# 2015 POLL: Your preferred DAW/program for work with orchestral libraries?



## Vik (Jan 2, 2015)

*HI ALL, THIS POLL FROM 2015 IS CLOSED NOW.
THE NEW POLL IS HERE:*

https://vi-control.net/community/th...program-for-work-with-sample-libraries.73407/







Not necessarily focusing on what you use right now, but which DAW or program do you believe is the best for work with orchestral sample libraries?

Many of us prefer Sibelius or Finale for making the final score, but the intention with this poll is to figure out what your viewpoints are in terms of working with sample (or modelling) libraries, and not from a "perfect notation" perspective. But in case some of you think that either Sibelius or Finale is the best one also from a sample library perspective, I've included these as well. If you don't think Finale/Sibelius are relevant options/think that they shouldn't even be on the list, just don't ignore them. 

Please vote! 


*ETA: Fruity Loops = FL Studio!*


----------



## fiestared (Jan 2, 2015)

"Logic"

I'm a user from the very beginning of "Performer" then, Vision, Studio Vision, Pro Tools(Sound Designer and Sound Accelerator), and "Logic" but I must say I'm looking a bit toward Cubase...
F.red


----------



## Vik (Jan 2, 2015)

Just pasting over a post from the original thread, so it doesn't get lost when that thread is deleted:


JonFairhurst @ 2.1.2015 said:


> I haven't used enough of the above to make a vote. (Mostly Sonar X1, ACID, & Sibelius. Recently got Logic X.)
> 
> One thing I'll add is that Sibelius with NotePerformer is a fantastic match. It allows you to listen to your score without having to tolerate bad-MIDI hell. The footprint is small and it just works. This helps increase the gulf between Sibelius as a notation program and sequencers as a means for performing with sample and modeling libs.
> 
> ...



One more thing: the thread will become more interesting if you also post something about why you think your preferred DAW is the best solution for what you do...


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (Jan 2, 2015)

I've recently made a switch to Reaper. It's still a young software and lacking certain features that most "pro" DAWs have, but it's fine by me because I'm not tech-savvy at all and prefer a stripped-down workflow, rather than a swiss army knife of features. What really won me over though is that it's rock-solid on my system (very few crashes compared to other DAWs I've used), streams VI playback pretty quick (I'm still using hard disk), and the video engine is really smooth and frame-accurate. As a plus, the level of customization is beyond belief. For simpletons like me with a minimal rig (one machine and a conservative writing template), Reaper is the bees knees.


----------



## lee (Jan 2, 2015)

I can imagine I'm not the only cubase user who once chose cubase since I chose between computer brands, atari / pc (cubase) or Mac (logic/protools). What's probably also true is that cubase has had more advanced midi editing, at least it used to be that way. And I worked mostly with hardware samplers/synths so midi functions was important. 


But it's a lot about the workflow i've gotten used to, not necessarily the daw that would be best for me. . 

My 2 cents.


----------



## ulrik (Jan 2, 2015)

lee @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> I can imagine I'm not the only cubase user who once chose cubase since I chose between computer brands, atari / pc (cubase) or Mac (logic/protools). What's probably also true is that cubase has had more advanced midi editing, at least it used to be that way. And I worked mostly with hardware samplers/synths so midi functions was important.
> 
> 
> But it's a lot about the workflow i've gotten used to, not necessarily the daw that would be best for me. .
> ...


I also made my choice because of what computer I favored. I also run atari 1024 for a start, so Steinberg Pro 24 (Cubase) and Notator/Creator (Logic) was my daws at that time and later when I moved to Mac I worked with both Cubase and Logic.
Now I only use Logic X and that's because I'm used to it's workflow.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Jan 2, 2015)

I started with Cubase last year, it was OK and I know of superior MIDI editing capabilities, but did not like the interface so much on PC. I tried Cubase on Mac, but had many crashes so finally I gave Logic a try, which is my current DAW and it feels "more comfortable" for me to work here, I think it generally does not matter, its about what you like and prefer for your workflow - now do some serious work!


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 2, 2015)

lee @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> I can imagine I'm not the only cubase user who once chose cubase since I chose between computer brands, atari / pc (cubase) or Mac (logic/protools). What's probably also true is that cubase has had more advanced midi editing, at least it used to be that way. And I worked mostly with hardware samplers/synths so midi functions was important.
> 
> 
> But it's a lot about the workflow i've gotten used to, not necessarily the daw that would be best for me. .
> ...



I hear ya. I wanted simple as well, which is why I originally chose Propellerhead Reason. To this day, it is my fave DAW to work in.

But then I discovered the wonderful world of orchestral VSTs, and needed something that could host them. So after much consideration, I chose Studio One. I actually considered Reaper for its many great features and excellent price, but at the time of my choosing, it was more difficult to make a multi than it is in Studio One.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jan 2, 2015)

Apparently I need 10 posts to vote... so while I wait to hit that milestone, I'll just say I use Logic at the moment.

I started out on Cubase on the Atari ST - when I switched to PC in 1997, I used Cubase VST 3.1. I used that pretty much up to 2003 when I took a break from music. When switched to Mac in 2006 I got Logic 7 which I have used ever since.


----------



## 5Lives (Jan 2, 2015)

Although I don't like many things about Cubase's workflow, I can't deny that they have a superb MIDI editor, which is why I chose it for orchestral libraries.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 2, 2015)

I have been using Cubase Pro more these days but I still defer to DP8 for orchestral composing. IT's very easy to move things around structurally. Mind you, if Cubase Pro weren't as sluggish on my Mac Pro (2.88ghz 8 core) I would probably say Cubase more than DP


----------



## Lawson. (Jan 2, 2015)

I was (and still am) a Logic guy, but DP8 is just amazing for working with orchestral libraries.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 2, 2015)

I use Sonar because I've been using it for a very long time, and I know where most of the stumbling blocks are<G>!

I also use Studio One, but not for virtual instruments, it just isn't there yet. I am optimistic that it will get there.

I use Finale, but it is a notation tool, not a sequencer, and I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement.

I've tried everything on the list except Bitwig I think. I've always wanted to like Cubase (used it years ago on the Amiga), but the learning curve is just to just too steep for me for now. And I love DP, when the Windoze version matures a bit I will be adding it to the tool chest.

Many of the others have cool features that are unique to them, usually workflow things, but I've reached the point where I accept that no one tool will do everything I want it to do, and trying to stay current with too many tools is not a great idea.

I should probably mention that I also use Sound Forge and Wavelab for any 'serious' audio editing, so that might color my opinions of the sequencers.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 2, 2015)

wst3 @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> I use Sonar because I've been using it for a very long time, and I know where most of the stumbling blocks are<G>!
> 
> I also use Studio One, but not for virtual instruments, it just isn't there yet. I am optimistic that it will get there.



It's not there yet - in reference to stability, or workflow?


----------



## Zhao Shen (Jan 2, 2015)

Cubase all the way. Mostly because I'm more of a PC person, though. I've always thought of Logic as the Mac version of Cubase (even though Cubase is available for Mac too, but it's just me being weird I guess). Plus, they've added some cool stuff in C8, render-in-place and performance optimization among them.


----------



## mmendez (Jan 2, 2015)

Chose Logic as that's the DAW I use for all my MIDI programming after importing the data from a notation program. 

After composing and orchestrating with Sibelius for a while there's no way I'd go back to working directly with a DAW.

Miguel


----------



## chibear (Jan 2, 2015)

I started in Mixcraft before I discovered sample libraries. When I built my new DAW computer a couple of years ago, I started running through the different demos of the available 64 bit DAWs (Mixcraft was then 32 bit). I always ended up going back to Mixcraft (using jBridge) because it was IMO more intuitive than any of the others I tried. Now that ver 7 has gone 64 bit, I'm still a solid fan. There are different areas where the different DAWs excel, but as a total package Mixcraft does it for me. Couple that with the most pleasant support staff I've yet encountered and forums that are actually helpful I'll be sticking with Mixcraft to write for a long time to come even if eventually forced to present in another format in the future.


----------



## luke_7 (Jan 2, 2015)

I like how logic looks but i love how cubase ( on mac ) works and cubase pro 8 is a beast.


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (Jan 2, 2015)

chibear @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> I started in Mixcraft before I discovered sample libraries. When I built my new DAW computer a couple of years ago, I started running through the different demos of the available 64 bit DAWs (Mixcraft was then 32 bit). I always ended up going back to Mixcraft (using jBridge) because it was IMO more intuitive than any of the others I tried. Now that ver 7 has gone 64 bit, I'm still a solid fan. There are different areas where the different DAWs excel, but as a total package Mixcraft does it for me. Couple that with the most pleasant support staff I've yet encountered and forums that are actually helpful I'll be sticking with Mixcraft to write for a long time to come even if eventually forced to present in another format in the future.



Mixcraft 7 is out now? Oh snap, gotta check that out! I left Mixcraft when it was still on version 5. How much has it improved since then?


----------



## Kardon (Jan 2, 2015)

Reaper is my choice. Extremely powerful, light weight, and stable. Almost zero Kontakt crashes (unlike my foray into Studio One V2). Great support, updates, and community. It's skinable (thank goodness), and extensible with add-ons. Started with Atari (Dr. T's Tiger Cub), Texture (Roger Powell) on PC/DOS, tested and trialed a few others, but I'm now very happy on Windows with Reaper. Yeah, I was on DAW-hiatus for a few years, focused on hardware. VSTs changed all that.


----------



## Øivind (Jan 2, 2015)

No love for Scream Tracker or Fast Tracker? (o) 

j/k

10posts for poll here too: Used to use Sonar a lot, until i realized they would never go all in on VST3 
and using VEpro with Sonar was just a pain to manage for me vs. Cubase. So i jumped to Cubase. 
It doesn't have the best looks or single monitor customization, but i makes up for it in the piano roll and 
expression maps.

And this was my 10th post :D *votes*


----------



## José Herring (Jan 2, 2015)

Cubase with vst 3 and VEPro make working with large templates the smoothest of any DAW on the market right now.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 2, 2015)

(Apologies for stuck record type post)

I switched from Sonar a few years ago because I wanted a small footprint hardware controller with touch automated faders that could handle both mixing and CC chores. The only answer then - as now - was the Avid Aritst Mix with Cubase - the only DAW which can handle CC control over Eucon (via its Quick Controls). 

It was a bumpy transition, but am generally pretty happy with Cubase now. Once the VE Pro 5 / Cubase 8 issues are resolved (and the early bugs are squished), it'll be a fine combination. There's still a hundred more features I'd like, but I see only the smallest handful of these in other DAWs (Digital Performer's chunks is the biggie).


----------



## chibear (Jan 2, 2015)

Jacob Cadmus @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> chibear @ Fri Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I started in Mixcraft before I discovered sample libraries. When I built my new DAW computer a couple of years ago, I started running through the different demos of the available 64 bit DAWs (Mixcraft was then 32 bit). I always ended up going back to Mixcraft (using jBridge) because it was IMO more intuitive than any of the others I tried. Now that ver 7 has gone 64 bit, I'm still a solid fan. There are different areas where the different DAWs excel, but as a total package Mixcraft does it for me. Couple that with the most pleasant support staff I've yet encountered and forums that are actually helpful I'll be sticking with Mixcraft to write for a long time to come even if eventually forced to present in another format in the future.
> ...



http://forums.acoustica.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=16334&hilit=list+of+new+features (Here's) a thread from the Beta testing group. About 1/2 way down Greg fills in the blanks. I was one of the BETA testers and let me say it's rock solid. The only way I could get it to crash was to crash Kontakt by poking around below the UI while a library was loading. Play was absolutely solid. I keep bugging Acoustica to grease the right palm down at EWQL and get 'approved' status.

As you will see, they've branched off to include the Ableton guys, but continue to improve _everything_. The only thing lacking fir me is the ability to draw nice curves for automations and CC#s.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 2, 2015)

Vik @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> One more thing: the thread will become more interesting if you also post something about why you think your preferred DAW is the best solution for what you do...



Got it.

Like WST3, I've mainly used Sonar, since I was on a PC and had experience going back to early Cakewalk days. I won't mark it as a favorite though as it always felt a bit clunky to me. I also had some crashes (on X1) where the VSTi interface seemed to blow up and then I couldn't open those sequence files as the thing would lock. (I'm not ready to blame Sonar though. Maybe it was the sequencer, sampler, or my PC.) Having been a GigaStudio user, the idea of a VSTi dying and killing a sequence file was a real downer. I stopped composing not long afterwards.

I recently bought Logic X and I like the feel, but I'm still learning it. For now, I'm hosting (extremely) small templates successfully. I'll eventually go to VEPro and run most samples in the PC.

So I expect that to become my favorite - Logic X for its interface (after I learn it anyway) and VEPro as a means for keeping the sampler eggs in a separate basket. But I'm not quite there yet, hence, no vote...

FWIW, some years ago, I loaded the Cubase trial, but it never felt quite right to me. I played with it briefly, but it didn't inspire me to hurdle the learning curve. Maybe it's the best all-in-one solution for hosting large template directly. But in my case, I think I prefer choosing the DAW for the UI and keeping the hosting duties separate.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 2, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> wst3 @ Fri Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I also use Studio One, but not for virtual instruments, it just isn't there yet. I am optimistic that it will get there.
> ...



Workflow I'm afraid... or I'm so accustomed to the workflow in Sonar that I can't make the leap - that could be the issue I suppose.

But the workflow for working with audio tracks is so fast, intuitive, dare I say "easy", that I think they must still be assembling the VI parts.

Stability has not been an issue.


----------



## Richard Bowling (Jan 2, 2015)

I use cubase simply because it works with my preferred workflow and my large template. I don't like it at all really but as an owner of all the DAWs available Cubase is consistently solid for me.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 2, 2015)

wst3 @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Fri Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > wst3 @ Fri Jan 02 said:
> ...


I started out in Cakewalk, but quit music for several years. When I came back to music, i started with Propellerhead Reason because it's so easy to just select an instrument and record. When I decided to use VSTs, I chose Studio One for the same reason.


----------



## Vik (Jan 3, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ 2.1.2015 said:


> I haven't used enough of the above to make a vote. (Mostly Sonar X1, ACID, & Sibelius. Recently got Logic X.)



Most likely, none of the voters have used all of the DAWs. But like with other, similar polls, people will vote based on what they know from first-hand experience and what they have seen/read/heard. Personally, I use Logic for all my work, but from what I know about other DAWs, it's kind of easy to understand why, as Paul Thomson just mentioned, Cubase is the preferred DAW for many Hollywood film composers. 





> How efficient/powerful/easy is the UI for capturing controller input and editing performances? Is it quick & easy to set up your instruments?



Yes, these are important topics, not to mention how important it is how your system deals with mapping controllers across multiple projects and whether you can mix the different possible ways to control parameters as you please, as discussed here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10684322-post331.html




> Does it have great MIDI support such that you can control things from the controller, rather than needing graphics, mouse, and keyboard for everything?


 A good DAW needs to be able to control things from... anything. A controller, a modwheel, using the faders in the plugin's own GUI, drawing curves with your mouse and so on. I don't know how Cubase behaves in this respect, but hope it's better than Logic. 



> Anyway, to find the "best" depends on the assumptions. What platform do you want? Will you use it live? etc...


 I changed the wording from "best" to preferred for that reason.


----------



## Biome_Digital (Jan 3, 2015)

REAPER. Because it does what I tell it to do.


----------



## IFM (Jan 3, 2015)

The big three (DP, Cubase, Logic) will all do the job just fine as long as you learn them. I'm sure other DAWs can too...just as has been said 10 million times before, use whatever you feel most comfortable with. Does the listener really give a hoot what you wrote it on? That seems to be something only composers are interested in. 

I've used and all three of those and mainly have done everything in Logic over the last many years but have gone from Cubase, Cakewalk-->Sonar, DP, Logic, and so on. I always learned them will when using them full time so that the DAW was not in the way of composition. 

Chris


----------



## Vik (Jan 3, 2015)

Dragonwind @ 3.1.2015 said:


> The big three (DP, Cubase, Logic) will all do the job just fine as long as you learn them.



They may all do the job fine, but just like a carpenter will say - "good tools are half the work". Cubase and Logic, for instance, are very different in several areas. And re. Pro Tools – the automation may be good in PT for controller data (is it?), but AFAIK it doesn't have many special features dedicated to orchestral work, like good articulation control, expression maps and so on. 




> use whatever you feel most comfortable with


Not so sure if that's an universal truth, because most of us are most comfortable with the DAW we happen to know best. If the DAW I know the best happen to be one I learned years before I started to dive into work with complex sample libraries, I actually may find that if I switch to a DAW which is focused on composers and sample library users, I can spend more time on music, and less time on the tools I use.



> Does the listener really give a hoot what you wrote it on?


They wouldn't know. But if the composer has a transparent UI for his work, without a lot of steps to get relatively simple tasks done, he can focus on harmonies, lines and melodies - and not his tools. 

