LinuxMusicians

Hi,

Didn't know if this has been posted: https://www.bitwig.com/en/16-track.html

$99 USD/EUR... I've been "Wig curious" for a few years but I'm a live band guy not really a EDM/Techno guy (although I do very much enjoy the genre) so this seemed like a decent compromise to learn the ropes..

Anyone else taking the leap?

I certainly do not see any genre-limiting aspect to Bitwig. The concept of clips and scenes to create and their real-time recording into an Arranger to compose can be applied to any style of music. The EDM tag could be from the use of Bitwig's synth

This sized-down 16-track version seems to offer just abut everything. I wouldn't mind much if the Grid is not there. I actually did not update to 3.x and do not care much about it as I already do not use much - if at all - the Bitwig synths. The Grid is a modular synth and as such I already have Bazille which I'd certainly prefer over the synth filters that Bitwig has.

Bitwig is perhaps unique in offering the clips/scenes approach to creating music. It is certainly extremely versatile for me. From a traditional hardware-based 'mixing console' approach (Ardour/Mixbus) it opened up a world of possibilities, purely software-based. Splicing bits of tape is possible with the hardware metaphor, but not really practical.

Cheers.

I own the normal bitwig.
At first, bitwig was sold as an Ableton live alternative. Nowadays it has become more a sound designer thing. It's definitely geared toward synth people, with its built-in modulators, the grid, the synths, communication with hardware over CV, etc.
If you're wanting to dive in there, do it
If you're bored, and looking for something exciting, it's a good option.
If you think you'll make better music, I doubt it. We already have a lot to help us craft good stuff with free software.

So why do you want to have it?

Openmastering wrote: If you think you'll make better music, I doubt it. We already have a lot to help us craft good stuff with free software.

I doubt there's a clips/scenes -> Arranger approach in 'free' software.

It's a bit like saying you got a good 3-speed-hub bicycle, I doubt you'd me riding better with a 10-speed. Or perhaps, you got good cable-driven brakes, I doubt you could brake better with hydraulic brakes. Or, you got 5 water colours, I doubt you'd be making 'better' paintings with 10. Same applies to working with wood, etc...

Of course, it's what you make of it. As such it's difficult to predict what one can do with access to more capabilities, especially at the creation stage. How one can find it easier to materialize ideas given a set of tools that expands expression.

For instance, live guitar. Guitar chords, melodies, solos, what have you can be put into clips and easily shuffled against a same number of bass progression clips, drums clips, vocal clips, etc. Mix clips in any which way easily, create scenes and play them in various ways to see what the effects are, how they segue into each other. Record clips and scenes in real time into the Arranger then work even work from an arranger point of view.

Of course, clips will remain clips. Of course, it means that once one is done at the Arranger stage, guitars and bases and more will probably have to be re-recorded to allow for a much better flow that is now song-oriented. But that's not the point. The main point with Bitwig I find is to allow a great deal of expression at the creation stage.

This said I find Bitwig is no good for final mixes. I always disable much working FX (FX that were used at the creation stage, stereo, reverb and delay, FX that are not inherent to the sound proper) and then export Arranger tracks into Mixbus32C, change hat for a mixer hat, and then mix, and even re-record parts, from the second perspective.

Sometimes from Mixbus32C I go back to the Bitwig session and add more tracks, or even redo a track or two, and export back to the Mixbus32C session.

Might sound convoluted but it's rather simple.

Cheers.

GMaq wrote: I've been "Wig curious" for a few years but I'm a live band guy not really a EDM/Techno guy (although I do very much enjoy the genre) so this seemed like a decent compromise to learn the ropes..

It's seductive! I had also been seriously wig-curious and tried the full version last year. It's quite remarkable. Everything works perfectly, you can run it sans JACK if you choose to, it's absolutely gorgeous (which I'd like to think doesn't matter, but a DAW is something you're likely to look at for hours and hours, so it doesn't hurt).

Spent a few weeks with it but being mostly an analogue person I just didn't feel like it added anything to the way I make music (i.e. I don't use a lot of samples or synths and modulate everything etc). I felt like an alien. It worked fine with audio, but the actual audio editing (at least as far as I went) felt like a step down from Ardour/Mixbus.

I have only good things to say about Bitwig itself. A console metaphor works best for me though. Luckily they allow license resale. I offered it around to a couple folks here who had expressed interest in Bitwig, then ended up posting it on KVR and sold it in 20 minutes.

$99 makes a lot more sense than the full version if you have some slow winter evenings to explore. I bet you would come up with some fun stuff!

@ufug, @jonetsu, @Openmastering

I would have to say my main attraction would be MIDI programming stuff to import into Ardour and Mixbus as has been said by @jonetsu for final finishing and mastering, I simply do not like Ardour MIDI and have a lot of problems with recording MIDI parts in Ardour, saving and closing the session and when I reopen it the MIDI data is corrupted with notes on the grid I didn't put there (presumably from other MIDI tracks). This with the inability to draw MIDI note velocities with vertical lines like pretty much every other DAW has soured me on Ardour MIDI although I absolutely love the bulletproof Audio workflow. In my case it will mostly be drum and bass bed track stuff which I realize using Bitwig for is like using King Arthur's sword Excalibur as a letter opener.. I still use EnergyXT with Wine for MIDI programming so I thought BW was a logical step into a native Linux application. I know Reaper and Qtractor are also options here but I've never gotten comfortable with either of them.

The Bitwig drum machine is straightforward and works alongside the sampler. Each drum element can be fine tuned according to the Bitwig sampler features. Each drum element has choke capabilities and has it's own FX. But moreover, clips can be superimposed for editing. Here I'm creating some snare hits and to do that I take reference on a guitar audio clip. It's really helpful. If you want to share an idea about a drum part, a filling, whatever, it can be created precisely in no time.


MIDI editing in Bitwig is great. Lots of MIDI filters also available. Creating in Bitwig and mixing in Mixbus32C is the best path I know. Each tool to its best.

jonetsu wrote:MIDI editing in Bitwig is great. Lots of MIDI filters also available. Creating in Bitwig and mixing in Mixbus32C is the best path I know. Each tool to its best.

I definitely agree with this statement. Just use the right tool for the right task and the sky is the limit.

jonetsu wrote: MIDI editing in Bitwig is great. Lots of MIDI filters also available. Creating in Bitwig and mixing in Mixbus32C is the best path I know. Each tool to its best.

That one is still have to discover. I'm playing with bitwig since it came out, and it has became my favorite daw, especially because back then it was for midi superior for me. I've got Mixbus32C also, but haven't come to export my stems in bitwig and import them in mixbus.

Does that give a difference in sound?

tripomatic wrote:Does that give a difference in sound?

I find that simply importing the Bitwig tracks (don't know about stems) into Mixbus32C gives the overall a nice sheen. Then the 32C EQ comes into play.

One reason that I do not use Bitwig for mixing is that I prefer to have the 32C EQ already present on all tracks instead of adding 'channel' plugins (eg. IK Multimedia's British channel) on each track.

Second reason is that the audio interface I use is really old. It does not even sit neatly on the table with a big volume knob on top. It's a 8 stereo in, 8 stereo out, 2 XLR in PCI card. I simply do not want to do all the workarounds needed in Bitwig to obtain a monitoring bus whose volume can be varied while the master bus fader stays put. Mixbus32C has a complete monitoring bus making it easy to quickly listen to the mix at various levels, in stereo and mono.

Third reason is that the Faderport interfaces with Mixbus32C and when not using the Faderport fader, I much prefer the faders in Mixbus32C than the mixer faders in Bitwig.

This said Bitwig still has some mixing capability obviously. The latest I posted, "jam300" is a work mix done in Bitwig to simply get things going while the piece is still in its creative stage. Although for me I much prefer to use Mixbus32C for the final mix (and 'mastering'). Changing software also enables somehow to be able to change hat. I put my mixer hat, get the imported tracks and ask myself, as a mixer, what's to be done with this ?

jonetsu wrote:

tripomatic wrote:Does that give a difference in sound?

I find that simply importing the Bitwig tracks (don't know about stems) into Mixbus32C gives the overall a nice sheen. Then the 32C EQ comes into play.

One reason that I do not use Bitwig for mixing is that I prefer to have the 32C EQ already present on all tracks instead of adding 'channel' plugins (eg. IK Multimedia's British channel) on each track.

Second reason is that the audio interface I use is really old. It does not even sit neatly on the table with a big volume knob on top. It's a 8 stereo in, 8 stereo out, 2 XLR in PCI card. I simply do not want to do all the workarounds needed in Bitwig to obtain a monitoring bus whose volume can be varied while the master bus fader stays put. Mixbus32C has a complete monitoring bus making it easy to quickly listen to the mix at various levels, in stereo and mono.

Third reason is that the Faderport interfaces with Mixbus32C and when not using the Faderport fader, I much prefer the faders in Mixbus32C than the mixer faders in Bitwig.

This said Bitwig still has some mixing capability obviously. The latest I posted, "jam300" is a work mix done in Bitwig to simply get things going while the piece is still in its creative stage. Although for me I much prefer to use Mixbus32C for the final mix (and 'mastering'). Changing software also enables somehow to be able to change hat. I put my mixer hat, get the imported tracks and ask myself, as a mixer, what's to be done with this ?

I'll give it a go, when i finalyze next tracks. i'll see if there is much difference is. Now eq and compression is part of my creative process to shape sounds. Maybe i'll be suprised , always heard good comment abouts sound of mixbux32C but lack of time prevented to try.

tripomatic wrote: I'll give it a go, when i finalyze next tracks. i'll see if there is much difference is. Now eq and compression is part of my creative process to shape sounds. Maybe i'll be suprised , always heard good comment abouts sound of mixbux32C but lack of time prevented to try.

One of the useful aspects of Mixbus32C is that it loads with EQ and compression on each track. Part of the DAW. No need for plugins basically to cover those. Not the most fancy compressor, but gets work done. If a tunable compressor is needed eg. master bus, or one of the mixbusses, or a specific track, then a plugin can be used but basically a lot can be covered with the DAW itself. The EQ is top notch, and the tone controls on the mixbusses are also quite good. I use VCAs on a regular basis to adjust groups of instruments in automation, to give perhaps a slight boost for the end chorus and such.

20 USD discount until March 2