Live data from Hacker News

What Is the Future of the DAW?

djmag.com

191–200 of 223 posts

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5. People who record, but have nothing to do with music whatsoever. For example, I have literally no musical skills whatsoever, but have at least 15k hours in my DAW. I'm a Voice actor, who worked hard to customize my DAW to get rid of as much music making stuff as possible from cluttering my interface (Reaper FTW) It's a Digital AUDIO workstation, not a Digital MUSIC workstation

I was trying to cover that with #4, but i put too much 'music-y" stuff in there. You're precisely one of the examples I was thinking about there.

I can dig that, and thanks for clarifying.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#192
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On my site, I have a list of DAWs and a simple Pro/Con view of each You reviewed three DAWs. Glad you put the link to Admiral Bumblebee's page on yours, because that's actually "a list of DAWs". Re: MIDI - you can already "play between the notes" using either MTS or even just simple pitch bend - the issue with the latter is building a controller that makes this better than the wheel on most keyboards, the issue wit…

> You reviewed three DAWs. There's definitely more than 3 reviewed there? Sure, a lot of them still say [TODO] on getting a review, but then I don't want to review something I don't have a significant amount of 1-on-1 time with. Maybe you didn't realize there are click-able tabs? Also, the way you phrased this came off as quite rude. There is someone on the other side of the screen, and you'd do well to consider that…

Sorry, my mistake. Four DAWs: Live, Bitwig, FL Studio, Reaper. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or VCV (which I use very regularly) or trackers are a DAW or not.

I agree with you about pitchbend, but you're narrowing what "play between the notes" means: you seeem to mean "polyphonic note expression", which is a feature that quite a few physical instruments (not just piano) lack.

MPE doesn't need to be supported by the DAW, only by the synthesizer. It's just regular MIDI 1.0, with different semantics. It's more awkward to edit MPE in a DAW that doesn't support, but not impossible. Recording and playback of MPE requires nothing of the DAW at all.

> the UI will still typically look like a 12-tone piano

We just revised the track header piano roll in Ardour 8 as step one of a likely 3-4 step process of supporting non-12TET. Specifically, at the next step, it will not (necessarily) look like a 12-tone piano.

> Audio is a pretty latency sensitive, mostly strictly sequential workload

It's sequential per voice/track, not typically sequential across an entire composition.

IPC gains are not required unless you insist on process-level separation, which has its own costs (and gains, though mostly as a band-aid over crappy code).

If you're already doing so much processing in a single track that one of your 5900X cores can't keep up, then I sympathize, but you're in a small minority at this point.

Faster CPUs don't help graphics when the graphics layers have been written for years to use non-CPU hardware. Also, as you sort of implicitly note, there's a more inherent parallelism and also decomposability of graphics operations to GPU-style primitives than there is for audio (at least, we haven't found it yet).

Offloading to external DSP hardware keeps popping up in various forms every year (or two). In cases where the device is connected directly to your audio interface (e.g. via ADAT or S/PDIF), using such things in a DAW designed for it is really pretty easy (in Ardour you just add an Insert processor and connect the I/O of the Insert to the appropriate channels of your interface. However, things like the BigMuff make the terrible mistake of being just another USB audio device, and since these things can't share a sample clock, that means you need software to do clock correction (essentially, resampling). You can do that already with technology I've been involved with, but there's not much to recommend about it. The Overbridge doesn't have precisely the same problem in all cases, but it can.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#193

The Future of the DAW is DAW-less. A Synthstrom Deluge, a humble Eurorack (morphagene!) and a microFreak .. A Zynthian! Holy molies, live Zynthian compositions are binoculars! 1010music Bluebox+Blackbox. SonicWARE SmplTek. Monome. Oh dear, monome is a hell of a platform for next-generation DAW tomfoolery! Notice a pattern? Its the hardware . You can no longer call it a workstation when, after all, it behaves like an…

Let us know about the utility of those (excellent) tools for: * a four part acapella group * a traditional western european orchestra * someone who wants a recording of the call to prayer * anyone who needs to make a recording of anything at all? The original purpose of DAWs like ProTools was recording, editing and mixing. Composition and instrumental performance crept in later. Even if that aspect were to be complet…

>* a four part acapella group

Yes, that'd be a microphone setup per singer, probably, or at least two channels of audio.

>* a traditional western european orchestra

Yes, tons more channels ..

>* someone who wants a recording of the call to prayer

Only one channel needed really, but could be multiple if warranted.

>* anyone who needs to make a recording of anything at all?

As a professional designer of recording devices, I can tell where you are going - not that you might have missed the notion that there is literally no reason that a DAW-like instrument cannot be multi-channel capable - but also that portability to any environment is key.

Physicality is the new frontier for digital capture.

Recording/editing/mixing no longer belong in the workstation.

Portable instrument-like DAW's, with extraordinary new and interesting interfaces to accomplish those goals you've set (although they are all basically the same thing), are already on the market.

For example, the 1010Music Bluebox, alone, can be applied to any of those scenarios. Just add microphones (and USB powerbank...)

Incidentally, PaulDavis: acknowledging your position as the originator/BDFL of the ARDOUR workstation software, I mean no disrespect for your stature and point of view -- just that I believe era of the DAW-less approach is upon us, and there is a rather large opportunity for device-makers, such as me, and software-makers, such as you, to align ourselves...

