The Case for Using More Than One DAW

Keyboard players have more than one synth, and guitarists have more than one guitar, because different synths and guitars provide different sounds and fulfill different functions. Similarly, DAWs have unique strengths, limitations, features, and design philosophies. I’ve seen many users go to a software company’s forum and say, “Please add the feature in DAW X to my DAW Y.” But DAW Y may never have been designed with that feature in mind, so not only does it not have DAW X’s killer feature, but it may never have it. (I know you didn’t want to hear that!)
The solution is to become fluent in more than one DAW, which is daunting to many users. But it shouldn’t be — so let’s do a reality check on the main concerns.
Concern #1: I’m so familiar with my DAW, it would take me years to get up to that level on a different DAW.
Maybe, but you don’t need to get up to that level. For example, I use Ableton Live for live performance, but it’s not my main “studio” DAW. I need to know only a subset of Live’s features — the ones that are relevant to live performance. Over the years, I’ve become very proficient at those, even though I wouldn’t consider myself an Ableton Live “expert.” I also use Reason’s amazing virtual instruments, by rewiring it into other DAWs. So for me, learning Reason is no different from learning how to use a suite of virtual instruments. Although I do use some of its cool MIDI sequencing features, and continue to explore them further, I don’t need to become a Reason authority to use it productively in the studio.
Also remember that you already know how to use a DAW — it’s not like you have to learn what “cut and paste” is all over again. As an analogy, if you don’t know music, any instrument will be hard to play. But if you know music, it’s much easier to become a multi-instrumentalist, even if you’re best at a primary instrument.
What’s more, many DAWs have customizable keyboard shortcuts (fig. 1). If you want to get deep into a program, I feel you’re best off learning the program’s native shortcuts. However, for the common functions you use every day, it’s usually possible to have a common set of keyboard shortcuts for different DAWs.

Figure 1: Studio One has custom mappings for various DAWs to make switching, or evaluating trial versions, easier.

Note that this feature can be really helpful when evaluating trial versions, because it’s easier to become comfortable quickly to see if you like the program. Even if the DAW doesn’t provide keyboard shortcut “presets,” you can usually create and save your own.
Concern #2: Once I start a project, I’d be crazy to transfer it to a different DAW.
Not really. For example, FL Studio and Propellerhead Reason have a strong MIDI orientation, and they make it easy to put together MIDI-based compositions quickly and efficiently. You can develop parts in those DAWs, and then either export the MIDI data as a Standard MIDI File or render the MIDI tracks as audio files, which you can then import into a DAW you find better suited to mixing. Or suppose you use Windows, and for composing, prefer Ableton Live for creating loop-based projects in its Session View, or PreSonus Studio One because of its unique features like Harmonic Editing and Scratchpads — but prefer to mix in Pro Tools, because your Slate RAVEN control surface isn’t (yet) compatible with Studio One or Ableton Live on Windows. When it’s time to mix your song, export the audio files as individual tracks or stems, import them into Pro Tools, and then you can mix in your preferred mixing environment.
The time you gain by working in a familiar environment will almost certainly offset the time required to transfer the files between DAWs. And if your DAWs support the AAF (Advanced Authoring Format) or OMF (Open Media Framework) transfer protocols, you can even transfer reasonably complete projects with a few mouse clicks. However, note that, like MIDI, not all AAF- and OMF-compatible applications implement the same feature set. As an analogy, even if a MIDI keyboard controller doesn’t support the relatively rare polyphonic aftertouch feature, it’s still considered a MIDI keyboard controller. As a result, it’s often best to do project transfers relatively early in the composing process.
Concern #3: But I’ve heard OMF and AAF are really terrible.
I find AAF more predictable and capable than OMF, and it’s true that the process isn’t necessarily easy to get working. That’s why you can always fall back on exporting and importing audio files. Nonetheless, once you figure out which AAF (or OMF) preferences to use, the process itself is simple.
For example, I created a loop-based song in Studio One using its Impact XT instrument, but I wanted to process the guitar tracks with Digital Performer’s amp sims and other guitar processors. The transfer process didn’t work until I checked Studio One’s “Legacy” box for AAF exports to accommodate earlier versions of the protocol; once I did, DP picked up panning, automation, track names, etc. (fig. 2), and opened the project.

Figure 2: A Studio One project imported into Digital Performer for processing with DP-specific processors.

I applied the guitar effects and exported the DP project as AAF. Upon reopening it in Studio One, the only “hiccup” was that I needed to confirm the exported files were indeed the ones I wanted to import.
Although I wouldn’t consider AAF or OMF “plug-and-play,” so far I’ve been able to get programs that implement one or the other to talk to each other eventually. Once you figure out what flavor of OMF or AAF a program likes to import, and set your export preferences accordingly, you’re set. 
Concern #4: Getting lots of DAWs is expensive, and I just can’t afford it.
Don’t overlook scaled-down versions. For example, suppose you wish Pro Tools had the same kind of groove- and loop-oriented features as Ableton Live. Live Intro delivers those features for under $100, and you can ReWire it into Pro Tools (fig. 3).

Figure 3: Ableton Live has been inserted as a multichannel plug-in instrument in Pro Tools and is now opening up in the Pro Tools environment via ReWire.

Of course, a program’s “light” version likely won’t deliver all the plug-ins of a full version, but you’ll be able to use your Pro Tools plug-ins with the ReWired audio that you stream into Pro Tools’ mixer. Similar to Live Intro, FL Studio Fruity Edition delivers flexible melody and loop creation for the same price.
Cubase Elements is also under $100 and includes the Arrange Track, Chord Track, and Key Editor — key Cubase features that may be far more important to you than Elements’ lack of the VariAudio pitch-correction feature, especially if you already have Melodyne or Auto-Tune installed in your main DAW. Most manufacturers who make multiple versions of a program have comparison charts; study them carefully, and you may find that a less expensive version will provide what you need for a secondary DAW.
Concern #5: Now I have to deal with updating and maintaining multiple software programs? No thank you.
Updating has changed over the years. Most programs will inform you if an update is available, which will often be a direct download from the cloud. If you have plug-ins, an operating system, iOS devices, and the like, you’re already dealing with potentially dozens (or even hundreds) of regular updates. What’s another DAW or two? Besides, no law says you have to update. I’ve gone for months without adding a new update if I’m in the middle of a big project, and then when there’s some spare time, update everything at once. Yes, maintaining your software can take a bit of time, but overall it’s a small price to pay for the added flexibility (and waiting for the download gives me a chance to vacuum the rug in my studio). Hey, at least you don’t have to demagnetize and clean tape heads or align your tape machine every day!
Okay, this is starting to make sense. Are there any other advantages?
Yes. Exporting files from one DAW to another can create a set of pseudo-backup audio files, which may come in useful in case of a disaster. Once, my main DAW had a bug and kept crashing during certain mixing operations. I exported the audio, loaded the files into a different DAW, and completed the mix.
But a more subtle advantage is offering different options. I’ve become so used to using different DAWs that before I start a project, I pick the DAW most likely to carry me through the initial stages. Maybe I’ll stay with it, maybe I’ll move to a different one — but in either case, I can choose the right DAW for the right job, just like a guitar player picks the right guitar for a specific tune. For me, that single factor alone sold me on using more than one DAW.
The post The Case for Using More Than One DAW appeared first on inSync.