Quantcast
DAW of choice for composers? - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
DAW of choice for composers?
View Poll Results: What DAW you use for scoring...
Pro Tools
12 Votes - 14.46%
Cubase/Nuendo
22 Votes - 26.51%
Logic
31 Votes - 37.35%
Digital Performer
7 Votes - 8.43%
Sonar
3 Votes - 3.61%
Reaper
3 Votes - 3.61%
Fruity Loops
2 Votes - 2.41%
Other (please specify in reply)
3 Votes - 3.61%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Old 27th January 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
DAW of choice for composers?

Im sure this has been done to death but.... Im curious what host you guys are using when scoring to picture.
Old 28th January 2013
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
Justin Case's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Majority (99%, I'd say) of composers use Cubase, DP or Logic. I don't know anyone who sequences in Pro Tools.

I'm a happy Cubase user (6.5.4.), but I must say that I'm keeping my eye on increasingly impressive Studio One Pro, it has a lot of potential.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #3
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case ➑️
I don't know anyone who sequences in Pro Tools.
There's lots of us out there. Switching to PT and staying in ONE DAW, from note one, thru production and overdubs, to scoring, to mixing, and thru music editing has saved me months of swap-over back and forth time. Probably years if I really think about it. Well worth it for me.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #4
kdm
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case ➑️
Majority (99%, I'd say) of composers use Cubase, DP or Logic. I don't know anyone who sequences in Pro Tools.
I used ProTools for scoring for a couple of years. No, it isn't unheard of, and certainly isn't as much of a departure for composing as it used to be.

I learned it inside and out in a couple of days, and made it work well for my template setup (memory locations rock for only displaying sections of a template at a time).

I like the potential for transferring directly to Sibelius. However a few significant bugs with the notation editor with large midi templates limited it and transfer options; as well as more limited midi editing (lacking key commands mainly) sent me back to Cubase/Nuendo.

Both have their strong points. I can work easily enough in either, but just work faster in Cubase. ProTools still excels for audio and post most of the time, and when I have to stay in ProTools for other parts of the project, scoring there works just fine.

It really comes down to what works best for each person's workflow. Most of the current DAW options can get you there as easily as the next, if you like it enough to make it work for you instead of against you.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #5
007
Lives for gear
 
007's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case ➑️
I don't know anyone who sequences in Pro Tools.
I know quite a few, but in any case, you use whatever you're comfortable with.

I switched from PT to Logic in 2008 and haven't looked back.
I've also dabbled in Reason and Ableton Live for a few years, used to export from one, import to another, Rewire, etc.
Then one day I decided to stop the madness and simplify my workflow.
So when Logic 8 was released, I was sold, couldn't be happier.

They're all great once you make them work the way you like to work.
Old 31st January 2013
  #6
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
I write and track in Cubase.
But If I'm mixing myself I like to batch export audio and import to Pro Tools.
For me there is just something with The summing in Pro Tools thats just better and more defined.

But MIDI + Pro Tools = not gonna happen!
Old 31st January 2013
  #7
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I've used Logic, Cubase, DP and Pro Tools for scoring at some point, and learned the DAWs pretty well.

My choice is Logic for it's amazing CPU utilization and how flexible the keyboard shortcuts are - it blows all other DAWs out of the water on both counts. If you want to do orchestral scores without needing a sample farm, I'd recommend Logic for sure.

Amongst A-list composers, Logic and Cubase have the lion's share (I'd say it's half and half). The rest use DP and Pro Tools, and it works for them... just not for me, as my sessions can end up with a number of instruments that only Logic can come close to handling. I wouldn't hate working in Cubase 7 (in fact I just bought it for kicks), but I'd never expect to use it seriously without a sample farm running VE Pro.
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #8
Deleted e1b9f94
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
My choice is Logic for it's amazing CPU utilization and how flexible the keyboard shortcuts are - it blows all other DAWs out of the water on both counts. If you want to do orchestral scores without needing a sample farm, I'd recommend Logic for sure.
I am not sure i am following you? Cubase have 100% customizable shortcut setup(you can assing anything to anything really), multi key setup as well as super detailed macro script editing. With a single key click you can for example) literally do 20 operations of your choice. It was like that for almost decade.
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted e1b9f94 ➑️
I am not sure i am following you? Cubase have 100% customizable shortcut setup(you can assing anything to anything really), multi key setup as well as super detailed macro script editing. With a single key click you can for example) literally do 20 operations of your choice. It was like that for almost decade.
First I'll say that Cubase has great flexibility for hotkeys. It's just not as good as Logic for me. I'll explain.

The thing Logic hotkeys have over Cubase (and one of the reasons it's hard for me to switch to Cubase when I've tried) is that Logic has context-based hotkeys (depending on what window you're in), whereas Cubase does not. In other words: in Logic, "M" will mute the selected region when you're in the arrange window, but if you're in the piano roll, it will mute the selected note. In Cubase you need two seperate hotkeys, which is silly. I just want "M" to be Mute, "S" to be solo, shift+M to be select muted things, etc, no matter where I am in my DAW. If I want 100 hotkeys in Cubase (probably would be more), I'll end up having to create hotkeys that don't make sense (for example, having to mute with the "N" key), which is not cool.

Maybe it seems like nitpicking to some, but I'm pretty particular about workflow. And I have something that works for me. You might feel differently, especially if you have a controller setup for your most-used commands (I don't because it slows me down).

Macros in DAWs are... an interesting concept? I guess I'm not sure what I'd use them for, unless I was recording a big ensemble and was doing something repetitive. Care to give a few examples? Color me fascinated.
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #10
Deleted e1b9f94
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
First I'll say that Cubase has great flexibility for hotkeys. It's just not as good as Logic for me. I'll explain.

The thing Logic hotkeys have over Cubase (and one of the reasons it's hard for me to switch to Cubase when I've tried) is that Logic has context-based hotkeys (depending on what window you're in), whereas Cubase does not. In other words: in Logic, "M" will mute the selected region when you're in the arrange window, but if you're in the piano roll, it will mute the selected note. In Cubase you need two seperate hotkeys, which is silly. I just want "M" to be Mute, "S" to be solo, shift+M to be select muted things, etc, no matter where I am in my DAW. If I want 100 hotkeys in Cubase (probably would be more), I'll end up having to create hotkeys that don't make sense (for example, having to mute with the "N" key), which is not cool.

Maybe it seems like nitpicking to some, but I'm pretty particular about workflow. And I have something that works for me. You might feel differently, especially if you have a controller setup for your most-used commands (I don't because it slows me down).

Macros in DAWs are... an interesting concept? I guess I'm not sure what I'd use them for, unless I was recording a big ensemble and was doing something repetitive. Care to give a few examples? Color me fascinated.
On a quick one i 've created macro with which i can fill any kind of notes in midi clip and when i press it it will automatically place notes in chord i want it to and they can have note range (from C2 to C5 example) and also i can with the same macro randomize or limit velocity to certain limit, all insinde one macro.

Or another macro which will create midi channel and a midi clip which will have random notes in C2 region (good for created basslines on your electronic synth).

all with one single keystroke.

In other words you can imagine complex scenario for which it takes a lot of time but which can be automated in one second and called with a press of a button.

It is very similar to Adobe Photoshop action set where you can record everything you do and place all your actions in "Action" script..recalled within a single click..

Macro Facility
Cubeat Detective


Btw i understand about one button to have one function on all windows but i am not working like that. I like every button for every action and i have dedicated macro keyboard for that. On top of real PC keyboard.
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
If you want to do orchestral scores without needing a sample farm, I'd recommend Logic for sure.
....as my sessions can end up with a number of instruments that only Logic can come close to handling. I wouldn't hate working in Cubase 7 (in fact I just bought it for kicks), but I'd never expect to use it seriously without a sample farm running VE Pro.
Not sure why you think this is a Logic specific advantage? With 32GB of RAM in my machine, and the option to upgrade to 64GB of RAM, I haven't needed a sample farm in a long time..... My projects can exceed 150-200 tracks of orchestral instruments on one computer.... and I don't use Logic.
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #12
Deleted e1b9f94
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundslikejoe ➑️
Not sure why you think this is a Logic specific advantage? With 32GB of RAM in my machine, and the option to upgrade to 64GB of RAM, I haven't needed a sample farm in a long time..... My projects can exceed 150-200 tracks of orchestral instruments on one computer.... and I don't use Logic.
I think that quite a lot of people aren't exactly familiar with what other then their host can offer. But in the long run it's not important as long as their own host is working for them (imho). However saying that one is better over another without actually knowing inside/out every host option that's another thing.
Old 1st February 2013 | Show parent
  #13
kdm
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
In other words: in Logic, "M" will mute the selected region when you're in the arrange window, but if you're in the piano roll, it will mute the selected note. In Cubase you need two seperate hotkeys, which is silly. I just want "M" to be Mute, "S" to be solo, shift+M to be select muted things, etc, no matter where I am in my DAW.
Maybe you were just giving a general example but in Cubase/Nuendo, "mute/unmute object" mutes objects in the arrange window and mutes notes in the key editor as well - same key command (shft-M here, but could be reassigned to M or any other key command if so desired).

These can be separated as well by using "mute events" instead of "mute object" for your preferred command.

S solos the track, and in the key editor it solos the part only in the key editor, but leaves the channel track in the arrange not solo'd so you don't have to unsolo when leaving the key editor.

Understandable if this still doesn't work for you - no doubt preferences go beyond the couple of key commands you used for example. Just thought it worth clarifying this one at least.
I know there are other commands that are editor specific, so you have a valid point regardless.
Old 1st February 2013 | Show parent
  #14
007
Lives for gear
 
007's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Shortcuts and workflow are one thing, to each his own, but this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
If you want to do orchestral scores without needing a sample farm, I'd recommend Logic for sure.
Not quite sure what this means, not needing a sample farm when using Logic?
Can you elaborate?
Old 2nd February 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Bullseye's Avatar
Started with DP but switched to PT. Nowadays the differences are not as much as they once were. Just my opinion though.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundslikejoe ➑️
Not sure why you think this is a Logic specific advantage? With 32GB of RAM in my machine, and the option to upgrade to 64GB of RAM, I haven't needed a sample farm in a long time..... My projects can exceed 150-200 tracks of orchestral instruments on one computer.... and I don't use Logic.
Needing a sample farm in higher-end rigs is usually an issue of CPU. I have 24GB of RAM and rarely hit my RAM limit, but my CPU will max out on occasion, despite my overclocked i7. There are several benchmarks proving that Logic can run about twice as much as Windows Cubase, and even more compared to Mac Cubase. (For those interested, there's more about this on Google...) This is why I recommend Logic for raw power, if you're on Mac (which the OP seems to be).

In terms of hotkeys, I was giving a general example, but I will be the first to say that I'm not 100% familiar with Cubase's hotkey flexibility, so you can take that with a grain of salt. A minor point of mine nonetheless.
Old 2nd February 2013
  #17
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
Needing a sample farm in higher-end rigs is usually an issue of CPU.
Not here. I much prefer an "off-line" sample farm for many reasons.

The #1 reason though is being able to load a cue in a matter of 10-15 seconds instead of minutes, waiting forever for all samples to load every time you switch cues. That is a deadline and groove killer, and IMO unacceptable for working on films. If PT WAS 64 bit and I was hosting VI's INSIDE PT, it would kill an hour minimum every day for me - waiting for samples to load so I can hit "play". And that's unacceptable for my work flow.

So, as far as hosting VI's and samples, the DAW platform is a non-issue AFAIC, because whatever I use, it will be in conjunction with Vienna Ensemble Pro.

Host VI's & Samples in VEP and keep working instead of waiting....
Old 2nd February 2013
  #18
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I totally agree drBill. Just to be clear, what I meant to say is that, it's more of an issue of CPU than RAM for people with one computer, because someone thought that having enough RAM made sample farms obsolete, which simply isn't correct in my opinion. But loading times is another essential advantage of sample farms, as you've aptly pointed out.

My overall point to the OP is still that, if you're only working with one computer, Logic can handle the biggest sessions. That doesn't mean you need to use Logic
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #19
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➑️
Not here. I much prefer an "off-line" sample farm for many reasons.

The #1 reason though is being able to load a cue in a matter of 10-15 seconds instead of minutes, waiting forever for all samples to load every time you switch cues.
Can you explain this? I hate waiting for all my samples to load, are you saying if I use VEP I won't have to wait?
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
Needing a sample farm in higher-end rigs is usually an issue of CPU. I have 24GB of RAM and rarely hit my RAM limit, but my CPU will max out on occasion, despite my overclocked i7. There are several benchmarks proving that Logic can run about twice as much as Windows Cubase, and even more compared to Mac Cubase. (For those interested, there's more about this on Google...) This is why I recommend Logic for raw power, if you're on Mac (which the OP seems to be).
You'll need to provide some links for this to be taken seriously..... a few Google searches dont back-up your statements. Until I read something from a reputible source, Im calling this "Logic-fanboy-BS."

Most people consider "DAW Bench" to be the most authoritative testing ground for this stuff (granted they are a bit dated). You can see here that the performance advantage is not on the OSX platform. While this doesn't test Logic, it does test three different platforms with similar results. Unless there is some extreme magic voodoo inside Logic (doubtful until proven), then your statements need some evidence to stand-up. http://www.dawbench.com/win7-v-osx-3.htm

Plus your statement is a bit confusing.... Are you on Mac or PC? Overclocking Apple products is not a good idea. http://www.overclock.net/t/1349943/a...rclocking-macs
Old 2nd February 2013
  #21
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman ➑️
You'll need to provide some links for this to be taken seriously..... a few Google searches dont back-up your statements. Until I read something from a reputible source, Im calling this "Logic-fanboy-BS."
I'm glad to see that there is some interest. This is the main source for DAW benchmarks, everyone should check it out: DAW Bench : DAW Performance Benchmarking

And by the way, I've spent plenty of time with Cubase, and I'm still not saying that Logic is "a better DAW" - in many ways it's not, and I just bought Cubase 7 just in case I want to switch for the 3rd time. I'm just stating facts about Logic's CPU utilization, which is unparallelled. This information is really not hard to find; please don't be defensive about your DAW, we're all just trying to learn here
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #22
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
I totally agree drBill. Just to be clear, what I meant to say is that, it's more of an issue of CPU than RAM for people with one computer, because someone thought that having enough RAM made sample farms obsolete, which simply isn't correct in my opinion. But loading times is another essential advantage of sample farms, as you've aptly pointed out.

My overall point to the OP is still that, if you're only working with one computer, Logic can handle the biggest sessions. That doesn't mean you need to use Logic
For many working on multiple cues at a time - sample "farms" are the only way.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman ➑️
For many working on multiple cues at a time - sample "farms" are the only way.
It definitely makes things faster! When I build my next mac I'll be retrofitting my current rig to a VE Pro farm, possibly on Windows.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
This information is really not hard to find; please don't be defensive about your DAW, we're all just trying to learn here
You just referenced "DAW Benchmark" just like I did. It doesn't support your claims. Most benchmarks from their testing show a clear advantage on the Windows platform. Again, you have stated "the information is not hard to find" but you haven't supplied ANYTHING that supports your statement.

Show us the proof regarding Logic's superiority. I've looked. There's nothing on Google to support this.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #25
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman ➑️
You just referenced "DAW Benchmark" just like I did. It doesn't support your claims. Most benchmarks from their testing show a clear advantage on the Windows platform. Again, you have stated "the information is not hard to find" but you haven't supplied ANYTHING that supports your statement.

Show us the proof regarding Logic's superiority. I've looked. There's nothing on Google to support this.
It seems like we were both editing our posts at the same time

You are correct in that Windows is more CPU efficient than OSX. I wouldn't argue against that in a million years. I had it in my head that the OP is on OSX because he asked about Logic, for which Logic is definitely more efficient than Cubase. There IS voodoo going on in the background of Logic, it handles buffering in a much different way than any other sequencer. It gets rid of a few features, but overall it is much more CPU efficient when it comes to playing back software instruments. There are users (I believe on this very forum) who have done their own benchmarks, and found Logic OSX to be superior to Cubase in CPU, even on Windows in cases.
I'd start with this google search: click me!

I've kind of worn out this topic at this point... I hope everyone finds the info they need.

I appreciate the overclocking link you posted. It's working fine for me.
Old 2nd February 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
This isn't even about which software anymore.... this is about unsubstantiated claims and loose facts. You're link is for a Gearsultz search that returns squabbles and debate. There's no hard evidence there. Just a bunch of blow-hards spouting half-truths and arguments. You made a blanket statement of fact, which requires hard evidence that isnt easy to produce (obviously).

In this thread you've made several blanket statements that don't have evidence to support them. Even your ONLY reference link, shows only debate and not conclusive benchmark results.

It's not about which DAW, it's about having the respect for facts to speak with humility and accuracy. There are NO massive advantages between the DAWs in this poll. They all run at very competitive levels and the bottom line is the composer's preference. Statements like...

"sessions can end up with a number of instruments that only Logic can come close to handling"

and...

"There are several benchmarks proving that Logic can run about twice as much as Windows Cubase"

.... these are pure forum fantasy.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Head
 
Antibalas HiFi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderman ➑️
There are NO massive advantages between the DAWs in this poll. They all run at very competitive levels
you have to be kidding me.. this whole time I've been saying that I'm not stating one DAW is better than the other. but I should have seen this coming. I'm talking about CPU utilization, for which there are massive differences.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #28
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
It definitely makes things faster! When I build my next mac I'll be retrofitting my current rig to a VE Pro farm, possibly on Windows.
sounds like a good plan!!
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
you have to be kidding me.. this whole time I've been saying that I'm not stating one DAW is better than the other. but I should have seen this coming. I'm talking about CPU utilization, for which there are massive differences.
I know what you've said.... I quoted you. Read. Then reply. It works best that way.
Old 2nd February 2013 | Show parent
  #30
kdm
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antibalas HiFi ➑️
There IS voodoo going on in the background of Logic, it handles buffering in a much different way than any other sequencer. It gets rid of a few features, but overall it is much more CPU efficient when it comes to playing back software instruments.
I believe that is because Logic uses an additional playback buffer.

I don't know the tech details of how it is implemented, but I am thinking that to compare it to Cubase you would have to set Cubase's buffer (and latency) higher to equate to Logic's equivalent playback buffering system. This may account for the "almost twice" performance - particularly if Logic's effective playback buffer is twice that of Cubase in a particular comparison test.

Despite the power available in modern PC or MacPro, I still prefer a farm/slave system, not just for the faster project switching times, but the redundancy - a single host with massive ram is a potential single point of failure that I can't afford to risk. The beauty of the farm system is that I can run pretty much any DAW and get the job done, should that be necessary.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 612078
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 98 views: 37532
Avatar for dfghdhr
dfghdhr 1 week ago
replies: 295 views: 72318
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 178423
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump