[HN Gopher] What Is the Future of the DAW? ___________________________________________________________________ What Is the Future of the DAW? Author : sowbug Score : 114 points Date : 2023-09-30 12:27 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (djmag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (djmag.com) | smetj wrote: | DAWs just dont handle the jamming part very well ... Rythm | generation, patterns, manual real time tweaking of sound and | rythm ... | squarefoot wrote: | What I really miss in DAWs is a drum arranging tool that goes | beyond scores or xoxo grids. Those are good for editing patterns | in atomic ways, but I'd love something to quickly record new | patterns played on drum pads on the fly, with arbitrary duration, | create a new pattern that inherits parts of the one I just | recorded (to make variations and fills) just by hitting one key | and/or sending a MIDI note from a controller, etc. Then after | having a good number of patterns, I'd like something that shows | them as nodes on screen so that they can be connected dynamically | according to a predefined flow with possible variations triggered | by MIDI notes (pedal switches) during live performances so that | the flow can be altered either by prolonging/shortening a series | of patterns, jumping here and there based on conditions, but the | visual node representation would be vital to have a quick | feedback that shows what is going to happen say 5 measures from | now, for example by highlighting the nodes and flow that will be | followed under the present conditions. | bandrami wrote: | Have you ever looked at Non? It has a recording mode that is a | lot like what you described if I understand you right. | Development is kind of moribund but that can be an advantage in | some ways. | mxmilkiib wrote: | Maybe https://github.com/ahlstromcj/seq66? Spiritual successor | of seq24. | vanjajaja1 wrote: | ableton note phone app might be in the ballpark | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smJZcWwJsOw&pp=ygUMYWJsZXRvb... | IAmGraydon wrote: | Most of what you're talking about is pretty easy to do in | Ableton. | sbussard wrote: | A DAW is an all-in-one tool for composing, recording, arranging, | mixing, and more. There are several factors that make this | coupling necessary - the high performance requirements of DSP, | the lack of better standards, and subject matter expertise. | | To innovate in the space, we need an ecosystem of interoperable | tools which can be used seamlessly to perform the same tasks | reliably. | | I think of the paradigm shift between apache http server and | nodejs. Does the server run the code or does the code run the | server? | | If DAWs switched to the nodejs model, what would be the entry | point? | BryanLegend wrote: | I too have been wondering what the future is for the Detroit Auto | Workers.... | chaosprint wrote: | I have been doing live coding for a while, but DAW is still | important to me. | | I recently bought a Arturia keyboard in order to make some Trap | and pop songs, and I immediately realised how important a | seamless experience is between the DAW software and hardware. | That kind of experience can't be replaced by AI. | | I am sure if Arturia makes a DAW, it would be a great one. | roblh wrote: | DAW version control is one of my dreams. If I could have a really | tight git equivalent for reaper projects, it'd be so cool. | Plugins are, as usual, the biggest barrier there. Doesn't seem | like there will ever be a good way to deal with different people | having completely different plugin collections. Unless someone | makes "Netflix but for plugins" or something. | | The other thing I saw the other day that I thought was cool was a | reverb plugin that uses your GPU. Seems like the next step for | modeling could easily be in that direction. Especially since the | bar there is low, pretty much just the positively ancient UAD | hardware acceleration cards, although UAD themselves seem to be | going the opposite way and pushing native stuff now. | wizofaus wrote: | What would a DAW-diff look (sound?!) like though... Though | surely any sort of XML (or JSON etc.) based format would be | fine for using along with git etc. | kid64 wrote: | Sounds like you're talking about both version control and | project portability, which are different concerns. But with | respect to version control, many systems like Cubase use XML | project files. As long as you don't physically delete any audio | from your disk, basic version control on your machine using git | should be possible. | roblh wrote: | It's true that you can dump a project into a git repo, but | the real problem is diffing. It would be pretty miserable | trying to reconcile any significant changes or conflicts. | What I think would be cool is a tool for auditioning and | merging specific changes that's backed by git somehow. I'm | not really sure what it would look like though. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | In the mid-late 2000's, Ardour (and a couple of other DAWs) | had support for branching undo/redo histories. | | We (Ardour) abandoned it, because the universal experience | of non-programmers was that they had no idea how to even | begin to use this sort of feature. The majority of DAW | users don't come ready to deal with the complexities of a | branching workflow, or even a desire to learn it. | | There is at least one band out of Madison, WI that | uses/used git with Ardour during the height of the pandemic | to facilitate remote collaboration on new pieces. They gave | a talk (and played) at the Ubuntu Summit in Prague last | year. | amadeuspagel wrote: | There are plenty of apps like Figma and Google Docs that | have a kind collaboration and version control that non- | programmers are able to understand. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I was specifically referring to branching workflows, not | version control in general. | roblh wrote: | That's wild, super cool that you guys were trying to make | that work so long ago. I can see how people unfamiliar | with that way of thinking would be completely lost. | Especially in the context of a daw which is basically a | wall of buttons and switches. | | As a very entrenched Reaper user, I haven't tried Ardour, | but I'm glad it exists and continues to exist. Thank you | for your work :) | dharma1 wrote: | Splice actually started out with version control for collabs - | it was called Splice Studio and was killed off recently. Don't | think it ever found PMF (doesn't mean there won't be a product | for this eventually) - https://cdm.link/2021/04/splice-studio- | is-free-backup-versio... | | Turns out their pivot to being Netflix for samples/plugins is | more in demand :) | dleeftink wrote: | Re: point 1, I feel you! Any chance you have checked out Splice | or other rent-to-own plugin providers? It's not quite Netflixy, | but less steep compared to upfront VST purchases. | | [0]: https://splice.com/plugins/rent-to-own | shashasha wrote: | Yeah +1 on version control being a dream. If real, functional | version control for any DAW in the manner it sounds like you | have in mind exists I will start making music with DAWs again! | pdntspa wrote: | FLStudio lets you save a new incremental version with CTRL+N, I | use that as a sort of version control so I can roll back to an | older version of an ideas if needed. Doesn't provide any | equivalent of merging with head or branching or anything but it | gets the job done for my needs. | dleeftink wrote: | What is the future of the rotary phone? The typewriter? The | floppy disc? | | None of these have dissolved completely; the rotary dial, the | keyboard layout, the swappable storage medium still exist, | especially in music production hardware. | | It just takes a company like Bitwig to come along and show how | else these pre-existing interfaces can be modularised and | combined, and some iterations of the Push controller[0] to uppend | the traditional fingering required to play them. | | [0]: https://www.ableton.com/en/push/ | CrypticShift wrote: | Despite (or maybe because of) following this space for more than | 20 years, I would love a (good) book on the inner (recent) | history of the music software industry (= DAWs/plugins). I fail | to find even one book on the subject. Anyone ? | | There is this quote : "To know your future, you must know your | past". I agree the cloud/AI combo is revolutionary, but we also | need to dig a little deeper into the past to understand what is | coming. | eunoia wrote: | Very much agreed! If anyone knows of a good one I would love to | read it as well. | luckyt wrote: | It would be great to see more innovation like AI in DAW tools, | but there are some challenges. The main constraint is it needs to | process in real time, allowing just a few ms to process a sample. | Very few neural methods can work with that constraint, without | it, they can't fit into the standard DAW workflow where you | string together many plugins, each processing the signal in real | time. | | There are some AI tools that work outside the main workflow, like | for mastering after you're done with the DAW. But it's quite | difficult to improve and bring new ideas beyond the typical | signal processing modules without completely revamping the | current workflow. | RecycledEle wrote: | DAW = Digital Audio Workstation. | | I expect the future of the DAW is a Xeon-powered machine from | Dell or HP with Adobe Creative Cloud (CC.) | [deleted] | te_chris wrote: | How can you write this article only interviewing a bunch of | startups? Tim Exile is a very interesting and visionary dude, but | without serious contributions from Ableton or Apple on the DAW | side this article feels a bit listless - none of these others are | real players in the space. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | You might want to consider what that sounds like if you rewind | it to say, 2002. Ableton is a small startup in Berlin. The | dominant DAWs include several that don't even do MIDI. Apple | hasn't yet acquired Logic by buying Emagic. | | Why would expect the next steps to come from "real players in | the space", when the previous next steps did not? | | Look at how quickly Presonus managed to build Studio One to a | crazy-level of credibility (it helps that they hired someone | who had already done it twice). | te_chris wrote: | Because it's not 2002? As you say, music production capable | workstations didn't really exist. To count out extremely | capable incumbents in favour of reporting the opinions of | bandlab who bought Cakewalk in a fire sale and haven't really | had much of a dent from what I can tell seems strange. | | No solid quotes from presonus either. | xcv123 wrote: | > To count out extremely capable incumbents | | The article mentions those "extremely capable incumbents" | are now stuck with legacy codebases. | | > music production capable workstations didn't really exist | | Logic and Cubase were highly capable in 2002. They haven't | progressed much in 20 years. The midi drum track editor in | Cubase today looks the same as the 90s version. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > As you say, music production capable workstations didn't | really exist. | | Didn't say that. They absolutely did! | | It took a small startup in Berlin to introduce the idea | that maybe everything should be tied to the groove, always. | That was not 100% revolutionary (Acid could do some of | that), but it upended computer-based music production | entirely. | | The incumbents are very, very unlikely to have access to | people with a deep/serious interest in "AI & music" | technology (maybe Apple?). Startups in this space are | started by those people. | flipcoder wrote: | I can see VSTs being replaced with AI that will create instrument | sounds or effects based on description text | recursive wrote: | That's just another VST with a different UI. | bandrami wrote: | I'm still getting used to the "new" scene-based model (which is I | guess actually pretty old at this point) but it seems mostly | unavoidable now that Ardour has switched to it in v7. Though I | also think there's a lot of space on the low end of simple | sequencers that the tracker renaissance is starting to fill. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | We haven't "switched to it" - it's an addition, not a | replacement. | | ProTools just announced their version too. | | And yes, this model is roughly 20 years at this point (Ableton | Live started at about the same as Ardour). | bandrami wrote: | Sorry, "switch" was the wrong word there, and I absolutely | love the clip launcher. It's just kind of like the difference | between editing text in a dumb editor vs an IDE or something | like slime; lowering the "cost" of trying stuff absolutely | changes how you think about your music and what you do with | it. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | As long as your music is "in the box", yes. If you're a | classical oud player, not so much. | gizajob wrote: | I wish someone would have put a bullet in Pro Tools two decades | ago... | helloplanets wrote: | I could see this opening up a new way to generate ideas from | which you can start building, or what to add/remove when you're | stumped. Maybe a way to create coherent arrangements from a | curated list of one shot samples and short loops. And I wouldn't | be surprised at all if the automated mixing/mastering services | (of which there has been a bunch for years) take a giant leap | forward because of better technology. | | But in general I'd imagine written language to be a pretty | infuriating tool for describing what you want musically, when the | most interesting parts of music are just about always the ones | that you can't really capture with language. You can kind of | outline things with written language and traditional music | theory, but it's usually just a blurry version of why a specific | piece of music resonates. | | I think that AI tools for music will most likely just stay as | plugins within the more traditional DAW structure. There's only | so many ways to represent an audio file, and a fader that | controls the volume of a track or some other parameter. | | Like mentioned in the article, most of these additions take quite | a bit away from the amount of control the artist has over the | music, and lowering the amount of 'input resolution' in this | sense is a block that's almost impossible to overcome. | BandButcher wrote: | Agree with the text input being annoying and possibly more of | an impedance. Personally i would prefer to speak out the sound | i want (think beat boxing noises) and then have the generative | ai give me an array of similar sounds and then i can just drag | and drop where i want it | | Writing into a prompt feels opposite to the creative process | but as a first pass its a cool tool, kudos | pdntspa wrote: | To be honest, I really like existing tools and workflows and I | don't really want that to change. | | > Open a DAW from the year 2000 and it's highly likely you'll | recognise the vast majority of the features -- both functionally | and visually -- from any DAW you might use today. | | This assertion that "old is bad" really, really needs to die. | Change for the sake of change is bad. I don't see why all these | new innovations can't be baked into existing workflows in a | natural and intuitive fashion. | | But then, in some cases, do I really want them? Like generative | AI for music. I'm not sure but leaning towards no. | matchagaucho wrote: | I like the existing workflows. But I'd really love to GPT- | define reverb settings, song forms, channel inputs, ... tedious | copy-paste tasks. | | A local LLM running on x86 or M2 would be great. But API | callouts while waiting for the silicon/Cuda migrations are fine | too. | plussed_reader wrote: | Nothing will homogenize pop like LLM inspired filters; the | new presets of the dx7. | scarecrowbob wrote: | More or less, this. | | I've worked in a lot of studios with 2" tape or, like Radar or | an HD24. In all of those, the engineer had really great chops. | Functionally, for most "traditional" (I do a lot of folk, jazz, | and country) I just do what they did, and Logic is just a | glorified tape machine + mixer + processing. | | I am still mostly doing stuff in single takes until I like what | I have and then maybe punching in a note or two here and there. | It's a really fast way of working. And the old stuff I have is | quite good: API/Neve front end, AKG/Schoeps mics, genelecs.... | these are all things that have been around a long time, and I | am not seeing any benefits there for anything- they are fast | and easy to use well without a lot of tweaking. | | Like, you could walk into any studio post 1980 and more or less | find things will have a 1-1 correspondence to a modern DAW. | | There is nothing wrong with those tools, and so I assume folks | will keep using them. | | However, I can see a couple of areas where I think that smarter | tools might help. A big chunk of what I am doing already | involves programmed drums, and a smarter "Drummer" in logic | would be an improvement. | | Also I (and a lot of other folks) aren't super stoked about | harmonies sung by one person overdubbing a bunch of lines. I'd | be interested in some workflow where I could, like, sing a | harmony and it would change my voice in a credible sounding | way. | | But as far as workflow goes, I really don't need compositional | tools- I could do most of my writing tasks with a pencil and | notebook. | 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: | Having started music production only in the late 2010s, I was | honestly shocked to see just how similar DAWs from even the 90s | were to the current existing workflows. It feels like you could | teleport a producer from a few decades ago into the modern day | music software iteration and they would figure things out | pretty quickly. | | Of course things are far, far more convenient and faster | nowadays, but the fundamental paradigms are mostly the same. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OaBkvwx7Hw | gnulinux wrote: | Really??? Uh, it's probably my fault but as a hobbyist composer | (day job software engineer) I can personally say that tools I | use absolutely and utterly suck. They're immensely buggy. My | workflow includes: | | - LilyPond for writing the final notation | | - MuseScore 4 for playing around, MuseScore 3 for playing MIDI | | - REAPER as DAW, SFZ plugin for midi soundfonts | | - Audacity for processing WAV files | | - music21 python lib if I need to programmatically process MIDI | (which I commonly do). My scripts using this lib. | | - Kdenlive for video processing | | - Most importantly: my piano Roland FP-30X | | Now among these the only one I don't hate is FP-30X. That piano | is fucking amazing, it sounds and feels great. | | Kdenlive is also not terrible but I don't do a lot of video | processing. Just basic notation videos for YouTube. | | Everything else is incredibly, incredibly buggy. MuseScore 4 is | thrash, almost every interaction I have with it exposes some | bug. REAPER is usually fine but there are pretty annoying bugs | when it comes to MIDI import/export that involves time | signature change. | | My workflow is so dogshit that last month I decided either I'll | write my minimalist tiny notation/DAW tool or reconsider this | hobby. So far haven't been able to do anything major but I'm | confident I'll invest some time into developing my own tools in | late 2023 or early 2024. | | I'm glad people like their workflow. Unfortunately my own | experience with Linux audio processing has been nothing other | than encountering one bug after the other one. | | EDIT: Whoops, don't know why I said Ardour. I never used it, I | actually meant REAPER. Fixed now. | johnmaguire wrote: | > Unfortunately my own experience with Linux audio processing | has been nothing other than encountering one bug after the | other one. | | You kind of buried the lede there... | matjus wrote: | DAWs will need to refocus on managing recordings of live | performances -- young kids are starting guitar bands again, and | in a few years I think we will enter yet another period where | electronic sounds are out of fashion. | | I'd also like to see more music creation nuts & bolts built into | DAWs, like integrated lyrics, a quick way to shuffle pieces of a | song like "bridge" and "verse", visualizations of key center | shifts, chord builders and so on. A lot of that stuff is out | there but it's definitely an afterthought. | spacemadness wrote: | I have wondered when the backlash, or maybe a sidelash, would | start tasking place. I've been into many forms of electronic | music and production since the 90s and right now if I was in my | youth I might reach again for my guitar. Even though there is a | lot of amazing stuff being produced that is not | commercial/festival bound, there is a lot of money in EDM, | probably too much, that would seem to push many people in the | opposite direction away from the corporate driven machine. | duped