# Introducing SAWStudio and Bob Lentini



## Peter Alexander (Jan 16, 2007)

In another thread, Frederick suggested we start a conversation about SAWStudio created by Bob Lentini (www.sawstudio.com). I asked Bob to join our Professional Orchestration class as an additional support for our recording workshop. Bob's also working with me on developing a new recording curriculum which will be taught around SAWStudio. 

Bob has a very reasonable price point with three versions, the first starting at $300: SAWBasic, SAWLite, and SAWStudio.

You can download a trial version of SAWStudio Light which also imports video. The program locks to SMPTE flawlessly. http://sawstudio.com/downloads_demos.htm

To my ears, Bob has a custom reverb that sounds as clean as a Lexicon 960. And there's also a MIDIWorkshop (no notation), a Levelizer, and a Frequency Analyzer. 

This is a PC only program and Bob's most recommended audio cards come from RME. Alternate "skins" (called Shades) are also available. (http://www.thessvideos.com/skins/Vintage%20Basic/vintagebasicl.jpg (http://www.thessvideos.com/skins/Vintag ... basicl.jpg))

A comprehensive set of training videos is here:
http://sawstudio.com/support_videos.htm

SAWStudio is so efficient, you can record and edit on a laptop.

With this introduction, please check out the videos and post your questions here.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 16, 2007)

I tried to watch the videos but the music was so loud and annoying that I gave up. Please suggest to Bob that he provides these overviews without music so that those of us who hate Muzak can still get a feel for what's on offer.

D


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 16, 2007)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 16 said:


> I tried to watch the videos but the music was so loud and annoying that I gave up. Please suggest to Bob that he provides these overviews without music so that those of us who hate Muzak can still get a feel for what's on offer.
> 
> D



Why didn't you turn down the volume slider? I checked the video on my Mac, and I'd run it previously on a laptop. No volume problems here. This was a blues jam/smooth jazz recording session recorded in Las Vegas before a live audience to demonstrate te program. Muzak!? D. Get some coffee. This is good music that's not played in any elevator I've ever been in!


----------



## Bob L (Jan 16, 2007)

Thanks for the introduction Peter and the start of this thread.

The music is an integral part of the demo, in my opinion... in fact the background music in the overview is demonstarting a fairly dense session in motion with full use of eq, compression and other signal processing while I move freely around the interface. It is to show that SAWStudio allows you to do this with no screen bogdowns and meter display issues, even while loading down the cpu.

Sorry the music offended anyone... I really like it and feel that it makes the entire presentation an exciting experience, rather than a dead and drab talk... but, that's my opinion... each is entitled to their own opinion. :smile: 

Bob L


----------



## Daryl (Jan 16, 2007)

No point in turning down the music, as I couldn't have heard the voice over. :roll: 
So now I'll never know what SAW could have done for me. 

D


----------



## Bob L (Jan 16, 2007)

There are no MWS videos finished yet... although one of the SS users has created a very simplified step by step DVD video tutorial guide that he sells for $35... most everyone that has jumped into that has given back very favorable reviews. His link is www.theSSVideos.com

Of course, my demo videos were not meant as tutorials... but more as a quick sales presentation to see SS in action.

There is a complete (although old) online training tutorial section that uses Real Audio voice over a series of very detailed graphics of every control and basic process in the SS environment... you may find them useful... I have it on my todo list to transfer these into flash tutorials.

I do have some more demo videos in the making... the MWS is definitely included, along with a demonstration of using SS as a live console and also the use of live thru monitoring with aux sends feeding back to performers all directly within the virtual environment... not sure when they will be done.

But, if interested, you can hear many presentations of all types of music composition and production done within the SS and MWS environment up on the SAWStudio Radio Network link... some fun listening there... some of the sessions are complete midi and sample based projects... full orchestrations of movie score type projects... others run the gamut from conuntry to rap and evrything in between... follow the link from the main website and enjoy.

Bob L


----------



## José Herring (Jan 16, 2007)

Pity the first person to respond had to criticize the music in the video :roll: 

Hey Bob,

The important thing to me is it's ability to handle VI's. For this you need lots of audio tracks and lost of midi tracks. I noticed that you have a cap on audio tracks even for the flag ship Saw Studio. Why is this? And, is there a similar cap on midi tracks?

best,

Jose


----------



## Bob L (Jan 16, 2007)

Jose,

Yes... the 72 tracks are stereo or mono, so that's a lot of tracks.

