My Top 5 DAW Features & Functions

[awjoe]

Adobe Audition:

1 Noise reduction features. Audition has a number of ways to get rid of unwanted noise, and they're all good. If you can't clean it it up in Audition, that's pretty much a clear indication it needs to be re-recorded.

2 Appearance. For a start, Audition often looks better than other DAWs because it limits one's ability to go crazy with jarring color combos. Also, easily configurable screen appearance. It's really easy to make things visible/invisible and move stuff around.

3 I find editing to be very easy and quick.

4 I forget what the feature's called, but I have my template set up so that at a keystroke only a particular group is displayed - the drum group, for instance. It makes navigating a mix super fast and everything's zoomed in/out the way I like it.

5 CD View. I still burn CDs, and Audition has a CD creation screen that makes it really easy to set up and burn CDs.

PS: It might be interesting also to list the ONE feature you'd like to see added to your DAW of choice. Here - I'll start: (puts on grumpy voice) MIDI recording and editing capability!

[The Elf]

1. VariAudio.
2. Fade handles.
3. Ability to warp tempo map to audio.
4. Audio editing.
5. MIDI.

[Mike Stranks]

Hello! Mr Party-Pooper here!

I'd be surprised if the majority of DAW users are markedly different to me in that:

I learnt from various sources what a DAW was;
I decided I could make my life easier/more creative by using one;
I saw one advertised* that seemed to fit/to do what I was looking for;
I bought it; learnt to do the things I need to do; used it. Stuck with it; upgraded as new features became available.

* For others that will have been a recommendation from a forum consensus or having someone they knew recommend/demo one.

Most of us are happy with what we've got. We've not done a tour of alternatives... like many things in life, we like what we know and are nowhere near unhappy enough or persuaded by other features to have to learn a new DAW and the way it functions.

Is the way 'A' does something better than 'B'? I don't know and am not really bothered. I work with what I've got...

[Bob Bickerton]

I’m going to make a new sign for my studio:

STOP THINKING - MAKE MUSIC!



Bob

[Dynamic Mike]

I really have little to no experience of any other DAW than Cubase, so I guess familiarity & the fact that it does everything I need (which isn't much) makes me stick with it. I have no idea how it compares to other DAW's but I'm guessing from this thread there's a huge overlap. If I had more time to spare I'd probably give Reaper another try. My five top features would probably be;

1: Variaudio
2: Quadrafuzz V2 (Stupid name, awesome plug-in)
3: The Chord Track
4: Generate Harmony voices
5: Track Lanes (which initially I hated)

[awjoe]

I use Reason and three features stand out for me :

1. The mixer, the layout of which, I believe, is modelled on an SSL desk. For an old school git like me having the Mixer View instantly accessible and in such a straightforward way makes life a lot easier. New tracks are added automatically and everything is clearly labelled, every channel has EQ and compressors just where you would expect them, with decent default effects automatically "wired" to the FX sends and returns, with the ability to accept additional supplementary FX.

If you have any curiosity in this area, check out Harrison Mixbus. It's laid out like a desk, and many people love it for that reason. Plus it sounds great.

[awjoe]

This thread's been an eye-opener for me. I assumed, like I do with most things, that most people are way better at DAWs than I am. But it seems that most people don't know a lot about any DAW other than the one they've used since they were born. Maybe another question to add to the survey is 'how many DAWs are you more or less familiar with?'

'Cause if you only know one DAW, you're not in a great position to know what your top features and functions are.

[CS70]

This thread's been an eye-opener for me. I assumed, like I do with most things, that most people are way better at DAWS than I am. But it seems that most people don't know a lot about any DAW other than the one they've used since they were born.

That's because, as this thread shows, the differences are minimal, and mostly cosmetic.

I may have missed something, but the only stuff that's a little bit DAW-specific are Cubases' automatic harmony and chord tools and my mention of ProChannel (which however is nothing more than a pre-loaded set of plugins). And it's just a little specific... there's plugins for automatic harmony and chord tools.

Harrison is a bit off because its audio engine has built-in distortion and crosstalk. I have it but it wasn't enough of a thing for me to shift.

So, so long it works, a DAW is a DAW, just like a drill is a drill. You pick a top shelf one and that's about all the attention it needs.

[John Egan]

REASON

'Cause if you only know one DAW, you're not in a great position to know what your top features and functions are.

I'm not sure that it matters whether you have the best DAW with the top features (whatever that is). The music matters. I think it's worth asking if there is anything that your current DAW will not support sensibly that a different DAW would enable.
I have in the past used Sonar as my DAW, but was put off by a change in appearance and style and so moved to Reason. At that time I also tried Live, Tracktion and Cubase, but they didn't grab me at all. There was also Project 5 from Cakewalk, which I found interesting, but it was discontinued. Once Reason enabled recording, I was able to move to it completely, having already started to use its MIDI instruments alongside Sonar, using Rewire. I have seen no reason to change since.

Regards, John

[ore_terra]

Harrison is a bit off because its audio engine has built-in distortion and crosstalk. I have it but it wasn't enough of a thing for me to shift.

I tried it and liked it initially. but lack of stability was a big issue for me.

I sometimes export stereo mixes from Cubase and do the master bus processing in Harrison Mixbus, but that's all I'm using it for these days.

[Matt Houghton]

as this thread shows, the differences are minimal, and mostly cosmetic.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my post about Reaper very well, then. While I agree to an extent when it comes to most DAWs — they've all largely converged on the same basic model, with a few different frills around the edges, and GUI differences — some of Reaper's functionality and approach is very different from that of other DAWs.

[Arpangel]

The play slider in Reaper is my favourite function.

[ConcertinaChap]

Hello! Mr Party-Pooper here!

STOP THINKING - MAKE MUSIC!

'Cause if you only know one DAW, you're not in a great position to know what your top features and functions are.

Welcome, my friends, to the People's Party Pooper Party. Your membership cards are in the post.

CC

[James Perrett]

'Cause if you only know one DAW, you're not in a great position to know what your top features and functions are.

I would guess that quite a few users of the newer DAW's like Studio One, Reaper and Mixbus have moved from something else.

When I bought my first computer based recording system I spent quite a bit of time looking at the alternatives and nearly went for a Sadie or Soundscape system but the cheapskate in me won out and I ended up with a Turtle Beach Multisound card and its associated Wave software which wasn't really up to the job. Fortunately the hardware was supported by the Software Audio Workshop which gave me 4 tracks of stereo audio on a 486 computer.

On the MIDI side I went through Sequencer Plus, Cubase and Cakewalk before ending up with Voyetra's Digital Orchestrator Plus which was the first software I used that could combine audio and MIDI. However, the audio side wasn't particularly sophisticated so I later moved on to Cool Edit Pro which was bought by Adobe and renamed Audition, before finally moving to Reaper around 10 years ago.

Along the way I also bought Sound Forge which entitled me to use simplified versions of Vegas and Acid and I also kept an eye on what Cakewalk were doing and tried a few of their demos. I also demo'd Samplitude for a while.

I don't know how many other people have kept an eye on alternatives in the way that I did but I thought it was a fairly common thing to do.

[Forum Admin]

'Cause if you only know one DAW, you're not in a great position to know what your top features and functions are.

This topic isn't really about comparing DAWs. Even if you only have experience of using one DAW, there is huge merit in everyone stating their Top 5 features/functions of the DAW they do use.

Thanks for the continued input/feedback.

[The Bunk]

Well first up, Reaper here.

This has been interesting; as an enthusiastic but strictly amateur spare bedroom producer, my initial thoughts were that really what matters to me would be way down on the lists of those who are more experienced and better than me and, in a number of cases, professionals. But it's been reassuring to see features that I share with many others. And the point about most of us using a small percentage of our DAW's capabilities was also reassuring. I've often felt I'm missing out on what Reaper can do. For what I use it for, that appears not to be the case.

Anyway, to answer the question...You may notice some of my technical terminology is a tad "slack".

I'll start by referring readers back to my first line if I may:

1) Cost OK maybe not a "feature" as such and definitely not a function, but there's no point in someone like me spending £x00s on a DAW.
2) Importing etc Referred to a number of times above but the ease of drag/drop when eg using samples is a major benefit to me.
3) Editing, moving stuff around I've shown a couple of mates how to do this and their view is "wow that looks complicated". In reality it's very similar to the way they would edit a word document, and that's not at all complicated when you know how.
4) Real-time / live "tweaking / monitoring" I'm not sure I've explained that at all well but I have used a DAW which would not allow you to hear adjustments to things like EQ / Reverb etc etc as you made them. You'd have to do the tweak, stop playback and then re-start. I'm sure Reaper's not alone in that but not being able to do it that way was a considerable PITA.
5) Updates To be honest every time one of these pops up, I look at the relevant details and it's all mumbo-jumbo to me. But the process of updating is dead easy, and it also shows they're responding to comments / suggestions.

HTH!

[Forum Admin]

I don't know how many other people have kept an eye on alternatives in the way that I did but I thought it was a fairly common thing to do.

