DP12 release date?

[Michael Canavan]

Right... but already nobody wants to type out D-i-g-i-t-a-l P-e-r-f-o-r-m-e-r? So if you're some kid on a forum and you see posts and someone has "DP" in their signature, are they going to even bother to find out what it means these days, given what is probably a dwindling market share? It's my opinion a one word moniker works better than an acronym that is a shorthand that I don't think is as "universal" as we assume. Cubase... Logic... and even Pro Tools are easier to say and easy to write. And even though Pro Tools is two words... it's just two syllables like Cubase and Logic. Digital Performer is SIX SYLLABLES, which is why NOBODY actually says it. Performer is still three syllables. That's pushing it but it works for Nuendo.

I'm just not convinced that these days anybody but the MOTU faithful or "old timer" DAW people know or care what "DP" indicates... and many won't bother to find out. My two cents.

In your own logic though Performer is three syllables whereas DP is two. The world has gotten used to PT being shorthand for Pro Tools, I'm convinced that DP has been a thing long enough that people will get used to it.

The main thing that holds DP back is its slow adoption of modern standards, which has changed recently, but IMO needs to continue. It's really difficult to be the middle kid, and in many ways that's what DP is. It's not as hard to get up and running in as Reaper, and it's not as easy as Live. It's not as kitchen sink as Logic, and its branding is off, or has been off for a while now.

I attend the webinars and for certain it's an older crowd, only a few millennials, zero zoomers. This isn't bad in the greater scheme of things, but the main selling point of a DAW is or has become how easy it is to get up and running, or conversely how extensible it is if you have the skills. (Max4Live, The Grid in Bitwig, the Lua programming language in Reaper, to a lessor extent Logics Environment etc.), DP doesn't really have any of that, but it's also not easy to use like Live etc.

So you have the reputation of the do it all DAW, which IMO is the Logic, DP, Cubase, Reaper level, those IMO are DP's main competitors and two of them are dirt cheap. Cubase managed to remain relevant with a solid PC version when Logic became the de facto Mac OS DAW, and Reaper is dirt cheap for non professionals, and is nagware.

So personally I look at what DP is up against:
Logic- which ships with what was thousands of dollars worth of plugins, has the technological backing and branding of Apple.

Reaper- Nagware, even the full pro price is half what DP is. Is complicated, but the nagware status means you can trial it for years before tossing any money at all at it, so learn at your own pace really. I paid for it when I was capable of using it like DP. It's extensible, it might be ugly, but you can add whatever you want to it if you know some basic code. All this means a large community.

Cubase- At one point it seemed like Cubase was the #1 DAW behind Pro Tools. Always with the new tech, at one point being the developer of VST made them seem the most advanced etc.

In Recent years DP has taken giant strides, all kinds of things that would have really thrown people off like no consolidated instrument tracks, bounce options etc. have changed, they're slowly making Clips like MIDI is in other DAWs. I think the main thing that would bring people in now is integration. I emphasize this because it's important, some things are still just not integrated at all, Clips is a great example, it replaced loops, but it's not become capable of using various editing windows, Event, Drum etc. are still just not useable with Clips. The separate edit window is just, weird. I get it, free range MIDI is still a thing and I want it to be as well, but for the most part it just feels weird and awkward right now. Even the Clips Window is in some other pixel size, not resizable etc.

DP is a Jack of All Trades, 100% that's one of the main reasons I use it, but it's main issue IMO right now is User Interface, and how all of this works together. Someone coming into DP from other DAWs is confronted with a blank slate, and not any clear way to integrate all the parts into a song. People start using it and get confused by the Song Window, V-Racks and Chunks, then Clips and looping parts is another story, not to mention that most DAWs don't have two ways of looking at an arrangement in the Tracks and Sequence windows.

I think if MOTU wanted a larger market share they would worry about the basics for them, so all the modern Atmos stuff etc. sure. More than that would be fine tuning workflows in DP, setting up modern templates for various projects and making short videos showing that workflow. A better sampler than what they added, or some sort of partnership with UVI to make Falcon files save in DP Projects. That and stability with plugins, that is much needed. It's an awkward thing to ship with a limited amount of instrument plugins, and at times be the most unstable DAW with virtual instrument plugins.

