Last year I got started with making music, and first thing I made was to try many different DAW's so I could identify the best fit for my work. Nowadays I'm using FL Studio and learned Ableton Live, Pro Tools and most extensively Cubase 5 and 7, and then I took a look at Digital Performer, Reason, Reaper, MuTools Mulab but never went deep into them. So here is my point, I was just taking a look at Lynda.com, and I see a lot of people use Pro Tools there, and that's ok, but although I consider Lynda the most professional web school I ever seen, it annoys me a lot cause a lot of the teachers say bullshit like 'The nice thing is that Pro Tools is the ---Industry Standard --- and provides --- the best audio quality ever ---' and that kins of bullshit, I hear this a lot. Now I wanna ask. Am I the only one who never noticed any fucking difference in audio quality between DAW's?

Second one, I have a lot of friends who do recording, and none of them use Pro Tools. At least within my social circle, those who have used it share at least some points with me: 1-Pro Tools is the heaviest DAW, even though what it does can be done on many other softwares.

In my opinion it's about bad engineering. It takes too long to open, too long to load VST's, too long to render, some sessions get broken, something you'll maybe will never see in reaper (actually, never heard anybody complain about reaper's performance).

A:The integrity of the MuLab.exe file is protected by the MuLab.ID file against illegal cracking. When the MuLab.ID file does not match the MuLab.exe file you'll hear short beeps and encounter other malfunctions. Solution: Reinstall MuLab so to make sure you have a properly matching MuLab.exe and MuLab.ID. Jan 11, 2015. Tools and most extensively Cubase 5 and 7, and then I took a look at Digital Performer, Reason, Reaper, MuTools Mulab but never went deep into them. Some sessions get broken, something you'll maybe will never see in reaper (actually, never heard anybody complain about reaper's performance).

2-Avid is somewhat conservative, antiquated company. Look, they are the beautiful ones with the 'RTAS' stuff, and seems like it converts the VST's to a so called.DPM extension, which also takes ages. See the Waves Pugins for example, they load instantly on FL Studio, but on Pro Tools it loads every each time I open it and takes at least five minutes for it to read the plugins.

I'm not saying it's a bad DAW, on the contrary, Pro Tools is very powerful indeed, but I really can't see where it is the 'Best DAW for recording' or 'The Industry Standard' or even like 'Providing the Best Sound Quality of All (holy wack shit)'. Another one that I wanna criticize is CuBase.

I know how to do pretty much anything on Cubase, but I definitely dislike it. Just after getting started I began visiting a friend daily, he's for 25 years on the music business and uses both Cubase 5 and 7, he usually arrange songs on his keyboard and records it on Cubase, eventually recording vocals and live instruments. It was good for me I met him so I learned Cubase entirely when working with him, and really what I have to say is that you can do pretty much anything in cubase. I difficultly would make EDM on Pro Tools or record into FL Studio, but you can do both on Cubase. And it's got a lot of features, is a very complete DAW, but I definitely dislike it. Cubase simply lacks a good GUI.

I feel like I'm using a computer through command lines when using it. It is not that is difficult, is like it has a lot of unnecessary menus and paths. When you want a VST, there's a long path to it. When you wanna record, you gotta click the audio monitor icon, but just after recording if you wanna listen to it you have to unclick it, otherwise you won't listen, something totally useless.

Also, you wanna switch the audio interface? It's like a ceremony. Also there's the track's management, although you have handy tracks like the arrangement track, I feel every each daw with a 'Tracks' menu shouldn't be taken too seriously (because you often can bypass).

This is not all, I could spend the entire day describing it here. Again, is not that Cubase is difficult, is that on my DAW of choice I can access pretty much any path with 1, 2 or even three clicks, and on Cubase some features are actually hidden in a menu, then a sub menu, then a window and a tab, things like this provide bad workflow, since less time making music and more tweaking and finding things on the DAW.

Anyone thibks I'm wrong?Or somewhat thinks the same? ANyway thx, I would like to see opposite opinions and posite ones from people who use cubase and pro tools.

I concur with Mostwest: different DAWs for different styles of music and working. I agree with you about Pro Tools: it's the 'industry standard' because it's so old-school - it was pretty much the first DAW in professional use, and the those recording industry grew-up on and with it. I find that some people opt for Pro Tools instead of, say, Logic, because it makes them feel more 'pro' to use it, or makes them seem more like a 'pro' to say they use it. If it's not a matter of prejudice or status, it has to do with which DAW fits the way one works and thinks. I myself prefer Logic Pro, and Garageband, and sometimes Reaper or Studio One, but I could never get the hang of Ableton Live - not because of the way it works, nor that it sorta requires the hardware to go with it, but because of its GUI, which to me is unwelcoming and nondescript.