That's a bit worrying for us at SOS, since we created the DAW monthly workshop articles to both (a) give those users of Reason, Cubase, Live et al something to read each month, and (b) since our reader surveys told us there was DAW crossover/multiple usage, having a range of the core DAWs each issue allowed folks to peruse how things are done in a different DAW.

Well, we've got a 2019 Reader Survey coming up later this year, so we'll get an up-to-date picture on DAW usage/owenership then.

[MOF]

we created the DAW monthly workshop articles to both (a) give those users of Reason, Cubase, Live et al something to read each month

I use Logic and ages ago bought Protools for some of the AIR plugins but never really got around to using it properly, since then I’ve gone down the UAD route to get those plugins.
I occasionally read the Protools articles but mostly the Logic ones. Maybe it’s just me but I find getting updates from the Avid site is impossible and it puts me off using it.
In answer to the main question I love the multiple un-do and re-do facility, the ability to colour patterns so that I know which patterns are the same but triggering a different (stacked) synth or where I’ve repeated elsewhere in a song, the ability to copy sections and try out different arrangements without damaging the original one and in a similar vein being able to add longer intros and outros which were almost impossible in the days of tape, especially when it got to the use of timecode striping to synchronise the computer.

[muzines]

Logic Pro X

So, let's have a look at a few of my favourite workflow features in Logic.
(There are plenty of others, of course, but these are the ones I choose to highlight here - in no particular order.)

1: Track Assignment

Logic has an unusually flexible track assignment concept, which differs from most other DAWs, and even many Logic users don't quite get the concept.

In most DAWs, when you add a track, say an audio track, the track appears in the arrangement view, and a channel strip for that track appears in the mixer.

Logic isn't limited to this fixed 1:1 relationship. When you create a new audio track, usually it's assigned to the next free audio object, which is also displayed as a channel strip in the mixer - so far, so normal.

But you can have multiple arrange tracks, all with the *same* object assigned. So you can have ten tracks, all playing to your audio channel 1 object, which is very flexible when in comes to editing. Or five different tracks, all feeding the *same* software instrument, maybe with some tracks on different MIDI channels.

In fact, "tracks" in the arrange window are themselves dumb, and it's the playback object assigned to them that gives them their identity (audio track, MIDI track, software instrument track etc), and this can be *any environment object* (which is how you connect the arrange page to the environment if required.)

This also is why some people get confused with the difference between the two "duplicate track" commands - "Create track with same object" (which creates a new track, assigned to the same channel strip object as the selected track) vs "Create track with next object" (which creates a new track, and duplicates the existing object - eg a software instrument channel, with a second independent instance of all the plugins.)

2: Window Handling

Ever since Logic 1.x, Logic has the concept of Screensets, which let you position and save any combination of windows, and switch between them. While many people just use a single screen environment, and open, move and close windows constantly while working, this is really slow, inefficient and clunky.

(I used to watch people in horror as they'd double click a MIDI region to open up an editor, reposition and size the window on the screen to not overlap some important content, set the zoom to where they wanted it to be, edit a few notes, close the window, then select the next region and go through the whole thing again...)

The newer consolidated/integrated window approach added in Logic 8+ was an attempt to help streamline window handling for typical users - so you have one Main window, and can make the bottom section be various different editing windows, pop in other panels on the left and right side etc, which works for many people and can be convenient - but misses some of the power of Logic's window handling approach.

When using Logic, I'm usually in one of a few different "modes' of working - I might be recording/playing, or doing detailed audio editing, or detailed MIDI editing, or doing mixing/automation etc. Of course, we all flit between things as required. But rather than constantly opening, positioning windows or panels to fit the task I'm doing, I have different Screensets set up for just those tasks, which I switch to (top row of the number keys, eg 1-9).

And this means I can use *multiple windows* on those tasks. My MIDI editing screenshot for example opens up multiple editing windows, floating panels and so, in the arrangement I like, so I can use the most appropriate tools from any of the windows to most efficiently make the necessary edits - and this can include multiple windows with the same editor open, with different setings - say zoom settings (having two arrangement windows open, one zoomed out for overview, and one zoomed in for detail, is useful).

To edit, I just select the region I want to edit, press "2", and Logic gives me my complete personalised multi-window editing environment. When done, "1" and I'm back to my default working screen.

Using multiple windows, Screensets, Link modes (which determines what content windows display) and various related features makes Logic a really flexible working enviornment, which can be configured in the way that works best for your needs - without you having to worry about tedious window maintenance.

3: Mackie Control Support

The Logic Control debuted with Logic 5, and it was remarkably well designed, and is still the only fairly universally supported controller standard that offers the majority of things you need to do with a controller, that requires *no mapping*, and just works.

Controller handling is a bugbear of mine. Generic controllers, that require mapping, are so unwieldy to use no one really bothers, and in this regard Logic is generally less good than other DAWs that handle generic controllers a little better (Live does a fairly good job with this, for example.)

Logic added "Smart Controls" to help, but this is only pre-mapped with factory content, and for your own uses, you're back to manual mapping. I don't use them at all (and generally they look pretty cheesy too)

(Ok, in some cases, the ability to manually map a set of controls on an important sound or plugin can be useful, but no one wants to have to map on a regular basis - it's just tedious busy work that interferes with creative work.)

Despite having an MCU+XT system, it's large, and in some ways isn't ideal for my uses (eg a portable laptop system), so I developed a custom controller scheme, based around the MCU standard, as all the MIDI mappings for the MCU are completely open and editable - so you can change how it works if necessary. So I have a little controller that's portable, set up to my (specific) requirements that can do mixing, synth editing, and plugin editing in a really simple and accessible way.

You can even tell Logic to generate parameter listing text files for each plugin, and then go and change the order those parameters are called up on the controls, letting you define consistant handling for all your plugins.

So, the MCU is a great controller, the spec is supported by many hardware boxes and DAWs, it requires no mapping from the user, is well integrated into Logic, but it also sufficiently editable to change the behaviour enough to develop custom controller schemes to help you connect your hardware to your software in a way that's empowering, not frustrating.

4: Plugin Management

With a hardware studio, it's common sense to put the instruments and effects you use all the time within easy reach, the things you use a bit less frequently maybe off to the side, and the things you break out only occasionally can go back in the cupboard out of view.

For a long time (*years*!), Logic made all plugins only accessible with a trawl through large, long-winded multi-level menus, organised by manufacturer only (which doesn't make sense when you want to maybe try out a few compressor choices), and it used to drive me nuts.

After many years, I decided to start developing my own solution to this, as it seemed it would never change within Logic. My app was coming along nicely - and then Apple of course released a Logic update with the Plugin Manager.

But at last you can organise plugins how you like - put in top level menus of "Compressors", "Reverbs", "Delays", and so on, create folders, even rename plugins.

I have categories for selected virtual instrument plugins for example, like:
Synths -> Classic Analog
Synths -> Classic Digital
Synths -> Modern Digital
Classic Instruments
Drums -> Acoustic
Drums -> Beats

I can put my most used/favourite tools at the top level, and then put in some less commonly used items a level down, and keep the stuff I rarely use out of eyesight and not clutter up my choices.

This was a feature I was waiting a very long time for, and it's *most* welcome.

(You still can't select plugins via the keyboard though. Maybe if I restart development on my app, they'll add it in the meantime...)

5: Region/MIDI Thru Parameters

Last up, another long time feature that originated with C-Lab's Creator/Notator, but was good enough to make it through to Logic too.

In Logic, when you have a MIDI region selected, there are a bunch of parameters displayed in the region Inspector panel that let you adjust, non-destructively (they are calculated in real-time on playback), parameters such as quantisation, transposition, velocity modification and so on.

When you don't have a region selected, this panel instead displays the MIDI Thru parameters, which are applied in realtime to the incoming MIDI data as you play. This lets you transpose, shift and compress velocities, compensate for keyboard limitations, limit the keyboard, change MIDI channel all on the fly.

Any recordings you make with those parameters have those same parameters copied to the MIDI regions, so the original played data is still intact, and any modifications to the MIDI data are again just applied on playback.

This is a really fast, flexible approach to making typical MIDI data modifications in a transparent, non-destructive and easily managed way.

[CS70]

as this thread shows, the differences are minimal, and mostly cosmetic.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my post about Reaper very well, then. While I agree to an extent when it comes to most DAWs — they've all largely converged on the same basic model, with a few different frills around the edges, and GUI differences — some of Reaper's functionality and approach is very different from that of other DAWs.

Hehe, I said I may have missed some! Mouse modifiers seem interesting, even if probably you can achieve the same efficiency with other ways in other apps (Sonar has smart tools for example which change what click do depending on where in the clip you are).

I simply noticed that 90% of the stuff is plain vanilla - and certainly the top 5 functions are the same for everyone: can record, can edit, can overdub, can add effects etc. Basically what a DAW does.

[Kwackman]

having a range of the core DAWs each issue allowed folks to peruse how things are done in a different DAW.