[James Steele]

In your own logic though Performer is three syllables whereas DP is two. The world has gotten used to PT being shorthand for Pro Tools, I'm convinced that DP has been a thing long enough that people will get used to it.

That's where we I respectfully disagree. Next NAMM show, go stop some random 20-year-old hipster dude and ask him what DP is? He'll know what Ableton, Logic, or Cubase is... even Pro Tools, but DP won't ring a bell. I just think reverting to Performer is preferably to an acronym that means nothing to a lot of people under the age of 30. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The main thing that holds DP back is its slow adoption of modern standards, which has changed recently, but IMO needs to continue. It's really difficult to be the middle kid, and in many ways that's what DP is. It's not as hard to get up and running in as Reaper, and it's not as easy as Live. It's not as kitchen sink as Logic, and its branding is off, or has been off for a while now.

I had written a very long response about what has frustrated me about DP development in recent years, but I deleted it. I'm just exhausted anymore by the subject. Let me just say that yes, there has been progress. Still there are improvements that would be very meaningful to me personally that I've essentially given up hope on. I guess we shall see what's in store, but my concern is that it's hard to see how a smaller privately owned company can have the resources to keep pace and compete against the deep pockets of Apple, Yamaha/Steinberg or Avid. I hope I'm wrong about that.

[Michael Canavan]

That's where we I respectfully disagree. Next NAMM show, go stop some random 20-year-old hipster dude and ask him what DP is? He'll know what Ableton, Logic, or Cubase is... even Pro Tools, but DP won't ring a bell. I just think reverting to Performer is preferably to an acronym that means nothing to a lot of people under the age of 30. We'll have to agree to disagree

I don't think a name change is the issue. Most all new users of DP will be coming from other DAWs, there are around 20 DAWs at this point, not including the super rare ones, so this is going to be how it works. DP IMO lost a lot of users over the years to things as simple as the consolidated instrument tracks, and the fact DP did not have them. No other DAW I know works like that. There are a growing number of users who do not work with multi instruments, and when you see the clutter that DP would have compared to Logic or any other DAW with just ten instruments, I think that was a deal killer. In fact it was things like that or lack of bounce options, that would be commented about on the non DAW specific user forums.

I had written a very long response about what has frustrated me about DP development in recent years, but I deleted it. I'm just exhausted anymore by the subject. Let me just say that yes, there has been progress. Still there are improvements that would be very meaningful to me personally that I've essentially given up hope on. I guess we shall see what's in store, but my concern is that it's hard to see how a smaller privately owned company can have the resources to keep pace and compete against the deep pockets of Apple, Yamaha/Steinberg or Avid. I hope I'm wrong about that.

MOTU can absolutely keep pace, at least in the areas that count. I think the AI drummer in Logic is fun, but there's something just off about using it for more than practice. Reaper and Bitwig are two other smaller user base companies that do just fine. Right now even DP has a ton of great features, but it needs a unified approach. it's all patched together as of now.

[James Steele]

That's where we I respectfully disagree. Next NAMM show, go stop some random 20-year-old hipster dude and ask him what DP is? He'll know what Ableton, Logic, or Cubase is... even Pro Tools, but DP won't ring a bell. I just think reverting to Performer is preferably to an acronym that means nothing to a lot of people under the age of 30. We'll have to agree to disagree

I don't think a name change is the issue.

I never said it was THE issue. That would be silly. I'm simply saying that it would help and on top of it a rebranding would probably get some mention in the press which wouldn't hurt. Plus... it was originally Performer and I just think it's a better name. My opinion... purely. We can agree to disagree.

Most all new users of DP will be coming from other DAWs, there are around 20 DAWs at this point, not including the super rare ones, so this is going to be how it works.

DP is starting to feel "super rare." Check out any third party plugin site for the list of DAWS their plugins are known to work on. DP will usually not be mentioned or it's "... and others." I'd hazard a guess that FL Studio is mentioned more often than DP these days.

DP IMO lost a lot of users over the years to things as simple as the consolidated instrument tracks, and the fact DP did not have them. No other DAW I know works like that.

Which is odd, because it was arguably a superior method of doing that. Maybe if there were a large selection of tutorial videos on YouTube people would have grasped it... but alas! I remember people coming to this forum and demanding to know why DP didn't work just like the DAW they were coming from. Sometimes things aren't that easy.

