Live data from Hacker News

What Is the Future of the DAW?

djmag.com

161–170 of 223 posts

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#161

The only thing I want out of some of these tools is either teaching or giving me out of the box configurations that help me get a reallllly good mix. Why shouldn't every record today sound pro? Talent aside, I think they should be implementing some the typical tricks sound engineers/producers use automatically. I mean we're really talking about wave analysis then cutting of frequencies, boosting others. This can be a…

There is quite a bit more to it, distributing sound in time frequency and space, sidechain effects that apply changes on some tracks depending on the sound of other tracks (one super common example is to silence slightly instruments to leave room in volume and frequency for a kick or drums in general). Frequency splitting, parallel fx chains. It is a bit tricky to automate and is really based on a feeling as each person doing the mixing will have a different vision and experience, and every song will have a different frequency/space/time complexity even in the same genre. But most advanced DAWs with integrated collection of effects like Live or Bitwig will have presets that you can start to build on. (I have not tried reaper for that, that's on my list)

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#162
I am a musician that mainly plays guitar and synths. I have a large eurorack, have tried nearly every MPE compatible synth & controller, and have a massive pedal board. I am also an embedded software engineer and have made audio plugins for VCV Rack. I have written blog posts [0] about MIDI to try to explain it to a technical-ish audience. I have written many, many more posts about why the way we interact with computers is ... sub-optiminal [1] and why new controllers are making it better [2]. I've also written a post reflecting on how AI Art tools like Stable Diffusion have/will affect artists [3] [4]. On my site, I have a list of DAWs and a simple Pro/Con view of each [5]. I have reviewed Emergent Drums, an AI drum-sample tool (and gave it a poor rating) [6]

All of that credential waving is to say, I think about this a lot. The software workflow is so bad that I have resorted to buying an insane amount of hardware, so, what makes it so bad? * Latency correction hell. - Only an issue for musicians not working entirely digitally * Limited I/O (albeit this wouldn't be an issue if I could get away with using less hardware) - You can't use more than 1 audio interface at a time in Windows * Interface navigation hell - VSTs all load as individual windows - There's often still issues with DPI scaling * DRM hell on those virtual instruments * Software stability hell - Not all DAWs sandbox plugins * Complex routings are often complicated - In audio-contexts, we often want to pipe signal around in branching - diverging & merging - paths, often with signals from unrelated chains changing things (ex: sidechain compression from a bass drum)

But I can almost forgive all of those issues. The real issue is and will continue to be MIDI. * 127 values for knobs? Really? That's quantization you can hear. * No good support for microtonal - Current hacks often break down realllllly bad with big scale. If you're in 31EDO, for example, you only get 4 octaves of range. * Clocking is a disaster, making swing, polyrhythms, etc. more of a mess than they need be.

Those are issues that legitimately limit the expressiveness of all music creation. You can't fine-tune a value in MIDI, you can't play between notes (barring MPE, which itself is a hack and not supported in all DAWs), and - combined with the latency problems above - it means *both* your traditional instrument (ie Guitar) and digital interfaced (MIDI) will have weird latency issues.

AI is not the solution and there's more than one problem. There are a few things which could help: * MIDI 2.0 / OSC / Literally anything with more resolution * Designing with more than just western music theory in mind (microtonal, swing/complex grooves, etc.) * A standardized framework for UI

I think VCV rack [7], albeit it absolutely isn't a general purpose DAW, does a good job of addressing many of these issues, but it can't handle more basic use cases either. Sequencing a long track in it is like pulling teeth and performance is quite bad due to processing everything as float's sample-by-sample, not as a buffer.

I do have some hope that change is coming. The Blockhead DAW [8] rightly has many musicians following this space excited for it's novel approach of treating audio in the timeline as a much more fluid source for quick modification rather than baked content you have to modify elsewhere.

There is, ultimately, an incredible amount of complexity that music software has to account for. I could muse(score) about why this is the case: it could audio having a temporal element, unlike a text editor or maybe just the inherit complexities that arise from trying to create with a medium where you have to consider such an extreme amount of information that caries with it cultural context and an ease of offense to the senses that no other medium suffers (Bad audio is much less tolerable than bad video).

No matter the case, it means that a DAW and the interacting with it needs to be very tightly integrated and intentionally designed with good standards while also being highly flexible. We nailed the flexibility, but totally dropped the ball on intentional design and standards that work for us. I don't think that can be un-done now, not without throwing away support for legitimately amazing tools.

While I'm risking going pure-tangent, I also want to mention that there being no good method for hardware acceleration is a limiting factor in the audio world, along with better standards for UI and data transport, we're in desperate need of an open hardware acceleration standard that's easy to use and not crazy expensive. I should be able to throw in a DSP card just like I can throw in a big GPU and have enough umpf in my system not be constantly worrying about freezing tracks or having audio underruns. This is an extra reason for having as much hardware as I do: A lot of DSP distortions eat CPU and sound really bad.

[0] https://opguides.info/music/midi/ [1] https://opguides.info/other/hci2/intro/ [2] https://opguides.info/music/instruments/#expressiveness-and-... [3] https://opguides.info/posts/aiartpanic/ [4] https://opguides.info/posts/ai2/ [5] https://opguides.info/music/software/daw/ [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpq7g9CcGv4 [7] https://vcvrack.com [8] https://twitter.com/ColugoMusic

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#163
post #106

Feels like "what is the future of the word processor" but with some weird expectation that you're expecting to see leaps and bounds. Look, FWIW, my favorite music making "stack" is - Fruityloops (as in, sure I'll use FL Studio but it was pretty much solid for me when it was called that) - Sony ACID. Still unbeatable to me for quickly layering/previewing multiple tracks of loops - Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition. Still m…

In my opinion advanced DAWs like Ardour, Bitwig, Reaper or Live bring automation to the table, more complex routing and a single tool for a big part of the production. They are also extremely useful to play live (and the recent addition of clips into Ardour makes it closer to the commercial competion now).

It is a bit (just a poor analogy) like saying you could program anything in assembly or C. Sure but sometimes it is just much more efficient time-wise to just use Python, Kotlin, C# or any higher level language and not have to reinvent the wheel or deal with repetitive complexity.

In the end, what I always recommend is to try things and see what sticks, test new tools and retest the ones you didnt select regularly and when your workflow evolves just switch to the more adapted tool. I also find that really nice to improve myself in my current favorite tool as I can often bring back new tricks that were more obvious in other tools.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#164
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know why Audacity remains so popular, it's way clunkier than the above Presumably because it’s free, but I’m with you on the clunkiness. The UI looks very dated. I can recommend OcenAudio, which is free though not open source, and for me offers just the right level of functionality in a clean user interface. It’s very similar to how I remember the old versions of Cool Edit pre-Pro, which I thought were amaz…

Yup, was going to mention it, though it was crashy for me last time I used it.

I remember spending days at a time in Audacity and have no crash (talking over a decade). Now everytime I use it I find a new way to crash it and it didn't evolve that much (compared to things like Ardour that went really far in the last decade including in stability).

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DAWs haven't converged on a "best" approach. Most use a traditional linear workflow that's essentially a digital multitrack tape, but Ableton and Bitwig use a clip-based workflow that tends to be better suited to improvisation and live performance. I think the factor you're missing is path dependence. The approach that becomes dominant isn't necessarily "best", just a stable equilibrium where switching costs are grea…

DAWs should be rebuilt from the ground up, component by component, feature by feature, in 3D for XR(VR/MR/AR) where ultimately you can see the waveform as it is --- a 3D object , and interact with it like a sculpture or a Theremin experience. 2D screens, Keyboards, and a mouse are not the best fit.

That would be really fun for sound sculpting but this is a pretty small part of composition. Also one thing to remember is that anytime you want to optimize a workflow you want to reduce the number and amplitude of physical movements. Which is a big limitation of any XR tools for now that are nowhere as precise, high velocity and usable for long stretch of time than kb/mouse/screen/controllers. I really see hybrid approaches winning here instead of full blown replacement of current tools.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#166
post #31

DAWs will need to refocus on managing recordings of live performances -- young kids are starting guitar bands again, and in a few years I think we will enter yet another period where electronic sounds are out of fashion. I'd also like to see more music creation nuts & bolts built into DAWs, like integrated lyrics, a quick way to shuffle pieces of a song like "bridge" and "verse", visualizations of key center shifts,…

PreSonus Studio One has what you're describing. Im switching from logic pro to a new DAW and so far studio one has the most of my boxes checked.

What does it do that you prefer?

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#167
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux audio processing Just use Windows and all of these problems go away. When I make music my stack is basically Ableton Live, NI Komplete and Spitfire Audio and I have exactly 0 of these issues.

This doesn't work for me because I do a lot of algorithmic composition and a huge part of my music making involves programming and it's very hard to write code anywhere that's not linux. Also I truly hate using windows or osx.

I don't have this problem. Reaper, microphone + sax, occasional other woodwind and occasional keyboard. If I write code for music it'll probably be in puredata or perl (day job). Puredata for (generative)? sequencing and audio effects. Lilypond for notation which I'll consume with reaper or timidity. I tried windows - it confused the crap out of me. I don't mind OSx but do all my real work on a debian workstation.

I kind of just use reaper as a dumb recording reel - I don't use much of it's timing features.

At the moment I'm mostly just writing up exercises to fit my current goal of learning everything in any key.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#168
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux audio processing Just use Windows and all of these problems go away. When I make music my stack is basically Ableton Live, NI Komplete and Spitfire Audio and I have exactly 0 of these issues.

This doesn't work for me because I do a lot of algorithmic composition and a huge part of my music making involves programming and it's very hard to write code anywhere that's not linux. Also I truly hate using windows or osx.

If you have the money I'd recommend a monome Norns or Teleype. You also may look into 100r Orca and Midinous both of which run fine on Windows and abstract out the pain of developing an Windows

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#169
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm right there with you. I once tried managing ableton projects via git. Was a dream from a simplicity standpoint but was not effective in the long run. I don't remember why it didn't end up working well but I abandoned it shortly after trying it the first time. Something like this in modern DAWs would be incredible.

if files are getting managed by blobs, git doesn't really scale well with that since it stores diffs. `bup` notionally does this a lot better, or git-lfs. https://github.com/bup/bup https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bup/bup/main/DESIGN https://git-lfs.com/ git really needs textual representation for any kind of meaningful commit, and binaries totally break that.

> git doesn't really scale well with that since it stores diffs.

This is precisely what git does NOT do.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#170

The umbrella topic to this is one of my favorite topics in all of software and one where strangely we as an industry don't seem to have internalized its lessons: That the right approach to building a software program (like a DAW, NLE, bitmap/vector editor) emerges early. This is why these applications have lifespans measured in decades, and it's extremely rare for a new player to be able offer anything new, different…

I think that the audio space hasn't evolved because there isn't a lot of money in it and it's a bad environment for learning proper technique. The cross section of expertise is quite rare: music theory, instrumentalism, signal processing, software engineering, performance optimization, architecture design, research tooling, musical perspective, user interface, sound design, etc. The fact that things haven't effectively changed in decades means that the cost of changing is so large that something has to be radically better to convince people to alter their process. People generally are not capable of seeing what is possible outside of their scope of familiarity.
Post reply on HN