A lot of listeners can hear the difference between "inspired" music and just good craftsmanship. I don't know much about Pro Tools, but as far as I can tell (as a Logic user), Cubase has several benefits over the other DAWs for composers working with orchestral libraries.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 3, 2015)

The biggest problem for Pro Tools regarding serious composition is actually the hopeless track naming. Alongside EuCon / Artist, a draw regarding Cubase was how useable it is when working with narrow channels - you can fit a lot on the screen and see what's going on really easily, and when you have 100s of tracks that's a big deal.

PT is totally inflexible with naming etc. When you reduce to minimum height, PT in its wisdom reduces track names to 5 - yes, that's FIVE - characters. Good luck naming your template with that. Also, there's no flexibility on key commands or customisation generally.

Theses things are much bigger deals in composition than regular audio work. Considering PT's dominance in the world of audio, the lack of take up among composers is quite startling - but not unexpected.


----------



## PJMorgan (Jan 3, 2015)

I chose Logic as my main DAW.

I started out with Cubase but could never get on with it, I found it unintuitive & some features overly complex. But that's just my take on it, it's a very popular DAW & for good reason. I then moved to Reaper which I still keep up with & use sometimes, it's a very stable DAW with great support from the Devs but I didn't like the way features kept getting added without first refining the almost great features that were already there. I then moved to studio One partly because I got it at a great price second hand & it was time to try something new.

S1 is another great DAW especially for speedy straight forward song writing duties but it does have a few flaws. MIDI is pretty lacking compared to both Cubase & even Reaper when you really want to dig in deep with midi programming IMO it's just not there yet. It's also very resource hungry & can't handle as many instruments as the other DAW's I've used. 

I then decided to move from Windows to OS X (never really liked windows, preferred Linux but Linux was way behind for DAW use) so I got a 2012 Mac mini with 2.3ghz quad core i7, added 16gb ram & never looked back. I'm really happy with OS X, like it a lot more than windows, plus this little Mac mini packs a pretty powerful punch for its size. Not long after getting the mini Logic 10 came out, I watched a few tutorials, liked what I saw (also liked the price) & just went for it. 

With Logic I've finally found the DAW that just fits, it's a fully featured mature DAW with most if not all of the midi features that I need, a lot of great instruments & FX (not just as good as 3rd party but better than what you get in most other sequencers) it looks great & is really nice to work with. It just clicked with me. Cubases expression maps would be great to have but you can kind off achieve that with The excellent Toolkit Pro from Audio Grocery. 

I'm also a big fan of Ableton live for when I'm in an Electronic mood, or for some live looping improv with my guitar. I've tried most DAW's & even demoed Bitwig which is very decent for being so young, & FINALLY Linux has a decent sequencer.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 3, 2015)

I wonder what percentage of Cubase users here are on OSX? Anyone hazard a guess?


----------



## Zhao Shen (Jan 3, 2015)

Soundhound @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> I wonder what percentage of Cubase users here are on OSX? Anyone hazard a guess?



I'd guess 15% or less? Most people on Mac lean toward Logic.


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 3, 2015)

Reaper has my vote but really it comes down to your personal workflow. We all have a different way of working and need to find that DAW that allows us to have the workflow we need to be creative.

Reaper can do just about anything. The great thing about Reaper is you can tweak it to match your workflow. The bad thing about reaper is you can tweak it to no end. If you don't like to tweak your DAW too much then Reaper may not be for you.

I typed up about two pages worth on Reaper and then realized that was just too much so one day I'll open my own music related blog and you can read my thoughts there about Reaper but here are just a couple of my favorite features in Reaper

1. Ripple Edit - I don't know who else doesn't have this but I know that Cubase doesn't and I'm surprised it doesn't yet. For me this is almost a deal breaker and the reason I wouldn't go with a DAW that doesn't have it. Say I put together an entire composition with about 150 tracks and then I said to myself "I really don't like those two measures in the middle", with ripple edit I can just highlight those two measures in the entire track while snapping and locking everything in place including all my automation, etc.. and just delete. Now everything snaps together nicely and perhaps a little tweaking and I'm moving on to more composing. Doing this in Cubase is a delicate task that takes a lot more time, and I'm a big Cubase fan so please don't misunderstand me. I know users have asked to have this added in Cubase so perhaps in the next version? 

2. Buggy Plugin handling - Reaper has a number of ways of dealing with plugins that don't play together well and this is probably what most people find so stable about reaper. If you have a plugin that's acting up then just force it to open as a dedicated, separate, or native process or numerous other options and "Hey what do you know, it works!"

One final note. Just keep in mind that the Reaper community is still new and evolving so there are times that I've seen people on the forum tell people that certain things they were trying to do couldn't be done in Reaper when in fact it could be, and very easily. This is why I say that if you don't like to dig in and tweak then Reaper may not be for you because some things you just end up learning on your own, unless you happen to be asking your question at the right time when one of Reapers brightest users happen to see your question and pipe up.

Ultimately the best DAW is the one that lets you make good music without getting too much in the way.


----------



## LunyAlex (Jan 3, 2015)

REAPER Here. 

Clean UI and straight-forward workflow are what keep me glued to it.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jan 3, 2015)

Soundhound @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> I wonder what percentage of Cubase users here are on OSX? Anyone hazard a guess?



There is actually a DAW poll on Gearslutz right now...

Windows was 53% of all users with OS X 47%. Cubase was 22% of all users (OS X and Windows combined). On OS X 8% of users had Cubase as their primary DAW and on Windows 33% used Cubase.

So, if we make Cubase 100% of the population with some fancy math, it looks like about 25% of Cubase users are on OS X - at least over at Gearslutz.

o=<


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 4, 2015)

I see 3 use FL Studio. For some reason VSL ensemble is not working for me in this app. VSL instruments work. This is the only DAW where I have this problem.


----------



## nutotech (Jan 4, 2015)

Love this thread! For some reason I don't recall.. a number of us Dallas composers chose DP circa 2003. Still using DP; still no real complaints. 

My large orchestral template includes six VEP5/K5's pretty much filled to the brim. Also a couple instances of Massive and Absynth + SM Clarinet and Bass Cl + RMX. Quite pleased at DP's handling of this large (I know some of you guys with slaves are poo-pooing) template and the fact I can run at 256 without problems.

For scoring video projects DP is just fantastic. Never had a problem locking to picture or experience crashes. MOTU keeps bugging us to try DP8, but if it ain't broke...? 

Final note: *Could* see moving to Logic. Working in Garage Band and FCP there's a zen to the Apple work flow. Think the transition wouldn't be that painful. Not to mention the possibility of freeing up some CPU power.


----------



## H.R. (Jan 4, 2015)

After years of working with Cubase 5,6,7, Last year I moved to Studio One and it's amazing. It has everything I want and it's more straight forward than Cubase. (Kind of more like Logic which is another great DAW).

But again just like Hans Zimmer once said: "The best DAW is the one you are used to"


----------



## Vik (Jan 5, 2015)

H.R. @ 5.1.2015 said:


> After years of working with Cubase 5,6,7, Last year I moved to Studio One and it's amazing. It has everything I want and it's more straight forward than Cubase. (Kind of more like Logic which is another great DAW).


If StudioOne is more like Logic than Cubase, and Cubase has several benefits over Logic (related to work with orchestral libraries), how can that ba good thing?  I'm not saying that Logic isn't a good DAW, I've used it for ages myself, but I'm surprised that Logic has received as many votes as it has in this poll. 

What exactly - related to orchestral work - is it that would make someone prefer Logic over Cubase?



> But again just like Hans Zimmer once said: "The best DAW is the one you are used to"


I couldn't disagree more.  The best DAW is the DAW which has the best workflow and features (for what you want to use it for), and of: course performance and stability is very important as well. The DAW you are "used to" is simply the DAW you happen to have spent the most time with.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 5, 2015)

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35147

Older poll, with a list of 'notable composers' and what they use.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 5, 2015)

H.R. @ Mon Jan 05 said:


> "The best DAW is the one you are used to"


I don't agree. I used Propellerhead Reason for years. I was very used to it, and in fact, it is still my favorite DAW to work in. However, because it will not play host to VSTs, I must admit it is by no means the best DAW for orchestral music.
I use Studio One now, and I do enjoy it, but not as much as I did Reason.


----------



## Ozymandias (Jan 5, 2015)

I use Reaper, but didn't vote because there's not much about it that makes me think it's particularly well-suited to orchestral libraries. :lol: There's no score editor and the MIDI Editor is nothing special.

Slaves and/or VEPro aren't as essential as they appear to be with other hosts, so there's that in its favour, I suppose.


----------



## MichaelL (Jan 5, 2015)

DP8. I've used Performer since it was first introduced in the 1980's, then Digital Performer in the 90's. 

I tried Logic 9, briefly, only because it was the first to go 64bit and didn't like it. 

DP8 does everything that I want, or need, for it to do.


----------



## scientist (Jan 5, 2015)

looks like i'm the sole ableton live user. it's probably not the best for detailed midi editing, but it is what i'm used to. using session view to structure arrangements is probably it's best feature that most other DAWs don't have (except for studio one and bitwig?). but yeah... midi minutiae can be a pain, but at least i'm not on protools anymore.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jan 5, 2015)

scientist @ Mon Jan 05 said:


> looks like i'm the sole ableton live user. it's probably not the best for detailed midi editing, but it is what i'm used to. using session view to structure arrangements is probably it's best feature that most other DAWs don't have (except for studio one and bitwig?). but yeah... midi minutiae can be a pain, but at least i'm not on protools anymore.



I know Daniel James uses Ableton Live, he probably hasn't voted yet... :D

Looks like Cubase is the winner with half the votes - incredible!


----------



## H.R. (Jan 5, 2015)

Vik @ Mon Jan 05 said:


> H.R. @ 5.1.2015 said:
> 
> 
> > After years of working with Cubase 5,6,7, Last year I moved to Studio One and it's amazing. It has everything I want and it's more straight forward than Cubase. (Kind of more like Logic which is another great DAW).
> ...



I don't have the experience of working with Logic, but I've heard and seen a lot about similarities between them.

I'm not saying which DAW is better than the other one but for me, Studio One is faster and smoother than Cubase. For example many features of Cubase are either separate or more time consuming to get, But in Studio One, workflow is much faster and in this case the GUI and some functions are similar to Logic. Personally I have easier and faster experience with Studio One and I do a lot of orchestral stuff. 

I think my own story is an example that a certain DAW is not a guaranty of making better music. Maybe Cubase have more functions and pros over Studio One but I feel more comfortable with Studio One (And I have been a crazy fan of Cubase and still have it on my system)

I don't think Mr.Zimmer meant that "The DAW you are "used to" is simply the DAW you happen to have spent the most time with." It's about the DAW you have more knowledge about and have been working with it without problem. I do sound design for videogames and films too and I use Adobe Audition for that (Main reason is its great integration with Adobe Premiere). People are all over me to use Pro Tools that it's the standard of the industry and stuff, but I'm perfectly happy with Audition and I get whatever I want from it and I know it pretty well. (Although I installed Pro Tools today because I'm collaborating with a group whom all use Pro Tools :D )

BTW: Check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouPCnk-gqj4


----------



## JohnG (Jan 5, 2015)

The DAW that is the most invisible is my favourite. 

That is, the one that you don't even notice because it does what you want without conscious thinking, just as one doesn't think about the fingering on one's instrument when reading Eb -- you just do it.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 5, 2015)

"The best DAW is the one you are used to"

This is true, until you want a critical feature that it doesn't have. After you find an alternative that has the better feature, the original DAW might become 2nd best.

It's also not true if you get crashes and hang ups. In that case, the most familiar DAW quickly becomes the worst.


----------



## Jaap (Jan 5, 2015)

josejherring @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> Cubase with vst 3 and VEPro make working with large templates the smoothest of any DAW on the market right now.



I fully agree with this!

I switched from Sonar X1 two years ago to Cubase and I never want to get back for the reasons I just quoted from Jose


----------



## 5Lives (Jan 5, 2015)

I am a big critic of Cubase from a workflow standpoint for some things (and the feature bloat), but I love being able to set up a template on it with folder tracks and then disabling many tracks to save on the loading time and memory load. I can enable the instrument tracks if I need to use the instrument. I only know of Pro Tools having this sort of "disable" functionality. Does Logic?

This plus VST Expression, CC modification right in the controller lane via the little control points, layered MIDI editing, etc. It really is great IMO - can't stand it for audio / vocal production though or mixing.


----------



## hexatonics (Jan 5, 2015)

Another in need of 10 posts to vote. I started with Cubase and moved to PT, primarily because I use it extensively for audio mixing/mastering. However, PT is very limited in its MIDI functionality and it takes a lot of work to put together orchestral compositions. I would not hesitate to switch at some future date. Poll results are very helpful in my decision making.


----------



## luke_7 (Jan 5, 2015)

"The DAW that is the most invisible is my favourite. "
I totally agree with John, and therefore i chose Cubase.


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Jan 5, 2015)

I ticked ProTools, as that's where everything ends up before mixdown, but I usually do all my MIDI programming in Logic as ProTools MIDI editor is a suckling pig, and import the finished MIDI files into ProTools before adding any audio tracks and mixing.

I'm still using Logic 5, as I am a diehard PC user, and run all the libraries on a couple of slave PCs which gets around Logic 5's 1GB RAM access issues!

Logic's score editor, in particular, is a joy to work with... alternative note-heads, percussion clef, limit the range of what shows on the score (i.e. don't show keyswitches...)

I am a musician, so I prefer to edit from the score, and only use the event editor for fine tuning. I wish ProTools MIDI editing was half as good as Logic's!

I cut my teeth on Creator, and then Notator (on an Atari) before Logic... I know many here will not agree, but it was a sad day for me when E-Magic sold out to Apple... :(


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 5, 2015)

Ozymandias @ Mon Jan 05 said:


> I use Reaper, but didn't vote because there's not much about it that makes me think it's particularly well-suited to orchestral libraries. :lol: There's no score editor and the MIDI Editor is nothing special.
> 
> Slaves and/or VEPro aren't as essential as they appear to be with other hosts, so there's that in its favor, I suppose.



I've heard that comment before in other post that other Midi Editors are more advanced than Reapers and would like to know more about what the others can do that Reaper can't since my only real experience with midi has been inside of Reaper. I'm interested because I plan to do a lot of living in the piano roll and just want to make sure I'm not missing out on too much. I also wonder if that's not the case anymore since even in just the last 2 years Reaper has grown up quite a bit with it's midi capabilities. Have you seen this tutsplus video tips and tricks on Reapers midi? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tmm7jGfUII

There's even a tutorial on how to do something similar to Stienbergs expression maps in Reaper. I don't want to dis-rail this thread though so I think I'll start a post in the Reaper forum to see what other users find lacking in the Midi editor or if those things have been resolved.


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig (Jan 6, 2015)

I'm using Cubase for my daily composition work, and Reaper for sound-design and post-production work.

I absolutely LOVE the deep customization options in Reaper, and my number one gripe with Cubase is the lack of same.

Cubase has a far superior piano-roll editor - and especially the editing of CC curves is so much smoother and more powerful than in Reaper.

So my DAW future is probably being split between the two. If Reaper were to get a really smooth and powerful midi-editor, I might switch away from Cubase completely.


----------



## emid (Jan 6, 2015)

S1 user here. Primarily chose S1 for it's quick workflow which is very important for me otherwise I get stuck. I had the opportunity to try almost every daw under the sun running on pc and I wish I could cope with cubase or DP workflow. I don't need expression maps, chord tracks but extensive cc mapping and midi work and DP seems to work pretty well for this. If S1 v3 will not have surprises I will seriously start looking into DP.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 6, 2015)

I use Cubase Mac, but that's just because I know it fairly well. Early on, post the late lamented Vision, I used both DP and Pro Tools. DP was fine. Pro Tools was great for audio and crappy for MIDI. Cubase was first to the table with virtual instruments and effects and that bowled me over.

I'm sure they're all good now, but I spend so much useless time fussing with tech, downloading stuff, upgrading this, backing up this, learning that, setting up a new template or messing with my present one-I cannot imagine putting in the time to learn another DAW as well as I know Cubase, which is one of the many reasons I've been on Cubase 6 since late 2011-it works, I compose and mix, voila.

(...and of course, if Steinberg fixes the VEP problem, I'm looking to go from Snow Leopard to Yosemite and Cubase 6 to Cubase 8 because I'm obviously stupid....)


----------



## Ozymandias (Jan 6, 2015)

pderbidge @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> Ozymandias @ Mon Jan 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I use Reaper, but didn't vote because there's not much about it that makes me think it's particularly well-suited to orchestral libraries. :lol: There's no score editor and the MIDI Editor is nothing special.
> ...