The workstation is dead. The kids want portability, reliability, and power. This can all be done on non-standard operating systems, in a bespoke case, for fun and profit.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#194

Ooh, this is an interesting set of comments. I'm currently trying to turn a really old Midimam Keystation 61 into a toy synth for my 3x 10 year old nephews (triplets). I'm using a spare Raspberry pi 4 so it's all gonna be Linux based. But I actually want to make it completely headless because DAWs are too complex and, IMHO, get between the person and the noises they're making. My goal is to hook up a Korg nanoKONTROL…

I use an RPi4 as the sound generator for the fully weighted 88 key controller my wife plays at home. It runs just one synth - the proprietary physical modelling synth Pianoteq, available for linux, windows, macOS, x86_64 and ARM. It does have a 10" touch screen because the synth has parameters worth controlling (e.g. what piano model). No DAW complexity, but I don't see why you'd ever get a DAW involved with "a toy s…

I think that kids might be interested in more than just a piano, so I wanted to use something like zyn with 16 hand-picked instruments. The nanoKONTROL2 has buttons to play/record/stop, and 8 separate control sections, each with a slider, rotating knob and 3x buttons. I could use them to record into separate tracks and play back solo or together. I just don't know if it's possible to make that usable without a display. That's what I'll be experimenting with. I know that the synth can operate as a VST inside a DAW (eg Ardour) and that many DAWs can run headless (eh hardour) so it may be possible to do this without a mouse, keyboard and screen. The nanoKONTROL2 has LEDs that can be used to indicate status etc.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#195
post #132

To be honest, I really like existing tools and workflows and I don't really want that to change. > Open a DAW from the year 2000 and it’s highly likely you’ll recognise the vast majority of the features — both functionally and visually — from any DAW you might use today. This assertion that "old is bad" really, really needs to die. Change for the sake of change is bad. I don't see why all these new innovations can't…

"Open a Word processor from the year 2000...", "Open a spreadsheet editor from the year 2000...", "Open an image editor from the year 2000...". This is completely silly; most desktop software still exists in a form that is a recognizable evolution from Y2K versions; DAW is no exception, big deal indeed!

The ribbon ruined office. I bet I could still open office 97 and get everything I want to do wordprocessing wise done, though.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#196

To be honest, I really like existing tools and workflows and I don't really want that to change. > Open a DAW from the year 2000 and it’s highly likely you’ll recognise the vast majority of the features — both functionally and visually — from any DAW you might use today. This assertion that "old is bad" really, really needs to die. Change for the sake of change is bad. I don't see why all these new innovations can't…

We'll see. Companies like Abelton aren't going to throw out their whole codebase and start from scratch, just to accommodate advancements in technology. But if I can just talk to the LLM, and say "hey, gimmie a drum beat, now add in a bass line, no not like that, like ", do I really need the overhead of the traditional view of separate tracks and midi and plugins? When making music is as easy as describing something to Stable Diffusion, it's not that old is automatically bad, but we don't operate car like the Flintstones. When I'm walking, I use my feet, one at a time, over and over again. When I'm in my car, I don't use that same interface to operate my car. I don't take foot steps to make my car move. There's just a button press, with my foot, to make many many footsteps happen. If AI is able to similarly accelerate music production, the old interface may just simply not make sense anymore.

Is the old in this case the wheel, which is fundamentally the same, except there have been thousands of years of technological improvements surrounding it, or is it the computer, where modern day computers have only a passing resemblance to the original thing.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#198

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 highly encourage folks to check out a new DAW called Blockhead. It upends a lot of typical ideas of how a DAW should work. There’s no MIDI events and no global tempo. Everything is represented as blocks of samples on rows of timelines which are then effected by transforms placed on the rows above the rows containing samples. Edits and transform adjustments all happen in real time, and everything is continuously ren…

This sounds like a real time synthesizer for performing rather than an editor for instruments piped in via VSTs or MIDI? Pretty cool, like a DAW-inspired tracker for samples. On Linux, I would still pipe it into ardour to create a mix, from what I can tell. So much money is invested in pre-existing plugins, they really need to implement that if they want musicians to adopt it. The send/receive bus will be like jack on other OSes, but is more like a programming environment than a plugin; that seems cool too.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#199
post #10

DAW version control is one of my dreams. If I could have a really tight git equivalent for reaper projects, it’d be so cool. Plugins are, as usual, the biggest barrier there. Doesn’t seem like there will ever be a good way to deal with different people having completely different plugin collections. Unless someone makes “Netflix but for plugins” or something. The other thing I saw the other day that I thought was coo…

For a lot of NN-based analog modeling you don’t even need the GPU. I trained a model on the API 550A EQ and SIMD is fast enough for real-time inference.

Re: What Is the Future of the DAW?

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us know about the utility of those (excellent) tools for: * a four part acapella group * a traditional western european orchestra * someone who wants a recording of the call to prayer * anyone who needs to make a recording of anything at all? The original purpose of DAWs like ProTools was recording, editing and mixing. Composition and instrumental performance crept in later. Even if that aspect were to be complet…

>* a four part acapella group Yes, that'd be a microphone setup per singer, probably, or at least two channels of audio. >* a traditional western european orchestra Yes, tons more channels .. >* someone who wants a recording of the call to prayer Only one channel needed really, but could be multiple if warranted. >* anyone who needs to make a recording of anything at all? As a professional designer of recording devic…

I think it is awesome that these "DAW-less" tools are showing up and getting good. There's a lot to be said for them in many contexts.

However, I don't think that they are going to eliminate the current concept of "a fairly big piece of software running on a relatively general purpose computer that is used for recording, editing and mixing".

Por que no los dos, eh?

Post reply on HN