Any recent DAW comparisons?

Support & discussion regarding DAWs and MIDI sequencers.

Moderators: khz, MattKingUSA

User avatar
rncbc
Established Member
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby rncbc » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:57 pm

Linuxmusician01 wrote:
occulkot wrote:Maybe one be intrested, I saw realy intresting post on reddit comparing few linux DAWs:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxaudio/comments/7ja5gw/ardour_vs_tracktionwaveform/drahajv/

Wow! That's a pretty long list. As for the "verdict" on Qtractor:
  • It's supposed to have "mediocre sound quality". I've no idea what he means by that. You can export in any sound format you like.
  • The manual is here and here. Tutorials on Youtube here. Quickstart guide here.


yet another incredible finding on the social webs:)

i would really like and appreciate to know wtf "mediocre sound quality" is he/she/x talking about and whether anyone on this forum has ever found anything remotely sound like what's being there pooped ;)
while scrolling r/post it actually looks like that he/she just copy-pasted starting from below point 5 or 6. whatever...
evidence: qtractor does not do automation for vst plugin params? whata...
i really don't even think it's worth a try: look! it even lists ardour way-way down below! what a prick!

remind you that the "fake-news" stream maybe never stop... why should we?

cheers

Gps
Established Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:09 pm

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby Gps » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:46 pm

Linuxmusician01 wrote:
As for the comparison of LMMS with the rest: no (live) audio can be recorded with it. It's purely meant for Midi and working w/ the instruments that are built in. Also remember that the LMMS version in most Linux distro's do not have (Windows) VST support built in. Use the KXStudio repo for that.


Don't take my reply personal.

I am however wondering something. Am I the only Linux user who knows how to contact the package manager ?

That's what I did first when I had problems on openSUSE with lmms.

The great people from packman, tried to help me, but told me there was a problem with LMMS.

This problem is fixed in the release candidates. ( RC4 is the latest I think )

They also told me they don't have time to test every program in detail.
So they check if it starts, and if it does , they are done. :)

They need users us telling them, If something is missing.

( for those wondering what the problem was, lmms compiled fine on leap 42.1 but not on leap 42.2.
Although the error I got while compiling was the same on both releases for some reason beyond my computer knowledge, it worked fine on 42.1 but not on 42.2 )

Options for people who want to try / use LMMS.
Compile it you're self.

Or wait for the next stable release.

Or test the Linux self installer, and give feedback if its not working right, on discord.

https://github.com/tresf/lmms/releases/ ... 4.AppImage

Know bug.
When starting a vst two windows open, the vst gui and a window in which that vst should be, but is not.

What made me very happy though, when using synth 1 , and clicking on one of the knobs of synth 1, it always made that knob jump the the maximum position. That issue is fixed.

I also have Carla in lmms, although I need to figure out how to really use it, it seems to work as far as I can tell.
This should bring lv2 support to LMMS :) to name one feature of Carla.
So we can use the newer calf plugins.

tavasti
Established Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:56 am
Location: Kangasala, Finland
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby tavasti » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:14 pm

sysrqer wrote:That review really triggers me, there are quite a few mistakes and gaps in knowledge, it misrepresents all of the daws listed. Now it's probably going to be referenced every time someone asks about one on reddit.

Normal case, if you want something decent you have to make it yourself :-)
Linux veteran & Novice musician

Hear my music at https://audiu.net/users/tawaste

mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby mclstr » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:34 pm

I have used Linux exclusively since the late 90's, except for making music.
I am also an Open Source supporter and worked for more than a decade as a Linux systems engineer.

I eventually moved my music production to Linux when decent music software started to appear for Linux and I eventually stopped using any other OS.

I now use Bitwig because it is simply the best DAW for me.
I often spend well more than 20 hours a week doing music production and appreciate the efficiency and flexibility.

I would not consider purchasing Bitwig if I didn't spend so much time doing music and you shouldn't either if your not.
If you are serious, you should at least look into it.

Qtractor was perfectly fine for me, until I realized that Bitwig required less fiddling with things. I set up my environment to the way I like to work and focus more on music than all the other stuff.

I don't have to jump through all the menus to do something as simple as copying and pasting with the copied data fully independent of the original. Something that Qtractor and Ardour made very difficult to do, not impossible, just difficult.
It could have been a simple preferences setting, but the developers had no intention of considering such a thing.

In Bitwig, I can copy a section of midi or audio to another part of the track or to another track, edit away on the copied data and the original remains untouched. All without having to go through the annoying steps to unlink the copied data before I made the mistake of editing it and mangling the original data.