Don't get me wrong - as an all-round DAW, Reaper is incredible. It's just not an obvious choice for orchestral work, to my mind. Not out-of-the-box, so to speak. Some of the functions I use the most in MIDI work, like proportionate velocity/CC ramping, are only possible in Reaper thanks to generous scripters.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 6, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> (...and of course, if Steinberg fixes the VEP problem



Mini thread hijack - I'd encourage all Cubase / VEP users to add their names to the thread on the Steinberg forum. VSL have investigated and basically said there's nothing they can do their end, it requires Steinberg to fix. So far Steinberg haven't replied.

http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtop ... 26&t=71420

Sorry for the tangent, carry on.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 6, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > (...and of course, if Steinberg fixes the VEP problem
> ...


Doesn't the "fix" imply that the tracks will be out of sync until a stop/restart? Or am I misunderstanding things?

D


----------



## azeteg (Jan 6, 2015)

It could be handled by not reconfiguring the audio engine on the fly. Switching between tracks during playback would thus not change the buffersize of newly armed (or disarmed) tracks until the next stop/start cycle.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 6, 2015)

azeteg @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> It could be handled by not reconfiguring the audio engine on the fly. Switching between tracks during playback would thus not change the buffersize of newly armed (or disarmed) tracks until the next stop/start cycle.


Ah, so it would just mean that more tracks are in "live" mode, then everything would be back to normal on a new start cycle.

D


----------



## ceemusic (Jan 6, 2015)

I started with Cakewalk DOS around 1999 & used it exclusively up until X3. Out of frustration I switched to Cubase & haven't touched X3 in over a year now.

I never thought I'd have the patience to learn a different DAW but am so glad I did.
Both are excellent programs, both with pros & cons but Cubase is the clear choice for myself going forward.

I also have & occasionally fire up Studio One, Reaper, (Harrison Mixbus for mixing stems.) I tried DP but it didn't seem to work well for my workflow.


----------



## quantum7 (Jan 6, 2015)

Considering Cubase is probably the most expensive DAW, but still is used so widely, is a testament to its great workflow. I've used Cubase since the 90's Atari days and have never looked back.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 6, 2015)

quantum7 @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> Considering Cubase is probably the most expensive DAW....


I'm not so sure that it is. DP is a similar price, Pro Tools (for the same feature set) is way more expensive and Logic may be cheaper, but requires a hugely more expensive dongle, er, computer. :wink: 

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 6, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> azeteg @ Tue Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > It could be handled by not reconfiguring the audio engine on the fly. Switching between tracks during playback would thus not change the buffersize of newly armed (or disarmed) tracks until the next stop/start cycle.
> ...



No, I don't think that follows, Daryl. The idea as I understand it is you'd work at a higher latency on your new live track until the next stop / start. That said, I think the problem is more complex than this because it affects behaviour at rest, not just when the transport is engaged. 

Anyway, I don't expect much action - no-one is bothering to add their weight to the Issues thread on this - http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtop ... 30&t=70250 so Steinberg won't treat it as a priority. I'll put various hectoring posts in places and see if it jolts any more action from users, it's pretty frustrating.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jan 6, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> quantum7 @ Tue Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Considering Cubase is probably the most expensive DAW....
> ...



To be fair, many Cubase users are Mac owners. :D 

I think Cubase is the 3rd most expensive, after PT and Live - DP is the same price. It's more than twice the cost of Logic, Studio one or FL Studio. So it's remarkable how popular it has remained.


----------



## bradbecker (Jan 6, 2015)

OK, did any of you use Bars & Pipes on the Amiga? That was truly different. Of course, that predates vi's though but I need my 10 posts to vote as well.

For sequencers and DAWs in general, I went through phases of Dr. T's, early cubase and logic, Nuendo, Acid, Vegas, Pro Tools, Reason, Sonar, Studio One, and now Logic Pro X. Still digging in to that but it looks promising as long as Apple continues to develop it.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jan 6, 2015)

fiestared @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> "Logic"
> 
> I'm a user from the very beginning of "Performer" then, Vision, Studio Vision, Pro Tools(Sound Designer and Sound Accelerator), and "Logic" but I must say I'm looking a bit toward Cubase...
> F.red



I followed that exact same path but I ended up using Digital Performer. Vision was a nice DAW. Too bad Gibson bought it and killed it. Deck was also great in it's day.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2015)

Vision/Studio Vision was the best for midi sequencing unmatched even today. Many a fond memories bringing the macIIcx to the studio to track with my friends playing along.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 7, 2015)

MaraschinoMusic @ 6.1.2015 said:


> Logic's score editor, in particular, is a joy to work with... alternative note-heads, percussion clef, limit the range of what shows on the score (i.e. don't show keyswitches...)
> 
> I am a musician, so I prefer to edit from the score, and only use the event editor for fine tuning. I wish ProTools MIDI editing was half as good as Logic's!


same here! nothing beats logics score editor. i even do all my notation in logic (from lead sheet over big band to orchestra). i often do midi-piano sketches and play vi-instruments by reading directly from screen while recording. that goes so far that i badly miss a song position line in the score when playing live 

the possibility to open multiple editors (i.e. one score editor for the currently selected region and annother one fixed for the complete score) and save the screen sets for different tasks can't be found in any other daw. 
when i watch cubase users they always open and close windows all the time. i don't do that in logic. i have my screen sets with the open editors i use and they show what i'm doing and i can change everything everywhere... in my case mostly in the score and in the event list.

annother great feature is the endless list of key commands. most are unused if you don't assign it. so it's worth to deleve the key command list from time to time... for example 'change sustain pedal to midi note lenght' or 'select all notes with the same positon inside a bar in all bars' or 'delete all notes shorter than xxx' (for midi-guitars and windcontroller a must have) or 'select top notes of chords'. there are several hundered of key commands for a very personal workflow. logic even looks complete different on the screen when you go to different power users. the more you use it the harder it is to change daw!


----------



## Steve Steele (Jan 7, 2015)

Saxer @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> MaraschinoMusic @ 6.1.2015 said:
> 
> 
> > Logic's score editor, in particular, is a joy to work with... alternative note-heads, percussion clef, limit the range of what shows on the score (i.e. don't show keyswitches...)
> ...



That's one area where I wish DP would improve. For all of the traditional scoring things DP does right, it's notation editor is a bit wonky. Sometimes I'll open Logic just to use a score editor in a DAW.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 7, 2015)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> Vision/Studio Vision was the best for midi sequencing unmatched even today. Many a fond memories bringing the macIIcx to the studio to track with my friends playing along.



Vision was the first truly professional, rock solid MIDI sequencer I ever used, and it broke my heart when Opcode went out of business, 'cause I just loved it. It also perplexed me- at the time the Logic progenitor was PC and MOTU had a small footprint- Opcode had the Mac thing sewn up. Had they ported it to PC they would have been dominant. I think the transition to audio (Studio Vision) must have been costly, but I couldn't understand why no one could figure out a way to keep the doors open and why Gibson/Norlin let it die. I'm sure people here must know the scoop...?

My progression-

1.Oberheim DMX hardware sequencer as part of the Oberheim "System" (with OBX-a synth and DX drum machine)
2. Mr T on the Commodore SX-64, a "portable" computer with built in 5 inch color screen, only 25 lbs!
3. Something made by Southworth on the Mac Plus- quite comprehensive, rarely got through a session without 5 or 6 crashes.
4. Opcode Vision on Mac Plus and subsequent Macs- a true gem and a reliable studio partner. In my commercial studio, we had it synced with Pro Tools 3 and 3/4 inch video via MIDI Time Code and SMPTE code- to score, we ran the whole thing from a remote that controlled the 3/4 inch video deck- somehow it all worked.
5. Cubase in '97 to present, the first VST sequencer and the template for the future. Awful growing pains but great promise which it eventually fulfilled. Virtual instruments and effects! QuickTime integration! Heady days.


----------



## stevetwist (Jan 7, 2015)

Another one in the minority here. My vote is for Ableton Live.

I only just made the switch to Live (picked it up in the Christmas sale). I've been a Cubase user for over a decade, but whilst it is good at what it does, I have always felt hindered by the lack of extendability. You can add more plugins, and you can kind-of use the 'logical process editor' for some things, but a lack of a dedicated API or scripting language, and I felt my hands were just too tied (my day job is as a programmer for a visual effects company, so I'm quite at home writing code).

So, after looking around at the more open options (Reaper with it's API and scripting, for example), I settled on Ableton Live because, from what I can tell, it is by far the most open DAW when you combine it with MaxForLive and the Live API. You can write new MIDI effects, audio effects and MIDI instruments in Max, but better than that, you can also call on the entire Live API from max (which means you can manipulate tracks, clips, MIDI data... you name it).

Right now it's still early days, but my hope is to be able to augment my Live workflow to be exactly what I want it to be (which is a way of working that simply isn't possible with any other DAW, that I'm aware of - or certainly not easy to implement).

Time will tell if this pays off, or if I find myself going back to Cubase.

Steve


----------



## Steve Steele (Jan 7, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Jan 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Vision/Studio Vision was the best for midi sequencing unmatched even today. Many a fond memories bringing the macIIcx to the studio to track with my friends playing along.
> ...



Ha. Good stuff. I started on a Mac Classic with Master Tracks Pro (which I still have and it still works!) and a Roland Sound Canvas. Then quickly bought a Quadra 650 and demoed Performer, Vision, Cubase and Logic. That was back when the big debate was between the way Performer and Vision handled sequences vs Logic and Cubase. Digital Performer's Chuncks vs Logic's one sequence per project as an example. I also got the Proteus 2 orchestral rack synth (great cellos).

It was a tough call between Performer and Vision. I kept going back and forth between the two. I settled on Digital Performer 1.7 when I got the audiomedio card(?) and Sound Designer II software. I believe I had an early Waves Gold bundle. 

DP on a 68040 Mac running System 7.1 was a very stable and fast system for me at that time. I wish I still had my Quadra. I gave it away a few years ago but it was still running fine.

I don't think Vision was necessarily any better than Performer, although the GUI was cleaner, but you're right. Vision could have won the early DAW wars. Man, they just dropped right out the picture overnight. Really too bad as the guy behind Opcode seemed like a major player.

It was pretty amazing what one could pull off with four tracks of audio. 

Good times!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 7, 2015)

I worked in a studio for a guy who used DP, I think it was 7. I learned the MIDI side of it pretty quickly, and I liked it, just never saw any compelling need to switch from Cubase.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 7, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> I think the transition to audio (Studio Vision) must have been costly, but I couldn't understand why no one could figure out a way to keep the doors open and why Gibson/Norlin let it die. I'm sure people here must know the scoop...?



There are so many tales about Gibson/Norlin killing Opcode, and Oberheim - not sure which ones to believe anymore. What I do know is that it was a shame! On both counts!



NYC Composer said:


> My progression-
> 
> 1.Oberheim DMX hardware sequencer as part of the Oberheim "System"
> 2. Mr T on the Commodore SX-64



I started with the SCI "system" - a DrumTracks and MultiTracks.

I too had an SX-64, can't remember the second sequencer I used, but the first was a plug-in cartridge from SCI that worked remarkably well - for the time.

That's where our paths part... I had Dr. T's for the Amiga, but when Bars & Pipes came out (there was a predecessor from the same programmer, can't remember the name) I was sold. I ended up with an Amiga 3000 with co-processor boards and the Sunrize Audio card - it worked really well, but mostly I slaved the Amiga to SMPTE time code on tape. That system lasted, for me, longer than Commodore<G>!

In the mid 1990s, when it became clear, even to me, that the Amiga was not coming back I switched to a PC, and Cakewalk. There were lots of reasons, but having to learn a new operating system and new tools was a hurdle, and at the time Apple was struggling, so I picked Windoze.

There are some great Mac only tools, but the number does continue to shrink. I think I will eventually add a Mac to the studio, but for now I'm in pretty good shape.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 8, 2015)

Ha- I love my mistake- "Mr T sequencer"! I PITY the fool!


----------



## Vik (Feb 6, 2015)

The preferences of the members of the composers here seem quite obvious... but what about some more votes.... anyone? :-]


----------



## Steve Steele (Feb 6, 2015)

Not that important but it would be interesting to see the results by region. I wonder if Cubase had the same percentage in the US, or if DP has less in Europe, etc..


----------



## Dani Donadi (Feb 7, 2015)

My vote is: Cubase Pro on Mac (VEP on slaved PC)
I've tried most major DAWS, my work is mostly film/tv and this is just my opinion about the other DAWS.
PT: good for audio but the lack of folders makes big orchestrations very difficult, also no custom key commands and freeze tracks. I also don't like the fact that you don't get many important features ( like snapshot automation or VCA faders) in the non-HD version, I'd understand if PT was only $200 or less, but for a $600 software, I find it a bit of a rip off.

LogicPro: I've been a Logic user for many years and recently switched to Cubase. I find LPX's GUI a bit too big for a large templates and the VI performance is not that great on my aging MacPro. 
Also the handling of VEP (slaved) is not as smooth to me. Logic is still the best choice after Cubase.

DP: I have a love/hate relationship with DP8, I find the chunks feature fantastic for scoring, everything else a bit convoluted, maybe because it's not an object based DAW, this makes it difficult to organize a cue the way I want especially when you can't colorize markers.

After using Cubase Pro intensively, I realized that it was the best DAW for my workflow. It's still not the perfect one (will there ever be one?) but here are features I really like:
Expression Maps: can't live without these anymore!!!!
Chord Track: 
Intense Key Commands customizing: You can make key commands to bring your favorite audio plugins.... That's awesome!!!
Folders: folders within folders within folders........
Customize Views: you can see hundreds of tracks at once and able to read the names at any level.
Markes: you can have regular markers but also use arrangement markers to highlite a cue or a section. Makes it easy on the eyes...
These are just a few features I like on Cubase.

Sorry for the long post.

Dani


----------



## pkm (Feb 7, 2015)

I'm on Logic X because I'm very fast with it and have a large EXS24 library, but depending on the job, I will work in Logic 9, Logic X, or Pro Tools 10. I've tried Cubase on a couple of occasions, but between missing the EXS24, my large collection of channel strip presets, my custom Apple Loop library, and my familiarity with Logic, it never stuck. Gun to my head, I could switch, but why bother? Anything I want to do in Logic, I can, so I'd rather focus on improving my writing than learning a new sequencer.

In a perfect world, I would use a version of Logic that can have nested folders, expression maps, VST3, and some of the MIDI editing from Cubase, chunks/V-Racks and the tempo & marker sync features of DP, and beat detective and the audio editing from Pro Tools.

Surprisingly, most of my clients - by a large majority - compose in Pro Tools. That said, I've somehow stumbled into the niche of mostly working with rock stars-turned composers, and coming from studio land, their world is largely Pro Tools. I actually write on a network show (big action/drama series, huge score) in PT10 (32-bit, no VE Pro). Looooooots of printing as I go, but it gets the job done and has some tricks up its sleeve.


----------



## Vik (Feb 7, 2015)

pkm @ 7.2.2015 said:


> I'm on Logic X because I'm very fast with it and have a large EXS24 library


Are there any "proper" sample libraries for EXS, made with the same features that most string libraries (Berlin, Spitfire, CineSamples, Adagio, HS and so forth) have nowadays – with multiple mic positions, portamento samples, a wide variety of articulations (sul tasto/flautando/sul pont/con sord) and so on?


----------



## olajideparis (Feb 7, 2015)

No there are not. It would be impossible to do many of the things that a modern library needs to do in EXS24, on top of that developers have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to develop for that format since there is no copy protection of any kind for EXS24 libraries.


----------



## Vik (Feb 18, 2015)

Bump.


----------



## rgarber (Feb 18, 2015)

I don't do orchestral stuff so I'm not voting but I'll add my 2 cents here anyway. I started out with Pinnacle Project Studio from Turtlebeach back in the mid to late 90's, anybody remember it? 

I graduated to Sonar reluctantly in the early 2000's and was pretty happy with it through ver 8.5 and then Skylight came about. Productivity for me went downhill real fast. Couple of years ago I was watching a Groove 3 video on Sonar x1 when it dawned on me that as many videos I went through they were all about the GUI. I figured there had to be something better and wound up trying Studio 1. 

I Love Studio 1. Productivity is way up, but I still have Sonar on the computer just in case I need some extensive midi filtering for editing which I'll do in Sonar. Rarely happens though. 99.9% of what I need Studio 1 can handle. Some quirks every now and then which drive me bonkers at times but mostly I'm ecstatic with it. Be nice if they get the Sonar graphics guys to do some fancy-ing up some screens.

The fella who earlier said it best for me said it earlier when he said the more invisible the daw is, the better. I like how Sonar looks cool to work with all their fancy plug-ins but getting stuff done to me is the most important So Studio 1 is what I work with.

Rich


----------



## Arbee (Feb 19, 2015)

Must say I'm surprised to see Pro Tools get so few votes. I came (back) to music around PT9 (+VEPro), so perhaps there is history I'm unaware of. The midi and notation in PT works just fine for me, but this poll does make me curious about what I might be missing.

.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Arbee @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Must say I'm surprised to see Pro Tools get so few votes. I came (back) to music around PT9 (+VEPro), so perhaps there is history I'm unaware of. The midi and notation in PT works just fine for me, but this poll does make me curious about what I might be missing.
> 
> .


Historically Pro Tools was pretty useless for many composers, due to lack of MIDI features and no faster than real time bounce. It is also three times the price of any other sequencer (comparing like for like) and with the current fiasco of upgrade "offers" I don't expect many composers to be considering it in the future.

D


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

Pro Tools is just for audio isn't it?

My preferred is Logic 9 only because thats all I've ever used going back to Notator.

I would try something else if I was convinced to do so. I will move to Logic X as soon as I change computers.


----------



## MA-Simon (Feb 19, 2015)

Cubase all the way! 

It may not be the prettiest DAW, but... so much options.
Everythings is where one would expect it to be. 
Everything is working.

I tried Logic but... Urgh.


----------



## 5Lives (Feb 19, 2015)

Given that I own Cubase 8, Logic X, PT 11HD, and Ableton for some reason, was thinking of doing a series of comparisons based on what I've learned about them and how I use them. Would that interest anybody?


----------



## luke_7 (Feb 19, 2015)

Actually Cubase pro 8 can be the prettiest You have to invest some time with customisation.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Feb 19, 2015)

5Lives @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Given that I own Cubase 8, Logic X, PT 11HD, and Ableton for some reason, was thinking of doing a series of comparisons based on what I've learned about them and how I use them. Would that interest anybody?



Sure, why not, if you have time for it  might be good for people that dont know which DAW to start with, I think the majority of people will change DAWs eventually, only a small number of people will stay with one DAW for many many years, at least that is my impression - and its ok, because everyone likes different workflow, layout, compatibility, etc.

Me personally started with Cubase, and moved to Logic - its more suited to my simplistic workflow, feels more comfortable... I think you can sense something German in the way Cubase operates - i dont mean it offensive or sth  its more advanced in some areas - I really like Expression maps and MIDI editing there, but for beginner as myself, that might be overwhelming - completely happy with Logic, even though it has its faults as well


----------



## Vik (Feb 19, 2015)

olajideparis @ 7.2.2015 said:


> No there are not. It would be impossible to do many of the things that a modern library needs to do in EXS24, on top of that developers have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to develop for that format since there is no copy protection of any kind for EXS24 libraries.


Which makes me keep wondering what it is in Logic that would make someone prefer Logic over Cubase for the kind of composing we talk about in this thread. I use Logic, but not because I think it's the best for work with orchestral libraries, but because I haven't yet decided what my next move will be. Sibelius + Cubase? Wait for Steinbergs new score editor, which will be based on the Cubase audio engine (and made by a large team of former Sibelius coders)? I thought for a long time that Apple+Emagic would be brilliant for Logic'a development – but unfortunately, it seems as if phones, watches, probably TVS and now maybe even cars has much higher priority for Apple than improving the composing + orchestral related stuff in Logic. And I don't blame them - surely world dominance in all areas can be tempting. I just don't get why they can't assign enough people to Logic to maintain and develop it in all areas while other teams dreaming about and working on watches, TVs, phones and cars. They surely can afford to do all this.


----------



## stigc56 (Mar 15, 2015)

I think it must depends on what the end result of your work in the DAW is.
Some are producing music for scorring, and don't need to focus so much on the mix capabilities, and some - like me - have to deliver at complete sound track.
Also the balance between VI's and real instruments in your workflow is of importance when you choose DAW. I think Cubase 8 - and I know all the rest quite well - is overall the most complete DAW, but it still have issues like:

- what controller? The Eucon based MC Control is only partly supported and Steinberg dropped their own system
- the CPU usage is a bit unpredictable
- crashing on quit still is an issue

I have been with Logic for many years, but I think the GUI just got to weird/dark for me, and the limitations regarding the use of VEPro on slaves is bad. I also find the sound to be different from Cubase, PT, SO and DP8. And the midi editor is just too basal with only one CC lane at the time.

I wished that Steinberg would implement the Eucon platform fully - the old driver is almost 3 years old, and you can't hide tracks on this surface - and give us a GUI that is fully customizingable. Sorry that's not a word but the know what I mean?


----------



## olajideparis (Jun 13, 2015)

This is going to sound strange but somehow Cubase seems meant for PC. There are definitely a lot of people using it on OSX and I had it installed on my macbook pro for emergency reasons but I prefer the Cubase experience on Windows for some reason.


----------



## clisma (Jun 13, 2015)

Lawson. @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> I was (and still am) a Logic guy, but DP8 is just amazing for working with orchestral libraries.



Care to elaborate about DP? V-Rack and chunks are useful, but I'm always curious to see other users' tips (especially about Orchestral work), so I can have one more reason to launch DP a bit more often than Logic..


----------



## Vik (Aug 17, 2015)

Oops... all the votes seem to have disappeared with the new forum software. Please vote again!


----------



## Guffy (Aug 17, 2015)

Studio One.

Everything is just so seamless and simple. Makes it hard to go back to any other DAW.

Edit:
I've tried Reaper, Ableton, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools aswell.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Aug 17, 2015)

Tried Reaper, Ableton, Cubase, Logic - Cubase is a winner for me


----------



## scarred bunny (Aug 17, 2015)

PeterKorcek said:


> Tried Reaper, Ableton, Cubase, Logic - Cubase is a winner for me



I'm curious - I believe you said you were using Logic earlier in this thread. Any particular reason for switching over to Cubase again?


----------



## babylonwaves (Aug 17, 2015)

Logic X here. but admittedly, some features in Cubase dedicate it for orchestral work (e.g. expression maps).


----------



## PeterKorcek (Aug 17, 2015)

scarred bunny said:


> I'm curious - I believe you said you were using Logic earlier in this thread. Any particular reason for switching over to Cubase again?


Hi, I liked Logic, but I think I was a bit too used to Cubase workflow, so in the end I missed seeing and editing multiple MIDI CC and parameters, had trouble with Logic differently handling multi-timbral instruments, audio spikes, mixer capabilities, etc. I'm glad I tried it, it's fine, but Cubase suits me better. Sometimes we have to find it out the harder way :-D


----------



## scarred bunny (Aug 17, 2015)

I see, and agree. Cubase has fantastic features for editing multiple tracks and CC:s with ease - probably the main reason why I use it, and why I've felt awkward and hamstrung to various degrees in every other DAW I've tried. Also: great implementations of track folders, tempo mapping/warping, handy features for managing ridiculous track counts, key commands for everything, customizable macros, handy features for managing ridiculous track counts... yeah, I think Cubase is pretty nifty, despite some niggles here and there. Expression maps seems like a selling point for many, but for me I think they're more trouble than they're worth. 

I did use Logic for a bit in ye goode olde days of versions 7 and 8 though and quite liked it too. Much better window management for one thing, at least compared to Cubase on Windows. Maybe some day I'll get bored and build a Hackintosh and give it another whirl. Sometimes I miss geeking around in the environment.


----------



## anp27 (Aug 17, 2015)

Love love love Logic X and since the AG Toolkit has been around, haven't had the need to look elsewhere (Cubase and Expression Maps).


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 17, 2015)

Here is the simple truth: If you use a DAW for a long while it trains you to think the way it thinks. So when you go to another and it does things differently, most people will feel "awkward and hamstrung".

I am one of "the Logic Pro guys" but I could just as easily have been a Cubase or a DP guy, and many users of these DAWs will tell you that when it existed Studio Vision beat them all. In the end if you can write and mix well which one you use doesn't matter and if you cannot, the same is true.


----------



## tomaslobosk (Aug 17, 2015)

I've tried a lot of them, I started with FL Studio, but it's very limited, and IMHO Cubase is the best DAW when working with old-midi-fashion instruments like Kontakt, everything fits perfectly. Also Cubase is nearly as good as Pro Tools for audio editing and for post production.


----------



## scarred bunny (Aug 17, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Here is the simple truth: If you use a DAW for a long while it trains you to think the way it thinks. So when you go to another and it does things differently, most people will feel "awkward and hamstrung".



There's a lot of truth to that simple truth, yes. Although when I demo a new program, I do try my best to adapt to its own logic and way of thinking, as opposed to trying to bend it to my own ingrained habits. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work so well, sometimes you learn new things from looking at it from a different angle. But generally, I would think the "best" DAW is the one that's most compatible with how your own brain works, which very likely will be the one you've spent the most time with, for the reason you mentioned.

They're all pefectly good programs though, of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. 

Logic was the first DAW I tried that I got along with, and I might still be using it if it weren't Mac only. It was recommended to me on the Tweakheadz forum once upon a time by some guy called Jay Asher or something.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 17, 2015)

I think Jay Asher is over-rated


----------



## scarred bunny (Aug 17, 2015)

Maybe so, but he wrote some tunes that were pretty cool for that old Zorro TV show, don't you think? I remember watching that as a kid and still hum the title song every now and then.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 17, 2015)

scarred bunny said:


> Maybe so, but he wrote some tunes that were pretty cool for that old Zorro TV show, don't you think? I remember watching that as a kid and still hum the title song every now and then.


----------



## Lawson. (Aug 17, 2015)

clisma said:


> Care to elaborate about DP? V-Rack and chunks are useful, but I'm always curious to see other users' tips (especially about Orchestral work), so I can have one more reason to launch DP a bit more often than Logic..



V-Racks and chunks I couldn't live without anymore (especially V-Racks; being able to host VEP5 in it/have all my busses set up behind-the-scenes is super handy), IMO it has the best ways to edit MIDI and CC data, but probably my favorite (and also the one that a lot of people can't stand) is that the whole thing is automatically multi-timbrel. A MIDI track is just a MIDI track; you have to assign it to an instrument. This means you can easily change out, reroute, substitute, etc. MIDI tracks and instruments all over the place really easily. I was helping set-up a new template in Logic X for my girlfriend recently, and I couldn't stand that a MIDI track and an instrument track were the same thing. It seemed really counterintuitive. '

A simple feature that's really handy (though not orchestrally-related) is that auto tempo finder. It's super nice to be able to put in a few markers, give it a tempo range, and have it find all the tempos that fit. Huge timesaver!

Last thing (dare I say it), with Logic you have to use the VEP Event plugin thing, with DP you have 48 channels all ready to go.

Disclaimer: I just woke up 30 minutes ago and not all information may be correct/I may have forgotten some stuff.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 17, 2015)

Lawson. said:


> Last thing (dare I say it), with Logic you have to use the VEP Event plugin thing, with DP you have 48 channels all ready to go.



No, you don't, if you know the best way to set it up.


----------



## playz123 (Aug 17, 2015)

Absolutely no offense intended to the OP, but I'm still trying to figure out what purpose this poll will serve. If more people here use one DAW over another, does that then mean it's the 'best' and that's the one everybody should use? If somebody likes one lower on the list, then does that mean they shouldn't?  Based on the statement at the beginning of the thread I think it's safe to conclude that Finale and Sibelius are not used, or very useful, in the same ways a DAW might be. I've always found that no matter what DAW one chooses some people can make fabulous music with very little, while others with all the 'right' tools might still struggle. And just for the record, no matter what poll is posted, it seems that Cubase, Logic and Pro Tools nearly always end up on top. Surprise!
Just some thoughts...carry on!


----------



## kurtvanzo (Aug 17, 2015)

playz123 said:


> Absolutely no offense intended to the OP, but I'm still trying to figure out what purpose this poll will serve. If more people here use one DAW over another, does that then mean it's the 'best' and that's the one everybody should use? If somebody likes one lower on the list, then does that mean they shouldn't?  Based on the statement at the beginning of the thread I think it's safe to conclude that Finale and Sibelius are not used, or very useful, in the same ways a DAW might be. I've always found that no matter what DAW one chooses some people can make fabulous music with very little, while others with all the 'right' tools might still struggle. And just for the record, no matter what poll is posted, it seems that Cubase, Logic and Pro Tools nearly always end up on top. Surprise!
> Just some thoughts...carry on!



I think this thread helps people that are new, and are still deciding on a DAW. When they see many working a certain DAW and discuss the pluses and minuses, it prepares them for using that DAW and there is some assurance of it continuing (switching is a hassle, just like a car you want a few good years ). Anyone looking now will find it interesting- and assuring. I'm also curious as to how many have tried Bit wig?


----------



## Lawson. (Aug 17, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> No, you don't, if you know the best way to set it up.



I didn't know that! Can you please elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 17, 2015)

Well, I help people with this for a fee. That said, I could send you a Logic Pro and VE Pro template and you can figure it out, if we have libraries in common.

But basically it goes like this: 

a) 1 VE Pro v-frame instance with only e.g. Hollywood Strings Violin 1 or Spitfire, etc. connected to a stereo instance of the VE Pro plug-in in Logic Pro.

b) Then 1 VE Pro v-frame instance with only e.g. Hollywood Strings Violin 2 or Spitfire, etc. connected to a stereo instance of the VE Pro plug-in in Logic Pro.

c) Then 1 VE Pro v-frame instance with only e.g. Hollywood Strings Viola or Spitfire, etc. connected to a stereo instance of the VE Pro plug-in in Logic Pro.

And so on and so on.


----------



## playz123 (Aug 17, 2015)

kurtvanzo said:


> I think this thread helps people that are new, and are still deciding on a DAW. When they see many working a certain DAW and discuss the pluses and minuses, it prepares them for using that DAW and there is some assurance of it continuing (switching is a hassle, just like a car you want a few good years ). Anyone looking now will find it interesting- and assuring. I'm also curious as to how many have tried Bit wig?


Good points Kurt. I think when people do discuss the pros and cons that can be useful. Then again, as Jay suggested earlier, one can get used to a specific DAW and then feel uncomfortable with another one, which in turn doesn't necessarily mean one DAW surpasses another just because somebody likes it. Bit wig...now there's one that has generated a 'bit' of discussion.


----------



## Vik (Aug 18, 2015)

playz123 said:


> If more people here use one DAW over another, does that then mean it's the 'best' and that's the one everybody should use?


No. But if if you are a composer, a DAW which is particularly popular among composers – more popular than it is among, say, sound engineers or rappers – may be worth checking out.



> I think it's safe to conclude that Finale and Sibelius are not used, or very useful, in the same ways a DAW might be.


I think many uses Sibelius (or Finale) for printouts, but a dedicated DAW for the music making. Of course - if there was one application which was good at both being a DAW and good for preparing printed scores, many composers would use one app instead of two. Someone will release such a program one day.



> I've always found that no matter what DAW one chooses some people can make fabulous music with very little, while others with all the 'right' tools might still struggle.


 Absolutely. It's just that one still wants to use the tool which is the most transparent, and which - as seldom as possible - doesn't take the focus away from what all this is about: music.


----------



## dbazile (Aug 18, 2015)

I've used several DAW's over the years, including Cakewalk 3.x ('90s), Performer ('90s), Protools (over 8 years), Logic 8/9/X, Reason 2.5 - 4, and Studio One 2/3. I've settled on Studio One because it has been the most intuitive to me and there are a lot of little workflow features that speed things up. I'm a little biased to be honest, but I'm honest with myself. Before Studio One, I'd used Protools the most for orchestral scoring, although it was a real workflow inhibitor, as EW Play would crash constantly. It wasn't until VEPro that I could do any kind of decent amount of work using Protools. I didn't like Logic, even though I was forced to use it by the video game company I was working for. I just never got into it and it just didn't seem to be a good fit. I'll admit Logic has many more features for the midi composer than Studio One has, but I'm on a quest to change that. Cubase... meh, never could get into it, although I've tried many times, I mean really tried. Just not my cup of tea I guess. More so in the intuitiveness of things. If I can't figure something out without resorting to the manual or a video, then it's just not gonna work for me. 

I use Studio One 3 currently with my VEPro templates setup on a secondary machine. This works great, very solid and easy to create stems, which I have to do a lot of these days. I love being able to map many of the commands for Studio One on my midi controller so I don't have to grab the mouse or keyboard too often. This is a real time saver. I'm not sure if the other DAW's offer that level of hardware configurability with actual DAW commands, not just transport. 

Sorry for the long post, just my opinion on why I use Studio One 3 for orchestral libraries.


----------



## Cowtothesky (Aug 18, 2015)

Digital Performer. I like the layout, the deep editing capabilities, and the stability. It is very capable of handling large orchestral templates and the way it was put together just makes sense to me. All of the big DAW's are going to be similar, but i'm sure there will be a little learning curve to switch. If your used to DAW's in general, you'll be able to get around. I know quite a few of the big composers use DP and have been supportive of it. If I had to choose another daw, it would probably be Cubase. I've tried Logic and PT and didn't like either one of those.


