Vienna Ensemble Pro will add MAS support !!

[bralston]

I frequently get asked in the UCLA film scoring certificate program (where I moonlight as one of their instructors)...which DAW is the best?

My answer: "The one you are the most efficient with." And I honestly do mean that.

Then they ask me which one I use...and I answer, "Digital Performer."

[Steve Steele]

As for why Vienna chose MAS over VST3, let's just say "VST" and not haggle over versions. I don't keep up with VST. Someone posed the question; I merely said that only Vienna knows why they made that choice.

Shooshie

Shooshie - VEPro supports VST3 and that's the big deal about Vienna adding MAS support. VST3 has support for 32 MIDI ports. AU doesn't obviously. And if you look at Apple's AU development history (it's on their website), they've basically stopped work on it, which was putting DP in a precarious position.

So, DP users that rely on VEPro (like me), had to use the Event Input plugin for various reasons, but in my case, in situations where I need a lot of instruments in one instance of VEPro. For example when I need to fit LASS (using it's ARC) on one MIR stage, (or at least in one VEPro instance), there seemed to be something wrong with the Event Input plugin under stress.

MAS should be a heck of a lot more efficient. Managing CPU thread usage should become a lot better now too.

[Steve Steele]

My comment about Cubase, Logic and DP being the "big three" is based on Vienna's user base, and the DAW of choice for the folks over at VI Control (based on a recent poll there). So I meant that comment in terms of film composers in general across the globe, not my personal views.

Oh, also that recent Cinesamples video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPTksS6d5lI for new MIDI composers basically points that out.

[toodamnhip]

I would think that because Apple has its own digital audio workstation, they would keep up their progress on the AU specification. Perhaps the AU specification is absolutely perfect with/for Logic and does not need any more work, therefore Apple has stopped making any "progress" on it. But really, because Apple is in the audio business, it makes no sense to me that they don't keep progressing on the AU specification. I remember many people I knew being nervous when Apple bought logic, thinking that Apple is too busy with other things to KEEP up on a good DAW

[Steve Steele]

I would think that because Apple has its own digital audio workstation, they would keep up their progress on the AU specification. Perhaps the AU specification is absolutely perfect with/for Logic and does not need any more work, therefore Apple has stopped making any "progress" on it. But really, because Apple is in the audio business, it makes no sense to me that they don't keep progressing on the AU specification. I remember many people I knew being nervous when Apple bought logic, thinking that Apple is too busy with other things to KEEP up on a good DAW

When I was at Apple years ago the one thing that became very apparent to me was that Apple doesn't care much for the app business. Their history is to build apps that show off their hardware, or assist in building a market and then eventually drop the app while others take over. FileMaker, all the Claris apps, MacDraw, MacPaint and most recently Aperture were all built to build up a market, but all eventually were quietly phased out. Currently Apple has two consumer apps of any consequence, Logic and Final Cut. I hear developers grumble about VST3 for various reasons but I also hear them complain about AU because Apple is notoriously uncommunicative.

I was a bit worried for DP when Apple bought Logic but I was glad they didn't buy DP. If Apple let go of FileMaker Pro, which was well developed in its day, then I have no doubts that they'll drop Logic if the winds change. Supposedly Tim Cook was seriously considering dropping the pro market a few years back. Who knows how serious that was becauee the MacPro had to take some time to develop. Still, it wouldn't surprise me. I just want Apple to keep developing Logic just so they'll keep up OSX and CoreAudio!

But one never knows. Apple has been developing an electric car set for a 2020 release date.

[bayswater]

Supposedly Tim Cook was seriously considering dropping the pro market a few years back.

Seems to me he pretty much did, as least as a main strategy. He kept a couple of fingers in the pie, but it's clearly not a priority at Apple.

[bralston]

For what it is worth….Logic is still pretty much coded and updated by the original eMagic guys in Germany. It is not like Apple moved development to Cuppertino and threw a hundred programmers on the Logic Team. At our SCOREcast NAMM dinner (held at the same El Torito the MOTU dinner is just on Sat night every year)…the Logic guys from Germany stopped by to visit. They then left to go to a bar with composer Charlie Clouser who had a lot of things to…um….tell them about their program. Completely true story.

[Michael Canavan]

My time frame for returning to the world of DAWs is 96-2000 DP, then 2001-2005 Logic.
Then back to DP. When I was looking at Logic in 2000 it definitely wasn't considered a 2nd tier DAW by anyone I knew. Most people found it "hard" and DP "weird". Most people I knew were fond of Cubase and Studio Vision. Plus the PC nerd or two being into Cakewalk/Sonar. <Cakewalk was considered second tier until the Sonar version really.
Cubase lost the plot on mac around Cubase 5, and people either jumped ship to Logic or DP, or went to a PC and used Cubase SX. Steinberg was massively surprised at OSX Cubase SX sales and decided to not abandon the Mac version. That's the story insiders were saying anyway.

I do think it was more of a strategic move than anything else that Apple bought Logic over Digital Performer. With Logic they could kill the PC version and compete directly with Cubase, which at the time seemed to be abandoning the Mac platform, and Pro Tool on PC was being heavy promoted back then. DP being Mac only plus Logic cemented Apple as a standard.

Honestly the whole enclosed environment part of Logic, and Apples attempts at dumbing it down made me want something with it's own vision again. What many see as the confusing things in Logic used to be really useful functions, the ability to link open windows in various ways, the Environment etc. Now, although they are there, there are various attempts to make them "user friendly" which have stuck these features in that nether zone between function and user friendly where neither is really fulfilled.

Just a couple points here:

I can tell you that some of the areas that were troubling were:

• • MIDI editing tools (DP's drawing tools put Logic's to shame)

I dunno man, if you're talking about drawing in the Sequence Editor yeah for sure, But do think the Hyper Edit window can be a lot easier to use and visually is a lot clearer than those tiny tiny lines in the MIDI editor in DP...

• Record beats and adjust beats (mapping the barlines to the performance)

I literally never do this, therefore I'm sure that you're correct about this.

• editing precise phrases in velocities and/or controllers

The Event Editor in Logic, one area where Logic is very obviously better. The selection methods and precision that you can edit in that window I do miss. Plus in terms of velocity you literally click/drag on the note itself with a key command, I kinda miss that.

• multiple tracks per instrument

Yep, Logic is lame in the department for sure, not the end of the world, just not as elegant.
Caveat, a lot of people think DP is annoying when it comes to a single instrument, preferring Cubase etc. with the third way.

• turning off regions to make selections easier and without complications[/list]

Well, that's a preference. The amount of people who complain about DP's lack of regions that act like separate chunks of data VS us who like it that way. I admit at first after coming back to DP I was a bit frustrated, the Song Window only partially does what Logic, Cubase, Sonar etc. do with regions. Now that I've been using DP for a while I get it and prefer that regions don't take up the amount of mental room that they do in Logic.

Logic did all these things, and to someone not accustomed to DP, it probably seems adequate.

[/quote] Well again it's an Apple VS Oranges thing, they're both fructose, and fulfill the same functions, but the experience is vastly different. Your list doesn't include mapping note boundaries to MIDI tracks, MIDI mute notes, the looping functions in Logic, the cycle bar and other areas where if you were a Logic user you would find DP confusing or totally lacking. It's been a while but I seem to recall being able to change the quantize settings in Logic via a key command, you can do that in Live, which has only a handful of key commands. In a weird way I sometimes feel that DP went way too far into the audio part and skipped certain basic MIDI editing functions, at least as far as things like edit grids in key commands go etc.

Plus, the features of DP can and do interfere with various workflows. Track automation is very easy and powerful in most DAWs including DP, provided you don't try to construct a song in the Song window out of various Chunks using VI's with track automation. Conversely track automation is pretty much useless if you construct a song using V-Racks and the Song window.
For some electronic musicians this is a serious limitation that MIDI is the only thing you really have access to in that situation.
This is partially the case with me, I use Chunks and sometimes the Song window until the arrangement of a piece is pretty much worked out, then switch over to a single Sequence. This involves moving V-Racks to Sequences and other project management things that some people would find awkward.


All this is moot in a way though. You certainly don't have to sell me on DP over Logic! I prefer Chunks over a single timeline any day, and DP could slip behind for years and still be way ahead just for that function alone.

It's more like I would say they all have some really great strong points and it comes down to what you can live with being the weak points in a DAW. Stability is important to me so Cubase and Sonar are out. I prefer a less linear approach so Logic and Pro Tools are out. That leaves DP and to a lesser extent Live. I'm happy.

[Shooshie]

I spend a good portion of my time drawing musical phrases. The Hyperedit window in Logic is reputed to be made for that. It's not. It's clunky and hard to tell what you're phrasing. Everyone screamed about how great it is to be able to grab a note and pull its velocity straight out. That's ok for setting a single velocity, but again, drawing phrases? Impossible with that particular method. I can select a note or a phrase and use the Reshape tool in DP (press R, swoop down and drag right over the velocity symbols I want to edit) faster than you can edit a velocity in Logic. Why? Because you have to touch the note exactly, and move the velocity exactly, where I'm just drawing a box that selects the note, then drawing an arc that slices off the velocity (or extends it) without ever "touching" anything.

In the Hyperedit window, you had to line up the windows between the controllers and the notes before you could put them all together and see what you were phrasing. Once you get a certain distance removed from the notes, you lose accuracy. People complain about DP's "mess" of controllers, but I have never had much trouble with it. I keep the active controllers in the legend, so that they have different icons and I can tell them apart. Then by clicking one and clicking Quickfilter, it's there to edit, all by itself. You can scroll the notes down to get them right next to the controller, so that you can get the bowing and breaths precise on an ƒp or sfz.

DP actually does regions pretty well in the Tracks Overview window, but you have to set it up for the optimum phrases you're working with at the time. There are methods for that. And you can do range selections vs. event selections, or override the grid when selecting and/or dragging. Then there are horizontal range vs. X/Y range selections. (Ranges within one track vs. many tracks) Those are easy to do in the TO window if you know how.

Then there are many transport tricks in DP that may exist in Logic:
• DP will start at and rewind to the point where you click it.
• DP will start and stop within the range you drag.
• DP will do A/B comparisons of material separated by distance, such as the first bars of two different bridges. This is easy, going back and forth being as simple as adding the option key to the spacebar when hitting play. But not everyone knows how to do that.
• You can hit a key while playing, and DP will return to that spot when you hit Stop.
• DP will audition any selection, through plugins and fx, as it will sound in the mix, or you can audition one line, a few notes... whatever you select. It's fast. No need to fool with regions when you just want to hear a few notes.
• It's easy to select MIDI notes in DP, then move them, delete them, cut&paste, or whatever, with their controllers in tow. Controllers notoriously are difficult to keep aligned with notes when editing, but a method available in DP makes that not just possible, but fast and easy.
• Search makes it possible to pull up every occurrence of a rhythmic figure or just about any other figure, for editing, moving, or whatever you want to do with it. Saved searches make the next time super-fast.
• You can create realistic vibrato using the DP drawing tools in just a few seconds, even experimenting with skewing it (where up or down moves faster than its opposite), shape, timing... anything. It happens so quickly in DP, just by knowing the modifier keys you use while dragging out a wave.
• DP's drawing tools are just better than Logic's.

I need to quit talking about this, but I also need for you to know that I'm not ignorant of how Logic works. Or at least, I wasn't many years ago when I was USING Logic. I didn't miss something. No, I used it and learned it and the evidence was right there in front of me: Logic isn't the MIDI editor that DP is. For certain things, I'm sure it's outstanding, especially when working with loops. Not for creating and editing musical lines, which is what I do.

Shooshie

[James Steele]

I guess I'm weird. I can't figure out why someone would find DP "weird." It's pretty much built on a multi-track tape sort of idiom, isn't it? Seems simple enough. Oh well... that's why there are different DAWs.

[bayswater]

I think it's a leftover from when DP had a unique interface pre-OS X, only used SD2, used that weird plugin format, and had a window for everything. If I look at a screen shot of DP 4/5 now, it does look weird.

[Shooshie]

I think it's a leftover from when DP had a unique interface pre-OS X, only used SD2, used that weird plugin format, and had a window for everything. If I look at a screen shot of DP 4/5 now, it does look weird.

That was the style of the day. Fifteen years ago, I operated DP in a shootout with another popular DAW of the year 2000, Soundscape, which DP won unanimously among a panel of Las Vegas professional musicians, directors and soundmen. The final result was of course interesting, but the most interesting part to me was noticing that as we recorded and mixed our exactly similar tasks on our respective computers, the guy on Soundscape took 3 to 5 times longer to do every single task. He was opening windows and dialogs, or waiting on disks to write, where I was just pushing a button or two, or hitting OK on something that popped up.