That alone was just one thing that made a huge difference in reducing wasted energy for me, but there are many other reasons.

Open Source DAWs seem to be tailored for a limited type of user. They tend to not have the resources to do otherwise.

Bitwig does audio, midi and processing well and it gets better with every new version.

Bitwig supports Open Source and employs Open Source developers.
Their code is designed to be cross platform. I try to support any company with that as a goal.
I also like seeing Open Source developers getting paid for their work sometimes.

User avatar
Linuxmusician01
Established Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:38 pm
Location: Holland

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby Linuxmusician01 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:58 pm

mclstr wrote:I often spend well more than 20 hours a week doing music production and appreciate the efficiency and flexibility.

Wow! Then I consider you to be a (semi)pro. Well worth investing in a DAW that suits your needs then.

mclstr wrote:[Bitwig's] code is designed to be cross platform. I try to support any company with that as a goal.
I also like seeing Open Source developers getting paid for their work sometimes.

I didn't realize that Bitwig has a dedicated Linux version of their DAW. Great. :)

simonvanderveldt
Established Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:30 pm

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby simonvanderveldt » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:57 pm

mclstr wrote:I don't have to jump through all the menus to do something as simple as copying and pasting with the copied data fully independent of the original. Something that Qtractor and Ardour made very difficult to do, not impossible, just difficult.
It could have been a simple preferences setting, but the developers had no intention of considering such a thing.

In Bitwig, I can copy a section of midi or audio to another part of the track or to another track, edit away on the copied data and the original remains untouched. All without having to go through the annoying steps to unlink the copied data before I made the mistake of editing it and mangling the original data.

That alone was just one thing that made a huge difference in reducing wasted energy for me, but there are many other reasons.


Such a nice example, this is one thing that annoys me as well and keeps tripping me over every now and then. It also goes against the UX of pretty much every other program ever that copy-paste doesn't actually create a copy but a reference.
Would indeed be very nice if this was either switched to an option or preferable copy-paste would just copy and some other action would create a reference.

Did you file bugs/feature requests for Ardour and Qtractor for this? I'd like to +1 them :)

folderol
Established Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Here, of course!
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby folderol » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:52 pm

mclstr wrote:I don't have to jump through all the menus to do something as simple as copying and pasting with the copied data fully independent of the original. Something that Qtractor and Ardour made very difficult to do, not impossible, just difficult.
It could have been a simple preferences setting, but the developers had no intention of considering such a thing.

In Bitwig, I can copy a section of midi or audio to another part of the track or to another track, edit away on the copied data and the original remains untouched. All without having to go through the annoying steps to unlink the copied data before I made the mistake of editing it and mangling the original data.

That alone was just one thing that made a huge difference in reducing wasted energy for me, but there are many other reasons.

Open Source DAWs seem to be tailored for a limited type of user. They tend to not have the resources to do otherwise.

Bitwig does audio, midi and processing well and it gets better with every new version.

Bitwig supports Open Source and employs Open Source developers.
Their code is designed to be cross platform. I try to support any company with that as a goal.
I also like seeing Open Source developers getting paid for their work sometimes.


This is something that has always been available with Rosegarden - probably the oldest maintained Linux sequencer/editor. I'm rather surprised it doesn't seem to be the norm :?

User avatar
rncbc
Established Member
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby rncbc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:36 pm

aaahaaap wrote:Such a nice example, this is one thing that annoys me as well and keeps tripping me over every now and then. It also goes against the UX of pretty much every other program ever that copy-paste doesn't actually create a copy but a reference.
Would indeed be very nice if this was either switched to an option or preferable copy-paste would just copy and some other action would create a reference.

Did you file bugs/feature requests for Ardour and Qtractor for this? I'd like to +1 them :)


a. if you copy+paste a *whole* midi clip over the *same* track/channel on qtractor, yes it makes shared copies, links, references to the original, whatever--you'll have to do Clip > Unlink explicitly on the one you want to be, uh, un-linked;
b. if you copy+paste a part of a midi clip, then no, the pasted new clips will behave as in copy-on-write and will be automatically un-linked once you edit one of them; however if the pasted clips (nb. plural) are the result of a paste-repeat operation then yes, the pasted clips will be shared/linked copies *of each other* but *not* to the source original (partial) clip;
c. if you copy+paste a *whole* midi clip over any other, different or new track/channel, then *no*, the copies won't be linked to the original source clip.