----------



## dsmo (Aug 19, 2015)

One of the few sonar users here. To clarify, I use Sonar 8.5, several versions back now. I'm a bit of a special case in that I'm just a hobbyist. My needs are simple. I compose for orchestra. I read music. Sonar has a great score editor for working, but not for printing. I work in the score, track, event list and console views. I have removed all but a few of the icons at the top, for things like looping, guitar view, PRV, etc. I don't use any of that. So I have a very streamlined DAW. I too have tried Cubase, often touted as the best for orchestral, but found its workflow not right for me. Another Sonar guy tried DP, actually laying out the money for it, and came back to Sonar, because the DP score editor only lets you see a short part of the score at a time. sonar's let you scroll infinitely in any dimension, which makes navigating a breeze. And this guy is a pro. I am waiting to see what Reaper's score editor is like when it finally comes in one of the 5.x versions. I lent my voice on their forum to make it more like Sonar's. If it works for me, I may be switching to Reaper. I'm one of those Linux enthusiasts (sometimes called Windows bashers), currently using Zorin. It's my default OS now, except on my music rig. My hope is that I can eventually ditch Windows entirely, and use Reaper on a Linux OS. All free, and no forced updates and compromised privacy. (well, Reaper is $60.00, almost free).


----------



## Vin (Aug 19, 2015)

I'm on Cubase 6.5., but looking closely at Studio One Pro. Would like to try Logic, but yeah, PC. :D


----------



## kitekrazy (Aug 19, 2015)

Vik said:


> No. But if if you are a composer, a DAW which is particularly popular among composers – more popular than it is among, say, sound engineers or rappers – may be worth checking out.
> 
> 
> I think many uses Sibelius (or Finale) for printouts, but a dedicated DAW for the music making. Of course - if there was one application which was good at both being a DAW and good for preparing printed scores, many composers would use one app instead of two. *Someone will release such a program one day.*
> ...



My guess is they wont because of cost and maintenance. I would probably be quite expensive and the elites would buy it but the reduces revenue.


----------



## dsmo (Aug 19, 2015)

A compromise is possible: a great DAW with a very good score editor, to get you most of the way to a professional score, which you then export to dedicated notation software. It may be that Cubase and DP are already at that level. I just wish Sonar was, and hope Reaper will be someday.


----------



## JunoVHS (Aug 19, 2015)

Bitwig! When I was in school they had us go through DP, Logic, Pro tools, and I've used all of them for extended periods of time. But a few months ago I needed to update as nothing was compatible with my OS, and Bitwig had the most interesting sound design tools, as well as looking more than competent in the midi dept., all at a low price. Sandboxed plugins, being able to load multiple projects and pull full tracks/fx chains as a sort of "kit bash", lovely curve automation, etc etc. really like it.

of course it is lacking in a few areas that would be deal breakers for some, like... not being able to change meter mid song o_0 I admit I just haven't gotten to this problem yet, apparently its going in the next update. Did I mention Bitwig is still Ver. 1


----------



## dsmo (Aug 19, 2015)

Bitwig also runs natively on Linux...sigh, if only they had a score editor...we poor, backward notation-literate musicians continue to be discriminated against...


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 19, 2015)

JunoVHS said:


> Bitwig! When I was in school they had us go through DP, Logic, Pro tools, and I've used all of them for extended periods of time. But a few months ago I needed to update as nothing was compatible with my OS, and Bitwig had the most interesting sound design tools, as well as looking more than competent in the midi dept., all at a low price. Sandboxed plugins, being able to load multiple projects and pull full tracks/fx chains as a sort of "kit bash", lovely curve automation, etc etc. really like it.
> 
> of course it is lacking in a few areas that would be deal breakers for some, like... not being able to change meter mid song o_0 I admit I just haven't gotten to this problem yet, apparently its going in the next update. Did I mention Bitwig is still Ver. 1



Bitwig is an interesting DAW, but still too young, I like the way it is getting more features, but it needs to mature quite a bit. I would give it another year of two to become a serious option. Oh ..and it even lacks a video track, and I'm not sure if they have plans to offer it via a future update. This alone is a deal breaker for a lot of media-composers. Development pace seems to be kind of slow, so I'm not expecting it to be at version 2 unil end of 2016 or maybe 2017. 

*Cubase Pro 8* is my DAW of choice. I Love it ! 

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## kurtvanzo (Aug 20, 2015)

muziksculp said:


> Bitwig is an interesting DAW, but still too young, I like the way it is getting more features, but it needs to mature quite a bit. I would give it another year of two to become a serious option. Oh ..and it even lacks a video track, and I'm not sure if they have plans to offer it via a future update. This alone is a deal breaker for a lot of media-composers. Development pace seems to be kind of slow, so I'm not expecting it to be at version 2 unil end of 2016 or maybe 2017.
> 
> *Cubase Pro 8* is my DAW of choice. I Love it !
> 
> ...



Bitwig has promise. Many people are using 3rd party software like video slave 2 for video anyway- more reliable and doesn't crash when the DAW does. Once someone comes out with one below $100 it will sell well. The real issue is tempo change and any other quirks that inevitably come with a new release.

JunoVHS you are a brave sole. I agree with Muz anyone that has deadlines should wait a year or two, at least 1.1  Glad to see people taking the plunge, let us know what else falls short- and what exceeds expectations


----------



## kitekrazy (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm a fan of FL Studio but I don't really care to use it for orchestra while there are some that use it. I like their support and their developers are always active on their forum. They listen to the end user.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 20, 2015)

Cubase for MIDI.
Reaper for audio recording/workflow.
Bidule for hosting and automation of audio/MIDI
Scope XITE-1 for Mixing & Mastering.


----------



## Steve Steele (Sep 1, 2015)

Lawson. said:


> V-Racks and chunks I couldn't live without anymore (especially V-Racks; being able to host VEP5 in it/have all my busses set up behind-the-scenes is super handy), IMO it has the best ways to edit MIDI and CC data, but probably my favorite (and also the one that a lot of people can't stand) is that the whole thing is automatically multi-timbrel. A MIDI track is just a MIDI track; you have to assign it to an instrument. This means you can easily change out, reroute, substitute, etc. MIDI tracks and instruments all over the place really easily. I was helping set-up a new template in Logic X for my girlfriend recently, and I couldn't stand that a MIDI track and an instrument track were the same thing. It seemed really counterintuitive. '
> 
> A simple feature that's really handy (though not orchestrally-related) is that auto tempo finder. It's super nice to be able to put in a few markers, give it a tempo range, and have it find all the tempos that fit. Huge timesaver!
> 
> ...


 Yes, yes, yes! Well said. Those are the keys to DP. The separate MIDI tracks may seem old-school to some people but it's really a great way to work. It's very flexible to always be in multi-timbrel mode. Especially when using VEP. 

A couple other little handy features in DP are MIDI Device Groups and Bundles. DP also handles video in an awesome way. But really the whole thing about DP is how, both on the micro (Takes) and macro (Chunks, Sequences and Mixer) level, DP is all about multiple takes. There are many ways in DP to do the same thing. It's interesting to see how other DP users work, because it seems everyone's template is unique to the individual. DP is really flexible and works the way you want it to. Maybe other DAWs do the same but I've been in DP for so long I wouldn't know. 

I have worked in Logic, and it's sometimes fun to sketch out a quick idea. But when it comes to building templates, DP is on a whole other level IMO.

Anyway, good post Lawson!


----------



## kunst91 (Sep 4, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Well, I help people with this for a fee. That said, I could send you a Logic Pro and VE Pro template and you can figure it out, if we have libraries in common.
> 
> But basically it goes like this:
> 
> ...



Hey Jay,
I know you have also mentioned that you only use VE Pro for your orchestral libraries and load the rest into logic. Do you still keep the rest of your samples/synths on the slave, or do you keep them on your main machine?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 4, 2015)

The main machine. My slave is for the Hollywood Orchestra exclusively.


----------



## kunst91 (Sep 4, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> The main machine. My slave is for the Hollywood Orchestra exclusively.



Hmm.. I am tempted to do something similar in logic when I get my slave, but I have some other non-orchestral libraries that are real memory hoggers


----------



## kurtvanzo (Sep 4, 2015)

kunst91 said:


> Hmm.. I am tempted to do something similar in logic when I get my slave, but I have some other non-orchestral libraries that are real memory hoggers



I would get anything large and slow off to your slave, but keep in mind each library will need to be redirected (and in Kontakt the patches should be "Resaved") after the move. So you may want to move a few "big" libraries rather than many smaller ones. If I had a slave (especially a PC slave) I would do the same as Jay, get all the big Play libraries onto the slave, especially HO.


----------



## Bunford (Sep 4, 2015)

Cubase Pro 8 for me!


----------



## almound (Oct 24, 2015)

bradbecker said:


> OK, did any of you use Bars & Pipes on the Amiga? That was truly different. Of course, that predates vi's though but I need my 10 posts to vote as well.


Thanks for mentioning Bars & Pipes on the Amiga, the most advanced audio system for the time. That Amiga (or some modern incarnation) is not available to us has to do with treachery at the highest levels of business, far above what any user input or programmer design could influence.


----------



## almound (Oct 24, 2015)

Arbee said:


> Must say I'm surprised to see Pro Tools get so few votes. I came (back) to music around PT9 (+VEPro), so perhaps there is history I'm unaware of. .


Over at Avid Customer Forum (https://avidproduction.force.com/avid/ACA_IdeasPage) they have a "poll" that I participate in that, when the comments on the results are read, gives an indication as to why Pro Tools gets so few votes here. It is the consensus at Avid Customer Forum that PT is a DAW "designed by engineers to be used by engineers" and should not be modified or augmented to make it more musician friendly or to enhance creativity. Rather, it should remain what it is ... a tool meant for mixing, mastering, and editing.


----------



## almound (Oct 24, 2015)

I read through this long thread and have to wonder at those that answered without stating specifically reasons for their bias. As most of you know by now, I use Sibelius as a scoring editor front-end for Presonus Studio One Pro using the full retail Kontakt player as VSTi. For this poll, I answered Sibelius, however.

Why Sibelius and not Studio One? I am not like many at this site; I don't do commercial music, and I'm also interested to write\MIDI mock up original classical music (not Epic or film music). I've used Sibelius for 15 years, but Studio One for only about 2 years now.

What's more, I'm not sure that I will remain using Studio One as the sequencer in my DAW set up. I started by using Studio One Pro, but because of the samples that I have ended up using (VSL orchestra) I would like to try out Magix Samplitude, because its big brother (Magix Sequoia) is the mixing\mastering software used by VSL for their libraries. Both of these sequencers are very popular in Europe, but not so in the US.

I began to use Studio One Pro simply because the Youtube videos from which I learned how to integrate a sequencer with Sibelius did so using Studio One Pro.

Thanks to MusiKal

[]

and to Cornelis Jordan

[].

However, now that I have had that experience I think it is time to try out other sequencers. I've recently installed 30-day trials of four other sequencers (Sonar, Fruit Loops Studio, Ableton Live, and Samplitude), and I will be making 4 tutorial videos showing how to set each of them up to use Sibelius as a scoring editor front-end. (I would have liked to do this for Cubase, but I won't pay for the dongle to do so.)

I feel that it is important not to become too complacent with the software one uses, at least not until one becomes familiar with a good portion of what is available. In that spirit, I'm beginning a hunt for a sequencer that will give better sound and which has better VSTi support. Studio One Pro is good for getting a feel for what I want to do, but I think it is time to move on.


----------



## DonovanSullivan (Oct 26, 2015)

I use FL Studio because it's the only DAW I own 

Though I have recently downloaded trials for Live and Cubase and am planning on watching some tutorials to see how they work. I may make a switch, but I've already put a lot of effort into understanding FL Studio and I am fairly comfortable with it at this point. I would have to _really_ click with one of them to justify spending another few hundred bucks when I already have FL (which I do like, just need to practice more with it).

I originally chose FL because of the huge number of tutorials on youtube. It was my first entry into the DAW world, and I thought that video tutorials would be the most useful thing to keep in mind when choosing because ultimately learning how to use the program is most important. It also felt intuitive to me at first glance, though it is getting more complex and understandable at the same time the more I learn about it.


----------



## GhostXb (Oct 27, 2015)

I use FL Studio, and I can't say it's the most effective, or stable approach to orchestral music, especially when you start getting up there in ram usage. Unfortunately I'm kinda married to the work flow, and have been too lazy to try something else.

I've tried reaper, and it seems pretty solid, but I'm still dealing with growing pains XD!


----------



## Zhao Shen (Oct 27, 2015)

GhostXb said:


> I use FL Studio, and I can't say it's the most effective, or stable approach to orchestral music, especially when you start getting up there in ram usage. Unfortunately I'm kinda married to the work flow, and have been too lazy to try something else.
> 
> I've tried reaper, and it seems pretty solid, but I'm still dealing with growing pains XD!


I started out with FL Studio. Fantastic for learning the workflow - a lot of things feel intuitive but you still learn a TON about working with DAWs.


----------



## Steve Steele (Nov 6, 2015)

I'm still using Master Tracks Pro. Getting good results although it's still in B&W on my Mac Classic screen.


----------



## Steve Steele (Nov 6, 2015)

clisma said:


> Care to elaborate about DP? V-Rack and chunks are useful, but I'm always curious to see other users' tips (especially about Orchestral work), so I can have one more reason to launch DP a bit more often than Logic..


I know this is an old thread but have you ever seen this video? This explains it well.


----------



## clisma (Nov 6, 2015)

Thanks for the video, nightwatch. The tempo features of DP are exactly why I start almost every film with DP, creating a tempo map for each cue, and then, depending on how much MIDI I have to deal with, either stay in DP or move to Logic. As previously mentioned, DP's strengths in Filmscoring are quite obvious. However, its interface is nowhere near as cleanly laid out for me as it is in Logic. MIDI manipulation in Logic I also find easier to accomplish (audio actually seems better in DP to me). I can do everything I want to with DP midi-wise, but I find it more tedious. Personal preference of course.

At the end of the day, they're both on my system and Logic gets used day to day for 80% of what I do. DP gets opened when a producer/director knocks at my door...


----------



## PeterKorcek (Nov 7, 2015)

Still using Cubase 8 Pro currently, but lately has been looking into Studio One v3 (everybody has been talking about it and some users here use it preferntially) and I must say it feels really straightforward and comfortable to work in. Somebody said its Cubase without bloat and I can see some hint of truth in there. Cubase 8 has way more capabilities, but still.

I hate it then I'm still not 100% satisfied with one DAW (particularly Cubase) - I started with it, but then tried Mac+logic way, which was nice, but it was not as nice as PC+cubase (tried repear and ableton before which did not suit me at all). I would like to just stick with one DAW and be super awesome with it

Are there those who went from Cubase to Studio one 3 and they feel OK doing their orchestral work? I haven't really put S1 to real work yet, just watching some videos, is it capable of handling many VIs and plugins, etc? Im on Win 8.1 btw, solid PC workhorse.


----------



## samphony (Nov 7, 2015)

PeterKorcek said:


> Still using Cubase 8 Pro currently, but lately has been looking into Studio One v3 (everybody has been talking about it and some users here use it preferntially) and I must say it feels really straightforward and comfortable to work in. Somebody said its Cubase without bloat and I can see some hint of truth in there. Cubase 8 has way more capabilities, but still.
> 
> I hate it then I'm still not 100% satisfied with one DAW (particularly Cubase) - I started with it, but then tried Mac+logic way, which was nice, but it was not as nice as PC+cubase (tried repear and ableton before which did not suit me at all). I would like to just stick with one DAW and be super awesome with it
> 
> Are there those who went from Cubase to Studio one 3 and they feel OK doing their orchestral work? I haven't really put S1 to real work yet, just watching some videos, is it capable of handling many VIs and plugins, etc? Im on Win 8.1 btw, solid PC workhorse.



I use Studio One since v1.6 occasionally. Studio one was a great experience so far. I did a couple of successful projects with V2. Since V3 I tend to work less with it. To many glitches regarding to scratch pad, random colorization hen duplicating tracks and video. To me it's focus seems to be recording and dance music.

For orchestral stuff it's all fine if you work with one track per articulation which I don't any longer = track creep. I tend to use studio one as prototype environment. It's strength is it's fast workflow. Some missing features related to track visibility management, midi file export and especially missing track templates/ copy pasting tracks incl. routing between projects and note expression brought me back to my well established Logic Pro / Ableton Live workflow. (I never switched away from that)

It seems you are looking for a DAW that does what you want which unfortunately doesn't exist. Not at the moment.

It's good and sometimes important to look what's out there and try out new and old workflows in a new environment but it mustn't be for the sake of switching.

Also this might help 

Offering an interesting perspective on the technology of the nineteenth century in his book Walden; or, Life in the Woods, Thoreau (1854) warned that people had become “the tools of their tools.” As composers of the twenty-first century, we may need to remind ourselves of Thoreau’s warning from time to time. While it is important for us to wholeheartedly embrace the technology that is shaping music production , let’s not get carried away. We don’t want to be the tools of our tools. We’re artists first, and the creation of music is our foremost concern. Technology should ease our way and offer us inspiration and support without ever distracting us from our goals. (W. Philips)


----------



## PeterKorcek (Nov 7, 2015)

Hey Samphony, nicely written  thank you - after S1 there is not much out there that I want to try for DAW (not interested in other options), so hopefully it will be over soon :-D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 7, 2015)

1. There is no perfect DAW.
2. There never will be because we would not all agree on how it should work to be called "perfect."
3. There are no perfect users anyway 

That said, give me a version of Logic Pro with DP's "chunks" feature and hit plotting and Pro Tools straight ahead audio recording and editing plus an enhanced version of the score editor and that would be it for me.


