DP Market Share? Anyone know?

[Michael Canavan]

My very simple and uncomplicated reason for DP falling behind Logic, Cubase, Sonar, Live etc. is that DP is the last DAW out there that is not in the least object oriented in the MIDI sequencing department. The Track Overview seemingly arbitrarily decides for you where the breaks in the MIDI will be, and fo many of us who edit our songs, this is frustrating.
I started off in DP, switched to Logic in 02, and picked up a copy of Live, of the three DP is the most frustrating to work with when you want to arrange MIDI phrases in the Track Overview or Sequencer windows. Compared to Logic, it's arcane.
Now don't get me wrong, in terms of audio, and editing track automation DP is superior.... except that DP only records audio in SDII................ but, if you guys want to know why young people are more attracted to Logic, or Live than DP, take a look at a pure MIDI sequence in the Sequencer window; notice how busy and messy it look compared to object oriented DAWs like Live or Logic.

[Shooshie]

Funny, that's exactly one of the main reasons I LIKE DP and think its MIDI is superior to all the others. But I grant that I'm coming from a different way of working that has to be learned, and people starting out certainly do look at those easy-to-grab phrase-bars or whatever you call them in Logic, and it does seem easier to them. If that's the only thing keeping people from trying DP, then by all means make it an option. I feel very restricted by those things, though. I use the command-key in the Tracks Overview Window to override the phrase blocks. There are more keyboard shortcuts, but I won't go into them here. As I said, it has to be learned. And I'm learning that the less people have to learn, the more they like an app.

Shooshie

[blue]

••¦if you guys want to know why young people are more attracted to Logic, or Live than DP, take a look at a pure MIDI sequence in the Sequencer window; notice how busy and messy it look compared to object oriented DAWs like Live or Logic.

You make a good point. I think this reaction might reflect a different way of thinking about musical arrangement in general, one informed by growing up around computers and their non-linear approach to things. In that context, DP does look like it's stuck in another paradigm.

I learned sequencing with DP, so it follows that I'm pretty comfortable with its approach. But, I'm always excited when there is some kind of breakthrough in the way we process information. I have no doubt MOTU could take MIDI to the next level if they tried.

[rcannonp]

Funny, that's exactly one of the main reasons I LIKE DP and think its MIDI is superior to all the others. But I grant that I'm coming from a different way of working that has to be learned, and people starting out certainly do look at those easy-to-grab phrase-bars or whatever you call them in Logic, and it does seem easier to them. If that's the only thing keeping people from trying DP, then by all means make it an option. I feel very restricted by those things, though. I use the command-key in the Tracks Overview Window to override the phrase blocks. There are more keyboard shortcuts, but I won't go into them here. As I said, it has to be learned. And I'm learning that the less people have to learn, the more they like an app.

Shooshie

It seems that if they could implement something like the ProTools way of dealing with MIDI regions, it might keep everyone happy. In PT you can view MIDI in regions that you can define or just the notes on the track.

The main problem that I have with DP's MIDI region handling is that in the TO and SE windows you have to use different tools and methods for arranging audio and MIDI data. In Cubase(SL1) handling audio and MIDI in the arrangement window was basically the same. You could use the same tools and techniques on both types of data. When you go into the MIDI Editor or drum editor then it handles MIDI like MIDI.

I've never been able to figure out how DP's MIDI phrasings makes any sort of musical sense. I don't care about how many ticks are in between notes. I care about where they fall in relation to the measures of the sequence. If I am trying to work on part of a song, I might click on an 8-bar bass soundbite and set the locators to that, so that I can loop the part to work on it. If I click on my "8-bar" drum loop then the timing gets thrown off because DP ended the region at the end of the last note and not at the end of the measure.

One of the great things about DAWs to me is that I can be the whole band. I'm not a drummer and can't bang out a usable beat for three or four minutes, so I rely on MIDI "phrases". In most other DAWS I can define a main beat, some fills, verses, choruses, etc and then name and color them so that I can immediately identify them and figure out where I might want to put them. In DP everything within the parsing range just blends together no matter how I feel about where phrases should begin or end.

There are a lot of things about DP that I really like and keep me sticking with it, but it's things like these that complicate my workflow and may scare off people that learned on Cubase or Logic or that may want to step up from Garageband.

[Shooshie]

I probably talk too much about this; apparently many people are reluctant to adopt methods I use. But the Tracks Overview window is not intended to serve the same functions as the MIDI windows or the Sequence Editor. The TO is a window that no other DAW has. Other DAWs have something more like the Sequence Editor. The TO used to be the closest thing we had to a graphic editing environment, but I'm talking about 1985 - 1990. The Graphic Editing Window (now called MIDI Edit Window, or MIDI Graphic Editing Window), came along in about December, 1991. Prior to that, we used the Event List to get up close and personal. Audio wasn't even on the horizon. So, the Tracks Overview window was an answer to a way of working that many of us learned on. It still serves those functions better than any other window.

Use modifier keys to circumvent the "phrasing." Or just use ranges. I put the methods in the DP Tips Sheet. Search on "Secrets of the Tracks Overview Window." Use lots of tracks to make your editing go easier. Also, there is the Search feature, which I think a lot of people forget all about, or are intimidated to use it. It's a powerful way of selecting wha you want, and saved searches can be repeated instantly, pulling up the data with the same criteria anywhere. The Tracks Overview is fantastic for merging tracks, copying tracks, moving them, etc. There are some keyboard commands for moving tracks, too. The HOME, END, PAGE-UP, & PAGE-DOWN keys, along with the Control Key, will move the tracks to the top or bottom, or up or down a track, respectively. The HOME and END keys, with Control-Option, will gather tracks together, then you can move them to the top or bottom, etc,. By increasing the resolution (zooming in), you can grab more precise chunks of data, or even grab, say, all the offbeats by clicking on every other block -- which will be half measures or quarter measures, and so forth. The Tracks Overview Window is one of our finest possessions; people just misunderstand how it is used. I agree that they could change the rules for "phrases," because they do seem pretty arbitrary by today's standards. But I'd just as soon be able to turn it off entirely. I like the window as it is, however, and really would hate to lose the capabilities it gives us and the way I've worked for over 20 years.

But if you don't want to work that way, use the Sequence Editor. By using the temporary groups (tap the W key twice to group all visible tracks) you can change the size of all the tracks instantly, and it's good practice to change track sizes often in the SE, as needed. You can also just hold down the W key as you click and drag the track sizes, and then you don't have to tap it again to release the temporary group.

Well, I didn't mean to turn this into a tutorial; just defending the Tracks Overview window. If someone can figure out how to add meaningful MIDI phrase blocks without messing up what we have already, I'm 100% in favor of it. If that will help newer users adjust, I'm more than happy to support it. Just as long as they don't destroy what we already have in the Tracks Overview window; it's a powerful window, not intended for detail work.

Shooshie

[rcannonp]

The main point that I was trying to make before is that most other DAWs let you handle arranging MIDI and audio the same way in their arrangement window. I wasn't really trying to make an argument for any specific TO or SE methods. When every other app you've used works in a similar way, DP's methods can feel like workarounds and telling someone, "It's the way we've done it for twenty years," probably isn't going to help MOTU increase DP's market share.

[Shooshie]

DP's methods can feel like workarounds and telling someone, "It's the way we've done it for twenty years," probably isn't going to help MOTU increase DP's market share.

Probably not. But it's true. Pardon me for knowing my own tools! I've worked in other DAWs, and the very thing that people seem to be wanting in DP makes me quite uncomfortable and slows me down. So... is it more correct to try to make DP work like the others? Or to tell people how it actually works? Should we be concerned that people feel disoriented in DP because it doesn't feel like Logic, and that they don't want to learn the DP way? Personally I say no. I could care less. But if that's the sole reason why DP is losing market share, then feel free to change it. Honestly, I'll support anything that improves DP, as long as it doesn't take away what we already have.

What do I know? Maybe I'm the last one who still uses DP the fast way. Still, when I pick up Logic, Pro Tools, Soundtrack, or Garageband, I don't go to their forums and tell them they've got it all wrong. I just do what I came to do, and leave. Actually, I haven't touched Logic in about 7 years. I've read and studied its current manual, though. I have used all the others in the recent past. Forgive me for being of the opinion that switching to DP requires learning DP's way of working. The time frames -- telling a bit about the history of DP -- are important in my opinion, because they explain how some of these things came to be, and why. People have told me that it helped them to learn DP. If other people take it wrong and think I'm saying "that's the way it is, cause that's the way we've always done it," then I'm not putting the right spin on it. Context is everything, and I don't think one fully can understand the Tracks Overview window without understanding where it came from -- its context.

Marketing and possibly some new features may increase DP's market share. Teaching people how to use it certainly is not going to HURT that market share. Anyone who doesn't want to hear what I say can very easily skip over my posts, but I've got a big mouth, and I shut up for nobody.



Shooshie

[rcannonp]

DP's methods can feel like workarounds and telling someone, "It's the way we've done it for twenty years," probably isn't going to help MOTU increase DP's market share.

Probably not. But it's true. Pardon me for knowing my own tools! I've worked in other DAWs, and the very thing that people seem to be wanting in DP makes me quite uncomfortable and slows me down. So... is it more correct to try to make DP work like the others? Or to tell people how it actually works? Should we be concerned that people feel disoriented in DP because it doesn't feel like Logic, and that they don't want to learn the DP way? Personally I say no. I could care less. But if that's the sole reason why DP is losing market share, then feel free to change it. Honestly, I'll support anything that improves DP, as long as it doesn't take away what we already have.

What do I know? Maybe I'm the last one who still uses DP the fast way. Still, when I pick up Logic, Pro Tools, Soundtrack, or Garageband, I don't go to their forums and tell them they've got it all wrong. I just do what I came to do, and leave. Actually, I haven't touched Logic in about 7 years. I've read and studied its current manual, though. I have used all the others in the recent past. Forgive me for being of the opinion that switching to DP requires learning DP's way of working. The time frames -- telling a bit about the history of DP -- are important in my opinion, because they explain how some of these things came to be, and why. People have told me that it helped them to learn DP. If other people take it wrong and think I'm saying "that's the way it is, cause that's the way we've always done it," then I'm not putting the right spin on it. Context is everything, and I don't think one fully can understand the Tracks Overview window without understanding where it came from -- its context.

Marketing and possibly some new features may increase DP's market share. Teaching people how to use it certainly is not going to HURT that market share. Anyone who doesn't want to hear what I say can very easily skip over my posts, but I've got a big mouth, and I shut up for nobody.



Shooshie

I'm not advocating that anyone have to lose their way of working. Every app is going to have it's way of doing things. I just think that MOTU could make a few tweaks that would make it easier and more familiar for people coming from other apps. Earlier you mentioned the market penetration of Garageband. The engineers and musicians of tomorrow have Garageband installed for free on the Mac that they bought today. For many people, that will be their first introduction to computer audio. When they grow out of Garageband are they going to go to that DAW from the company with the funny name that works differently and has no demo, to Logic which will open all of their old projects, or to ProTools which "all of the big studios use"?

In general I don't think too much about application market share and things like that, but I would like for MOTU to continue to produce and improve DP and not turn into a hardware company.

[Shooshie]

Well, I certainly agree with you about that. There probably SHOULD be some changes that ease the way for Garageband users.

Shooshie

[Michael Canavan]

Funny, that's exactly one of the main reasons I LIKE DP and think its MIDI is superior to all the others. But I grant that I'm coming from a different way of working that has to be learned, and people starting out certainly do look at those easy-to-grab phrase-bars or whatever you call them in Logic, and it does seem easier to them. If that's the only thing keeping people from trying DP, then by all means make it an option. I feel very restricted by those things, though. I use the command-key in the Tracks Overview Window to override the phrase blocks. There are more keyboard shortcuts, but I won't go into them here. As I said, it has to be learned. And I'm learning that the less people have to learn, the more they like an app.

Shooshie

Well the thing is it's dead easy in Logic to merge all objects in a track to one long linear track like DP does, but the only work around in DP to using MIDI data like in Logic or any other DAW out there, is the Song window, and that screws up mixdown etc. In Logic, if I want to look at all MIDI data in a track as a long linear sequence, I simply glue the objects together, or expand the Graphic editor to encompass all MIDI data like you can in DP.

I'm not coming on Unicornation with the intent of just knocking DP, but to me anyway, it's interesting to talk about where the strengths and weaknesses of a particular program lay.
Shoosie, if you've worked in DP for 20+ years, then of course the flow of DP makes the most sense. To me what is frustrating is when DP skips by very noticeable common themes in all DAWs that work very well. This topic opens up the debate as to why DP has a small user base, so of course we should discuss it's weaknesses, not strengths. Personally I'm surprised that people have mentioned the GUI, because to me anyway, DP, Reason, and Logic are much better looking than Cubase, Sonar, Live, Pro Tools, etc.. (I'm sure the requisite "Logic is fugly! posts will start, but I like it better than the others, except DP).
I started using Performer in around 87 with an old mac+ and an Ensonique Mirage.
Every DAW has some sort of workflow glitch or another, something that makes no sense to an 'outsider'. In Logic there are two mixing environments, on track based and one 'engine/environment' based. No real reason for the track based one except they thought it would be easier for newbies. In DP there are basically three song arrangement windows: The Track Overview, the Sequencer, and the Song window, but there isn't a clear reason as to why. There are reasons of course, but there isn't what I would consider a great connection between the Song window and the others.
In 2001 I was working almost entirely in MID and MIDI hardware. I used the song window as a way to separate parts in a sequence. I naturally thought that with the Sequences or Chunks being named 'sequences', that the 'song' window was where you added sequences together to complete the piece, and when I converted tracks to audio etc. I would have to merge Chunks in a Song to mix down. Now with virtual instruments etc. it becomes pretty crazy working this way.
I would love to see some sort of addition to the Song/Chunk/Track Overview that integrated them in a way that made my old working method plausible work flow wise. One simple thing would be to be able to add chunks to a sequence with some sort of visual clue as to the beginning and end of that Chunk, some way of grabbing and moving that chunk of data around the tracks as a single unit, instead of having to specify every time the beginning and end sections of the chunk of data you want to move.
I really do like DP, and think that if there was some sort of way to get a clear image of different parts in the Sequencer then DP would be unbeatable.
(that and allow us to record in more than SDII)

