What Helps You Determine What DAW To Use?

[Revy]

I have been researching DAW's and Interfaces. I have the interface picked out that I would like to use. But I'm not too crazy about the DAW software that comes with it. Some people go off of friends recommendations or reputations of a company. What helps you make the decision on which DAW to use? Just to even the field, the DAW software I like is "Studio One", the DAW software that comes with the Interface I like is "Cubase". I will more than likely try the Cubase before moving to something else, if I do. From the videos I've watched "Studio One" seems to be easier to use.

[midwinter]

I try to be DAW-agnostic as much as I can be so that I’m focusing of fundamentals instead of UI—that way if I’m using HarmonicDog’s DAW or Auria or Logic, I’m not too bewildered.

With that said, I use Logic largely because I love the drummer app in it.

[rick-slo]

Most DAWs will do equally well sound wise.. One difference would be the quality of the effects that come with the DAW. I entirely use plugins for effects so the built in ones are not an issue for me.
User interface is the main thing.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Revy

I have been researching DAW's and Interfaces. I have the interface picked out that I would like to use. But I'm not too crazy about the DAW software that comes with it. Some people go off of friends recommendations or reputations of a company. What helps you make the decision on which DAW to use? Just to even the field, the DAW software I like is "Studio One", the DAW software that comes with the Interface I like is "Cubase". I will more than likely try the Cubase before moving to something else, if I do. From the videos I've watched "Studio One" seems to be easier to use.

What interface have you picked out ? It may not matter as most interfaces will run most major DAWs .

I started with Pro Tools only because in 2002 I got a chance to do some recording in a high end Post Production studio that was running Pro Tools. So it seemed like the logical choice for me . I have tried a few others but I am so used to PT workflow and GUI that everything else seems a bit clunky (but that is definitely just me)
Studio One is said to have been started by former Steinberg employes and is also said to be a pretty good blend mix, of the best of Cubase and Pro tools

[jim1960]

I never considered another DAW. I went with Pro Tools because the person I collaborate with the most uses Pro Tools. That not only makes collaboration easier for us, he provides me with excellent free tech support.

[Revy]

The interface I picked was the Steinberg UR22 MKII. I have not pulled the trigger yet but it's the one I've settled on. It comes with Cubase software. Hard to not try it when you figure they give you a $100 worth of software when you buy a $150 interface. It just seemed to me after watching Cubase tutorials that Studio One looked so easy and simple compared to Cubase looking so hard and cumbersome. Maybe looks can be deceiving.

[scripsit]

All DAWs have a fairly steep learning curve, because they generally include so much in the way of options.

The major ones are compatible with each other, in the sense that you can prepare recordings/mixes in formats that can be read by all DAWs.

Most people seem to stick with the DAW that they learn on, because you quickly get comfortable with the individual quirks and can be flummoxed by different ways of doing the same thing.

Studio One is the only 'proper' DAW I've used (fiddled around with Audacity, Cool Edit Pro and Sony Sound Forge for multimedia production in a previous job) for recording acoustic guitar.

I like the work flow, and especially like the ability to push all the way into a built-in mastering suite in the Professional version. It's relatively cheap, too.

Kym

[Rudy4]

This may or may not apply, but over the last few years I've noticed that there have been many posts about the difficulty some have had with the registration / unlocking process with their "free" software.

As far as the actual selection process goes, it's often just a matter of trying out a few and seeing what matches your workflow the best.

I have strictly adhere to the "try before you buy" concept for software after being burned with Sonar several years back. I paid something on the order of $175 and never got it to work on either of 2 PCs, with repeated calls to tech support doing me no good. I finally gave up. If I can't get a product to work I'm sure as **** not going to give them my hard-earned money. Yes, I'm still bitter after all these years.

I chose Reaper because I really like their business model and level of trust they place in the consumer. Spending the $60 was an easy choice for me, it works flawlessly and has pretty good range of effects built in. A few additional free and purchased plug-ins does everything I want it to do.

[Gordon Currie]

Ergonomics or ease of use should be your main focus. It doesn't matter if (insert fave artist) uses something, if you don't gel with it then you won't use it.

I know many people love Cubase but I never was able to click with it. So I've always thrown away the 'free' versions that came with this or that interface.

However - if you are a commercial studio (or want to be) or somehow collaborating with people who frequent said studios, Pro Tools is king.

[DupleMeter]

I started out on a Pro Tools TDM system. I mean, if we're not counting my pre-DAW recording

I used PT for some time before I had a project that had a lot of MIDI. Pro Tools, at that time, was really not very good with MIDI at all. On the advice of a friend (who was also an engineer in a commercial studio) I got Digital Performer as a front end for my PT rig. At the time it was the only other DAW that would work with the TDM hardware. I stuck with DP and have been using it ever since.

I still use PT at some studios and I've dabbled with Logic, but just am not finding it "logical". It has gotten better over the years, but I still prefer DP.

[MikeBmusic]

I started out (early Windows days) with Cakewalk. I found it thoroughly confusing and non-intuitive and gave up on it pretty quickly.
Years later after recording with a stand-alone recorder for quite a while, forums I perused recommended Reaper so I downloaded the manual (400+ pages) and read it from start to finish except the 'advanced routing' and 'midi; chapters. I installed Reaper and went back through the manual as I set up my first projects and found it intuitive enough that I seldom had to refer to the manual again after the first few songs were in the box.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Revy

The interface I picked was the Steinberg UR22 MKII. I have not pulled the trigger yet but it's the one I've settled on. It comes with Cubase software. Hard to not try it when you figure they give you a $100 worth of software when you buy a $150 interface. It just seemed to me after watching Cubase tutorials that Studio One looked so easy and simple compared to Cubase looking so hard and cumbersome. Maybe looks can be deceiving.

Given the interface and the DAW are from the same company, it "should be" seamless to run Cubase and there is no reason not to try it. See if you like it it or not. And you can always try Studio One at any time on the free trial option , and then make a more informed determination which suits your workflow preference and learning curve better.

[buzzardwhiskey]

I've used Audacity, Auria and Studio One, but the combination of price, stability, support, and flexibility are what make Reaper my tool of choice.

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by midwinter

I try to be DAW-agnostic as much as I can be so that I’m focusing of fundamentals instead of UI—that way if I’m using HarmonicDog’s DAW or Auria or Logic, I’m not too bewildered.

With that said, I use Logic largely because I love the drummer app in it.

This is the way to do it.

[alohachris]

Aloha Revy,

PM'ed Ya.

alohachris