----------



## samphony (Nov 7, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> 1. There is no perfect DAW.
> 2. There never will be because we would not all agree on how it should work to be called "perfect."
> 3. There are no perfect users anyway
> 
> That said, give me a version of Logic Pro with DP's "chunks" feature and hit plotting and Pro Tools straight ahead audio recording and editing plus an enhanced version of the score editor and that would be it for me.



 not to forget add Studio One's Event FX option, Slip editing like Final Cut Pro, replace media item like Final Cut Pro/ Studio One .......

Related to DPs Chunk feature that is tremendously helpful for anybody working within one DAW.

As soon as you ad a Stem recorder/ layback system its not so relevant anymore.


----------



## samphony (Nov 7, 2015)

PeterKorcek said:


> Hey Samphony, nicely written  thank you - after S1 there is not much out there that I want to try for DAW (not interested in other options), so hopefully it will be over soon :-D



I was there more than once. It gets tempting again once DP10, Cubase 8.5 then 9, Studio One 4 etc gets released.

If someone would ask me I believe its about time that all these DAW creators work one a more collaborative level. Meaning easy ways to interchange midi and audio information including preset loading. Music XML is a start regarding scoring applications.

I mean in my vision I can see you creating what you have to create in Cubase while Jay is writing the brass parts in Logic , another one gets all stems into his/her DAW of choice and if needed on click/ keyboard shortcut and the corresponding instrument preset and plugins get loaded. Although everything was held in an audio/media container.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Nov 8, 2015)

samphony said:


> If someone would ask me I believe its about time that all these DAW creators work one a more collaborative level. Meaning easy ways to interchange midi and audio information including preset loading. Music XML is a start regarding scoring applications.
> 
> I mean in my vision I can see you creating what you have to create in Cubase while Jay is writing the brass parts in Logic , another one gets all stems into his/her DAW of choice and if needed on click/ keyboard shortcut and the corresponding instrument preset and plugins get loaded. Although everything was held in an audio/media container.



Nice vision, but I doubt we will ever reach it as I think the companies have to share some basic functionalities, but they will always have that something extra that will draw certain users. But it's true that inter-app usability should be increased in terms of mutual cooperation with different DAWs


----------



## marcotronic (Nov 8, 2015)

After reading a lot of positive things about Studio One V3 I just tested it the whole day long yesterday and really fell in love! I've been using Cubase for a long time now but I'm really considering changing to Studio One Pro. I really love the interface, the drag & drop functionality and the browser. Much easier and more intuitive to use than Cubase (8 Pro). I've seen there is a crossgrade offer from several DAWs for $100 USD less.

Marco


----------



## jonathanwright (Nov 9, 2015)

If I'm on a project that needs a huge orchestral template connected to VEP, then Cubase and Logic are my go to's.

I tried out Studio One 3 a few months ago and liked it a lot, the workflow is very easy to pick up. I found it sits somewhere in the middle of Cubase and Logic.

At the time I thought there were too many features missing that I needed, so I didn't delve any further. Recently I thought I'd give it another try and discovered the power of Macros (and their simplicity) and being able to create your own custom toolbar with your most used MIDI and Audio functions on it. I've very quickly been able to replicate pretty much 80% of what I do in Cubase/Logic, with assigned key commands.

Little things like being able to move tracks in the mixer, mixing in general, Event FX, Scratch Pads and Multi Instruments (not to be confused with multi-output instruments) are things that I immediately miss when in the other DAW's.

MIDI editing isn't quite there yet (although what it has does the job just fine) and there is no score editor, which is an understandable deal breaker for many, but otherwise I find myself using it more and more.

I haven't tried composing to video yet though, so I've no idea how it performs in that respect.

So personally, I use S1 when I'm feeling creative and can happily start from a blank template. I could set up a big VEP orchestral template but there's currently no equivalent to Expression Maps or SkiSiwtcher2, so the track count can get pretty huge.

On a side note, I discovered a UI bug and support were excellent, replying promptly and not giving up on me until it was confirmed and identified for fixing.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Nov 9, 2015)

that is some very positive feedback, thanks for sharing! I am currently doing song in it, so I'll see how stable things really are.

marco and jonathan - are you on mac or PC?


----------



## jonathanwright (Nov 9, 2015)

Hi Peter, you're welcome!

I'm on a Mac. I've occasionally had a crash when quitting but never while working, but this hasn't affected the project file. On my system it crashes less than Cubase 8 and more than Logic X.


----------



## marcotronic (Nov 9, 2015)

I'm on Windows (8.1 still, think I'm gonna upgrade to Win 10 sooner or later) - just had one crash so far - Studio One doesn't seem to like my Softube TSAR reverb plugin, all my other effects and instrument VSTs work like a charm - and I have a lot of them


----------



## Chris Hurst (Nov 9, 2015)

I've had Studio One for a while and have mixed quite a bit of audio in it, but have now started to try it with VI's. My main DAW is Logic Pro X.

I find Studio One (v3) 'gets out of the way' if that makes any sense and it really allows me to get ideas down and songs written much quicker than I have managed so far in Logic. It could be because that happens sometimes, or it could be that it just suits the way I write...either way, I'm going to continue with it for a while to see if that continues.

It isn't perfect (no score editor, but I'd hope that will appear sooner rather than later), but it is pretty good in my opinion and one to try if you are thinking of making a jump from another DAW.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Nov 9, 2015)

Exitsounds, that is what I'm experiencing with S1 as well - that "gets out of the way", feels clean and straightfoward - we'll see, I'll post update later on after the project is finished


----------



## paul (Nov 9, 2015)

*CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS.........*
This will probably help none of you except for old "fogeys" like me.

I'm still using Opcode Vision on an old Mac (OS9!) - but - it fires off (via midi) two other Macs and two PCs all running Studio 1 Pro on newer OS's with the latest versions of orchestral libraries (EW Orchestra Diamond/ LASS/ Project SAM etc) loaded in to Studio 1.

After many years of trying all the DAWs, relatively speaking - none of them has really progressed that much from Opcode, _(in my ancient opinion).
_
Before all the younger bucks protest with "that's a load of old hat!" - the DAW does *not* matter - *you* do! - it's how you use the tools of the trade and your creative input that pushes the boat out!
_(not that long ago, quill and parchment seemed to produce some very innovative ideas ......?)_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 9, 2015)

Paul, I never used Studio Vision but I had lots of friends who did and many of them feel precisely as you do.


----------



## paul (Nov 9, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Paul, I never used Studio Vision but I had lots of friends who did and many of them feel precisely as you do.


Jay, the biggest shame in that particular story was "Gibson throwing away the baby with the bathwater" (despite this, there are a few old lags working professionally who still use it to this day!)


----------



## marcotronic (Nov 10, 2015)

Alright. Thanks for mentioning Studio One  Now I really switched from Cubase 8 Pro to Studio One Pro V3. Love at first sight  (Crossgrade price... $299 USD)


----------



## samphony (Nov 10, 2015)

This might interest you then

https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopic.php?p=74540#p74540


----------



## Vik (Jun 25, 2016)

This poll needs more votes.


----------



## 5Lives (Jun 25, 2016)

Just voted. I have Pro Tools, Logic, Ableton, Studio One, and Cubase (yes it's a problem). For orchestral writing, I've found Cubase to be fantastic thanks to a great MIDI editor, customizable shortcuts for so many things (CC lane presets anybody?), Expression Maps, Track disabling, etc. For Mixing though, it needs a smart tool badly and I prefer Logic or Pro Tools. For songwriting or pop production, I'm a fan of Logic or Studio One. For jamming out beats, Ableton with Push 2 is pretty fun.


----------



## Leeward (Jun 25, 2016)

I've been using Logic Pro X for the past two years and although I'm still learning it I can't imagine using anything else. Does everything I want it to do (plus more I probably don't know about) and I love the clean, sleak interface. GUI is very important to me. 

I started with FL Studio before that but I didn't like using it at all.


----------



## JPShooter (Jun 25, 2016)

My take (as a Mac user) is that it's a package deal. I have an iMac that I bought new and I payed for Apple Care with that purchase. Expensive? Yup, but then there are many things that are included therein that you just don't get with a Windows based machine. So in the end the real cost is somewhat lower than what you would calculate in the beginning. There are some things that you have to value at the rate of what your time is worth to you.

With Apple Care that means Logic care as well. When I have an issue that I can't solve (computer or software), I call Apple Care and they help me work it out. I get a person who speaks fluent and intelligible english (not picking on anyone, but when I need tech help it's so much easier when I don't have to work through an accent that has me wondering constantly what was just said). So far, about 2 years, I am very pleased with the support that I've gotten from Apple. You may not need it nor care.

What's that worth to you? I guess it depends on your skill level as a computer tech, and what your time is worth as a computer tech vs. a composer. I spent years building my own Windows based machines and sizable portions of those years fiddling with those machines. I'm done. I just want to drive a car (so to speak) not be a car mechanic.

So, with the integration and support that comes with staying inside the Mac envelope, obviously my vote goes to Logic. I am also a Final Cut Pro and Motion user, so that's an additional aspect of my bias.


----------



## jonnybutter (Jun 25, 2016)

paul said:


> *CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS.........*
> This will probably help none of you except for old "fogeys" like me.
> 
> I'm still using Opcode Vision on an old Mac (OS9!) - but - it fires off (via midi) two other Macs and two PCs all running Studio 1 Pro on newer OS's with the latest versions of orchestral libraries (EW Orchestra Diamond/ LASS/ Project SAM etc) loaded in to Studio 1.
> ...




Studio Vision was GREAT. I searched in vain for many years for a replacement - DP came closest. But there was never a replacement. Just imagine what it would be like now!


----------



## tack (Jun 25, 2016)

5Lives said:


> CC lane presets anybody?


Reaper has this too.

But then Reaper doesn't even let me label CC lanes, so I'm not bragging.


----------



## nas (Jun 26, 2016)

jonnybutter said:


> Studio Vision was GREAT. I searched in vain for many years for a replacement - DP came closest. But there was never a replacement. Just imagine what it would be like now!



Agreed! Studio Vision was the most intuitive and fluid software I've ever used. One can only imagine how incredible it would be today if it had survived and evolved. Once it was ditched by Gibson, I switched to Logic Platinum (then by Emagic). I've been on Logic ever since and have to admit since Apple bought Emagic the program IMHO has become much more user friendly and ergonomic. It's not perfect, but it's a great piece of software and more importantly... keeps getting better.


----------



## Lawson. (Jun 26, 2016)

I'm kind of surprised there are so little DP users on here. Ah well, the more of an advantage we have.


----------



## Vik (Jun 26, 2016)

I'm wondering what the one who voted Other use?


----------



## Vik (Oct 30, 2016)

Does Cubase release Kontakt's sample memory when freezing a track?
Some says yes, and some says no:

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=81855
https://music.tutsplus.com/articles/quick-tip-freezing-tracks-in-cubase--cms-20915


----------



## scherzo (Oct 30, 2016)

Yes it does. 

I think the source of confusion is that there is an option *not* to unload frozen instruments, and there is also an option to 'deactivate' a VST instrument (the on/off button in the VST rack or on the instrument's interface itself). But 'deactivate' here is essentially just a bypass mode - the plugin will make no sound nor use CPU cycles, but is still loaded into memory. 

If you want to free sample memory, you should either: 
a) freeze the instrument, making sure the "Unload Instrument when Frozen" option is checked. Or,
b) _disable_ the instrument track, either via the 'disable track' key command or by right-clicking an instrument track and choosing 'disable track'. 

Note that _disable track_ only works on actual instrument tracks, not rack instruments, and that this is different from what is called _activate/deactivate instrument _- i.e., the aforementioned on/off button which will only bypass, not actually unload anything. 

At least that's my best understanding of how things work here when I tried it in Cubase 8.5. A little kludgy perhaps, but freeing up memory is no problem.


----------



## Vik (Oct 30, 2016)

scherzo said:


> If you want to free sample memory, you should either:
> a) freeze the instrument, making sure the "Unload Instrument when Frozen" option is checked.


That's fine with me, if I can easily reload the instrument again without losing any settings?


----------



## Daniel Petras (Oct 30, 2016)

I love Reaper for the customization. It has speed up my workflow incredibly since I started creating my own custom actions.


----------



## scherzo (Oct 30, 2016)

Vik said:


> That's fine with me, if I can easily reload the instrument again without losing any settings?



Sure, just unfreeze it and you're good to go. The instrument will reload again with the same state and settings as when it was frozen.

My own preference would be to use render-in-place to bounce it to audio and then disabling the instrument track, for various reasons. But either way should work fine. Occasionally there's a glitch where tracks lose their routing when re-enabled this way, but it's usually easy to fix when it happens. Some have reported problems with things like expression maps and quick controls not being recalled correctly - I don't know if this has been fixed yet, as I don't really use them myself.

Reaper is another good one to look at if you want something that's lean on resources, but I don't know how well it runs on a Mac.


----------



## ChristopherDoucet (Oct 30, 2016)

For me, the best of all worlds would be:

Pro Tools HD slaved to Cubase as the master, with Ableton Live "re-wired" in! And Cubase works best when the video is offloaded, so I also send MTC to Video Slave 3. 

It all works as one system, but that for me is the best.


----------



## Vik (Oct 30, 2016)

ChristopherDoucet said:


> For me, the best of all worlds would be:
> 
> Pro Tools HD slaved to Cubase as the master, with Ableton Live "re-wired" in! And Cubase works best when the video is offloaded, so I also send MTC to Video Slave 3.
> 
> It all works as one system, but that for me is the best.


For me the best of both worlds would be if Logic could beef up it's features related to the kind of topics we discuss here: CC automation/articulation/notation/virtual instruments and all that - or that Cubase/Nuendo/Dorico would merge into one brilliant DAW, declutter their UI and generally make their stuff more straightforward (meaning: needing less clicks, fewer windows, needing less manual reading etc).


----------



## ChristopherDoucet (Oct 30, 2016)

Vik said:


> For me the best of both worlds would be if Logic could beef up it's features related to the kind of topics we discuss here: CC automation/articulation/notation/virtual instruments and all that - or that Cubase/Nuendo/Dorico would merge into one brilliant DAW, declutter their UI and generally make their stuff more straightforward (meaning: needing less clicks, fewer windows, needing less manual reading etc).



I never understood the benefits of connecting or pairing Cubase with Nuendo. Doesnt Nuendo tehnically do everything Cubase does and therefor would replace it?


----------



## Vik (Nov 1, 2016)

ChristopherDoucet said:


> I never understood the benefits of connecting or pairing Cubase with Nuendo. Doesnt Nuendo tehnically do everything Cubase does and therefor would replace it?


I don't know how similar Cubase and Nuendo are now. But I thought that Nuendo didn't have as much MIDI functionality as Cubase (VST Note Expression, Expression Maps, an integrated score editor and so on)?


----------



## Steve Steele (Nov 1, 2016)

paul said:


> *CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS.........*
> This will probably help none of you except for old "fogeys" like me.
> 
> I'm still using Opcode Vision on an old Mac (OS9!) - but - it fires off (via midi) two other Macs and two PCs all running Studio 1 Pro on newer OS's with the latest versions of orchestral libraries (EW Orchestra Diamond/ LASS/ Project SAM etc) loaded in to Studio 1.
> ...



I used Vision for about a year before I settled on Digital Performer. And I used Master Tracks Pro before that (which is still available I think). 

Vision was a great midi sequencer. At that time it was probably my favorite. But MOTU turned Performer into Digital Performer thereby introducing the first realistic home almost-native DAW, which was too irresistible, and then the worst possible thing happened when Gibson bought Opcode. 

Another moral of this story is to keep an old computer because when you find a great app like Vision that stopped development in 1995(?), you'll still have a speedy computer to run it on. I regret giving my faithful Mac Quadra 650 away for that very reason. But I do have a Mac Classic that runs Master Tracks and Performer (it's a show piece). 

And, correct, MIDI editing for the most part doesn't feel any different than it did in 1993. It's the now near-realistic sample libraries and the workstation computing that have made the biggest leap. 

Thanks for sharing. Vision. Ha.


----------



## Steve Steele (Nov 1, 2016)

Lawson. said:


> I'm kind of surprised there are so little DP users on here. Ah well, the more of an advantage we have.



We're a large but quiet bunch. Too busy working to notice DAW polls.


----------



## Steve Steele (Nov 1, 2016)

Notion, StaffPad and Dorico. 