Yup, I read the shimmer reverb article that was shown in Logic's Notes a month or so back , and copied the workflow in Cubase.

[Drew Stephenson]

having a range of the core DAWs each issue allowed folks to peruse how things are done in a different DAW.

Yup, I read the shimmer reverb article that was shown in Logic's Notes a month or so back , and copied the workflow in Cubase.

Likewise I have a quick scan at each DAW notes article, some of them are very product-specific, in which case I'll probably move on, but some are more concept-based (e.g. the shimmer article Kwackman mentions) and translate easily to other DAWs.

[Studio Support Gnome]

1) it records from single to high track count multi-track , through a vast range of interfaces with no stupid restrictions on I/O
2) it plays back reliably
3) it doesn't sound horrid
4) it can do real time processing with sensible latency
5) it'll run on my Laptop

anything else is fairy dust icing on the cake

[Dynamic Mike]

This thread has turned out to be quite enlightening. It appears quite a few of us are buying 'full fat' versions of DAW's for one or two features that aren't included in the lite versions. In my case with Cubase there are complex audio options and effects I require, whereas in contrast my midi needs probably wouldn't tax a 48k Spectrum. One basic synth with a few decent pads & a simple grid would suffice for me. On the other side of the coin I'm sure many here would trade a guitar amp simulator they never intend using for an extra synth. Others might never record audio at all & would prefer additional midi features.

I know you don't have to use any features you don't need, but they all add to the clutter & complexity of the layout, making it harder for beginners to find anything. There's also a nagging doubt that maybe you should be using them because you've paid for them. A bit like that Mandolin you bought, used on one intro & then never bothered to learn how to play properly?

Maybe an alternative business model would be a DAW whereby you purchased a basic framework with an audio & midi engine and then just included those features you wanted, with the option to add stuff as you went along. I mean something like those car manufacturers that now allow you to personalise the spec of a new car bit by bit rather than opting for a complete package of extras.

[Drew Stephenson]

A bit like that Mandolin you bought, used on one intro & then never bothered to learn how to play properly?

I feel personally attacked here!

Maybe an alternative business model would be a DAW whereby you purchased a basic framework with an audio & midi engine and then just included those features you wanted, with the option to add stuff as you went along.

Sounds a bit like how a guitar or synth selection gets started...
I guess the flaw with the modular proposition is that you can get a fully featured DAW like cakewalk for free, or Reaper for not much. I totally recognise the advantages of not getting distracted by features that you don't (yet) need, but I think you're fighting a hard battle against human nature.

[ManFromGlass]

I don’t want to quote the Full Desmond above but he is bang on with my thoughts except -

6 - freely assignable key commands. When the deadline clock is ticking mousing around slows me down and encourages the carpal tunnel.

7 - 1 pass stem bouncing. (Recording multiple tracks with their own outs + fx at once) The flexibility of Logic saves me hours now that I have that figured out. I always have to deliver stems for cues and if a show is wall-to-wall music then I’m not up pulling an all-nighter bouncing and checking stems.

[C.LYDE]

I did a top 5 for Cubase, and now I why I use Reason...

1.Combinators
Simply the most powerful synth creation tool built-in into a DAW... except possibly MAX for Ableton Live. Anything I or others imagine can be created..layered, analogue, sampler, FM mixed and stirred in any way possible with MIDI CC and then some

2. Players
So much fun! Love the way noodling can turn into real musical ideas...

3. The Rack
The environment after all these years without equal ... to able to patch & link ...like a kid in a audio toy store...

4, The limited mixer
This may be seen as a "limitation" but sometimes not having too many options is a relief

5. The instruments!
Simply love THOR and EUROPA... truly amazing (somewhat underrated) synths ...

Passing thought ... most of us have more than 1 guitar, synth, mic etc - why not more than 1 DAW... ?

[ConcertinaChap]

Passing thought ... most of us have more than 1 guitar, synth, mic etc - why not more than 1 DAW... ?

Brainpower undersupply, quite simply.

CC

[Drew Stephenson]

Also tools for the job. I have a number of guitars that all make slightly different (or wildly different) sounds. You pick the one that's appropriate and sometimes you need something that one of them won't do.
I.e the range of jobs is wider than the practical breadth of the tool.
For DAWs it's the other way round for most folks - Most DAWs can do far more than they are regularly used for, so why use more than one?
Though I did think heavily about getting Harrison Mix-bus just for stem-mixing / mastering when they had that huge discount a while back.
But in the end I decided that my time was better spent learning to get the best out of Reaper rather than learning another DAW.
Hence CC's comment above...

[Sam Spoons]