wrote: | > DAWs will need to refocus on managing recordings of live | performances | | They never stopped | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > a quick way to shuffle pieces of a song like "bridge" and | "verse | | Present in the about-to-be-released Ardour 8 (using a design | very similar to Studio One). | Stinky_Lisa wrote: | PreSonus Studio One has what you're describing. Im switching | from logic pro to a new DAW and so far studio one has the most | of my boxes checked. | jrm4 wrote: | Feels like "what is the future of the word processor" but with | some weird expectation that you're expecting to see leaps and | bounds. | | Look, FWIW, my favorite music making "stack" is | | - Fruityloops (as in, sure I'll use FL Studio but it was pretty | much solid for me when it was called that) | | - Sony ACID. Still unbeatable to me for _quickly_ layering | /previewing multiple tracks of loops | | - Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition. Still much nicer than Audacity. I | don't know why Audacity remains so popular, it's way clunkier | than the above | | Ableton/Bitwig are also fun to play with and I could see them | being indispensable for some, but what more do people _need_ that | you couldn 't theoretically get "incrementally" or "with | plugins?" | tomduncalf wrote: | > I don't know why Audacity remains so popular, it's way | clunkier than the above | | Presumably because it's free, but I'm with you on the | clunkiness. The UI looks very dated. | | I can recommend OcenAudio, which is free though not open | source, and for me offers just the right level of functionality | in a clean user interface. It's very similar to how I remember | the old versions of Cool Edit pre-Pro, which I thought were | amazing bits of software. | taywrobel wrote: | If anyone else is as frustrated as I was with the article | mentioning "the DAW" 73 times without defining once what the | actual acronym stands for, it's "Digital Audio Workstation". | _joel wrote: | DJ mag aint what it used to be. The top 100 is pretty much a | joke to most people who care about music. | tomduncalf wrote: | Yeah the top 100 is super weird, it's all these commercial | EDM DJs but the weird thing is the magazine doesn't otherwise | really seem to target that audience. I don't read it but I | have come across some good long form pieces like this from | them online, so actually I think they are trying to do some | good stuff. | cauthon wrote: | In the same way I don't expect a biologist writing for | biologists to explain "DNA" stands for "deoxyribonucleic acid", | it's probably not necessary for a music producer writing for | producers and engineers to define "DAW". | | Users here probably feel the same way about HTML, FIFO, DAG, | etc | bwanab wrote: | The fact that the article was in DJMag might have been a clue? | dist-epoch wrote: | Defining DAW is like defining SQL. If you need the definition, | you are definitely not the target audience. | BigElephant wrote: | No. The main audience for this article already know what a DAW | is | thr0waway001 wrote: | D'OH!!! | xcv123 wrote: | [dead] | karmakaze wrote: | I wasn't in this instance, but am in general. For industry | folks they probably don't even realize it's not a word-- | surprised it hasn't lowercased to daw by now /s. | vladsanchez wrote: | +1 Feels like they don't care who's their readership. Felt like | they told me: "If you're not in the industry, Google it." | | DAW : Digital Audio Workstation | https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-a-daw | capableweb wrote: | > +1 Feels like they don't care who's their readership. Felt | like they told me: "If you're not in the industry, Google | it." | | Caring about their readership is exactly what they're doing, | just that you happen to not be what they think of when they | imagine the typical reader. The typical reader is already | into music production and with a 99% certainty know what a | DAW is. | | I wouldn't expect every tutorial on "Google's Official | Android Developer Blog" to explain that "JVM" means Java | Virtual Machine, some resources really are for people who | already know a bit about the subject area. | Venn1 wrote: | I've been using Reaper as a digital mixer for live streams and | recording podcasts. Great way to set up virtual channel strips | for everyone and do proper mix-minus so we don't have to rely on | software echo cancelation. Works a treat with netjack2 on Linux. | rcarmo wrote: | No mention of Bitwig, which just keeps adding new features and | modularity. | IAmGraydon wrote: | I want to love Bitwig, but the UI needs serious work as does | compatibility with external controllers like the Novation | Launchpad (which is what I sequence all of my music through). | I'm hoping the next release addresses both of these. | sowbug wrote: | _No mention of Bitwig, which just keeps adding new features and | modularity._ | | Bitwig is mentioned three times in the article. | | That said, I don't think the article author would consider | Bitwig to be substantially novel compared to the other | mainstream DAWs that inspired the sentiment behind the article. | _joel wrote: | The Logic screenshot with "Untitled" is triggering me. | barkingcat wrote: | DAW innovation will only come with inventing new algorithms. | | There needs to be significant number theory and computer science | algorithmic work related to sound and how we represent sound with | data. | | GPU's currently cannot work with sound data in the processing | chain, and multicore is basically just used to scale horizontally | (ie to have more plugins or instruments) | | New algorithms are needed to scale out audio processing, as well | as make use of new hardware types (for example, using the gpu) | sporkl wrote: | It's still pretty new, but people are taking advantage of GPUs | for audio these days: https://www.gpu.audio | bandrami wrote: | The GPU separates vocals and percussion from the instruments on | my DJ laptop (also why has nobody made spleeter an LV2 yet?) | jrajav wrote: | You seem to think DAW makers don't already specialize a ton in | DSP, algorithms, and concurrency - I can assure you that that's | definitely the case, and that innovation and optimization | happen at a very healthy pace. There is significant market | pressure to run tracks and plugins in a highly optimized way. | Several DAWs have a visible CPU-usage meter, and some allow | users to directly configure a process isolation model for | plugins. | | However, audio has a very different set of constraints from | other types of workloads - the hallmarks being one worker doing | LOTS of number crunching on a SINGLE stream of floating-point | numbers (well, two streams, for stereo), that processing | necessarily happening in SERIAL, and getting the results back | INSTANTLY. Why serial? Because for most nontrivial audio | processing algorithms, the results depend on not just the | previous sample, or even chunk of samples, but are often a | rolling algorithm that depends on a very long history of prior | samples. Why instantly? Because plugins need to be able to run | in realtime for production and auditioning, so every processing | block has a very tight budget of tens of milliseconds to do all | its work, and some of them make use of a lot of that budget. | Also, all of these constraints apply across an entire track as | well - every plugin on a track has to apply in serial, one at a | time, and they need to share memory and act on the same block | of audio. | | One thing you might notice is these constraints are pretty bad | conditions for GPU work. You're not the first to think of | trying that - it's just not a great fit for most kinds of audio | processing. There are some algorithms that can run massively | parallel and independent, but they're outliers. Horizontally | scaling different tracks across CPUs, however, works | splendidly. | barkingcat wrote: | Yah these are all well understood, however, you don't get to | nuclear reactors without inventing some new math supporting | subatomic physics. | | Saying that audio has "different set of constraints from | other types of workloads" and giving up on fundamental | algorithm research is just defeatist, throwing in the towel, | and frankly really insulting to human advancement. | | Come on, we need some new algorithms and just saying "whelp | it can't be done" is kind of ... not the hacker spirit. | | It could be that we need quantum algorithms for parallel | processing what previously was thought to be serial. Just | from reading your well reasoned paragraph, I can see we | desperately need fundamental algorithm research in sound | processing. | | An imaginary scenario might to to invent an algorithm to | convert/transform sound/pressure wave information into | another domain, one that is not dependent on serial time, and | then do the operations, and then re-convert it back to the | time domain that we usually associate with sound processing. | Where, within this alternative domain, parallel processing is | possible. | | We do stuff like this all the time in other disciplines. Even | stuff like the FFT was an attempt to transform and make | certain "unsolvable" problem solvable in another form. | | That's the kind of math research that I'm referring to. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Parallel processing isn't "interesting" except as a way to | do things more quickly. | | But for 90% or more of the things people do in DAWs (and | currently want to do in DAWs), current processors can | already do it fast enough. | | So the sort of innovation your dreaming of/imagining isn't | going to come from new algorithms - it's going to come from | people wanting to do new things. | | This is already happening to some extent with things like | timbral transfer, but even there, the most important part | of it is well within current processing capabilities. | | > Come on, we need some new algorithms | | If you don't have a "why", that doesn't make much sense. | Start with "Come on, we need to be able to do <this>" and | then (maybe) the algorithms will follow. | | Necessity is the mother of invention, but so is desire. | What do you desire? | barkingcat wrote: | The desire would be to work with sound artists and | acoustic designers and product designers and engineers to | make certain types of audio spaces. | | A lot of the cutting edge of acoustic research is from | people wanting to make materials and spaces do certain | things with sound. | | For example, this article describes a system that lets | sound through one way This was described in | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-one-way- | street-... ("an acoustic circulator") - the need will | come from things like this. | | And for musicians, artists, and instrument makers to make | use of materials, devices, and spaces like this. That | would be my answer to your question of where the need/why | will come from. | | Imagine needing to write a DAW module to deal with "one | way sound" that results from using an acoustic circulator | in a musical production or a song. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > An imaginary scenario might to to invent an algorithm to | convert/transform sound/pressure wave information into | another domain, one that is not dependent on serial time, | and then do the operations, and then re-convert it back to | the time domain that we usually associate with sound | processing. Where, within this alternative domain, parallel | processing is possible. | | We already do this. It's called FFT, which transforms the | data from the time domain to the frequency domain. You can, | if you want/need to, parallelize frequency domain | processing. There's oodles of interesting audio software | that does this. | | But again, parallel processing is only interesting for | _speed_. And we mostly have plenty of speed these days. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | To be fair, some of the things currently piquing people's | interest are suitable for offline "massively parallel" | processing ala GPUs. Source separation and timbral transfer | would be the first two that come to mind. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | TFA starts down an important path - identifying different | categories of users - but doesn't really get this quite right | IMO. | | There are (at least) four categories of DAW users: | | 1. Professionals who are being paid to make music, and for whom | time is essentially money. Tools that speed up the production of | that music are both financially valuable to them, and also make | their overall lives easier (if done right). | | 2. Musicians for whom making music is a creative act of self- | expression. They are not being paid by the hour (of music, or of | effort), they are not under deadlines, but they do want tools | that fit their own workflow and understanding of what the process | should look like. | | 3. People who just want to have fun making music. Their level of | performance virtuosity is likely low, and the originality of what | they produce is likely to be judged by most music fans to be low. | They want results that can be quickly obtained and are | recognizable musical in whatever style they are aiming at, and | they don't want to feel bogged down by the technology and | process. | | 4. Audio engineers in a variety of fields who have little to no | interest/need for music composition, but are faced with the task | of taking a variety of audio data and transforming it radically | or subtly to create the finished version, whether that's a | collection of musical compositions or a podcast or a move | soundtrack. | | The same individual may, at different times, be a member of more | than one of these groups (or other groups that I've omitted). | | The needs of each of these groups overlap to a degree, but | specifically the extent to which the current conception of AI in | music&audio can help them, and how it may do so, are really quite | different. | | We can already see this in the current DAW world, where the set | of users of DAWs like Live, Bitwig and FL Studio tends to be | somewhat disjoint from the users of ProTools, Logic and Studio | One. | | TFA acknowledges this to some degree, but I don't think it does | enough to recognize the different needs of these | groups/workflows. Nevertheless, not a bad overview of the | challenges/possibilities that we're facing. | maroonblazer wrote: | I like your taxonomy. I fall into #2. | | Logic Pro X is the DAW I'm most familiar with and while not | "AI", it's "Drummer" plug-in is uncannily good. So good it's | indistinguishable from AI. I want more of that. Give me "Bass | Player" and "Keyboardist" and "Guitarist", etc, with all the | options that "Drummer" currently has, to select style/genre, | kit sound, etc. | | Another wish list item: Let me point the DAW to a 4/8/16 bar | section of multitrack original music I've created, and suggest | n number of directions to take it, spitting out each of the | individual instruments on their own tracks, so I can | mix/match/edit. My imagination is limited; that's where I'd | like AI to help. | duped wrote: | There's a couple other taxonomy of DAW users that you're | ignoring, which are people creating audio content that isn't | music. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | See my #4 ... but also feel free to expand the taxonomy! | duped wrote: | I would say that there's a pair of taxonomies, one being of | audio content (social audio, radio, film, multimedia art, | music, etc) and one being of the level of user | (hobby/beginner, student, pro, academic, etc) and the | problem with DAWs are that they generally gravitate towards | where the money is, which are pro users in music and film. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I think that's a solid observation. I just like to add a | 3rd dimension to the taxonomy, which is the relationship | of the user to the finished work (is it for money? is it | for anyone else? is it for fun? is it meaningful?) | because I think this impacts the user's relationship with | the tools. | NikolaNovak wrote: | >> problem with DAWs are that they generally gravitate | towards where the money is, which are pro users in music | and film. | | Is that the case though? | | Ableton and such don't charge per revenue as far as I'm | aware. They charge same whether you are scoring a $500mil | movie or fooling around after hard day of coding. | | And I feel in sheer numbers, latter outweighs the formers | by several orders of magnitude. All forums I've been to | are filled by, at best, "enthusiasts". Thousands upond | tens of thousands of us with some disposable income we | give to synths and software to tinker with :-). | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I think that another axis to take into consideration is | the extent to which audio will originate outside the | computer. The needs & desires of people recording actual | performances on some kind of instrument (even an | electronic one) are going to differ significantly from | people working, as they say, entirely in the box. | delgaudm wrote: | 5. People who record, but have nothing to do with music | whatsoever. For example, I have literally no musical skills | whatsoever, but have at least 15k hours in my DAW. I'm a Voice | actor, who worked hard to customize my DAW to get rid of as | much music making stuff as possible from cluttering my | interface (Reaper FTW) | | It's a Digital AUDIO workstation, not a Digital MUSIC | workstation | paulryanrogers wrote: | Can you share your workflow? I've tried using Resolve and | Audacity yet it all feels awkward and is painfully slow | delgaudm wrote: | I'd be happy too,it's mostly templates: project templates, | individual fx presets, fx chain templates for corrections, | sweetening and mastering, export/render prsets, filename | templates, And lots of keystroke macros that help me speed | up my work. Things like specific keystrokes for punch and | roll, quick edits and ripple delete. It's an amalgamation | of lots of small optimizations. Reaper is also really good | at UI customization, so you can hide grids, measures | ,snapping, and really optimize things. ChatGPT is also | reasonably good at writing Lua scripts for reaper called | ReaScript that can leverage the API for automations more | complex than what you can do with SWS additions to the | immense actions list. If you have something specific, feel | free to reach out directly. I love this stuff. | jimmaswell wrote: | If you're only recording lines, why isn't Audacity a lot more | convenient? | luxpir wrote: | "Only recording lines"? There may be more to it than you | think. | delgaudm wrote: | Audacity is not more convenient. Not by a mile. Voice | actors have tons of workflows that only a DAW can help | with. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I was trying to cover that with #4, but i put too much | 'music-y" stuff in there. You're precisely one of the | examples I was thinking about there. | thegagne wrote: | Any recommendations for #3? Particularly with low barrier of | entry for kids? Something you can use a midi keyboard and a mic | with? | GoofballJones wrote: | Absolutely, REAPER. While it may be a little obtuse to learn, | it is absolutely as powerful as the big guys in music | production such as ProTools. Plus it works on both Windows | and Mac, unlike Logic. | | There is a big community around REAPER also, and tons of | YouTube videos around it. Plus, you can download it and work | with it for free, but after a while, it will want you to pay | for it, which is only $60...but you can keep using it if you | don't (though I would encourage you to pay for it if you like | it). | freedomben wrote: | Works on Linux too! https://www.reaper.fm/download.php | squeaky-clean wrote: | Reaper works on Linux, but a warning to anyone thinking | of trying that, DAWs are all about adding and using | plugins. And you'll need to confirm your favorite plugins | run on Linux as well. | dleeftink wrote: | Some cool (albeit pricey) devices to toy with are the AIRA | compact series by Roland[0]. | | In the same vein, the Novation Grooveboxes[1] offer some | expanded capabilities that don't require a computer. Second- | hand pricing is quite reasonable for both. | | [0]: https://www.roland.com/au/categories/aira/aira_compact/ | | [1]: https://novationmusic.com/categories/samplers- | grooveboxes | throw_m239339 wrote: | Anything "free", Cakewalk, Garageband, Waveform, MPC Beats, | or whatever license that comes with your midi keyboard. All | these are already crazy powerful for a hobbyist. | squarefoot wrote: | Take a look at Reaper. It's a professional quality tool, but | easy enough to get started with for kids too, its license is | very friendly and the trial version isn't limited in any way. | The Windows version always worked for me under Linux using | WINE with very low latency, but they made a Linux port which | is great. If you use the Linux port, you may want to use | Yabridge to load Windows VSTs in a transparent way. | | http://reaper.fm/ | | https://github.com/robbert-vdh/yabridge | JeffeFawkes wrote: | Check out Korg Gadget![0] It's got an Ableton-Live-style clip | launcher that's easy to compose in, and a variety of "gadget" | instruments that produce different kinds of sounds. If you | balk at $30 for an app, it goes on sale for half price a good | 3-4 times a year, usually around holidays. You can hook up | any midi devices (BLE midi or via the USB camera kit adapter, | if not on a usbc iPad). If you've got an iPad with a | headphone jack you can pick up an iRig clone for <$10 that | gets you line / mic / guitar input, too. | | If you've got an iPad that's probably the best start (it'll | run on any iPad 2 or above). It will run on iPhone's but it's | a bit harder to play. There's also a Nintendo Switch version | (it's more limited, eg no audio recording or export), and a | mac version (but it's pricey). Annoyingly, the Mac and iOS | versions are separate, but at least the iPhone and iPad | versions come together as one purchase. | | [0]: https://www.korg.com/us/products/software/korg_gadget/ | schemescape wrote: | Related question: any suggestions on what to try next after | LMMS? | | I was planning to try Reaper or FL Studio. | | My biggest complaints with LMMS are: doesn't support VST3, | can't see notes for multiple tracks at the same time | (although I saw a "ghost notes" patch someone was working on | for this scenario). | squeaky-clean wrote: | Honestly, try the trial for both. Give Ableton and Bitwig a | go if you have time as well. Or at least check out all 4 on | youtube and see if a particular workflow strikes you. | | Unfortunately the open source DAWs don't hold a candle to | any of the paid ones. But once you're paying they're all | pretty solid. It's like asking if you should move to vim or | emacs or jetbrains after starting with Notepad++. They're | all good and everyone will have their own favorite. Many | people also use multiple DAWs the same way people use | multiple text editors. Personally I use Ableton and Reaper | schemescape wrote: | Thanks! Yeah, it's subjective, but I thought the chances | of someone making the same progression (LMMS to ???) on | HN were pretty high. Of course, I left out tons of | context that might have helped (e.g. some people want to | make music live--I do not). | | Really, it might make the most sense to just find music | similar to what I've made (or want to make), and then | ask/research what they're using. Edit: I think that's how | I originally found FL Studio and Reaper, come to think of | it! | tomduncalf wrote: | I believe BandLab is being used in schools to teach music | making now. It's web based, I've not used it much myself so | can't comment on how good it is but may be an easy starting | point | fractallyte wrote: | Back in the 90s kids used a variety of sample trackers on | their Amiga home computers: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker#Selected_list_of. | .. | | Oh, and samples? Kids used hardware samplers to rip or record | their own: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37376675 | | And how'd that work out? The end result was a piece of music | called a _module_ ( "mod"). Strangely enough, I can't find | exact (or even approximate) numbers. A snapshot of the MOD | archive from 2007 had _120k_ mods: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_Archive | | So, yeah, a _very low_ barrier of entry... ;-) | y-c-o-m-b wrote: | Ableton has like a 3 month trial and honestly the stuff it | comes with out of the box is way more than enough to | determine if you want to continue with such a hobby or if | it's not something you'd be interested in long term. The | tutorials are plenty and easy to follow as well. | | I use Reaper as well, but it takes a while to get that | "useable" for modern(ish) music production. The benefit is | there's plenty of free virtual instruments/VSTs to download. | All of them have downsides though as does reaper itself. In | Ableton I can make an EDM track relatively fast given the out | of the box presets - especially synth drums - but in Reaper | using a free VST like HELM makes it kind of a pain to use. | YMMV. | | No matter what you choose, I do HIGHLY recommend downloading | Spitfire LABS though - the free instrument packages are | massive and highly customizable. It's truly amazing. | | Here's some good VSTs for Reaper: | | https://plugins4free.com/instruments/ (when the site works) | | https://web.archive.org/web/20181203014924/http://sonic.supe. | .. | | https://guitarclan.com/best-free-vst-plugins/ | | EDIT: oh also trying to master a track in Reaper with free | plugins is frankly pretty bad for a beginner vs Ableton's | preset limiters and other utilities. The Cuckoos plugins are | messy to deal with in my opinion. | dist-epoch wrote: | Ableton and Reaper are way too complicated for kids. I'd | say they are 14+ software. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Sadly, its the group I pay the least attention to. I suspect | that today or next week, something browser based might be the | best choice, but I can't tell you what. Apologies. | criddell wrote: | Latency matters a lot. I can't see a browser-based DAW ever | being very compelling. | gooseyard wrote: | I'm a heavy Reaper user since I love the experience of | editing with it, but when I'm fooling around writing songs, I | use Garage Band specifically because it has so many great | instruments and sounds, and also because I find I interact | with it much differently than with Reaper or Pro Tools | because of the simplified interface and I don't get sucked | into fiddling with the details of what I'm making. | | Before Garage Band, I used Tracktion (I think its now called | Tracktion Waveform Free) in the same manner. It's been ages | since I used it but if you're a Windows or Ubuntu user I | think it'd be worth checking out. | philjohn wrote: | GarageBand - it's super quick to throw something together, | has a wealth of virtual instruments and the user interface is | in the same vein as professional DAWs, so there's a growth | path if this is something kids enjoy and want to pursue | further. | luwatobil wrote: | I always find GarageBand to be an easy-to-pick-up app that | can be used to generate fun sonic blurbs in a short amount of | time. It has its own limitations, but the lack of complexity | contributes to its ease of use. | [deleted] | criddell wrote: | When I was trying to figure out something on GarageBand I | ended up on YouTube looking for tutorials and was astounded | to see what people are doing with GarageBand on their | phone. They play the DAW itself like an instrument and | build songs in realtime. It was very humbling to see. | robenkleene wrote: | The umbrella topic to this is one of my favorite topics in all of | software and one where strangely we as an industry don't seem to | have internalized its lessons: That the right approach to | building a software program (like a DAW, NLE, bitmap/vector | editor) emerges early. | | This is why these applications have lifespans measured