Six months ago I forced myself to use the Notion suite of apps to try and go from sketch to part printing, the best I could and as fast as possible. It should be on the list. I know it's not considered to be part of the "A" list of notation apps, but with just Notion iOS, Notion for Mac, and Notion Conducting for those 6 months, I have to say that the speed of Notion's workflow is extremely fast. The keystrokes are excellent for moving fast, external VIs are simple to setup, and with iCloud, Dropbox, email and messaging, all devices share and exchange documents.

Other features like Velocity Overdubs, Quantize notation, 64-channel ReWire support, and, IMO, a better Mixer, Piano and Guitar GUI than either Sibelius or Finale, and now excellent full screen handwriting recognition on the iPad Pro, a Mac (with the iPad as a Wycom-like writing tablet via the Lightning to USB connection), and Windows 10, the feature set is such that I can sketch and do note entry faster than I've ever done before, and when the time comes I'll hand it off to Finale or Digital Performer if needed.

I was quite surprised how well Notion has taken advantage of its strengths yet not really seemed concerned with its weeknesses. Missing features or final touches that might take years of investment on Notion's part can just as well be taken care of via a simple MusicXML or MIDI export to another app that I know how to use, is perfectly good enough.

Bottom line: I've probably doubled my compositional output since adopting Notion. It's the best overall notation app on iOS. And on the desktop/laptop it can be nearly mastered in less than a month.

StaffPad. I haven't tried it. But I hear great things about it's sketching capabilities.

Dorico. Love how they made it plain and obvious just how notation workflow should go. It's based how professional word processing copyist work. And it's great that someone finally developed an app that builds good habits from the start.


----------



## iMovieShout (Nov 1, 2016)

Just cast my vote. Recently made the transition from Logic Pro and Cubase to Nuendo 8.5 (which is very similar to Cubase with some useful additions for scoring against video and alikes).


----------



## jemu999 (Nov 1, 2016)

Glad to see Reaper is doing relatively well on the poll. If they would only update their midi editor... Id drop my current Daw in a heartbeat.


----------



## stigc56 (Nov 2, 2016)

jpb007.uk said:


> Just cast my vote. Recently made the transition from Logic Pro and Cubase to Nuendo 8.5 (which is very similar to Cubase with some useful additions for scoring against video and alikes).


I don't think Nuendo 8.5 is out, do you mean 7.1.20?


----------



## Musicam (Nov 2, 2016)

Any news of Halion ?


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Nov 2, 2016)

Musicam said:


> Any news of Halion ?



not a daw


----------



## chillbot (Nov 2, 2016)

paul said:


> I'm still using Opcode Vision


Damn I loved Studio Vision. Best software ever.


----------



## juliansader (Nov 5, 2016)

jemu999 said:


> Glad to see Reaper is doing relatively well on the poll. If they would only update their midi editor... Id drop my current Daw in a heartbeat.



Over the past months, REAPER's MIDI editor has been updated by leaps and bounds, so you may be pleasantly surprised by the most recent releases. (v5.28 should be released within the next few days.) Everything from notation view, to advanced CC editing scripts, to smooth multi-channel editing. For example, this GIF is taken from one of the multi-channel editing threads:








There is a Bestiary of MIDI Bugs thread that lists all the known MIDI bugs, so that users can check what problems they may still encounter.


----------



## jemu999 (Nov 5, 2016)

juliansader said:


> Over the past months, REAPER's MIDI editor has been updated by leaps and bounds, so you may be pleasantly surprised by the most recent releases. (v5.28 should be released within the next few days.) Everything from notation view, to advanced CC editing scripts, to smooth multi-channel editing. For example, this GIF is taken from one of the multi-channel editing threads:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Julian, in the examples above, all of the _changes_ are done by selecting/clicking _above_ the cc automation. 

Try changing something below the cc bars and a singular bar is selected making you stuck and unable to make any changes except to that one bar! (which is useless) You then have to click in an empty space to try to make any changes, and try again. It is so flawed. (several threads about this.) 

Furthermore, Cubase midi adjusting is far superior where you are able to compress, slant, and otherwise alter the cc data. I know that there are several midi scripts as add ons on reaper that attempt to address these issues, however, Reaper somehow has ignored a true midi focused update to incorporate these features _natively_.

I await in hope that this is addressed.... maybe v5.28???? (otherwise I think it is a great DAW!)


----------



## juliansader (Nov 5, 2016)

jemu999 said:


> Try changing something below the cc bars and a singular bar is selected making you stuck and unable to make any changes except to that one bar! (which is useless) You then have to click in an empty space to try to make any changes, and try again. It is so flawed. (several threads about this.)



I remember seeing threads about this, but it has been fixed several years ago. You can start drawing curves on a CC event just like you do in empty space in the CC lane! (Check out the other GIF in the thread.)

REAPER is very flexible and you can change your "mouse modifier" actions to whatever you like. For example, if you like to draw curves with a simple left-drag mouse movement, simply make sure that you have set the mouse modifier for "left-drag" on "CC event" to something like "Draw/edit CC events".

REAPER's MIDI editor nowadays has an impressive array of context-sensitive editing behaviors that can be controlled via the mouse - far more than SONAR's "Smart Tool", for example. Everything from arpeggiating notes to calling user-written scripts.



jemu999 said:


> Furthermore, Cubase midi adjusting is far superior where you are able to compress, slant, and otherwise alter the cc data. I know that there are several midi scripts as add ons on reaper that attempt to address these issues, however, Reaper somehow has ignored a true midi focused update to incorporate these features _natively_.



I also find it strange that all these CC actions are not incorporated natively. However, scripts are part and parcel of the "REAPER experience", and if the SWS and ReaPack extensions are installed (which provide user-written functions in C++ and Lua/EEL/JS, respectively), REAPER's MIDI adjusting goes Super Saiyan and I would contend that it even becomes superior to Cubase's: compress, slant, arch, warp, LFOs and more. Try it out - perhaps you will enjoy it!


----------



## jemu999 (Nov 5, 2016)

juliansader said:


> I remember seeing threads about this, but it has been fixed several years ago. You can start drawing curves on a CC event just like you do in empty space in the CC lane! (Check out the other GIF in the thread.)



I don't think you understand what Im referring to and it's a bit difficult to explain. But if you have an automation _shape_ already recorded/entered, and you would like to edit that automation in the middle and begin drawing from _below_ the bar _height_ of that particular automation data, you cannot. It simply SELECTs a _single_ bar of that automation curve, as though it is a singular velocity bar attached to a particular note and not a continuous mod wheel curve. Bad design.

Listen, I love reaper overall. And I know that you have created an excellent set of scripts to address the issues that I'm arguing about here. In this post from just a few months ago you write "In comparison, REAPER's CC editing features are lagging behind - *and are far, far behind FL Studio and Cubase". *
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=177058

The thing is, I just spent an hour or so trying to figure out how to get the scripts to work, and to be honest... I simply gave up. I know with a little patience I can figure it out, but I don't have time and don't find it necessary to do the work for the developers. So I find it hard to understand why Reaper has simply ignored this for so long. Meanwhile, talented people like you, create a solution to these issues, and Reaper refuses to incorporate it? 

In the end, the benefits of Reaper are certainly its extreme customization abilities to be chosen by the user. But basic enhancements like these should be addressed by the developers imo.


----------



## ranaprathap (Nov 6, 2016)

Fruity loops is longer fruity loops, it is FL Studio now. May be someone can edit the original post.


----------



## juliansader (Nov 6, 2016)

jemu999 said:


> I don't think you understand what Im referring to and it's a bit difficult to explain. But if you have an automation _shape_ already recorded/entered, and you would like to edit that automation in the middle and begin drawing from _below_ the bar _height_ of that particular automation data, you cannot. It simply SELECTs a _single_ bar of that automation curve, as though it is a singular velocity bar attached to a particular note and not a continuous mod wheel curve. Bad design.



If I understand correctly, would you like to draw curves like in this GIF?







(I would be glad to discuss REAPER's MIDI in much more detail, but we are getting a bit off-topic in this thread - perhaps we should move to another thread?)


----------



## Vik (Nov 6, 2016)

juliansader said:


> (I would be glad to discuss REAPER's MIDI in much more detail, but we are getting a bit off-topic in this thread - perhaps we should move to another thread?)


In addition to having specific threads about each of the DAWs, and some threads comparing one DAW with another, why not also have an "all DAWs discussed"? This threads could host such a discussion, because it already is about all DAWs. 

And, by the way (to everybody): since the limit for number of response options now has increased to 100, let me know if you want more DAWs added to the poll.


----------



## jemu999 (Nov 6, 2016)

juliansader said:


> If I understand correctly, would you like to draw curves like in this GIF?


Exactly!  How do u do that?? (I'm ok for another thread)


----------



## BigImpactSound (Nov 7, 2016)

I use Cubase 6, very stable! I don't find it necessary to upgrade to a newer version...


----------



## juliansader (Nov 7, 2016)

jemu999 said:


> Exactly!  How do u do that?? (I'm ok for another thread)



The trick is to customize the editing actions that REAPER's mouse "Smart Tool" performs when you left-click/drag on a CC event 'bar'. By default, the Smart Tool isn't very intelligent, but you can customize it to performs all kinds of useful actions - even custom actions or user-written scripts. To do so, go to Preferences -> Mouse modifiers, and change the actions to something like this: (I hope the screenshot is self-explanatory.)






In this screenshot, "Context: MIDI CC event" means that the mouse is positioned over a CC event bar. Other contexts include "MIDI CC lane", which refers to open space in the CC lane.

The default action for left-click/drag in the CC event context is "Move CC event on one axis only", which leads to the behavior that you describe above. If you change the action to "Draw/edit CC events" (as in the screenshot), then when you left-click/drag on a CC event, it will instead edit the CC events and you can draw a nice new curve.


----------



## tack (Nov 7, 2016)

The color scheme in that screenshot is reminiscent of the ole Sun Sparc CDE desktop circa early 1990's. Ah, life was simpler then.


----------



## jemu999 (Nov 7, 2016)

juliansader said:


> In this screenshot, "Context: MIDI CC event" means that the mouse is positioned over a CC event bar. Other contexts include "MIDI CC lane", which refers to open space in the CC lane.
> 
> The default action for left-click/drag in the CC event context is "Move CC event on one axis only", which leads to the behavior that you describe above. If you change the action to "Draw/edit CC events" (as in the screenshot), then when you left-click/drag on a CC event, it will instead edit the CC events and you can draw a nice new curve.



Thanks Julian! It does work indeed for CC events. However it seems it makes changing the velocity jump erratically. If I press option while changing the velocity, it becomes smooth again. BTW, I also got some of your scripts to work. Very cool. Too bad V5.28 didn't seem to add your scripts natively... 
Thanks for your help!


----------



## Steve Steele (Nov 11, 2016)

It looks like Reaper is really improving. I ignored Reaper at first because it seemed like more of an audio editor. But it looks like they're taking the MIDI side of things more seriously. Is that a fair statement?


----------



## EvilDragon (Nov 12, 2016)

It's a very fair statement. It even has notation now.


----------



## iMovieShout (Nov 21, 2016)

Yes, apologies. Confusion set in whilst running both Nuendo and Cubase at the same time!!!
I was indeed referring to Nuendo 7.1.20. Thanks


----------



## juliansader (Nov 25, 2016)

jemu999 said:


> Thanks Julian! It does work indeed for CC events. However it seems it makes changing the velocity jump erratically. If I press option while changing the velocity, it becomes smooth again. BTW, I also got some of your scripts to work. Very cool. Too bad V5.28 didn't seem to add your scripts natively...
> Thanks for your help!



REAPER v5.29 has just been released, and the the velocity bug (which was introduced in v5.28, I think) has been fixed.

There is also exciting news for orchestral composers: a new track inspector with articulation management! It is still in beta, but articulation banks for some Spitfire and EWQLSO libraries are already available.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Nov 25, 2016)

No love for Acoustica Mixcraft!? I've been using that for like 6 years. Such an easy to use host that still does everything I want it to and more. I've written so many genres in it for music libraries, films and games.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Nov 25, 2016)

EvilDragon said:


> It's a very fair statement. It even has notation now.



Wow!


----------



## tack (Nov 25, 2016)

I've been developing an articulation management system similar to the above track inspector. That project beat me to the punch and I wasn't sure if I would bother continuing my effort, even though there are some workflow differences, but I see it's closed source with a restrictive license. So I still think there's some point in continuing mine since it will be, as with all my projects, open source.


----------



## Syneast (Nov 25, 2016)

Reaper, cuz I can make it behave pretty much any way I want, and because I can change midi channels per note for libraries without keyswitches. Oh, and I can make it look totally different every week if I get tired of looking at the same theme.


----------



## Hafer (Nov 25, 2016)

tack said:


> I wasn't sure if I would bother continuing my effort


Ah, know that gnawing feeling. Be proud of what you've accomplished and as long as you've fun don't worry 'bout others being on the same or similar track and keep going. Besides, being on the OSS bandwagon is praiseworthy in any case.


----------



## fgimian (Dec 6, 2016)

For me it's Cubase Pro first and Logic Pro X second. My personal gripe with REAPER is that although it has heaps of functionality, it all seems rushed in and it tries to cater to 100% of scenarios by adding endless configuration options. The menus are just huge and it is imho extremely hard to get to grips with. I believe in the 80 / 20 rule for most things, and this is no exception.

Cubase (for me) is not only the best for orchestral work, but for EDM too. Its automation is brilliant and audio editing is far superior to Logic. The fact it's cross-platform is also a huge draw, especially with the silly stuff Apple has ben doing lately.

Though when all is said and done, you can really use whatever you want. Daniel James who produces amazing music did almost all his work on Ableton Live


----------



## robgb (Dec 7, 2016)

wst3 said:


> I also use Studio One, but not for virtual instruments, it just isn't there yet. I am optimistic that it will get there.


 Don't get this at all. Studio One works brilliantly with virtual instruments. That's part of the reason I made the switch from Logic.


----------



## robgb (Dec 7, 2016)

Kardon said:


> Reaper is my choice. Extremely powerful, light weight, and stable.


 I really like Reaper, but find it's multi-out midi system too weirdly complicated. You have to run a midi track AND an audio track and route the midi to the audio. Seems needlessly complicated (although it can be done pretty much automatically) and clutters up the screen with needless tracks.


----------



## tack (Dec 7, 2016)

robgb said:


> You have to run a midi track AND an audio track and route the midi to the audio. Seems needlessly complicated (although it can be done pretty much automatically) and clutters up the screen with needless tracks.


Yes, this was a sticking point for me too. I solved the clutter by just having the audio tracks in the MCP and the MIDI tracks in the TCP, but certainly the overall routing was over-complicated. This can kinda-sorta be "fixed" if you configure Reaper to allow routing loops, but I vaguely recall something about that didn't work quite right, apart from the obvious of overriding a safety mechanism.

Nowadays I've moved to a template using a Kontakt instance per track and keep all the tracks disabled until I use them. With that strategy I'm not too hung up about trying to reduce the number of Kontakt instances for the memory savings, and the routing is obviously drastically simplified.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Dec 7, 2016)

robgb said:


> I really like Reaper, but find it's multi-out midi system too weirdly complicated. You have to run a midi track AND an audio track and route the midi to the audio. Seems needlessly complicated (although it can be done pretty much automatically) and clutters up the screen with needless tracks.



I have it set up as just single tracks, midi for midi, audio for audio. Are you referring to having multiple instruments in a single Kontakt instance (and then routing the instruments to thier own tracks?)


----------



## robgb (Dec 7, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> I have it set up as just single tracks, midi for midi, audio for audio. Are you referring to having multiple instruments in a single Kontakt instance (and then routing the instruments to thier own tracks?)


Yes. If you want to have multiple outputs on a vst like Kontakt, it gets complicated. If you're simply doing one vst per track, then all is good. There's a beautiful theme for Reaper called House of White (or something along those lines) that's pretty amazing. Makes me wish Studio One could be skinned.


----------



## PeterKorcek (Dec 8, 2016)

I think it's from White Tie that has website House of White Tie and the theme si called Imperial. It is pretty badass theme


----------



## robgb (Dec 8, 2016)

PeterKorcek said:


> I think it's from White Tie that has website House of White Tie and the theme si called Imperial. It is pretty badass theme


That's the one! A lot of work went into it, but it's only practical if you have a 27 inch or larger screen.


----------



## cyoder (Dec 8, 2016)

tack said:


> Yes, this was a sticking point for me too. I solved the clutter by just having the audio tracks in the MCP and the MIDI tracks in the TCP, but certainly the overall routing was over-complicated. This can kinda-sorta be "fixed" if you configure Reaper to allow routing loops, but I vaguely recall something about that didn't work quite right, apart from the obvious of overriding a safety mechanism.



I also wish there was a better integrated way to have MIDI input and audio output on the same track. I've been working with the "allow routing loops" and have Play and Kontakt templates of that setup easily accessible. I haven't had many problems with it, although I vaguely remember a thread talking about some of it's downsides. If I recall correctly is messes up plugin delay compensation, but I honestly haven't noticed anything that interferes with my workflow so I still use that style of routing (it's just so much cleaner IMO). @tack do you recall what about it wasn't working for you?


----------



## tack (Dec 8, 2016)

cyoder said:


> @tack do you recall what about it wasn't working for you?


I'm afraid my memory is completely failing me there, sorry. But if it's working for you, go with it.


----------



## robgb (Dec 8, 2016)

cyoder said:


> I also wish there was a better integrated way to have MIDI input and audio output on the same track. I've been working with the "allow routing loops" and have Play and Kontakt templates of that setup easily accessible. I haven't had many problems with it, although I vaguely remember a thread talking about some of it's downsides. If I recall correctly is messes up plugin delay compensation, but I honestly haven't noticed anything that interferes with my workflow so I still use that style of routing (it's just so much cleaner IMO). @tack do you recall what about it wasn't working for you?


I'm a little clueless about the loop routing thing. Care to share how you managed this?


----------



## tack (Dec 8, 2016)

robgb said:


> I'm a little clueless about the loop routing thing. Care to share how you managed this?


Sure. Here's an example project that shows how this works.

The key point here is that in the project settings, "Allow feedback in routing (can result in lower performance, loud noises)" needs to be _enabled_. This is a project setting so it's already done in the example project.

With routing loops enabled, this works by:

Having a parent folder track that acts as your single track for the instrument group.
A child track that acts as a VSTi bus.
In the example project I used Kontakt 5.6.5 and it's pre-setup to have 16 stereo outs mapped onto the right channels in Reaper.

16 child tracks that correspond to 16 MIDI track.
Each track routes MIDI to the Kontakt bus, and the Kontakt bus routes audio _back_ to the corresponding sibling track. Reaper considers this a routing loop, even though when you look at just MIDI or just audio separately, there is no loop.
So you have a single track for all 16 MIDI channels, which you can apply FX to. In the example project, I put a ReaEq instance on channel 1.
Within Kontakt, you pull up a patch, and set it to whatever MIDI channel you want, and the same stereo output. e.g. MIDI channel 5 on st. 5.
Again I can't remember what problems I had with this. Maybe I blew my brains out from an actual routing loop, having bypassed that protection mechanism, and thought it wasn't worth it


----------



## robgb (Dec 8, 2016)

tack said:


> Sure. Here's an example project that shows how this works.


 Wow, thanks Tack! This works beautifully.


----------



## Voider (Dec 8, 2016)

FL-Studio  Have tried Ableton Live, Cubase, Reaper, Sonar Platinum and for me nothing comes close to the workflow in the piano roll, when working with notes. While FL-Studio feels like an inspiring tool to make music there, other DAWs felt more like an excel chart. But who knows if I will switch or change my mind someday. Maybe they take more time to learn, I've read many times that users from FL Studio that come over to other DAWs and vice versa have a problem with the workflow because it's so different.


----------



## tack (Dec 13, 2016)

tack said:


> Sure. Here's an example project that shows how this works.


By accident, I discovered that this doesn't work if "Allow live FX multiprocessing" is _enabled_ (in preferences under Audio / Buffering). This option is disabled by default, but if you enable it, then the routing loop trick doesn't work. More here.


----------



## Daniel Petras (Dec 13, 2016)

I love using Reaper and the flexibility it has, but have not always been happy with the midi functionality - editing midi velocity data can be a pain. Would anyone be able to say what sort of midi capabilities Cubase has over Reaper, if any?


----------



## Lannister (Dec 22, 2016)

Just a little update here for REAPER. The latest pre-releases have added articulation support; although rudimentary at the moment, you can expect it to expand over the following pre-releases. No GUI to edit them as in Cubase, just a test-file at the moment but it's there non-the-less


----------



## Quasar (Dec 22, 2016)

Lannister said:


> Just a little update here for REAPER. The latest pre-releases have added articulation support; although rudimentary at the moment, you can expect it to expand over the following pre-releases. No GUI to edit them as in Cubase, just a test-file at the moment but it's there non-the-less



This is most interesting. Do you mean pre-release post 5.30? Heading to the Cockos site to check it out. Thanks...


----------



## Vik (Jun 3, 2017)

Should I add more DAWs to this poll?


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jun 3, 2017)

Mixcraft


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 3, 2017)

Vik said:


> Should I add more DAWs to this poll?



Notion iOS or Cubasis? Although you have Notion up there and Notion iOS is basically identical, in a way it's in the same category as Staff Pad. And I use Cubasis to track all the excellent Audiobus based synths, which is different than how I use my desktop DAW. 

Actually I've switched to the iPad Pro as my daily mobile composing device. Not as powerful as a laptop or my Mac Pros, but it's fast enough to playback a full sized orchestral template in Notion iOS. Note entry via handwriting recognition with the Apple Pencil is excellent. 

Just a thought.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Jun 4, 2017)

Jdiggity1 said:


> Mixcraft



This guy  I can now officially cast my vote.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 4, 2017)

Interestingly, I'm using *Studio One Pro 3.5* more than *Cubase Pro 9* lately. 

Although I voted for Cubase in this poll, I can see Studio One Pro 3 becoming my go to DAW from now on, I'm also using it with the Presonus Faderport 8 control surface, which integrates very nicely with Studio One Pro 3.5 . 

The super fast, and fluid workflow in studio One is the primary reason why I like it a lot, and the fact that both Studio One and Cubase are very alike has made it easy, and fast to learn. Also to be noted, is that Studio One Pro is engineered by the same software engineers that worked on Steinberg's Nuendo a few years ago, so there are lots of parallels between these two DAWs. 

I'm very confident that Studio One Pro 4 (whenever it is released), will be a big step up in some features that the current version is weak or missing out on, and will offer some super cool new features that will make it a very popular DAW.


----------



## devonmyles (Jun 4, 2017)

Cubase 9 still ideal for me. I use Studio One 3.5 at times for certain things and I like it.
It's missing some Midi features I like, but that's not the ball breaker(s) for me.
No midi Notation editing, big part of my work flow.
The messing around with Notion 6, going back and forth, just kills things stone dead at times.

But hey ho, who knows, maybe the two will become one someday ?
I certainly hope so.


----------



## Leon Willett (Jun 5, 2017)

you can make music on anything!  

but for a few reasons, I love cubase. 

- does multicore well (important for big templates) (had trouble with logic on this)
- is snappy and responsive with hundreds of tracks 
- I can see multiple controller lanes at once under my piano roll (can't in logic)
- I like the mixer (I use cubase 6, don't like the new ones)
- does multitimbral, multi-out kontakts well (I use the rack, not individual instrument channels) (don't like logic for this)
- has not crashed in a very long time for me!


----------



## fixxer49 (Jun 5, 2017)

Pro Tools.

Works great with picture; Tempo mapping/editing is intuitive; Exports nicely to Sibelius; MIDI capabilities are robust.

I have fought with it in the past, and have lived through the twin hells that were PT10 and PT11, but but once you have finally configured a powerful, stable system, it’s a beast and still the industry standard for final mixes.


----------



## MichaelM (Jun 5, 2017)

Sonar for me. One of the few of the 22 votes it received! I started using Cakewalk back in the old DOS 3.1 days, and just kept using it. Although back in '12 I did make myself learn Cubase and got comfortable with it. However, when starting a new project I tend to gravitate back to Sonar. I do like working with Sonar's event viewer and Piano roll. Also has been more stable for me since X3 came out.


----------



## ctsai89 (Jun 6, 2017)

Wow reaper. Maybe I should give that a try


----------



## Vik (Mar 8, 2018)

Hi all, I've changed the poll settings:
• It is now possible to vote for more than one DAW. 
• It is also possible to change your votes at any time.


----------



## KV626 (Mar 8, 2018)

Simple equation for me: I choose the DAW that I'm the most comfortable with, and the one that gets my work done faster - and it's always been Pro Tools.


----------



## robgb (Mar 8, 2018)

ctsai89 said:


> Wow reaper. Maybe I should give that a try


Watch this channel and it's likely to be more than a maybe:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq297H7Ca98HlB5mVFHGSsQ


----------



## valyogennoff (May 1, 2018)

Voting SONAR. I've always used it. And love it!


----------



## RoyBatty (May 1, 2018)

I have been using Reaper for a few months. I am a big fan of Reaticulate, as well as the mouse modifier customization in the piano roll. I also like how the consolidated fx window works.


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2018)

Am I wrong to think that a poll in which people vote for whatever they use themselves is not helpful?


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (May 1, 2018)

JohnG said:


> Am I wrong to think that a poll in which people vote for whatever they use themselves is not helpful?



with that, i suppose you could say this is more of a Tally.


----------



## aelwyn (May 1, 2018)

JohnG said:


> Am I wrong to think that a poll in which people vote for whatever they use themselves is not helpful?



Pray tell, what do _you _think polls are for?


----------



## Vik (May 7, 2018)

I've just added Sagan Technology Metro to the poll.



JohnG said:


> Am I wrong to think that a poll in which people vote for whatever they use themselves is not helpful?


Polls generally aren't that useful, really. But they could help newbies to get an overview over what's most used among VI-users, and if comparing a poll here to polls elsewhere, it's probably possible to get an impression about which DAWs that are considered useful by the composers here.


----------



## Dear Villain (May 8, 2018)

Finale for notation, midi file export, then Cubase 8.5 for me. Would love to eventually get Dorico if it integrated seamlessly with Cubase.


----------



## Vik (May 10, 2018)

I've added Metro to the poll. 
On another note: the poll has been running for soon three and a half years... what do you think? Should I close it and rather start a new one?


----------



## pderbidge (May 10, 2018)

JohnG said:


> Am I wrong to think that a poll in which people vote for whatever they use themselves is not helpful?


I see your point and somewhat agree although I do enjoy hearing what other people like to use. What I think would be even more useful and interesting is a discussion where everyone could share what features they find most useful for composing in their DAW and perhaps a link to a video or something that demonstrates those features. I think that would be really cool.


----------



## JohnG (May 10, 2018)

pderbidge said:


> I see your point and somewhat agree although I do enjoy hearing what other people like to use. What I think would be even more useful and interesting is a discussion where everyone could share what features they find most useful for composing in their DAW and perhaps a link to a video or something that demonstrates those features. I think that would be really cool.



I think it would be cool too; what I _don't_ find helpful is yet another "mine's the best" survey like this which, even if you had 500 people participating, would not answer questions such as:

1. Does anyone really know more than 1 or 2 DAW programs well? As in, "professionally well?"
2. Is everyone working in the same medium? DJ-ing and TV commercials and video games and movies and TV each have different foci.
3. Can those touting their DAW's "unique" feature be confident that most / all other DAWs don't have the same feature? or even a better implementation of that same feature?

In most cases the answers to all three of these questions is "no," which is why I think these polls are probably not too helpful.

What About the Famous Folk?

Even knowing what the most knowledgeable composers use is often more a reflection of how old they are (literally) than a scientific survey. Why? Because most people start with one program and only switch if it's completely inadequate. Given that Logic, Cubase, DP and others are amazingly "adequate" these days, I would guess you'd find few switchers. Some dual-users, undoubtedly, especially if you include Ableton or Reaper,* but not a ton of urgency to switch DAWs, given that they all copy each others' features.

* Or notation programs like Finale and Sibelius, used by most professional orchestrators and copyists, at least in Los Angeles.


----------



## Vik (May 10, 2018)

JohnG said:


> 1. Does anyone really know more than 1 or 2 DAW programs well? As in, "professionally well?"
> 2. Is everyone working in the same medium? DJ-ing and TV commercials and video games and movies and TV each have different foci.
> 3. Can those touting their DAW's "unique" feature be confident that most / all other DAWs don't have the same feature? or even a better implementation of that same feature?


Good questions.
re #1: No, but many of us probably know what we need to know that many of the DAWs out there don't offer what we need (like a relatively decent score editor, expression maps etc).
#2: Very good question. So even if one DAW gets the most votes, it doesn't mean that it's beast for me.
#3: In some cases, yes - in other cases: people will just vote for whatever they use. But this poll isn't a random DAW poll, it specifically asks for which DAW that they prefer for work with orchestral libraries. And for the records, I voted for Cubase and Logic, even if I hardly use Logic, due to functions Cubase as which Logic didn't have when I voted (and which it still doesn't have in a way thats optimised for use with 3rd part libraries). So I don't think all will simply vote for whatever DAW they use the most.

We have 616 voters so far btw.


----------



## robgb (May 10, 2018)

Vik said:


> like a relatively decent score editor


I haven't found a DAW yet that has one I like (although, admittedly, I rarely use it). Probably better to go with the dedicated score editors.


----------



## Vik (May 10, 2018)

OK... with "relatively decent" I don't mean that it can do what the dedicated score editors can do only that it's relatively decent given that it is *not* a dedicated score editor. Logic's score editor is IMO a good example of a relatively decent score editor inside a DAW.


----------



## Light and Sound (May 10, 2018)

robgb said:


> I haven't found a DAW yet that has one I like (although, admittedly, I rarely use it). Probably better to go with the dedicated score editors.


Check out overture 5 (which by the way needs to be added to the list, - and just for clarification; no affiliation)


----------



## Vik (May 10, 2018)

Light and Sound said:


> Check out overture 5 (which by the way needs to be added to the list, - and just for clarification; no affiliation)


Added.


----------



## JohnG (May 10, 2018)

robgb said:


> I haven't found a DAW yet that has one I like (although, admittedly, I rarely use it). Probably better to go with the dedicated score editors.



Well, if I have a big session I do use Finale, but Digital Performer's transcriptions are actually amazingly good. Their software is uncanny in its ability to guess whether you wanted, say, staccato eighth notes or 16ths separated by rests; or septuplets or whatever.

I have two screens and most of the time DP's notation window is open on the right.

I have no idea if there's another DAW that does as good a job, though.


----------



## Vik (Jun 4, 2018)

Vik said:


> On another note: the poll has been running for soon three and a half years... what do you think? Should I close it and rather start a new one?


FYI, I'm closing the poll within a few days.


----------



## Vik (Jun 8, 2018)

OK, guys - thanks for voting, everybody. 658 votes ain't bad! The poll closes in an hour. I plan to start a new one later, with an updated list of DAWs (unless, of course, someone else has done it already).


----------



## Akarin (Jul 10, 2018)

Vik said:


> OK, guys - thanks for voting, everybody. 658 votes ain't bad! The poll closes in an hour. I plan to start a new one later, with an updated list of DAWs (unless, of course, someone else has done it already).



Link it here when you do.


----------



## IFM (Jul 10, 2018)

Vik said:


> OK, guys - thanks for voting, everybody. 658 votes ain't bad! The poll closes in an hour. I plan to start a new one later, with an updated list of DAWs (unless, of course, someone else has done it already).



Some features have been added to LPX since this poll started so I wonder if that would have skewed things...namely the new articulation selector.


----------



## Vik (Jul 10, 2018)

Akarin said:


> Link it here when you do.


Sure. Planning to include these:

Ableton Live
Acoustica Mixcraft
Adobe Audition
Apple Logic Pro
Ardour
Avid Pro Tools
Avid Sibelius
Bitwig Studio
Cakewalk Sonar
Cockos Reaper
Finale
Harrison MixBus
Image Line FL Studio
LMMS (formerly Linux MultiMedia Studio) 
Magix Acid
Magix Samplitude
Magix Sequoia
Magix Sound Forge
Merging Pyramix
Motu Digital Performer
Notion/Notion iOs
PreSonus Studio One
Prism Media Sadie
Propellerheads Record/Reason
Sonic Score Overture
SSL SoundScape
StaffPad
Steinberg Cubase (or Cubasis)
Steinberg Dorico
Steinberg Nuendo
Steinberg WaveLab
Tracktion Waveform

Other (please specify)

Which have I forgotten?


----------



## Akarin (Jul 10, 2018)

Vik said:


> Sure. Planning to include these:
> 
> Ableton Live
> Acoustica Mixcraft
> ...



LMMS. I know some people using it.


----------



## Vik (Jul 10, 2018)

Thanks, added to the list.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 11, 2018)

JohnG said:


> Well, if I have a big session I do use Finale, but Digital Performer's transcriptions are actually amazingly good. Their software is uncanny in its ability to guess whether you wanted, say, staccato eighth notes or 16ths separated by rests; or septuplets or whatever.
> 
> I have two screens and most of the time DP's notation window is open on the right.
> 
> I have no idea if there's another DAW that does as good a job, though.


Indeed. It’s rhythmic transcription is the best of any DAW I’ve worked with. Logic is a close second. Cubase is way down at the bottom. I never use its notation as it’s a mess, at least to me.


----------



## Vik (Jul 18, 2018)

Akarin said:


> Link it here when you do.


It's up now, here:
https://vi-control.net/community/th...program-for-work-with-sample-libraries.73407/


----------