[Shooshie]

Funny, that's exactly one of the main reasons I LIKE DP and think its MIDI is superior to all the others. But I grant that I'm coming from a different way of working that has to be learned, and people starting out certainly do look at those easy-to-grab phrase-bars or whatever you call them in Logic, and it does seem easier to them. If that's the only thing keeping people from trying DP, then by all means make it an option. I feel very restricted by those things, though. I use the command-key in the Tracks Overview Window to override the phrase blocks. There are more keyboard shortcuts, but I won't go into them here. As I said, it has to be learned. And I'm learning that the less people have to learn, the more they like an app.

Shooshie

Well the thing is it's dead easy in Logic to merge all objects in a track to one long linear track like DP does, but the only work around in DP to using MIDI data like in Logic or any other DAW out there, is the Song window, and that screws up mixdown etc. In Logic, if I want to look at all MIDI data in a track as a long linear sequence, I simply glue the objects together, or expand the Graphic editor to encompass all MIDI data like you can in DP.

I'm not coming on Unicornation with the intent of just knocking DP, but to me anyway, it's interesting to talk about where the strengths and weaknesses of a particular program lay.
Shoosie, if you've worked in DP for 20+ years, then of course the flow of DP makes the most sense. To me what is frustrating is when DP skips by very noticeable common themes in all DAWs that work very well. This topic opens up the debate as to why DP has a small user base, so of course we should discuss it's weaknesses, not strengths. Personally I'm surprised that people have mentioned the GUI, because to me anyway, DP, Reason, and Logic are much better looking than Cubase, Sonar, Live, Pro Tools, etc.. (I'm sure the requisite "Logic is fugly! posts will start, but I like it better than the others, except DP).
I started using Performer in around 87 with an old mac+ and an Ensonique Mirage.
Every DAW has some sort of workflow glitch or another, something that makes no sense to an 'outsider'. In Logic there are two mixing environments, on track based and one 'engine/environment' based. No real reason for the track based one except they thought it would be easier for newbies. In DP there are basically three song arrangement windows: The Track Overview, the Sequencer, and the Song window, but there isn't a clear reason as to why. There are reasons of course, but there isn't what I would consider a great connection between the Song window and the others.
In 2001 I was working almost entirely in MID and MIDI hardware. I used the song window as a way to separate parts in a sequence. I naturally thought that with the Sequences or Chunks being named 'sequences', that the 'song' window was where you added sequences together to complete the piece, and when I converted tracks to audio etc. I would have to merge Chunks in a Song to mix down. Now with virtual instruments etc. it becomes pretty crazy working this way.
I would love to see some sort of addition to the Song/Chunk/Track Overview that integrated them in a way that made my old working method plausible work flow wise. One simple thing would be to be able to add chunks to a sequence with some sort of visual clue as to the beginning and end of that Chunk, some way of grabbing and moving that chunk of data around the tracks as a single unit, instead of having to specify every time the beginning and end sections of the chunk of data you want to move.
I really do like DP, and think that if there was some sort of way to get a clear image of different parts in the Sequencer then DP would be unbeatable.
(that and allow us to record in more than SDII)

Ok, let's look at what DP can do.

First, you can choose the type of selection you want in the prefs: Range selection, Note selection, or both. Depending on how you're working, there may be some advantage of one over the other for you. Let's select as ranges for a moment. Just clicking on markers can select a section. That's pretty easy. Do a command-A, to select all tracks, then narrow your range by clicking on some markers, and you've got a chunk of song data. Drag it to the Chunks window. Suddenly you have a new chunk of exactly what you selected.

Repeat that process for any other pieces of song data you want to use as "building blocks" or loops or whatever.

Now, you can assemble songs a••“la the Song window without ever leaving a Chunk. Drag chunks from the chunk window into your Tracks Overview window, and they will go where you put them. That means you can drag a bridge into place, drag a coda onto the end, drag verses after verses...

In other words, you don't need the Song window to do what the song window does.

Working with Virtual Instruments and merging tracks in the Song Window, OR doing it the way I described above, all works great, because you put your instruments in a V-Rack and you don't have to worry about it anymore. You're only dealing with MIDI and Audio tracks. V-Racks remain separate and function just like external MIDI rack gear.

Just some examples out of many often overlooked features. When people say "DP doesn't do this," most of the time it does.


Shooshie

[kelldammit]

actual market share? do people that own multiple daws count multiple times? no clue.
but insofar as improving their share and becoming "hip" again, i'm with david. as far as i'm aware of, dp is the only daw that is ignoring consistent object-based editing and at least rudimentary i/o and mixing controls in the arrangment. this alone makes it seem alien and lacking BASIC features as compared to ANY of the competition. the history of why or how it got that way, and however much sense it makes in that context doesn't mean diddley squat to someone who's just coming from garage band or anywhere else. the recent influx of cubase refugees is a case in point. mr wilder (a cubase refugee himself) concurs:
[quote]The process isn••™t just aural, it••™s visual. ••œWith Logic, you can color code passages, pick up multiple parts and really easily play around with your song structure,••

[Shooshie]

We could use more market share, but that doesn't mean DP is broken or inferior to the DAWs named. Most of it has to do with Apple's purchase of eMagic. There is nothing on earth that you could do to make DP compete with Logic. The playing field is not level. DP is always going to be a niche market for people who prefer working differently. I'd say it holds its own pretty well. Go messing with it, and you create a Logic wannabe, then you lose your established base, and that's the end of it.

DP is what it is, and most of us use it for that reason, not because we just happened to end up with it. I've had many, many opportunities to switch to other DAWs. I've studied their manuals, tried them out, and realized that they would handicap me in some way that was a deal-killer for me. Such is life. DP wins the prize in my eyes and ears. It's what I want. I'll let others speak for themselves.

This is a strange thread. Why do you all even use DP? From what I gather, the people complaining the most almost invariably single out things that just require a slightly different approach, or in some cases things that they are unaware already exist in DP.

But let's take the object oriented thing. How would you implement it in DP without destroying anything that's there? What specific features would you add? What specific options? Would you add a new screen? Are chunks not objects? When you drag a selection into the Chunks window, you get a chunk. That's an object that can then be dragged anywhere into any sequence. Try it if you don't believe me. You can use the song window if you want, but it's not usually necessary. Just drag a chunk into a chunk. Watch what happens.

Does it all really come down to wanting those little blocks like in Garageband, so that you can move your whole phrases of MIDI notes around without having to select them first? Fine, I hope MOTU will add that for you, but I darned sure hope they make it a toggle in the preferences. I think I'd use it often, but I'd probably more often turn it off.


Shooshie

[rcannonp]

But let's take the object oriented thing. How would you implement it in DP without destroying anything that's there? What specific features would you add? What specific options? Would you add a new screen? Are chunks not objects? When you drag a selection into the Chunks window, you get a chunk. That's an object that can then be dragged anywhere into any sequence. Try it if you don't believe me. You can use the song window if you want, but it's not usually necessary. Just drag a chunk into a chunk. Watch what happens.

I think that they could take a ProTools type approach in the sequence editor without being too disruptive to any features or methods that already exist. In PT you can view MIDI tracks as just notes, MIDI regions, or just blocks(?). They could add it in with the drop down menus that are already there.

[toodamnhip]

But let's take the object oriented thing. How would you implement it in DP without destroying anything that's there? What specific features would you add? What specific options? Would you add a new screen? Are chunks not objects? When you drag a selection into the Chunks window, you get a chunk. That's an object that can then be dragged anywhere into any sequence. Try it if you don't believe me. You can use the song window if you want, but it's not usually necessary. Just drag a chunk into a chunk. Watch what happens.

I think that they could take a ProTools type approach in the sequence editor without being too disruptive to any features or methods that already exist. In PT you can view MIDI tracks as just notes, MIDI regions, or just blocks(?). They could add it in with the drop down menus that are already there.

I also like how Pro Tools has little vol sliders and faders available in vaious windows..it makes it easy to adjust without have to bring up a mixer window...Id love DP TO and SE to have that option...sometimes I HATE leaving those wndows to go to the mixing board and I don;t have the screen space to have the multi window set up show the fadrers along with the TO and SE windows.

On the other hand, the multi window capablility of DP is very very cool.