1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Found This Nice DAW Feature Comparison Chart

Discussion in 'Your DAW (Digital Audio Workstation)' started by robgb, Dec 1, 2017.

  1. gregh

    gregh Senior Member

    668
    403
    Feb 1, 2015

    here is an example - i design an interface where the play and pause buttons are on separate pages and not visible from the mixer or anywhere else. I compare time to change from editing a waveform to playing it in my interface and any of the existing DAWs - obviously my new interface is going to be slower. That's objective measurement. Of course that is an exaggerated example for illustration, but the same applies to searching menus for functions and so on.


    To give a real example, how quickly does your DAW allow for quantising to a tuple of 27/14? Whether you need that or not is irrelevant to the objective nature of that measurement
     
  2. JohnG

    JohnG Senior Member

    7,065
    2,948
    Nov 13, 2007
    California
    I see what you are driving at, and of course there is some subset of issues with a DAW that everyone needs (a start and stop button, for example).

    That said, I think the esoteric nature of your tuplet example proves not that there is a series of objective measures that everyone needs in a DAW, but in fact its opposite, that there is an enormous number of features in each DAW that some, even many users never use, but that are nevertheless vital to some other segment of users.

    Besides, when I see a chart that rates, numerically, one DAW compared with another based on the soft synths that come with each, and then see that rolled up as part of the cumulative score, I think that's a canard. Why? Because it would never cross my mind to use those instruments. Not because they are bad or I think they are bad, but because -- I just don't.

    I don't use them because I do this for a living and, by the time free / included soft synths became common in DAW programs, I already had others I was accustomed to using. By contrast, someone who wants to use included sounds might think that comparison is interesting, but even then -- such a comparison is almost unavoidably subjective. Who prefers Absynth over Zebra or vice versa? Some bits might be objective, like the number of FX, but in terms of how it works, its layout, and the actual sound -- often the subjective elements will outweigh the more objectively measurable attributes.

    Another example is the recording and mixing comparison, which I also think is misguided. I have Pro Tools for recording live players because:

    1. It has zero latency and...

    2. ...100x more important, every engineer knows how to use it quickly.

    Maybe there is something that one could argue is "better" than PT in DP or Cubase or Reaper or whatever when it comes to recording and mixing, but if I am trying to record music with an engineer and a really expensive bunch of players, I'm going to use Pro Tools because the engineer will be familiar with it.

    And that, in turn, means that familiarity actually does beat details of functionality, even if a purely objective measure would say that, hypothetically, Reason is better at recording than Pro Tools. Measured in dollars (in recording, time = money), and even the possibility that the players' time might elapse before recording is finished, the speediness with which the engineer can operate PT far outweighs a theoretical advantage of some other program.

    Moreover, sometimes the comparisons themselves are not fixed because of the availability of user customisation. DP, like at least some other DAWs, allows the user actually to customise key switches for almost every conceivable function, so the answer to "how many clicks to do X" will always be, "it depends on whether or not you set up a key switch to do what you want faster." The availability of such customisation renders objective measures of efficiency nearly impossible.

    So that's why I think Jay's right on this one.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  3. gregh

    gregh Senior Member

    668
    403
    Feb 1, 2015
    arguing at cross purposes JohnG - I have no problem with people making subjective choices - although that is often because there are covert metrics at play. But your point about ProTools is a good one - you give a metric as to why you prefer it. For someone else that metric is irrelevant. Having the metric does not determine the preference, it just makes it available for someone to use when choosing what DAW suits their preferences. But none of that is subjective.

    Similarly for included synths - of no interest to me either, but of interest to some. Hence having a metric (which might just be a list) is going to help people make their choice. The list is not a subjective thing, although the preference for included synths might be (or might not as the metric might be "how many more synths do you want")

    Even take a classic example of QWERTY vs Dvorak keyboard. The Dvorak is quicker, easier to learn and so on but has never been taken up in numbers because the legacy base i so huge and the benefit so marginal that it is not worth the effort. Preference might seem subjective but it is not even here it is just that the metric for bothering is not tested.

    My reason for going on about this related to Reaper - there is an incredible resistance to interface and workflow improvements on the Reaper forum - examples being improving consistency in dialogues and other graphicc elements, and improving accessibility for people with impaired vision. The hostility is always couched in terms of "its all subjective" when something like contrast and visibility is easily measured and can indicate just how many people will struggle with a particular action that is not that visible (DP font size in Windows is a good example of something that is not at all satisfactory and excludes a great many potential users - if that hasn't been fixed since i last looked )

    My view is that this confusion between measurement and preference has damaged Reaper development
     
  4. juliansader

    juliansader Senior Member

    87
    30
    Nov 8, 2009
    I don't know why you got this bad impression of the REAPER forum, but fortunately it is much better than you think! In fact, in my experience, the REAPER forum is actually the most helpful and friendly of all the music-related forums that I frequent. (Astonishingly, it is even possible to have a civil debate about US politics in the Lounge sub-forum.)

    * I searched the forum for "sexist" words, and the only hits I got were some ribald jokes about the name "Cockos" -- a decade ago. The novelty has faded since.

    * UI improvement and consistency are among the feature requests with the most enthusiastic support.
     
  5. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon KSP Wizard

    4,749
    2,582
    May 25, 2010
    Croatia
    Females are very welcome at Cockos forum.
     
  6. gregh

    gregh Senior Member

    668
    403
    Feb 1, 2015
    as long as they don't mind being called "girls" or the sexual references that are left posted rather than being moderated out. Most people on the forum are normal but there is a lot of sexist banter and the lack of moderation keeps that visible. Should be called out more for what it is - although I do notice it is not as bad is it used to be. But any search for women or girls will quickly reveal sexist attitudes.
    For an example have a look at the Concerto Theme thread where the most appalling sexually degrading language is used and when eventually called out by DrKev, he gets attacked for oppressing free speech. No-one else supports him. Disgraceful behaviour and lack of moderation.
     
  7. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon KSP Wizard

    4,749
    2,582
    May 25, 2010
    Croatia
    Well, that's what you get with free speech. :D I for one appreciate how lightly moderated Cockos forum is. Most of "interesting" stuff is pretty much contained in "the lounge" these days.


    That guy was btw likely high on something :D
     
  8. gregh

    gregh Senior Member

    668
    403
    Feb 1, 2015
    sure, I doubt he was in a normal state but the double standards regarding sexism are fairly clear - imagine if his comment had been that strong but racist, or anti-semitic or attacking people with profound disabilities. I think it would have been moderated away or at least called out more by the other posters - at least I hope it would.

    "lightly moderated" can be used as an excuse for "uncaring" or "indifferent". "Freedom" to oppress, vilify and engage in hate speech is not a freedom at all, as it is just the license to reduce the right of others to live in a world without oppression
     
  9. juliansader

    juliansader Senior Member

    87
    30
    Nov 8, 2009
    You are confusing "sexist" with "sexual".

    Sexism, similar to racism or anti-semitism, refers to prejudice and discrimination. The guy made a crude *sexual* remark (inbetween some crude swearing). He did not attack, oppress or vilify anyone, and he seems to have been high, not hateful.
     
  10. gregh

    gregh Senior Member

    668
    403
    Feb 1, 2015
    I would think you are wrong here Julian. The remarks were degrading to women, if you doubt that, ask some women how they feel about them. Anyway, enough of this discussion in this forum, I feel it is too off topic. Although important.
     

Share This Page