The MWS offers 128 midi tracks.

The reason for the limits are for perfromance and stability. The so called unlimited tracks that you might be used to in most of the other systems come at a very high price in those two departments, as well as the overall bloated code size.

C++ objects allow the idea of instantiating complete duplicated code sections of a single track and all the code that goes with it... the unfortunate penalty for this style of coding is extreme bloated code size and loss of performance, in my experience, due to the fact that object oriented coding creates long lists and links of pointers to other pointers to other pointers... etc... there is almost no direct route for the code to follow during execution. This can lead to many thousands of lines of code execution to get simple tasks done.

SAWStudio is written mostly in assembly language, with the basic windows interface in straight C, without the use of standard C Libraries, but rather basic memory and other common functions re-written by me directly in assembly. This allows the code to jump directly to the needed routines and access the variable arrays directly with very few lines of code... therefore the improved performance and the incredible small code size. My method, however, requires that I allocate my thousands of variables as fixed arrays with a definite size rather than as an open ended dynamic size that can grow and grow as you decide to add tracks.

When I started desiging SAWStudio, I felt that the trade-off of a fixed number of pre-allocated track variables was well worth the speed and stability that this design concept offered.

72 stereo tracks is an enormous amount... sessions with much beyond that can tend to get a little dense to mix anyway. If, though, you have a legitimate need for more, SAWStudio allows you to run multiple copies on multiple machines or even the same machine and lock them together with the built-in TCP/IP hooks as Master/Slave combinations. You can actually connect up to 8 slaves to run in sync, thereby extending the track count to 576 stereo or mono tracks. Of course, the idea here is to spread the load of such huge sessions across multiple machines so there is no cpu bogdown.

Because of the direct coding style, SAWStudio does not depend on the Windows registry and installs in about 10-20 seconds on your machine in a single program folder with some sub-folders underneath that. This design concept allows multiple copies to be run simultaneously on the same machine with separate preferences and defaults, since there is no common storage in specified registry entries.

It makes for a very interesting ride and offers some unique abilities not found in other DAWs.

In my experience, unlimited tracks is not very useful, especially when the interfaces are slow and klunky feeling... In other DAWs I've used, I didn't find much usefulness in having a 200th track that I could not instantly jump to during playback without glitching the audio or causing my meters to freeze everytime I tried to move around such a huge interface. :smile: 

Bob L


----------



## José Herring (Jan 16, 2007)

The audio track limit doesn't bother me as much as the midi track limit. 128 midi tracks would prevent many of us from using our templates which can be quite large for full orchestra mockups with multiple articulations per instrument. Any way of increasing the midi track count?

Jose


----------



## Bob L (Jan 17, 2007)

My guess is that you may be hard pressed to get 128 midi tracks of vsti samplers and synths playing back in realtime, due to performance and ram constraints, let alone many more.

The reality for me is that I much prefer to get the midi tracks transferred over to the audio side of the equation as quickly as I can during the composition phase, to free up more resources for the samplers.

The direct, faster than realtime, buildmix functions make it easy for me to free up the midi and easily open up the tracks for more midi parts.

I also find there is much more control of the mixing and processing phase of the session from the audio side... but, of course, my main craft is audio engineering.

Its always possible for me to consider adding more midi tracks, but I stopped at 128 for practical reasons and to conserve resources for the audio side of things.

But, as I mentioned, you could always open a second SAWStudio on the same machine and lock the two together as master/slave and now you will have 256 midi tracks just that quickly. :smile: 

Bob L


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jan 17, 2007)

Bob L @ Wed Jan 17 said:


> My guess is that you may be hard pressed to get 128 midi tracks of vsti samplers and synths playing back in realtime, due to performance and ram constraints, let alone many more.



Hi Bob, many of us are running slave computers and having the audio piped directly into the sequencer via FX Teleport.

In this case, its not unusual to have a large orchestral template in your sequencer of well over 100 tracks.

I am looking at your product with interest though and will download a demo in between projects.