However, some people have no problem with it, and do everything in Live. At the end of the day it's like everything on Earth: it depends on what you do with it and how you use it. I mean, for some people out there GarageBand may be the best DAW ever, but for many others it's just a useless waste of bytes. For me, all DAWs have pro and cons (in terms of features, plugins, compatibility, etc.), but one thing I'll never understand is why some so-called 'experts' say that some sound better than others. It's what you put in it that sounds better or worse, not the DAW (that is just a 'workbench' to make sounds). I concur with Mostwest: different DAWs for different styles of music and working. I agree with you about Pro Tools: it's the 'industry standard' because it's so old-school - it was pretty much the first DAW in professional use, and the those recording industry grew-up on and with it.

I find that some people opt for Pro Tools instead of, say, Logic, because it makes them feel more 'pro' to use it, or makes them seem more like a 'pro' to say they use it. If it's not a matter of prejudice or status, it has to do with which DAW fits the way one works and thinks. I myself prefer Logic Pro, and Garageband, and sometimes Reaper or Studio One, but I could never get the hang of Ableton Live - not because of the way it works, nor that it sorta requires the hardware to go with it, but because of its GUI, which to me is unwelcoming and nondescript. However, some people have no problem with it, and do everything in Live.

I am using Pro Tools for recording & Video Post Production and FL for composing at the moment, but also worked with Logic, a bit Ableton and bit Cubase 7.5 I think one reason for Pro Tools' popularity is the fact that its structure resembles analog mixing consoles so all those who used to work analog-only started using Pro Tools when digital recording became possible. I myself like Pro Tools because of the workig speed you can achieve while editing audio. If you know all the hotkeys and have some experience you can get ridiculously fast. And I never really had plugin problems with Pro Tools. And I would consider it one of the more stable DAWs. While I do love FL I will probably have to use Cubase soon as FL is (imo) terrible for VPP or 5.1 related things.

So (as already mentioned by Mostwest) it really depends on what you want to do with the DAW. Want to edit scores, do VPP or other video heavy things with FL? Good luck Want to do complex midi editing in Pro Tools? Ohgod *no* or maybe live DJing with Pro Tools? Well, it's not impossible but some programs are just better for certain tasks.

In the end I don't really think it's important which DAW is considered the best for a certain task as long as the end result is good and didn't take too long to create. And stuff like 'the best sound' is on the same level as the discussion 'analog vs digital'. I started with Cubase when it was just a midi sequencer for my hardware modules and always found it easy to intuitively use as I was used to analogue mixers, When I tried Logic when it first came out it just gave me a headache and I never had time to read the manuals as I only had a few hours to enjoy myself making music a week, a lot of people like to stick with what they know, just because it's a big time investment to learn another daw and that probably explains along with stability why pro tools is still industry standard not because its superior in any way. Nuendo will take longer to load the wave shell than Cubase as it checks its plugs for stability every time, though they are pretty much the same program with different purposes in mind, one's for writing and the others for studio production and Nuendo is a lot less likely to crash as a result.

Wouldn't say one is any better than the other though, and I view all daw's in a similar way. I got a version of sonar that I hardly use but when I do a bit of rare singing, I wouldn't use anything else, it does the job well. So no your not the only one to think that, the sound engines may be different and you may even detect a small difference but as long as sample rates are the same I wouldn't say any are better than one or the other, we're just so spoilt from what used to be available maybe we like to think we should be using the best as opposed to what we used to think, which was can I have afford some thing which doesn't sound crap Can't agree that any are worst though. Totally a matter of taste and needs. Pro tools and Cubase are hpyed-ware. They do perform but have a somewhat cold/sterile tone. Can't deal with the interface in Fl Studio, Live and Sonar.

Actually started with Cakewalk. Cubase has lots of features but getting to them requires work. Reaper is a good DAW but is still developing. Some fuctions could be simplified (midi export), and midi still needs improvement. Did not like samplitude after Magix took over and began reworking the interface. The latest version is showing promise but still needs improvement.

Has solid midi playback (no drift), excellent audio qaulity. Dropped waves plugins from projects moved over from Reaper. Addictive Drums has snap, clarity and definitoin.

Synth plugins have body andclarity now. Found that Digital Performer is CPU intensive so gave up before it pissed me off. Studio One like Reaper is still developing. 1977 Dodge Motorhome Owners Manual.

Has good tone, not as good as Samplitude X2 v13. The one thing that realy turns me off is the lack of headroom on tracks and the master. Reaper is slightly ahead there but behind Samlplitude. Wish Apple would bring Logic Pro back to the PC market.

Logic five was my go-to before the new VST standards kicked in. Lots of features worth learning that are intuative. I don't mean to be a dick, but people who complain about Pro Tools are those who use cracked versions. Unfortunately, the cracks have always been incomplete except maybe Pro Tools MPowered 7.4 from far aback. I had the paid Ilok version but used the pirated for convenience and all the plus items it had.

Right now, Pro Tools 11 is rock solid and works like a charm. It has finally caught up with current DAW times. I like Logic too and use it at times, especially if I need to browse the extensive loop library it has built in. However, like stated before, different DAWs for different tastes. I don't get Ableton Live, never could, and I don't like Cubase either. Click to expand.For me, Studio One is better than Reaper and Samplitude.

Is blindly fast(especially on the warping and pitching side) intuitive and the way it's layed down, i just love its workflow. Also i can fill in the 'BPM' information into a sample just by right clicking it, in order to warp that sample to the project tempo automatically, but in Samplitude, even if it features the latest Elastique algorithm, i just couldn't find a fast way to type in the BPM into that sample in order to warp it in corelation to the project tempo. In StudioOne, when you want to swapp a sample from an entire audio track with a sample from the browser without rearranging it, you just press Alt and drag the sample from the browser over the arranged one and voila.

This is a time saving feature. I tried to do it in Reaper once and the only way i found it to work was just by right clicking the sample in the browser then trying to figure the three options which got me confused and didn't worked efficiently either. So much wasted time just to swapp some samples? However, what i don't like about StudioOne, is its actual GUI(somehow brighty and unchangeable) and the waveforms looks not detailed enough. On this side, Reaper is better, because it features anti-aliased waveform display. Anyway, i can't wait for V3 to come out. Biggest issue of Cubase (for me) if u are in EDM that u can only use MIDI control (CC) based modulation in it, so simply can't do such a thing in it if the VST(i) hasn't got MIDI learning, modulating is instant PITA (have to use some modular environment wrapper like MUX), CC based vst expression also can be used but it's also a big PITA in S1 there is no drum/chord track and the GUI is boring otherwise quite nice for sure ps.

Some macro based device like the Instrument one in Al also would be nice in S1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clkt4sGGuFw. Without reading the whole thread I can answer your question very easily: using 'the worst DAWs' is very subjective. It borders with troll posts. No DAW is the worst and no DAW is the best.

The best DAW is the one that works for *you*. They all have different workflows that suite different people. I personally like Reaper. Not 100%, but it's the best I can have for my needs.

That's why it's so important to try the most of them before you decide which one to use for yourself. Now I'm going to read the thread. And I wholesomely agree with your thoughts, ezequiel!

They reflect my thoughts perfectly. Don't be a sheep, just test all the DAWs, find the one you like, and don't worry about the audio quality as they are all the same. The only difference comes down to upsampling/downsampling quality which both Pro-Tools and Cubase don't deliver btw. You're better off with Reaper in that regard.

I love Reaper because it's the DAW for layman users and the proficient users, too. And it delivers quality results. I use Reaper both for music and mastering projects. Click to expand.What made you post this crap? You feel you're being threatened by something/someone? The 'industry standard' is a holy grail, huh? Well, it's not.

The 'industry standard' is the way to get gullible people buy shit that make them feel comfortable with using because they're 'industry standard' and some of their favourite music stars use them [which is doubtful]. I can speak about the 'industry standard' a lot. It's not just about DAWs at all, but expensive hardware also. It's all a big sham to make you part with your hard earned money. However, please leave analogue vs digital discussion out of this thread. Another fucking useless comparison between the age old stupid question of 'one DAW is better than another'.

Fuck me i would be a millionaire if i got $1 for every time i heard that. People use what they use. If its a good mix its a good mix, good ears know what they are listening for. Half of the people on this forum dont even know how to utilize their DAW to its fullest extent, or use the readily available shortcuts and workarounds to improve their productive speed. Again the answer to this question is its the person behind the DAW, not the DAW itself.

Create Projector Adobe Director Camera here. I could go into great depth about this shit about the differences between DAW's, but my answer is summed to the person and not the DAW. Dont read into all the bullshit, make your own decision on your own ears. I've been using Cubase throughout the 90s with Atari 1024 STE and Mega 4 with a SCSI HD in the 2nd half of it, and it's been great for that time [better than Pro-24 and C-Lab Creator for me]. Since they went PC and audio+MIDi not so much, so I went EnergyXT around 2005 and then Reaper in 2007 since EnergyXT never became multi-core capable. But I still use EnergyXT 1 as a VST rack in Reaper - very stable and absolutely flexible modular environment that compensates for some of the lacking features in Reaper for me. I use EnergyXT 2 in Linux but that's another story.

For me, freedom of easily patching [connecting] things around the way I like it is the priority and Reaper delivers. EnergyXT is incredibly easy for that. I just wish it was also a great and *stable* DAW in general.

Which it's not, but better than some other offerings. Multicore support is a big deal for me as I'm an AMD fan and working with more cores is quite important for AMD rigs, especially with 8 cores. I've been a Sonar user since version 6 and only in the last months I am trying to find my way through Reaper (which I find very similar). I also tried FL and an older Cubase trial I receveid in my Steinberg account but they proved hare-brained and very difficult for me (and I do basic stuff!) even if I see everyday people that work with them at the speed of light. Ergo I think it's all about workflow: somehow there are certain DAWs that suit you the best for what you do and how you like to do it. Our choices are mainly dictated by this, all the rest is marketing for chickens.