DP was obviously streamlined by comparison with Soundscape, which was more typical of most DAWs. Of course, Soundscape was PC based, which already put it at a disadvantage. I remember thinking at the time that DP's windows were all visible or easily accessed with window sets. Dialogs were minimal, and controls were almost always just a menu away. It was always designed for speed and efficiency.

In 2000, Native Audio was just arriving on the pro scene. Prior, computers had been too slow and hard drives too small. Misinformation was rampant. The guy who organized the shootout was a top-rated sound guy who just wanted to see which DAWs were the real deals, and which were products of marketing. The rules were simple: do your own work (no macros), and native audio (no sound enhancement). All things were equal: we received the same mic feeds, and our output fed to the same interface and convertors, same amp and output. Soundscape wasn't bad, but it was slow to use and DP simply topped it both in use and output.

Radiogal, from this forum, had the same experience in Sweden, when she competed in a shootout with the best pro DAWs. DP was not well known where she is, and the panel was surprised that it won (unanimously, too).

People pick apart DP for odd reasons, but the basics — creating and editing your work, and outputting it to final form — are fast and effective. MAS audio engine was designed to be the best, not just another entry in the game. When you understand the culture around MOTU, which I came to know through the products and through glimpses over 30 years, you realize that it's always going to have the top engineering, and the musician influences will always keep the design in line with musical thinking. I can't say it's the only company with great engineering and musical influence, but from using or observing some DAWs I can only conclude that their programmers thought musicians should learn to think like them, rather than vice-versa, which became the downfall of using their apps. They aren't made for people whose training is in coaxing a very finely crafted musical line out of a box of hammers and string, or a pipe with a vibrating cane strapped to one end. DP is.

Shooshie

[bayswater]

I think it's a leftover from when DP had a unique interface pre-OS X, only used SD2, used that weird plugin format, and had a window for everything. If I look at a screen shot of DP 4/5 now, it does look weird.

That was the style of the day.

How do you mean? Most Mac apps at the time, and even now, just used the standard OS windows and tools to manage them. DP had additional buttons, menus and extra doodads on its window frames. These windows were lilely very useful to long term experienced users, but made it difficult for new users to transfer learning from other applications. That's what I think would lead to the "weird" label.

I suspect Apple made it difficult to customize windows the way MOTU had done when they went on a Branded Look And Feel crusade with OS X. And so we got DP 6 that looked like any other app (and therefore was not "Weird") An interesting exception now is Apple itself which still uses their "pro" theme for a couple of their "pro" apps, incorporating low contrast grey on grey, miniscule menu bars, and tiny buttons. The new Weird.

[bralston]

I think it's a leftover from when DP had a unique interface pre-OS X, only used SD2, used that weird plugin format, and had a window for everything. If I look at a screen shot of DP 4/5 now, it does look weird.

Sound Designer 2 files were created by DigiDesign as the standard for Pro Tools at the time. So using SD2 files (as flawed as they were)...was the "industry standard". Using MAS for the plugin architecture was no more weird for a MAC than Pro Tools RTAS as well. I think for the time...DP was well suited to compete with top DAWs at the time. And has since evolved appropriately and thankfully.

[bayswater]

I think it's a leftover from when DP had a unique interface pre-OS X, only used SD2, used that weird plugin format, and had a window for everything. If I look at a screen shot of DP 4/5 now, it does look weird.

Sound Designer 2 files were created by DigiDesign as the standard for Pro Tools at the time. So using SD2 files (as flawed as they were)...was the "industry standard". Using MAS for the plugin architecture was no more weird for a MAC than Pro Tools RTAS as well. I think for the time...DP was well suited to compete with top DAWs at the time. And has since evolved appropriately and thankfully.

I'm think here of people using Cubase 4 and Logic 5 looking at DP. I'm not trying to explain why DP is weird. It isn't. But why would these people think DP was weird? When I started looking at DP as an alternative, these were the things that came up in discussion groups. Most of the arguments were uninformed, things like the claim SD2 can only work at 16 bits.