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 17, 2007)

Bob L @ Wed Jan 17 said:


> My guess is that you may be hard pressed to get 128 midi tracks of vsti samplers and synths playing back in realtime, due to performance and ram constraints, let alone many more.
> 
> The reality for me is that I much prefer to get the midi tracks transferred over to the audio side of the equation as quickly as I can during the composition phase, to free up more resources for the samplers.



Hey Bob,

first of all welcome to the forum!!
I understand that you want to keep SAW stabile and oversightable, but a lot of people here work with 200-500 midi tracks and sometimes it is simply not possible to just bounce stuff to audio.
Well of course it is, but schedule or timewise a lot of compositions needs to be open and made accessible to the MIDI content, since there could be changes like taking out this instruments, chaing a key or whatever.
If I remember the "old" time by bouncing my strings to start working on the brass and then recognizing some notes I didn't like in the stringsm, editing the midi content and then bounce again ... jeez ... never ever again 

My personal opinion about SAW is, that it to me looked like a vintage shoebo (without being offensive) ... but some funny fonts were used and some windows etc looked kinda cheap. That doesn't really makes me to spend around 2500 bucks on a professional program.
Otherwise I really appreciate the fast workflow and CPU usage. Every other sequencer should cut a piece of bread from your loaf ... uuh .. well, another german saying, but you know what I mean


----------



## Daryl (Jan 17, 2007)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 17 said:


> Pity the first person to respond had to criticize the music in the video :roll:
> 
> best,
> 
> Jose


Yeah, but I'm also a person who won't shop in a supermarket that plays Muzak. :lol: 

Anyway, it wasn't so much that there was music playing, it was the fact that the VO was obscured by it.

D


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jan 17, 2007)

Daryl @ Wed Jan 17 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Jan 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Pity the first person to respond had to criticize the music in the video :roll:
> ...



I feel better after reading this, Daryl. My local supermarket plays Shostakovich and Rimsky Korasakov regularly. (I'm sure they get more of my cash as a result.)

Bob,
You've given reasonable explanation of why you structured SAW the way you did. I've been visiting your site from time to time, and I agree with Daryl, that knocking down the backing music would help in hearing what you're actually saying.
You must be close to the most modest developer out there! (Developer? Shy?)

I'm also with Jose on this one. Given the size and complexity of current libraries, the number of midi tracks required to 'tweak' into excellence pretty well calls for a large midi track count. I can appreciate your emphasis and intent has been more towards Audio, but maybe there's a hint here towards appealing to a wider user base.

I note with additional interest that SAW is capable of multi instance across machines. 

Can you give a clearer idea of how this works and fits together?

Do you use this method yourself, or have you tested this extensively with a lot of tracks across several instances hammering away all at once, including added plugins and effects? If so, can you give a bigger picture, or even an instruction video of how this works?
There's so much comment here and elsewhere about lashing boxes together, and dealing with audio and midi across a farm, I would be interested in finding out how successfully SAW does this.. 
And although i'm a notation hound, the method of notational input on other programs is so far behind other program developments, i decided to stick to 'hardware' parchment for score and use the box for input, so for me and my working method, no real loss there.

I'll be frank, the interface is somewhat less appealing than others, and i'm not sure how much impact this would have on those who spend long hours in front of the screen continually, but objectively, it's the mechanics of input and potential end quality that interests me more.


Alex.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jan 17, 2007)

Being a Mac guy I do not see myself using this product but am intrigued with it because of Bob's reputation. I lived in Vegas 7 years many moons ago and Bob was and probably still is "The Man" when it comes to engineering. Bob you may remember a fusion band "Afterburner", around the same time you were doing Nelson Kole. Myself and John Abraham started the group. Anyway best of luck with this. I am sure the audio on this system is of the highest quality.


----------



## Bob L (Jan 17, 2007)

The fun thing about the LOOK of the interface, is that it is completely changeable with what I call Shades. There are now probably close to 100 different complete graphic overlays for the entire interface that will instantly change its complete look.

So, I would suggest that not be a major point of focus as to whether it has anything to offer... I have my likes and dislikes and the idea behind the Vintage shade is that it offers an ease of visual linking of major console sections through color coding of controls and the switches are very visible as to whether they are engaged or not... something that I feel can make a big impact when someone is first learning to use a complex environemnt such as this. I have found that many people in the music business may not have an in depth understanding of large scale mxing console routing and busing, and this can definitely help follow signal flow.

I have used the multiple machine concept quite a few times over the years, but now I find that I have no problem doing all I need to do, even on my largest projects just on one machine, since the machine power has evolved along with improvements in the coding of my engine.

The idea behind my linking of machines with SAWStudio is such that they lock together across an ethernet connection and sync based on a DWORD code sent over the network. I do not attempt to pass audio back and forth over the ethernet... each machine outputs its own audio when used as a slave and the audio can be combined in a small external mixer or back into the master machine as a live input with whatever audio latency your system is capable of attaining. The slave machines chase the master, so one machine can be set to work just midi data or handle video or handle certain tracks that require intense signal processing that would otherwise bog your master machine's cpu into the mud.

I am sorry to hear that music in the demo videos could generate such a negative experience for some... I went back to listen and could find no problem with understanding everything in the voice over on my systems. But, oh well... there is certainly no push on my part to ram my product down anyone's throat or suggest that there is anything wrong with the way an individual is currently working, but over the years it is interesting to note how many people have shut themselves off from the SAWStudio environment over meaningless issues like that only to come back around years later and take a more serious look and become my biggest supporters.

Please note that SAWStudio maintains its main focus on audio performance and quality, but it is interesting how many serious midi users have written back to say how much the Midi Add-on has improved their workflow and finished results, once they allowed themselves to flow with the design and modify certain habits that were not handled in the same way as other systems they were used to. In effect, many are now completely comfortable in the SS / MWS environment and have made the complete transition... and they are very vocal about how it has improved everything about their composing and audio mixing experience.

But, its obvious that SAWStudio is not for everyone. I am always happy to share what it is and how it works with interested parties, but I have no desire to enter into confrontational discussions about this vs that.

You will find, if you explore my forum, that I honestly listen to all polite and intelligent suggestions for improvement and in many cases update the code very quickly to add in some of the suggested features that really enhance the program without decreasing performance or audio quality.

The fun thing is that I am a single artist in complete control of every line of the code, so there is no board of directors to deal with and no long schedule of meetings with the accountants and lawyers to go through before deciding to recompile an update.  

Bob L


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jan 17, 2007)

Bob, 

No offense meant, just observations. And the music's fine, just 'strong' under your dulcet tones. (The music in the orientation vid is reminiscent of Dave Hirschfelder's work with his band called pyramid. Smooth stuff.)
I've just been to your site, had a browse and been through the forum. I was particularly interested in the chase function in your orientation video. That's a real time saver for a start. Select Sax, and everything for sax comes up. A simple solution to all that multiple window mouse clicking that goes on in other DAWS.
The interface isn't offensive, just 'bright'. If there's other options, then the point is moot.

A further question. Can Key commands be assigned in the Midi workshop? I took note of your intent to 'standardise' the workflow, so i'm just wondering if there's any leeway in this.
Thanks for the info on multi machine setup.


Alex.


----------



## Maximvs (Jan 17, 2007)

Hi Bob,

I just have a couple of questions to ask you regarding the SAWStudio Lite Demo.

1) The SAWStudio Lite Demo installation process was fine but when it came to install MWS, I stated to get error messages saying that the directory path was wrong; in actual fact what was causing this is that the MWS intaller pup up window displayed the wrong directory path C:\SAWstudio instead of C:\SAWstudio Lite Demo.

It is a pretty obvious thing but it took me a few minutes to figure out what was wrong.
It would be very nice when I download the Lite version of the software to have the correct directory path already written in the pup up window, rather then spend time figuring out what is wrong. This goes to the people that try to instal MWS after installing the Lite version and it may apply to the Basic version too, but I don't know this because I only installed the Lite version.

2) I am using a dual monitor setup with my PC and when I open the Video Track I am not allowed to drag it on the right monitor, any idea why? Is this a Demo restriction or something else?

Would I be able to write music to picture using SAW Studio Lite on a Laptop 2.4GHZ processor with 1GB Ram. I mostly work in the Midi realm with VST instruments.

Thanks for any help and welcome to the forum.

All the Best

Max


----------



## Bob L (Jan 17, 2007)

Alex,

The key commands are fixed and designed to follow simple first or second letter (generally) commands. Many have used macro editors and other hardware quick key type units to create prebuilt keystroke combinations into a one quick key operation... but the interface design is more geared around the point and click operation of the mouse.

Max,

I am expecting that most people ready to look at SAWStudio would be reasonably comfortable with Windows and pathing. The demos will work across all three versions and the other demos as well, so without scanning all your drives, there is no way to know what combination you might be running. I dislike scanning drives because that can take forever on today's large drive footprints and not something I find acceptable when installing other software.

The dialog does clearly ask for the current drive path where you installed your version of SAWStudio... its pretty simple really.

The dual monitor concept adds certain elements to the equation. Some dual monitor video cards do not report the full virtual resolution correctly and therefore your setup may think there is only half the res. Look at the max screen res override in my options menu to determine what screen res is currently reported. You may have to use this option to override the res if it is not allowing for both your monitors.

The video viewer should be placeable anywhere on either monitor as long as the max res is set correctly. But, beware that depending on your Windows install and service pack and DX version, the video may or may not play on the secondary monitor. The DirectDraw interface can have varying limitations depending on your Windows configuration and your video card driver.

Yes to the question about scoring music in sync to the video playback. The video playback in SS is handled in such a way that the picture can never drift from the MT playback sync. If you use a DV avi file, you will have instant seeking and can even output the video to external TV monitors with the use of hardware overlay options in many ATI and Matrox video cards. You can also output to external using the firewire output and a DV converter box. You can easily and instantly place multiple video segments down and cut edit them together. You also have multiple layers in the video track to handle multiple camera shots all lined up in sync on the layers... which can then be easily switched live during playback, if desired.

Bob L


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jan 19, 2007)

I've just spent the morning going through the manuals, vids, and comments on the SAW site in a more detailed fashion.

A question so far is related to the midi workshop. Bob, you made the cooment about opening a second SAW on the same machine to double midi tracks available.
Is it possible to open one instance of SAWstudio, and two instances of midi workshop, feeding into the one instance of SAW? 

I'm still digesting what i've learnt, and trying to get my head around the whole concept (because i'm not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination), but two things stick out so far, way above everything else.

1. The process of mix from start to final looks so intuitive, as to seem absurdly easy. Just the group tools come across as big time savers. 
This seems, again so far, like an object lesson on how to keep things simple, yet powerfully effective.

2. That's the warmest, most live, sound i've ever heard from a software mix. 

Now for the Midi workshop.

Alex.


----------



## Bob L (Jan 19, 2007)

Alex,

The MWS is dependent directly on its lock to the main SAWStudio engine and it is a one to one relationship.

There is really not a simple way to extend the midi track count unless I modify the code and recompile an update, if I felt the need was truly necessary.

Even talking with some very serious midi composers still leaves me questioning the need.

But who knows... I will look into the possiblity of an update with extended trackcount... as long as it does not affect the performance and sync tightness.

Bob L


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jan 19, 2007)

Thank for the info Bob. I wasn't particularly worried as to whether one or two instances of MWS could be connected to SAW, just trying to get my head around how it all works.

Given the info i've gleaned so far, it would be no inconvenience to open another instance of SAW/MWS in a slave. I like the built in ethernet and solid time lock idea between slave and master, and i'm assuming the master can access and control the slave midi with no problems.

Back to the manuals.

I must admit, this is interesting. You've really thought this out, even for engineering dummies like me.


Alex.


----------



## Bob L (Jan 19, 2007)

Alex,

The master/slave feature is very useful for more advanced situations... it is not what I would recommend in the beginning though... you really would want to master the main interface in a single instance of SAWStudio and MWS before jumping into the more complex issues of master/slave.

I would suggest to just explore the basic SS concepts first for a short while, if interested, and then see if its worth going on from there.

Bob L


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 19, 2007)

Bob L @ Fri Jan 19 said:


> Alex,
> 
> The MWS is dependent directly on its lock to the main SAWStudio engine and it is a one to one relationship.
> 
> ...



If you can double 128 to 256 that would be fantastic.


----------



## Bob L (Jan 19, 2007)

Alex,

Well... play around with the 128 and the audio interface for a bit and let me know if you're still interested after that... no promises... but who knows.

