a bit of fun. I actually use Pro Tools Ultimate and Cubase.


----------



## kitekrazy (Nov 29, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> My comment was a bit of fun. I actually use Pro Tools Ultimate and Cubase.



I know. You'd be surprised how many people treat DAWs like they are religions.


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 29, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> I know. You'd be surprised how many people treat DAWs like they are religions.


Hence my original comment


----------



## JohnG (Nov 29, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> You'd be surprised how many people treat DAWs like they are religions.



They're not?


----------



## mscp (Nov 29, 2019)

Q: What are the main differences between a DAW?
A: Cubase.

Q: Why?
A: Cubase.

Q: But Digital...
A: Ah ffs. Cubase.

Q: Are you retarded?
A: Cubase.


----------



## Quasar (Nov 29, 2019)

Consona said:


> What's wrong with 32-bit audio-processing resolution?


Memory ceiling.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam (Nov 29, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Memory ceiling.


A 32-bit summing bus doesn’t affect the memory ceiling if the DAW is a 64-bit app.


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 29, 2019)

Phil81 said:


> Q: Are you retarded?
> A: Cubase.



Perfect. 

Q: Are you retarded?
A: Cubase.

on the front of the T-Shirt. On the back...

RTFM


----------



## Quasar (Nov 29, 2019)

Jeremy Gillam said:


> A 32-bit summing bus doesn’t affect the memory ceiling if the DAW is a 64-bit app.


I know, but this thread is about DAWs, and the free version of Studio One is a 32-bit app, which is why I said I'm not interested in trying it.


----------



## brenneisen (Nov 29, 2019)

Quasar said:


> Studio One is a 32-bit app



where?


----------



## Consona (Nov 30, 2019)

Audio-processing resolution (floating-point)32-bit
But the application is x64.


----------



## Quasar (Nov 30, 2019)

brenneisen said:


> where?


I stand corrected. For free, it might be worth taking for a test drive if for no other reason than to gain a comparative insight for understanding Reaper better.


----------



## novaburst (Nov 30, 2019)

While Cubase and Pro tools and Logic appear to be the very top DAWs to use in the industry, and if we are honest with our self this has not changed for many years to this date.

Reaper is a great contribution to the music industry too.

The main difference is how each DAW arrives at a central nerve point that we rely on using and the stability and ease when using that said point course us to continue to use it as our main DAW through out our music creation.

In saying that Mixer controller units can add and enhance the experience we have with the use of our DAW

and more recently for myself a hand control unit like a ball tracking mouse can enhance the experience we have with our DAW 


Very good software like VEpro can enhance our usage with our DAW.


So is a DAW what we make it to be, yes it is, can we make a very good DAW better by adding hardware and software yes we can.

So grab your DAW and customize it with additional hardware and software and enjoy the experience you get by using it.


----------



## kitekrazy (Nov 30, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Hence my original comment



But I really needed to follow up with a butthurt comment.


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 30, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> But I really needed to follow up with a butthurt comment.


Finally. This thread is taking shape nicely.


----------



## Nekrokefali (Dec 10, 2019)

For scoring films, I think that MOTU DP is hands down the best DAW for ME. 
The ability to create new sequences within the project, where every sequence (think of them as queues) can have it's own start time (SMPTE or realtime) makes it the most versatile DAW to work ques in film or tv scoring. Each sequence can have a different instrument template should you wish that, with their own tempo, time signature etc, and you can alter them, without having to worry about time-shifting the ques that proceed the one you're working on. Can save you hours of re-aligning your music to ques after a change. The Chunks feature can connect everything as a final sequence, where everything is time locked.
But Chunks can do more than that. For songwriting, each queue can be a different part of the song Verse Chorus etc, and you can have them in any order by just dropping in your Chunk sections. You can quickly try several different arrangements. But even without going into chunks, when I make stems of my sections or sound design, dialog for mixing they all are timestamped and drop in their correct position even in PT.


----------



## mscp (Dec 10, 2019)

Nekrokefali said:


> For scoring films, I think that MOTU DP is hands down the best DAW for ME.
> The ability to create new sequences within the project, where every sequence (think of them as queues) can have it's own start time (SMPTE or realtime) makes it the most versatile DAW to work ques in film or tv scoring. Each sequence can have a different instrument template should you wish that, with their own tempo, time signature etc, and you can alter them, without having to worry about time-shifting the ques that proceed the one you're working on. Can save you hours of re-aligning your music to ques after a change. The Chunks feature can connect everything as a final sequence, where everything is time locked.
> But Chunks can do more than that. For songwriting, each queue can be a different part of the song Verse Chorus etc, and you can have them in any order by just dropping in your Chunk sections. You can quickly try several different arrangements. But even without going into chunks, when I make stems of my sections or sound design, dialog for mixing they all are timestamped and drop in their correct position even in PT.


I wish i could give it a try but Im on windows. A lot of windows users have mentioned how buggy DP is in it.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Dec 10, 2019)

givemenoughrope said:


> I’m starting to think of them as all one big DAW or just add on’s to Cubase.
> 
> Cubase for recording audio, wrangling midi (expression maps), and just all around what I’m used to.
> 
> ...


If I moved around DAW's like that I'd get nothing done personally...


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 10, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> If I moved around DAW's like that I'd get nothing done personally...



This is after all midi is printed to audio and flying audio files into different daws and editors is easy as long as they are rendered as well. If I jumped from daw to daw in the midi stage that wouldnt work at all for me.


----------



## Chris Richter (Dec 10, 2019)

Nekrokefali said:


> For scoring films, I think that MOTU DP is hands down the best DAW for ME.
> The ability to create new sequences within the project, where every sequence (think of them as queues) can have it's own start time (SMPTE or realtime) makes it the most versatile DAW to work ques in film or tv scoring. Each sequence can have a different instrument template should you wish that, with their own tempo, time signature etc, and you can alter them, without having to worry about time-shifting the ques that proceed the one you're working on. Can save you hours of re-aligning your music to ques after a change. The Chunks feature can connect everything as a final sequence, where everything is time locked.
> But Chunks can do more than that. For songwriting, each queue can be a different part of the song Verse Chorus etc, and you can have them in any order by just dropping in your Chunk sections. You can quickly try several different arrangements. But even without going into chunks, when I make stems of my sections or sound design, dialog for mixing they all are timestamped and drop in their correct position even in PT.


Reaper can do something similiar. It can have projects within projects. It's one of Reapers least known powerful features I guess. The only thing that DP does better is that it can have loaded the instruments for each Chunk. 
At the same time though I value Cockos as a developer a lot more than MOTU. Should DP one day become a reliable work tool with Windows, well I still have version 9 in the drawer. But for now... couldn't be happier with Reaper


----------



## thereus (Dec 11, 2019)

d.healey said:


> A lot of people believe "you get what you pay for". I don't, otherwise sales would make no sense



That is the reason for sales. You get what somebody else has paid for.


----------



## PaulieDC (Dec 11, 2019)

NormkbPlayer said:


> I've never truly understood the difference between the Major DAWs .
> 
> Eventually all get the same job done.
> Right?



Studio One is awesome for fast workflow for audio mixing, and it has a great mastering section. You also get 5 installs and all you need is a web login. You can control your installs on your webpage, deleting if you change PCs, etc. Oh, built in Melodyne! Select a messy vocal section, fix it and save. No rendering out and all that. But the Drag and Drop work workflow, wow. Alt-Drag either an effect or an effects set you created onto the timeline, BOOM, your buss is set up ready to go. Dream come true, right?

Not for VI composers especially with a bunch-o-tracks. Multicore support means fill up thread #1 the move to thread #2, etc. Ugh. Notion doesn't run on i9 processors or Xeon and they haven't attempted to fix that so there goes notation support (S1 sends to and from Notion for scoring support). SO, I switched to Cubase 10 and couldn't be happier from a big template standpoint, expression maps, etc. And NIDI input is much more sophisticated. But I still thank Studio One's existence because most of the workflow features added to Cubase 9 and forward are all in Studio One already and the Cubase coders are paying attention. Drag and Drop arrived in Cubase in the last iteration for instance.

Cons on Cubase? How about the most annoying idiotic licensing model in all creation? And if you lose your dongle and failed to register at the start using a web presence that looks like it was created with Frontpage 2003 by your 15 year old nephew, YOU have to buy another license? We're all OK with this?

So you see, they are all pretty much the same: great audio engines, tons of features. It's the quirks that are the difference. Just like cars. Aston Martin DB10 is incredible. Until you want to go camping. A 34' foot fully equipped motorhome is amazing (you can build a studio in it!), until you have to go grocery shopping on the day before thanksgiving and you live in downtown NYC when the roads were built for horse and carriage in the 1800s. Narrow is an understatement.

When trusty Studio One didn't make the grade for this new world of VI composing, I chose a DAW that is tried and true, and I'm committing to it. At this point I don't care what Ableton and Reaper do (just to pick a couple randomly), I've pick one and I'm immersing in it. Holy smokes is it more complex that Studio One, lol!


----------



## Nekrokefali (Dec 11, 2019)

Phil81 said:


> I wish i could give it a try but Im on windows. A lot of windows users have mentioned how buggy DP is in it.


DP runs fine on windows. I'm actually considering dropping the OSX platform and switching to Win.


----------



## Nekrokefali (Dec 11, 2019)

Studio One uses the 5 licenses. But did anybody ever have the experience of seeing a company going out of business and loosing a licensing server? I began with the Atari 1040st and obviously I had to drop platforms, "Sequencing Software" pre audio days, then move on and move on, but what really hurt was when BIAS (the audio editing software) went out of business, and I've spent thousands with their plugins with the numerous upgrades over the years, but most of all Gigastudio with the libraries. AHHHOuchhhh.


----------



## Nekrokefali (Dec 11, 2019)

CQrity said:


> Reaper can do something similiar. It can have projects within projects. It's one of Reapers least known powerful features I guess. The only thing that DP does better is that it can have loaded the instruments for each Chunk.
> At the same time though I value Cockos as a developer a lot more than MOTU. Should DP one day become a reliable work tool with Windows, well I still have version 9 in the drawer. But for now... couldn't be happier with Reaper


I've being checking out Reaper. Watched some of their videos and I may give it a try. It's cheap enough.
DP10 is very stable though. If you have a 9, you may get a free 10 update. I think I did.


----------



## Chris Richter (Dec 11, 2019)

Nekrokefali said:


> I've being checking out Reaper. Watched some of their videos and I may give it a try. It's cheap enough.
> DP10 is very stable though. If you have a 9, you may get a free 10 update. I think I did.


Cool! Make sure to check out OTR with Reaper. Lots of good stuff.




__





OTR | Orchestral Template for Reaper


The only industry standard workflow template for composers using Reaper. It is kind of a composer's nirvana. 1000 Custom Scripts and Actions for Reaper, Pre-built Project Templates with Track Routing, Pre-configured Track Templates, Custom-designed Reaticulate GUI, Included Articulation Map...




otr.storyteller.im


----------