I indulge that this midi clip "automagic-linking" (or not) should be an user preference option, whatever, but afaik. no single soul ever complained on that before, no bug, no ticket, no request, no nothing:), until now (which isn't official, yet;))--in fact, it was once an explicit feature requested way long ago to make it like as is and has been like so for almost a decade, can you believe that? ;)

hth.
cheers

simonvanderveldt
Established Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:30 pm

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby simonvanderveldt » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:27 pm

rncbc wrote:I indulge that this midi clip "automagic-linking" (or not) should be an user preference option, whatever, but afaik. no single soul ever complained on that before, no bug, no ticket, no request, no nothing:), until now (which isn't official, yet;))--in fact, it was once an explicit feature requested way long ago to make it like as is and has been like so for almost a decade, can you believe that? ;)

hth.
cheers


Thanks for the info and context! Good to know there's no issue about this yet (I couldn't find one either), I'll create one!

mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby mclstr » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:09 pm

falkTX wrote:FYI Ardour has an option to change the behaviour of copied clips.
You can either link them, or make new copies.

Somewhere in settings, advanced, forgot where now...


It may be an option now, but wasn't back when I used it and more than one developer on the team said they had no intention of making it an option. They thought it was a weird request and blew me off.

mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby mclstr » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:13 pm

Linuxmusician01 wrote:
mclstr wrote:I often spend well more than 20 hours a week doing music production and appreciate the efficiency and flexibility.

Wow! Then I consider you to be a (semi)pro. Well worth investing in a DAW that suits your needs then.


I was a music pro, retired now, with the time to do computer music mostly as a hobby.

mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby mclstr » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:21 pm

aaahaaap wrote:Such a nice example, this is one thing that annoys me as well and keeps tripping me over every now and then. It also goes against the UX of pretty much every other program ever that copy-paste doesn't actually create a copy but a reference.
Would indeed be very nice if this was either switched to an option or preferable copy-paste would just copy and some other action would create a reference.

Did you file bugs/feature requests for Ardour and Qtractor for this? I'd like to +1 them :)


I did a very long time ago. The replies from a few developers were basically that I was a minority. I guess I can see that, but I personally don't know how people can work that way.
My suggestion was to make it a preference setting option. Of which I think the Qtractor team didn't reply and the Ardour team said they weren't going to consider it.

mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby mclstr » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:38 pm

rncbc wrote:I indulge that this midi clip "automagic-linking" (or not) should be an user preference option, whatever, but afaik. no single soul ever complained on that before, no bug, no ticket, no request, no nothing:), until now (which isn't official, yet;))--in fact, it was once an explicit feature requested way long ago to make it like as is and has been like so for almost a decade, can you believe that? ;)


Funny thing is that I seem to find most software I've used defaults to having copied data independent of the original. Maybe this has changed over the years with other DAWs?

It would be very rare that I would ever want to edit a copied section and have my changes made on the original. When rarely I do, I just copy and paste it back.
This has been true with Cubase, Studio Vision, Logic Audio, ProTools and many others that I used in the past. Maybe this is no longer the norm?

It is the default in Bitwig and many have commented in the Bitwig forums about it, almost always positive. I don't remember if both ways were an option or not? There are lots of options to customize your environment in Bitwig.

User avatar
sysrqer
Established Member
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby sysrqer » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:25 pm

mclstr wrote:It may be an option now, but wasn't back when I used it and more than one developer on the team said they had no intention of making it an option. They thought it was a weird request and blew me off.

I can't speak with any authority and no offence to anyone meant but since Robin Gareus has joined the team things have got a lot better in getting little workflow issues like this sorted out. From my experience he understands problems like this and fixes them whereas as before there was more of an attitude of 'add it to the request list and we'll see'.

User avatar
sysrqer
Established Member
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Any recent DAW comparisons?

Postby sysrqer » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:10 pm

tavasti wrote:
sysrqer wrote:That review really triggers me, there are quite a few mistakes and gaps in knowledge, it misrepresents all of the daws listed. Now it's probably going to be referenced every time someone asks about one on reddit.

Normal case, if you want something decent you have to make it yourself :-)


That's a fair point but I think just using hearsay or lies in your review is pretty bad for everyone. For example, now anyone who posts on reddit will probably be linked to something suggesting Ardour crashes without doing anything which is very inaccurate and damaging for Ardour. Not to mention the inaccuracies which have been highlighted about qtractor, nor the falsities about the others - for example, renoise does currently have a slow release schedule but there was an update to it just a month or two ago, it does what it does extremely well.

I believe no review would be better than such a falsified and misleading one because if you have no information you can discover what is good but if you are told mistruths from the beginning you might not ever even get started.


Return to “Recorders & Sequencers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests