2024: Which DAWs / apps do you prefer for work with orchestral libraries, *and why*?

Vik said:

Click to expand...

In fairness, S1 has this also. and to a lessor extent so does DP11 when using MPE midi. But Cubase's implementation is really good, because NoteExpression is a fundamental part of the VST3 api, to a degree that pretty much Steinberg is the only plugin developer even making plugins that fully support it, but anyway that is Steinberg's utopian dream that someday the whole world will embrace VST3 in all its glory, including NoteExpression...but so far, I think really Cubase is the only DAW that fully supports VST3 Note Expression..and their plugins are probably the only plugins making full use of it... though I think S1 has some NoteExpression features also and as does DP11...in a bit more agnostic way...not dependent on VST3...but also dependent on MPE in the case of DP11. I haven't ever played with it, it's not easy enough or intutive enough to figure out and use. But personally I think NoteExpression could be very cool thing to use if it were more prevalent, particularly VST3 plugins need to make complete use of it...then Cubase would be quite a star in that regard.

But note that a huge number of VST3 plugins out there, are not coded from scratch as full featured native VST3 plugins. The vast majority of the time they are coded in a form that will translate easily to VST2, AU2, VST3 and perhaps AU3. People using wrappers built into the plugin to present their plugin to the DAW as a VST3 format, but internally its just some common code that will address the features and capabilities of all the main plugin formats...hardly anyone has coded from scratch VST3 plugins because the VST3 sdk is super complicated and also that is counter productive for also outputting AU (and even VST2) from the same code base. maybe someday the world will get there where everyone is coding VST3 plugins using all its advanced features like NoteExpression, but after 10 years, we are still nowhere even close to that....so... Really those feature is mostly being overlooked by most people.

Berdinskikh said:

Here (and onward) you go. This concept allows articulation management to be highly efficient, especially in terms of space, required in MIDI editor in order to observe it and make input. Not to mention Cubase Expression maps are fully integrated with the Score editor, which is perfectly fine on its own once fully understood and learned.

Click to expand...

Dewdman42 said:

But anyway to answer @Vik, the way the cubase expression map concept is designed is good and bad. it's good in terms of flexibility, but bad in terms of utility. some of the tricks that can be done with it are so cumbersome to do, that its barely worth the time and energy to do it...and not immediately intuitive either.

Click to expand...

Thanks, both of you! I had a look at the Group thing. In terms of legato (connected) and staccato (disconnected), I'm all for simple solutions, and as we know – most libraries are based on playing style: if two notes are overlapping each other (or, for some libraries, have a really short gap between them), legato transitions are triggered, and if not, they are not. Some libraries also have a legato of/off switch, which can be automated, so personally, I'm still not sure if the groups would be needed for me. Besides, I never want to go into left brain stuff when I make music (done that to much in the past) – so I don't even want to create expression maps/articulation sets, as long as Art Conductor is actively being updated.

@Berdinskikh: I assumed that all expression map/articulation set solutions were integrated with score editors (?), but maybe they aren't. Personally, I want to switch over to write 4- or 5 voice polyphony on one track (at least in the beginning of a new composition), and that's why Logic's ability to define articulations on a per-note basis is important to me. This means that the basses can play staccato on a track at the same time as the cellos play legato on the same track, even if the notes start at exactly the same position. AFAIK Cubase doesn't have that yet.

Other DAWs than Logic may do this as well, but I'm most familiar with Logic and have only had a short period of experiments with Cubase a few years ago. I've heard Cubase has been simpler to use since then, at least in some areas. I trust Dewdmans comment about "VERY cumbersome to program", and personally I wouldn't reconsider even if Cubase all of a sudden would become better than Logic in several important areas: I know Logic to well to do that.

Dewdman42 said:

LogicPro is the best value out there. In the long run perhaps even cheaper than Reaper! It also has arguably the simplest learning curve and plenty of power for a lot of use cases.

Click to expand...

The learning curve thing is IMO also important after one has learned a deep (complex) program, for the same reason: if something is easy to learn, it's also usually easier to operate a decade or three after you learned it. For me, it's important to shun away from any kind of nerd mode when making music.

Vik said:

Thanks, both of you! I had a look at the Group thing. In terms of legato (connected) and staccato (disconnected), I'm all for simple solutions, and as we know – most libraries are based on playing style: if two notes are overlapping each other (or, for some libraries, have a really short gap between them), legato transitions are triggered, and if not, they are not. Some libraries also have a legato of/off switch, which can be automated, so personally, I'm still not sure if the groups would be needed for me. Besides, I never want to go into left brain stuff when I make music (done that to much in the past) – so I don't even want to create expression maps/articulation sets, as long as Art Conductor is actively being updated.

Click to expand...

You're off on a tangent now. overlapping legato is not relevant to groups unless there is a key switch to enable legato mode. Perhaps I should have used a different articulation then legato to avoid confusion. Did you understand now?

Vik said:

Other DAWs than Logic may do this as well, but I'm most familiar with Logic and have only had a short period of experiments with Cubase a few years ago. I've heard Cubase has been simpler to use since then, at least in some areas. I trust Dewdmans comment about "VERY cumbersome to program", and personally I wouldn't reconsider even if Cubase all of a sudden would become better than Logic in several important areas: I know Logic to well to do that.

Click to expand...

Its a very strong reason to stick with LogicPro!

Vik said:

The learning curve thing is IMO also important after one has learned a deep (complex) program, for the same reason: if something is easy to learn, it's also usually easier to operate a decade or three after you learned it. For me, it's important to shun away from any kind of nerd mode when making music.

Click to expand...

indeed

Dewdman42 said:

it would be possible to effectively accomplish much of the same thing as using 4 expression map groups in Cubase

Click to expand...

Except it does about nothing with score, and have no "directions" for input method.

Dewdman42 said:

VERY cumbersome to program

Click to expand...

That's why I said you taking that time with better knowledge for instrument as a result at the end.

Vik said:

switch over to write 4- or 5 voice polyphony on one track

Click to expand...

Really not that good idea right from the start, to be honest. You're better be sticking to a single-voice writing, with visual quantization applied if needed (again, on a per bar/note basis in Cubase as opposed to anything else) with the further XML export to Dorico for the purposes of final editing, formatting and condensation.

Vik said:

ability to define articulations on a per-note basis is important to me

Click to expand...

Still exists in Cubase, namely "attributes", as opposed to "directions" mentioned earlier. But still you would be better using it accordingly: "directions" for, actually, directional-type articualtions (legato, arco, pizz., sul tasto/pont., etc.) and the "attributes" for what we are common with in sight of the regular notation to be signed on a per-note basis (staccato, accent, marcato, tremolo/trill, etc.).

Berdinskikh said:

Except it does about nothing with score, and have no "directions" for input method.

Click to expand...

Yea I agree for sure. Each note can only have one articulationID assigned to it...

Berdinskikh said:

Still exists in Cubase, namely "attributes", as opposed to "directions" mentioned earlier. But still you would be better using it accordingly: "directions" for, actually, directional-type articualtions (legato, arco, pizz., sul tasto/pont., etc.) and the "attributes" for what we are common with in sight of the regular notation to be signed on a per-note basis (staccato, accent, marcato, tremolo/trill, etc.).

Click to expand...

direction based articulations are another thing somewhat unique. S1 works ONLY that way. LogicPro and DP both work an more of an event attribute basis. Cubase provides either way with pros and cons or times when it makes sense to work one way or the other.

while it is possible to do direction style handling of key switching using automation and scripting and various tricks...as you said...cubase/dorico are currently the only ones that can link that up between the score editor.

Berdinskikh said:

Really not that good idea right from the start, to be honest. You're better be sticking to a single-voice writing

Click to expand...

I'm talking abut single voice writing, based on using a combo of Explode Polyphony in Logic (which shows each voice in a separate staff) and regular piano staff.

Dewdman42 said:

You're off on a tangent now. overlapping legato is not relevant to groups unless there is a key switch to enable legato mode. Perhaps I should have used a different articulation then legato to avoid confusion. Did you understand now?

Click to expand...

I guess so – but still somehow wonder if there's something Cubase can do which Logic cannot. But since articulation sets is something I'll never need to create, I'm not really worried. From not having any expression map solution, Logic already offer more options than I could imagine.

I used to use logic and thought it couldn't get better. Then my computer died and I switched to pc. I now use presonus studio one. I love it much more. It's just as intuitive, and it will allow me to compose and record tracks on the same screen. I also a lot of the presets and soundsets. I've switched and i am never switching back. (Unless revolutionary technologies I cannot begin to conceive start elsewhere)

Vik said:

So – the above solution is no good then?

Click to expand...

I know some people got it working but it's always better to have it integrated or at least somewhat supported by the origial devs. Seems like Ableton chose to rely on community to create devices that will fill up holes in their program. It's been working so far but it's not as reliable or streamlined as stock functions.

Vik said:

I guess so – but still somehow wonder if there's something Cubase can do which Logic cannot. But since articulation sets is something I'll never need to create, I'm not really worried.

Click to expand...

you're making a lot of noise about something you never intend to use.

Vik said:

From not having any expression map solution, Logic already offer more options than I could imagine.

Click to expand...

I hear you. well the only useful thing that can come out of a thread like this is to make honest comparisons

LogicPro has different kinds of input switches as you mentioned above and might be pretty good in this regard in terms of setting up something you can actually perform live with an articulated instrument. But the things you mentioned above do not make up for the lack of groups feature that exists in cubase, nor the lack of direction mode. I'm not saying one is better than the other. They each have some strengths and weeknesses. myself I'm not currently using either program, i use dp, because it's the only one with negative delay capabilities built in at the moment. It also doesn't have the groups feature that Cubase has.

if you're not even using articulation sets, then its kind of a moot point for you @Vik

Dewdman42 said:

you're making a lot of noise about something you never intend to use.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion, I wrote that I'll never need to create articulations sets in Logic, but that's only because I rely on the Art Conductor/Babylon Waves solution.

Dewdman42 said:

You're off on a tangent now. overlapping legato is not relevant to groups unless there is a key switch to enable legato mode. Perhaps I should have used a different articulation then legato to avoid confusion. Did you understand now?



Its a very strong reason to stick with LogicPro!




indeed

Click to expand...

Exactly. If one doesn’t want to invest time and learn something new (I am not talking about make it work in similar fashion to your current DAW and workflow) then it is best to stick with what you know and create your workarounds and creative approaches to reach your goal also known as workflow

samphony said:

If one doesn’t want to invest time and learn something new (I am not talking about make it work in similar fashion to your current DAW and workflow) then it is best to stick with what you know and create your workarounds and creative approaches

Click to expand...

Agree, even if I like to learn new stuff – it's just that I'd rather learn new stuff about thing which really matter for me personally (about composition, orchestration and much more). Should I ever check out other DAWS, it would be DP or Studio One, but the only app I do keep an eye on is Dorico (due to too little development in the score/composition area in Logic for a decade now).

Having said that, it's 10 years since Steinberg took over the Sibelius team, and they still haven't implemented brilliant stuff – functionality I really liked – in Sibelius. I'm sure Dorico is good for those who use it as their main tool, but I don't find it 'intuitive' enough to use only occasionally. I miss the Logic approach where almost everything is accessible through regular menus, use of mouse, key commands and contextual menus – and Logic's brilliant Quick Help feature.

I've been interested to try Dorico, but I just haven't. How would it fit into work with Reaper, I wonder? It seems like they'd be mutually exclusive. I love notation, but then adding a bunch of steinberg opinionatedness about workflow and shortcuts I fear might get me bent out of shape, and I don't know how it handles sample libraries. A great notation system with my sample libraries, though, and with DAW capabilities when it comes to automation, presumably cc data too, and mixing, on paper that sounds extremely nice.

Vik said:

Sorry for the confusion, I wrote that I'll never need to create articulations sets in Logic, but that's only because I rely on the Art Conductor/Babylon Waves solution.

Click to expand...

and to be fair, as far as I understand it, Art conductor is not taking advantage of cubase groups either. I don't know because i own the DP version of Art Conductor, where it also doesn't take advantage of the delay offset feature in dp. Art Conductor's strength is that its a common set of input key switches so that you can move around from library to library and always use the same input key switch layout for a standard set of articulations that are present in most libraries. In the case of DP, they were also able to do it in such a way that you can you take an existing track for say "flute", copy it to another instrument track, including the same art map, and assign to a different instrument sound...and wala...all the articulations line up and work due to consistency in the articulation names and the way they programmed all the articulation maps. It's really a great product, but just to be clear...it does not take advatnage of all features of all sample libraries, nor of all DAW's. If you get into a more advanced library such as Vsl elite strings or whatever, you probably are going to want to build a much more complicated articulation set, expression map or art map in whatever DAW you're using...might be based. on Art Conductor to get started if possible, but will probably involve quite a lot more.... and that is where something like Cubase's group feature in particular is going to be helpful, though it would take a very long time to design the ultimte Elte strings expression map, using groups and all...I hope someone will eventually do that and share it! But can't share it if its based on Art conductor of course. but anyway, I suspect an expresion map for Elite strings will require hundreds of lines in the expression map and will be quite difficult for many people to understand if they saw it. Might even still have to break it up into several expression maps. But for a more advanced library such as that with so many options and articulation variations...the cubase group feature is very very useful.

I wish dp would do something similar, but with better approach for programming it that is not as cumbersome as cubase's. dp users, make sure to submit feature request for this.

Steinberg could make the expression map editor easier to grok too if they wanted, would help tremendously to make this feature more clear and used more often, but its up to them i guess.

Vik said:

Agree, even if I like to learn new stuff – it's just that I'd rather learn new stuff about thing which really matter for me personally (about composition, orchestration and much more). Should I ever check out other DAWS, it would be DP or Studio One, but the only app I do keep an eye on is Dorico (due to too little development in the score/composition area in Logic for a decade now).

Having said that, it's 10 years since Steinberg took over the Sibelius team, and they still haven't implemented brilliant stuff – functionality I really liked – in Sibelius. I'm sure Dorico is good for those who use it as their main tool, but I don't find it 'intuitive' enough to use only occasionally. I miss the Logic approach where almost everything is accessible through regular menus, use of mouse, key commands and contextual menus – and Logic's brilliant Quick Help feature.

Click to expand...

Thanks to @ed buller and @Wallander i found a new home in dorico when it comes to orchestral stuff. Brilliant workflows and no track creep in a daw any longer.

yeah i remember trying DP (I should probably sell it) and was turned off by the articulations lanes, i wonder how people manage to work with hundreds of articulations.
Likewise in Logic it's hard to know what notes have which articulations, but a least is per note, which is how i like to work.
S1 is directions only so no go for me.
In the end Cubase exp maps are the only ones i like to use.
Just my personal experience of course, everyone has different needs/preferences.
I also tried Dorico SE, but it is really sluggish in the write mode. Is it just me?
The play mode is very smooth instead.