Bob L


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks, Bob. I think many of the fellows already operate with more than 128 tracks, and have been doing so for quite a while owing to the nature of how sample recording works. How many tracks needed is dependent on the libraries each has. 

Maybe some here who operate with more than 128 tracks could discuss this a bit.


----------



## Alan Lastufka (Jan 20, 2007)

Bob L @ Wed Jan 17 said:


> The fun thing about the LOOK of the interface, is that it is completely changeable with what I call Shades. There are now probably close to 100 different complete graphic overlays for the entire interface that will instantly change its complete look.



I use SAW Studio, not for everything, but for some things. It handles final rendering (audio mixdown) waaay better than any other audio program I've heard. Though I do think the Midi WorkShop is a little harder to learn than your average application. I was working with Robert Randolph and Bob on implementing a built-in notation system as well, but it hasn't happened yet.

Bob's right about the Shades, though. I even made one of my own that you can download here:

http://www.fallofautumn.com/Lastufka-HooLooVoo.zip


----------



## mr-es335 (Jan 27, 2019)

Hello,
I realize this posting does go back a bit, but just for interest, Bob has recently updated the Web-site - RML Labs.

Also, *he has updated all of the software to 64-bit*! Be sure to _check-it-out_!!


----------



## brenneisen (Jan 27, 2019)

mr-es335 said:


> Bob has recently updated the Web-site - RML Labs.



still comics sans, tho


----------



## mr-es335 (Jan 27, 2019)

Brenneisen,
May I ask what you mean by "still comics sans, tho"? May I ask what is wrong with this...?






... or this ...






I must admit, when I first saws SAWStudio, I thought, "Okay!" But then, I checked out the "shades" and such, and thought to give it as serious look over. I have never regretted that decision.

I use the SAWStudio/Software Audio Console combination for "live performance". Software Audio Console - SAC for short, is a "mixer-in-a-box" application. First configuring SAC for my 4-piece set-up, getting all the scenes in order, I then "link" SAC o SAW, then using a feature called the "Control Track" to completely automate the entire show. I also have the option to send the entire channel configuration to SAW for recording purposes - if I so chose. Have a look-see:






So, on the right is SAWStudio's Control Track, which using the scenes in SAC to control the show. What I particular like, is that I use sense in SAC to control preset changes in Overloud's TH3 - this all being literally controlled by the Control Track. SAW is configured to play the backing tracks for the electric guitar performances - and appears in SAC as a "local instrument". So, all I do is "play" There are "Pause" commands which allow me to halt the performance for emcee'ing and such, using the space bar to continue with the performance.

I must admit, that Bob has a very definite and particular manner in which he works - and he does expect others to follow suit. This being said, if you have ever had the opportunity of seeing him "work" - this just might help to dispel any notions of Bob being a tad too _one-sided_.

On a final note, with regards to virtual instruments, for a time I was using MidiWorkshop within SAWStudio for re-arrangements of hymns for a local church that I was involved in. I used Kontakt along with Vienna Ensemble Pro. I had a dedicated 64-bit WIN7 system running Kontakt, using VE Pro as a 32-bit plug-in in SAW. This allowed me to see the other system as if Kontakt *was an actual plug-in within SAW*. Very nice indeed! There were times when I had upwards of 60 instruments being used within MidiWorkshop - with MWS thinking that the instrumentation via Kontakt actually resided on the local machine.


----------



## D Halgren (Jan 27, 2019)

mr-es335 said:


> Brenneisen,
> May I ask what you mean by "still comics sans, tho"? May I ask what is wrong with this...?
> 
> 
> ...


I believe he was talking about the font on his website. It's considered a bad design choice.


----------



## mr-es335 (Jan 27, 2019)

D Halgren,
Thanks for the reply. So, as a result of a bad choice for fonts, his software will be critiqued accordingly? I must admit, I am having a great deal of difficult in understanding this line of reasoning?


----------



## D Halgren (Jan 27, 2019)

mr-es335 said:


> D Halgren,
> Thanks for the reply. So, as a result of a bad choice for fonts, his software will be critiqued accordingly? I must admit, I am having a great deal of difficult in understanding this line of reasoning?


I think it was more of a joke.


----------



## mr-es335 (Jan 27, 2019)

Hello,
Okay...I do sincerely hope so! I also hope that Brenneisen will chime-in to clarify this point.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 27, 2019)

mr-es335 said:


> May I ask what is wrong with this...?



Pretty much everything. It just looks bad, in a very 90s bad way  The world of GUIs has moved on considerably since then.


----------



## ionian (Jan 27, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> Pretty much everything. It just looks bad, in a very 90s bad way  The world of GUIs has moved on considerably since then.



Someone should tell Reaper. I'm allergic to how amateurish that program looks.


----------



## D Halgren (Jan 27, 2019)

ionian said:


> Someone should tell Reaper. I'm allergic to how amateurish that program looks.


Someone is looking to start a fight


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 27, 2019)

ionian said:


> Someone should tell Reaper. I'm allergic to how amateurish that program looks.



Even Reaper looks better than this in most areas.  I mean seriously. SAW is quite some "next-level" amateurish design, compared to something like this:

http://www.houseofwhitetie.com/reaper/imperial/wt_imperial.html


----------



## ionian (Jan 27, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> Even Reaper looks better than this in most areas.  I mean seriously.
> 
> http://www.houseofwhitetie.com/reaper/imperial/wt_imperial.html




I had tried Reaper and tried a lot of the skins, including that one, and the big problem I had with it was most of the skins have this glaring inconsistency from one to the other. There's weird spacing differences. A lot of them behave differently - some of them would allow track colors, while others wouldn't, or very small slivers of color. Some of them made the faders gigantic, while others would make them tiny. After a while you start to realize the skins are what they are - all completely random, made by different people. It just became a pain to try different ones because from one to the other the layouts changed so much.

It would have helped if there was some consistency or some rules to follow for the skins - for example track colors work on all skins. It was pointless when I liked a skin but now all my recorded audio had no color to it. Or to keep faders the same size so that once I have my workscreen laid out, if I wanted to try a dark skin, I wouldn't have the faders double in size because that particular skin has huge faders. 

But I guess that's the program in general - the whole program always felt to me like a small core program with a ton of functions, features, and stuff bolted on.


----------



## mr-es335 (Jan 27, 2019)

EvilDragon,
Conversations like this - in all honesty, are not really what I would refer to as "redeemable". It will always relegate to one's personal preference - and not really-and-truly on defined end result(s).

For example, as a guitarist, I have owned numerous guitars, and yet the one that has been both the brunt and the pleasure of many is a beat-up old 1969 Suzuki No.700. This guitar was dropped by one of my sons and has a very large hole in the lower bout that was never repaired. Also, this guitar is entirely made of plywood and yet has the sweetest tone of any guitar that I have ever owned. So, _I just close my eyes_.

Now, with regards to one software application sounding better that another - I had the opportunity of hearing a story regarding someone who is a very successful monitor engineer, and who had used a large Yamaha console for many, many years.

He was in the process of migrating his current setup from a physical console to a SAC-based system. As I understand it, a real-life test was required - and one that only he would know about. I gather that this was done to ensure that both he and the performers would be content with the change.

Using the previous night's recording, he would mute that performer's part, and have them perform against the "backing track". This process was repeated for each and every performer - one of who was Lady Gaga. Apparently, each of the performers asked the engineer what had changed? At the end of the session, he then informed all of the performers what it was - an entirely software-based mixing environment.
PS: As I personally had not witnessed this event, I contacted the engineer to verify that this incidence was indeed true - and he assured me that it was.

To sum this up, may be we just need to _close our eyes_ - even though this would be difficult to do in the present situation.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 27, 2019)

It's like with people and opinions. Everybody will do a theme according to their (dis)taste, provided the facilities for flexible arrangement of widgets, which Reaper has in most important areas of the interface.

I've been using the original RADO theme made in Reaper 4 times for a very long time now, it fits me very well, even though admittedly it doesn't look mouth-watering like, for example, Imperial does. But, and this is very important, it is _extremely nice _to look at it for extended periods of time.







mr-es335 said:


> To sum this up, may be we just need to _close our eyes_ - even though this would be difficult to do in the present situation.



That is not really possible when you work with software, so your whole argument is a bit shaky. I do agree that a lot of things are personal preference, I just don't understand how could anyone _love_ SAW's interface.

Now I am perfectly aware that Reaper's interface is _not perfect_. But it's much better than SAW's, overall, and I think this can even be stated as a sort of a fact.  As I said, software interfaces have moved on in the past 20 years, SAW's didn't. That's all there's to it.


----------



## brenneisen (Jan 27, 2019)

mr-es335 said:


> May I ask what is wrong with this...?



many things! but at least it's not using comics sans.


----------



## D Halgren (Jan 27, 2019)

brenneisen said:


> many things! but at least it's not using comics sans.


You need to keep this rolling!


----------



## lumcas (Jan 27, 2019)

Yeah, thanks for reviving this thread. I totally forgot about this one. Must be labor of love. Suddenly AVID looks like a reasonable company.

Oh, and that Reaper skin looks really nice.


----------



## buzzman (Mar 1, 2019)

I've been using Sawstudio for quite a few years now. I'm still on the 32bit version. I also own Logic Pro X, have had a pro tools HD rig, have purchased and used studio one 4 pro, and also have MixBus32c v5 by Harrison.

I have had many problems with Pro Tools, Studio one, and MixBus32c. They are not very efficient with CPU power. A decent project will max out my computer. I just paid $800 to upgrade my system half a year ago and was shocked that I was still having issues. I have a I5-8600K, 16gb DDR4 memory, and a 256g of the newest SSD drives. My system is very fast, but I have issues with these DAWs. I was very suprised SO4 would give me CPU isses, but I hear that's a big common complaint.

My Logic Pro on my mac is a very efficient DAW in terms of power, system stability. It's very easy to compose with, but it has so many features that it overwhelmes me to a point of frustration sometimes. And for some reason, all my mixes sound the same to me no matter what I try. I think maybe because its so geared towards electronic based music, I end up using the same tools over and over again. Although stable, it still crashes from time to time.

SawStudio is my #1. I can easily compose with MWS just as easily as Logic Pro X, and SS is very efficient. MIDI and Audio Editing is a breeze. It's so simple that I just can't ever give up on this software. I'm not on a new version, but I can use my current version for any project I can think of. Even though it doesn't use all my processors, I never have system stability issues. I've put in the work early on by learning how to use it and understand its workflow. It really does feel like working with hardware, and I like that. I like the look of the main GUI, and I use shades. The look of it is of no importance to me. I know how it works and I know where everything is, so it works out great for me. I'm a hobbyist, so I don't have clients to deal with.

If I had to choose DAWS in an order it would be this:

1. Sawstudio
2. Mixbus32c
3. Logic ProX
4. StudioOne (StudioOne could be #3 if it didn't hog up so many resources)

I've also tried Reaper. I couldn't really work with it. It might be just me, but I just don't like it. I didn't give it a fair chance to be honest.


----------



## mr-es335 (Mar 1, 2019)

buzzman,

Nice to hear about your experiences!

I had a very substantial rig, using some expensive hardware - but found it was just to much for single guy to lug around from gig-to-gig. So, I am now using a Lenovo T540p laptop with a Behringer USC404HD via USB 2 and this system works very, very well indeed.

To put this system though the paces, I used 10 instances of Overloud's TH-U ampsim, 10 instances of Valhalla's vRoom, 10 tracks all with compression and EQ, was maxed out at 94% load with no slipped buffers for over two hours. I means, running on USB 2! I must admit I was very impressed indeed.

I tend to consider features-over-looks - and I am not aware of any audio applications that offer what RML products do.


----------



## buzzman (Mar 4, 2019)

I agree. It's a nice piece of software. I also got plugins made just for SS. I mainly stick with the native plugins and Anwida & Sonoris and rarely use 3rd party plugins, with the exception of S-Gear and VST soft synths.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 14, 2019)

SAWStudio was in every Las Vegas showroom when HD Recording was catching.
Support was great too, the man lived right down the street.

Anyone know if the SS Mixer has 4 AUXs and everything totally controlled via MIDI CC#’s?

Thanks


----------



## mr-es335 (Mar 14, 2019)

Hello,

SAWStudio has 6 AUX's per channels and yes, everything can be controlled via MIDI CC#’s. Youshoud check out the User Manual


----------

