Recommend a new DAW for iZotope bundle

[george_vel]

Hi guys,

I’m looking at iZotope Tonal Balance bundle (includes Nectar, Neutron, Ozone and Tonal balance) with the intention to purchase it, but my current DAW is not compatible with this software.

I am currently using Adobe Audition CS6.

The list of compatible DAWs with iZotope bundle goes like this (the plugin Nectar 3 Plus with least supported DAWs is listed here as it will limit all other options):

Logic Pro X, Ableton Live 9-10.1, Pro Tools 12.8-2020.5, Cubase 9.5-10.5, FL Studio 20.6, Studio One 5, Reason 10, REAPER 6, Bitwig Studio 2-3

At the moment I have PC Windows 10, iCore 5, 8GB RAM, with the intention to upgrade pretty soon to iCore 7 with 32GB RAM.

ProTools seems most famous, but not sure how stable it is on Windows based systems.
And note, so far my experience is only with Adobe products (which is not listed here for Nectar at all), so anything else should include the learning curve as well.

Which one you’d recommend?
What DAW you’re using? And why?

More over, I don’t see Magix’s products on the list (Samplitude, Sequoia...). Can you assume/guess why? I had an intention to move from Audition to Samplitude, but lack of info how to crossfade different takes hold me back for now.

And, in general, do you think iZotope’s new versions are really good for the classical/acoustic genre?

I’m impressed with their latest Assistant feature (ML based), but again - all online video tutorials are made for the pop, rap, rock, etc. genres and not sure how mature they are for the most challenging area of classical music.

[Drew Stephenson]

Have a think about Cakewalk (free) and Reaper (cheap) as they're both very capable DAWs that allow you a decent time to play and get a hold of it before you need to commit.
Most other DAWs have a trial period I think but I don't know about durations.
Don't get hung up on Pro-tools, there's no such thing as an 'industry standard DAW'. Find one that works for you and has the features that you need.

[The Elf]

Don't get hung up on Pro-tools, there's no such thing as an 'industry standard DAW'. Find one that works for you and has the features that you need.

+1 Don't believe that tired old hype.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Make that +2 and I'd also recommend Reaper.

[James Perrett]

It would be worth trying them with Audition before going to the effort of learning another DAW. I see that Audition is certainly on the list for some of their products (including Ozone) so there are possibly just one or two that aren't compatible.

I moved from Audition to Reaper around 12 years ago without too much difficulty (although I still keep Audition as one of the editors on Reaper's right click menu for things like click/pop removal and spectral editing).

[george_vel]

...
Don't get hung up on Pro-tools, there's no such thing as an 'industry standard DAW'. Find one that works for you and has the features that you need.

I am not hung up with ProTools, yet most of YouTube tutorials are created with it.
To be honest, I’ve never used it and it will challenge me to learn it if I go for it.

The one that works for me (so far) is Audition, but it lacks the support of the above mentioned plug-ins and it seems to be out of the list of professional’s toolkit.

I haven’t the intention to promote ProTools as industry standard, although Cubase looks like a such one.
I worked recently with a musical producer and he said “Make it sound like this and that in Cubase” to which I said “I don’t use Cubase, I work with Audition”, and he replied “It doesn’t matter, I call them all Cubase”

My questions here are more towards the best DAW used by professionals which are also compatible with iZotope.
This way I can commit to learn a new software that is future-proof and compatible with the plug-ins I like.

So, back to my one of my initial questions - what DAW you’re using and why?

[Sam Spoons]

+1 for Reaper from me too. Unless you already know a DAW well you might as well go for the most cost effective, as long as it will get the job done, and learn to use it.

FWIW I used Cubase for a while before using hardware for 10 years, then I returned to computer based recording and decided that, as I would be starting from scratch, it didn't matter which DAW I chose. I had bought an old Mac G5 from a mate and the options were Cubase or various other DAWs for around £400 or Reaper for £40 and it was a no-brainer. That was about 10 years ago and was definitely a good decision.

[george_vel]

Oh, you’ve posted so many answers meanwhile. Thanks for that.

I see Reaper goes pretty fast up on the list.

But why? Is it better compared to the others or just its cost was the main driver?

For the record, I am not using the DAW for recording, only for mix and mastering.

For recording I use Zoom F6 for now, with the intention to upgrade to Sound Devices MixPre-10 II pretty soon (32-bit float calling here ).

[The Elf]

Just my opinion...

For cost - Reaper is unbeatable.

For everything else - Cubase is unbeatable.

[James Perrett]

I see Reaper goes pretty fast up on the list.

But why? Is it better compared to the others or just its cost was the main driver?

In my case, the low cost was initially attractive but also the fact that I could pretty much dive straight in after using Audition. They're a bit different but not that different (assuming Audition hasn't changed too much since version 3).

However, before buying Cool Edit Pro (which became Audition) I bought a few of the alternatives like Cakewalk and Cubase and ended up having problems - with compatibility in Cakewalk's case and reliability in the case of Cubase.

The pace of development with Reaper is amazing and it is in no way the little brother of the other DAW's. I'll often read about a new feature in a DAW review and think 'Reaper's had that for years'. It also has a big developer community who take advantage of Reaper's extensive scripting abilities to create all kinds of new features and plug-ins. I very rarely need to use third party plug-ins apart from the specialist restoration abilities of RX or Satin.

[Drew Stephenson]

Sorry George, i didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Bit it is a fairly common assumption we see here. My apologies.
Personally I use Reaper as it does everything I need it to do, is very reasonably priced, and seems to work with anything you throw at it. 32 bit plugin? No problem. Weird old video codec? No problem.
Cubase seems to be very well thought of for people who are very midi-based.
Logic comes with a very good selection of instruments. (As does Cubase and others)
I'm sure other folks will chime in with other DAWs and their benefits as well.

[george_vel]

Sorry George, i didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Bit it is a fairly common assumption we see here. My apologies.
Personally I use Reaper as it does everything I need it to do, is very reasonably priced, and seems to work with anything you throw at it. 32 bit plugin? No problem. Weird old video codec? No problem.
Cubase seems to be very well thought of for people who are very midi-based.
Logic comes with a very good selection of instruments. (As does Cubase and others)
I'm sure other folks will chime in with other DAWs and their benefits as well.

Hey, no need to apologize, everything is ok.

TBH, I’ll give Reaper a try. I made small research and it seems quite good proposition. Given the fact that iZotope products are not cheap at all, I’d not refuse a cost effective yet powerful and capable DAW.

Thanks to all that gave their 2 cents.

[rggillespie]

Good choice with Reaper George, I'm a very happy user of it with izotope ozone and neutron and they work perfectly together for me. The online videos for reaper are good to sort you out at the start, and the folks here are very supportive and well informed too.

[Sam Spoons]

Given that Reaper does everything that other DAWs do I decided that there was little point in paying the premium for any of the commercially based DAWs. I also like the way Cockos conduct their business.

[Humble Bee]

If you’re on the Mac Logic will be hard to beat. Awesome bang for the buck. £200 free updates.

Cubase does more or less the same but is much more expensive, especially over time. £400 + payed updates (£80ish/year?)

Reaper is the cheaper very good alternative.

Pro Tools... I don’t know. Anyone for Pro Tools?

Edit:

You’re on windows so ignore what I said or buy a new Apple M1+Logic and be done with it.

[Luke W]

Pro Tools... I don’t know. Anyone for Pro Tools?

I'll say it quietly...

Pro Tools user here, I'm happy with it and have been for a long time. But if I was starting again today it probably wouldn't be my choice, and there aren't many situations that I'd recommend it for over the alternatives...

[Humble Bee]

Pro Tools... I don’t know. Anyone for Pro Tools?

I'll say it quietly...

Pro Tools user here, I'm happy with it and have been for a long time. But if I was starting again today it probably wouldn't be my choice, and there aren't many situations that I'd recommend it for over the alternatives...

[RichardT]

I use Cubase, simply because I have for many years, but I’m sure Reaper would be a very good choice.

I suspect the official list of supported DAWs for your iZotope bundle is limited simply because iZotope can’t afford the cost of testing it on every DAW. I guess you could try it out on your existing DAW to see if it works, if the iZotope products have trial versions.

I’ve never used a bundle like this so I can’t comment on how good it would be for classical music. I would think you could easily do without it - the processing on classical recordings is usually quite light. You can probably get away with just EQ and compressor plugins in Reaper, save yourself a shed load of money, and get equally good results.

Professional mastering engineers don’t generally use this kind of plugin suite. In my experience they simply use EQs and compressors for the most part.

[george_vel]

I’ve watched about 10 excellent tutorial videos on youtube today, walking through Reaper’s capabilities.

I must say I am really impressed with what I saw. It seems this DAW has everything I need (and more).

Thanks for recommending it, I’ll make the switch.

...

I’ve never used a bundle like this so I can’t comment on how good it would be for classical music. I would think you could easily do without it - the processing on classical recordings is usually quite light. You can probably get away with just EQ and compressor plugins in Reaper, save yourself a shed load of money, and get equally good results.

Professional mastering engineers don’t generally use this kind of plugin suite. In my experience they simply use EQs and compressors for the most part.

You know “Professional mastering engineers” are the keywords here - I am far, far away from being such and I need some “newbie” tools to help me not get lost entirely.
I don’t do this for living. It’s a hobby with the aim to reach to semi-pro level while helping to my wife with her choirs’ performances (she is the conductor).

[RichardT]

Hi George,

I understand! But I’m not sure iZotope modules will help in your case - I doubt that they are designed for the kind of work you need to do. But I don’t really know. Maybe there’s someone in the forum who has used them and can give you some advice.

[The Elf]

The caution above is wise. If you think you can avoid learning the basics by using fancy software and its presets then you are setting off on the wrong foot, IMHO. You would do better to use simpler tools and learn what they do.

[george_vel]

Hi George,

I understand! But I’m not sure iZotope modules will help in your case - I doubt that they are designed for the kind of work you need to do. But I don’t really know. Maybe there’s someone in the forum who has used them and can give you some advice.

Agree. Let’s see if others would elaborate more on this as well.

From iZotope latest versions reviews, they claim they’ve trained their ML on different genres and are giving better presets to start with. Plus Tonal balance control could reveal if some frequency areas are out of the boundaries outlined by their models for a given genre.
This looks quite good if it delivers what is promised.

Otherwise I agree with you - good recording, EQ and some compressions are the key ingredients for classical music.

[Drew Stephenson]

As one of the less-experienced folks here, I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. The izotope stuff will give you a good set of presets and starting points. And for some folks that will be enough. But an experienced user will be able to get better results (most of the time) either by building on the tools in the izotope package or just using their own set of preferred tools.
There is value in the out-of-the-box stuff, but don't neglect building your basic skills.

[george_vel]

I think there is some misunderstanding going on here.

I do not expect (and I am not willing) to load a preset and leave it like this waiting for the software to make wanders. I’m aware this won’t work.

But I can use it as a starting point to see if it sounds better, and if yes why. Explore all the adjustments suggested and applied by the ML and understand how different tweaks affect the mix / master. And then build from there while learning at the same time.

Maybe I am wrong and iZotope price will not justify my intention. That’s why we’re having this discussion here.

But as I said before, there’s not much (actually almost none) content online how to mix and master classical / choral music, especially covering the wide variety of this genre, thus I expect to get some insights from models trained over hundreds to thousands pieces in the same league.

Does this make sense?

[worshiptuned]

Maybe I am wrong and iZotope price will not justify my intention. That’s why we’re having this discussion here.
Does this make sense?

There are many people more prepared than me. I will share my opinion though.
With regard to the DAW, any DAW today can do the job and you can save your money buying a cheap one.
I think anyway that even if many don't agree to call them "industry standard", Protools, Cubase and Logic pro (Logic for Mac users only) are the most used among professionals.
Cubase for example, has useful functions that other DAWs don't have and 30 years of development...
And if you have to share a project is more likely that the other has your same DAW and they have bigger communities for assistance and if you go in a professional studio you will find them more frequently than other DAWs and if you are able to use one of these your skill will be likely more useful for a potential job at a professional studio.

I have the tonal balance bundle. The tonal balance is useful, the presets are useful to learn and give some interesting ideas and starting points, but I end up always changing them a lot...The izotope stuff sounds very well and is comparable to other good sounding plugins. I bought it in time of discounts with an upgrade for some 150USD, at regular price I wouldn't buy it.
The plugins are generally more transparent that the one bundled with Cubase. You get a lot of things and this is what is good in the bundle, Dynamic Eq, many compressors, multiband, vintage....limiter...a very good imager and tape and saturation plugins. The mixing assistant and the vocal plugin nectar I find the less useful IMO. The izotope plugins are some of the most heavy on the CPU, the graphics are very intuitive and well done, one of the best I have seen. Are worth the discounted price, but you can definitely live without, especially for classical music!!!
I have also a few Waves and Soft tube plugins, izotope is of a similar quality maybe slightly less transparent.