in | decades, and it's extremely rare for a new player to be able | offer anything new, different, and valuable because the design | space has already been solved for the problems these applications | are solving. | | I wrote a piece on this subject, e.g., why, how, when software | transitions do happen for these kinds of apps: | https://blog.robenkleene.com/2023/06/19/software-transitions... | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I don't think this is true at all. For several different | reasons: | | First, "the right approach" to building a software program is | wildly unspecified: it could refer to the UI/UX aspects and/or | the internal design, and these both have dramatic impacts on | long term evolution. | | Second: the "right approach" for "making music" in the early | days covered things as distinct as MIDI sequencers, trackers | and early ProTools. It was far from obvious whether all 3 would | continue to exist or some hybrid would become dominant (that's | actually what happened - early ProTools did not do MIDI; the | eventually archetype for DAWs turned out to be a blend of | ProTools and MIDI sequencers, and trackers were discarded). | | Third: As I alluded to in my comment here about user groups, | the right approach is going to differ for different workflows | and use cases. FL Studio is not used by many audio mastering | engineers; ProTools is not the choice of beat producers. | | Fourth: the goalposts keep moving with increasing compute | power. The current idea of infinitely elastic audio that has | become common among the most popular DAWs would have been | unachievable in the early 2000s. Network bandwidth may have a | similar impact. | | Fifth: the right approach (especially visible today) for some | people who are generally "in DAW space" isn't a DAW at all, but | hardware designs that bypass most of the functionality | associated with traditional DAW design. The Elektron and | similar h/w sequencers of the last 5 years are in some senses | closer to plugins than they are to DAWs. | | Sixth: plugins - the ones associated with compositional | elements (you could say sequencers but it goes beyond that) - | have long been where the innovation has been taking place. | These have evolved quite differently and more diversely than | the DAWs that host them. For many users, plugins are the real | workhorses and the DAWs are just the scaffolding around that. | It would be hard to take a look at compositional plugins and | conclude that the "right approach" emerged early. | robenkleene wrote: | Not sure which point you think I'd disagree with here, I | guess the core thing I didn't add is that yes, the design | space changes over time as computers get more powerful. The | original paradigms have proved to be remarkably durable | though, hence the note in the piece about many pieces of | software being the first ever in their category continue to | be the market leader: | | > I started thinking about this question, of whether software | transitions ever really happen, when I noticed just how | common it was for the most popular application in a category | to still be the very first application that was ever released | in that category, or, they became the market leader so long | ago that they might as well have been. The Adobe Creative | Cloud is a hotbed of the former: After Effects (1993, Mac), | Illustrator (1987, Mac), Photoshop (1990, Mac), Premiere | (1991, Mac), and Lightroom (2007, Mac/Windows) are all market | leaders that were also first in their category. Microsoft | Excel (1987, Mac) and Word (1983, Windows) are examples of | the latter, applications that weren't first but became market | leaders so long ago they might as well be (PowerPoint [1987, | Mac] is another example of the former). | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | In the DAW space, ProTools continuing-but-diminishing semi- | dominance (at least at a professional level) is rooted in | hardware rather than software. When they started, you could | do not realtime audio on the CPU, so you got a DSP box with | the software. The sort of hardware requirement was | invaluable to Digidesign in establishing and locking in | their early users, and it really didn't go away until | sometimes in the mid-2000s when everybody started noticing | that you really could do a remarkably large amount of | processing on the CPU itself. | | So in this world at least, the longevity of the first mover | has more to do with actual and imagined barriers to entry | rather than anything especially good about the software | itself (and indeed, many of its users used to complain | endlessly about the software). | jdietrich wrote: | DAWs haven't converged on a "best" approach. Most use a | traditional linear workflow that's essentially a digital | multitrack tape, but Ableton and Bitwig use a clip-based | workflow that tends to be better suited to improvisation and | live performance. | | I think the factor you're missing is path dependence. The | approach that becomes dominant isn't necessarily "best", just a | stable equilibrium where switching costs are greater than | potential benefits for most users. I'm typing this comment on a | QWERTY keyboard, but I don't believe for one second that it's | the optimal layout - I just can't be bothered to learn Dvorak | or Colemak or whatever. | robenkleene wrote: | Clip-based workflow was facilitated by technology progress | (e.g., Moore's law) which unlocks new design space (similar | pattern to why Lightroom was "invented" so long after | Photoshop). I.e., doing things real-time or non-destructively | as computers get faster is really common, so that happens | then the design space gets exhausted again. The key point | being this happens quickly once the new approaches are | possible. | | The piece I linked to makes all these points, as well as | addressing your others. | jimmySixDOF wrote: | DAWs should be rebuilt from the ground up, component by | component, feature by feature, in 3D for XR(VR/MR/AR) where | ultimately you can see the waveform as it is --- a 3D object | , and interact with it like a sculpture or a Theremin | experience. 2D screens, Keyboards, and a mouse are not the | best fit. | reassembled wrote: | I highly encourage folks to check out a new DAW called | Blockhead. It upends a lot of typical ideas of how a DAW should | work. There's no MIDI events and no global tempo. | | Everything is represented as blocks of samples on rows of | timelines which are then effected by transforms placed on the | rows above the rows containing samples. Edits and transform | adjustments all happen in real time, and everything is | continuously rendered to a scratch buffer that can also be | dragged in to the project as a new block of samples. | | It is truly a very creative approach and when you see it you | will be wondering why nobody tried this approach before. The | developer, Colugo, has a new video on YouTube showing how it's | main features work. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-30 23:00 UTC)