There are a growing number of users who do not work with multi instruments, and when you see the clutter that DP would have compared to Logic or any other DAW with just ten instruments, I think that was a deal killer.

I'm only working less with multi instruments because of the whole single core issue and spreading VIs out over separate cores. But yes... there could be clutter which I guess is why MOTU introduced track folders, and I think they might have done so long before other DAWs? But yeah... I could see why some people wouldn't want to have a MIDI track AND an Instrument track. But a deal killer? I guess so. That's sort of the the "I-demand-this-DAW-work-like-my-old-one" attitude. I've played with Cubase a little bit. I sure wish it was exactly like DP sometimes. Doubtful they'll change it now to suit me, but they don't have to as they're probably in a better position right now.

In fact it was things like that or lack of bounce options, that would be commented about on the non DAW specific user forums.

That may be true. But then again, DP bashing has been a favorite pastime in online forums for ages it seems.

MOTU can absolutely keep pace, at least in the areas that count.

Well I guess one problem is that "the areas that count" is subjective, isn't it? Who knew consolidated Instrument tracks was an area that counted and MOTU would miss out on so many users because of that, as you suggest. I'm not too thrilled these days because one of the areas that count... TO ME... is proper and robust Eucon support and decent support for outboard hardware that isn't buggy and doesn't require me, upon re-openign a project, to re-visit every instance of the Hardware Insert Plugin and refresh the sample offset. But what do I know? I just want these things to work as well in DP as they do in every other Mac DAW I own.

[muxlow]

Is there an official feature request path with Motu?

https://motu.com/en-us/suggestions/

Thank you!

[muxlow]

In general DP is ... capable of anything but because of that, it's like wading through mud to get some basic things done.

I've really been feeling this lately. I have ~20 years in Digital Performer and even with my templates and experience in the app, if I'm not using it at least once a week, the next time I open a session, I will almost certainly have 30 minutes of troubleshooting to figure out some god damn routing issue or something.

This is half my fault because I added an analog mixer to my rig a while back but it is just so frustrating to be all jazzed up to work on music and hit the wall of technology that needs to be understood/fixed/restarted/updated/troubleshot, etc.

And like Adobe products, I don't use 90% of DP's features. I don't need 800 ways to tweak MIDI. I don't use autotune. I don't use crazy MIDI controllers. I just want to program some drums, record some audio, route the audio through V-Racks for processing, and work on multiple songs in a single session so the mixes are the same (DP's killer feature for me).

Lé sigh.....

[stubbsonic]

James makes valid arguments toward the "Performer" name change.

At a certain point, however, "Digital" is less a dated adjective, and is rather a link to the past, with implications about the software's maturity. "Digital" originally differentiated the version which added audio, from the MIDI-only "Performer"; harkening back to the transition in the 90s from analog multitrack studios to all-digital ones. The names DP and Digital Performer are links to that storied history. A name change might imply something apologetic about that heritage.

DP has name recognition in many circles, and a name change would come at a temporary cost that might not be worth the bother. "Performer" might be a sight move forward wrt those unfamiliar with the lineage, or a drastic move backward to those who are familiar. A casual shopper might think that "Performer" was a plug-in host designed to help live performers with VI's & live effects (which it is). Of course, "Digital Performer" doesn't necessarily dispel that impression. An older user might think, "Wait, this isn't the OLD software is it? I want the current one."

Pro Tools is hilariously non-specific. They could just be called "Tools" (which, I might agree with in more than one sense).

Fruity Loops was a playful name/logo, and they retained their brand recognition by abbreviating to FL Studio.

I guess there could be a kind of side-interpretation that we use the digits of our hands to manipulate the keys & mouse/trackpad to perform all these operations.

(When I was in school, DP was a thing bullies did.) Sad-with-pants-around-ankles-emoji.

[mikehalloran]

Who remembers that Reason Studios used to be called Propellerhead?

[stubbsonic]

Who remembers that Reason Studios used to be called Propellerhead?

I loved that name!

[Michael Canavan]

DP is starting to feel "super rare." Check out any third party plugin site for the list of DAWS their plugins are known to work on. DP will usually not be mentioned or it's "... and others." I'd hazard a guess that FL Studio is mentioned more often than DP these days.

FL Studio is very arguably the most used DAW out there. Image Line unlike most companies mention their download counts per day and it's impressive. We're not in that wheelhouse, so it's hard to fathom, but step sequencer mouse input DAWs like FL are very popular.

DP IMO lost a lot of users over the years to things as simple as the consolidated instrument tracks, and the fact DP did not have them. No other DAW I know works like that.

Which is odd, because it was arguably a superior method of doing that. Maybe if there were a large selection of tutorial videos on YouTube people would have grasped it... but alas! I remember people coming to this forum and demanding to know why DP didn't work just like the DAW they were coming from. Sometimes things aren't that easy.

There are a growing number of users who do not work with multi instruments, and when you see the clutter that DP would have compared to Logic or any other DAW with just ten instruments, I think that was a deal killer.

I would argue that using non consolidated instrument tracks makes perfect sense with V-Racks, and if you want that method you can still use V-Racks, but V-Racks get rid of plugin automation as an option, leaving only MIDI CCs. Since it doesn't look like MOTU can fix V-Racks to work with plugin automation, it really doesn't offer much for someone to have to use two tracks for Diva etc. Plus V-Racks still work, it took absolutely nothing away to have consolidated instrument tracks, and flatly IMO it's just testament to the fact that people are getting old and set in their ways that it has such blowback.

I'm only working less with multi instruments because of the whole single core issue and spreading VIs out over separate cores. But yes... there could be clutter which I guess is why MOTU introduced track folders, and I think they might have done so long before other DAWs? But yeah... I could see why some people wouldn't want to have a MIDI track AND an Instrument track. But a deal killer? I guess so. That's sort of the the "I-demand-this-DAW-work-like-my-old-one" attitude. I've played with Cubase a little bit. I sure wish it was exactly like DP sometimes. Doubtful they'll change it now to suit me, but they don't have to as they're probably in a better position right now.

I would agree, but every single other DAW works with consolidated instrument tracks, it's not Mac VS PC, the rest of the market moved on and DP had not. This IMO is also not a Betamax VS VHS situation, there's nothing inherently better about MIDI separate from virtual instruments, in fact the arguments against it stack much higher.

MOTU can absolutely keep pace, at least in the areas that count.

Well I guess one problem is that "the areas that count" is subjective, isn't it? Who knew consolidated Instrument tracks was an area that counted and MOTU would miss out on so many users because of that, as you suggest. I'm not too thrilled these days because one of the areas that count... TO ME... is proper and robust Eucon support and decent support for outboard hardware that isn't buggy and doesn't require me, upon re-openign a project, to re-visit every instance of the Hardware Insert Plugin and refresh the sample offset. But what do I know? I just want these things to work as well in DP as they do in every other Mac DAW I own.

Yeah third party partnerships or integration is a sore spot here too. You're righteously pointing out that the HW FX plugin is busted, they don't even have a HW instrument plugin. In terms of control surfaces they did a good job with the Novation Launchpad here and the KK88 SL MKII. both of those are working great. This is another area that DP could truly improve in, Reaper and Bitwig being lesser DAWs (than IMO the big five Logic, Cubase, FL, Live, PT), have integrated simpler programming languages and likely hired guys like Moss to offer super robust control surface support. His extensions for those two DAWs even include a "Generic Flexi" control surface that allows you to assign your own choices to a control surface.

I think it's important to mention this as well, on July 7th it will be three years since DP11 came out. The average time between releases is around 2 years 11 months. I'm that dork that averaged the times between releases. So in not at all untypical fashion, we're all getting restless. I would be absolutely shocked if DP12 didn't hit in the next 6 months, likely closer to 3.

[cuttime]

I think MOTU has already taken the first step to rebranding - Performer Lite.

[Michael Canavan]

Who remembers that Reason Studios used to be called Propellerhead?

I think they made a mistake in changing. It was nicely playful that the DAW has a sober name, but the company was drunk. Reason 13 just came out, and nobody is happy with it. Reason has had a harder time modernizing than DP.

IMO MOTU should have reverted back to Mark Of The Unicorn in recent years, or at least released the vintage unicorn shirt. That mythical creature seems really popular among Millennials and Gen Z.

[James Steele]

James makes valid arguments toward the "Performer" name change.

At a certain point, however, "Digital" is less a dated adjective, and is rather a link to the past, with implications about the software's maturity. "Digital" originally differentiated the version which added audio, from the MIDI-only "Performer"; harkening back to the transition in the 90s from analog multitrack studios to all-digital ones. The names DP and Digital Performer are links to that storied history. A name change might imply something apologetic about that heritage.

DP has name recognition in many circles, and a name change would come at a temporary cost that might not be worth the bother. "Performer" might be a sight move forward wrt those unfamiliar with the lineage, or a drastic move backward to those who are familiar. A casual shopper might think that "Performer" was a plug-in host designed to help live performers with VI's & live effects (which it is). Of course, "Digital Performer" doesn't necessarily dispel that impression. An older user might think, "Wait, this isn't the OLD software is it? I want the current one."

Pro Tools is hilariously non-specific. They could just be called "Tools" (which, I might agree with in more than one sense).

Fruity Loops was a playful name/logo, and they retained their brand recognition by abbreviating to FL Studio.

I guess there could be a kind of side-interpretation that we use the digits of our hands to manipulate the keys & mouse/trackpad to perform all these operations.

(When I was in school, DP was a thing bullies did.) Sad-with-pants-around-ankles-emoji.

Of course, I'm familiar with the history, and indeed Performer is a link back to an even more distant past. "Digtal"" was an add-on to acknowledge what was then a novelty. Wow! It does digital AUDIO, too! Today, that's a yawner. All I can say is that Digital Performer is such a PITA to both say and type and nobody does. Not even on this board. DP this and DP that. And not that many people know what the hell you're talking about except people already somewhat familiar with the app or with MOTU.

And the re-branding from Mark of the Unicorn and the cool a somewhat artsy and cool unicorn logo (I remember in junior college when I first heard "Mark of the Unicorn" it was intriguing) to a corporate, block style "MOTU" which seems completely devoid of personality is another issue. LOL

[James Steele]

I would argue that using non consolidated instrument tracks makes perfect sense with V-Racks, and if you want that method you can still use V-Racks, but V-Racks get rid of plugin automation as an option, leaving only MIDI CCs.

And as someone who pretty much just works on songs and one chuck per project, a non-consolidated approach without using V-Racks is just as viable... in my world.

I would agree, but every single other DAW works with consolidated instrument tracks, it's not Mac VS PC, the rest of the market moved on and DP had not. This IMO is also not a Betamax VS VHS situation, there's nothing inherently better about MIDI separate from virtual instruments, in fact the arguments against it stack much higher.

I would say, honestly, the flexibility of having that as an option is an advantage. But yes... by all means... MOTU should continue putting a metaphorical finger in the air to detect which way the wind is blowing (whether it's adding guitar stomp boxes and modelers like they did years ago, or trying to out-Ableton Ableton) and chase the rest of the pack. That's all well and good, but I hope it doesn't come at the expense of shoring up what is already great about the app.

MOTU can absolutely keep pace, at least in the areas that count.

You're righteously pointing out that the HW FX plugin is busted, they don't even have a HW instrument plugin.

It's a real mess. Let me put this bluntly, without sounding too alarmist. I've spent thousands in the past year on quality outboard analog gear (not to mention my Avid S3). At some point, if MOTU doesn't fix those issues so I can have an enjoyable experience using the gear I want to use within DP, I will probably start doing more work in a different DAW in which the things that are important to ME... do work as they should. I keep hoping for MOTU to address these issues. Sadly... I *will* probably get ATMOS support first... (along with the period where they work out the issues)... and ATMOS means nothing to me personally.

I think it's important to mention this as well, on July 7th it will be three years since DP11 came out. The average time between releases is around 2 years 11 months. I'm that dork that averaged the times between releases. So in not at all untypical fashion, we're all getting restless. I would be absolutely shocked if DP12 didn't hit in the next 6 months, likely closer to 3.

I know nothing about their timetable, but it is concerning to me that when most of the other players have come back to the NAMM show... MOTU has not. Maybe they will return in January and maybe that will be when we see a DP12 drop. Honestly, I'm a big exasperated given my desired workflow and how DP no longer accommodates it very well and I'd gladly settle for a DP11 in which the features that I need actually work properly!

[James Steele]

I think MOTU has already taken the first step to rebranding - Performer Lite.

That might be the case. The could have gone for Digital Performer Lite, I suppose? Hmmmmm