What is the best DAW for mixing?
- Thread starter S-Beats
- Start date
You can get the same results mixing in fl studio in pro tools or ableton etc. it really doesn't matter it just matters which DAW your more comfortable using. Stock plugins are okay but getting more plugins will only add on unless you want to do something with a plugin that your daw doesn't have
I'mNoGuru
New member
Some stock plugins are better than others...
I have Cubase and Studio One and prefer the stock plugins on Studio One.
i have a load of Waves plugins but only use a few of them as S1's stock plugs do the job for the most part.
On the whole I prefer to mix in Studio One but definitely find automations in Cubase to be easier to do...
All DAWs do the same thing yes... But sometimes one DAW will do a specific task better (or at least differently to another.
I think it's wise to give yourself some flexibility by having 2 DAW programs if budget allows.
I have Cubase and Studio One and prefer the stock plugins on Studio One.
i have a load of Waves plugins but only use a few of them as S1's stock plugs do the job for the most part.
On the whole I prefer to mix in Studio One but definitely find automations in Cubase to be easier to do...
All DAWs do the same thing yes... But sometimes one DAW will do a specific task better (or at least differently to another.
I think it's wise to give yourself some flexibility by having 2 DAW programs if budget allows.
Mad Phonetics
New member
Nothing beats Cubase, nothing. 
Jokes aside, some DAWs have serious draw backs like faulty plugin latency compensation and automation (Logic) or reduced routing possibilities (FL).
Jokes aside, some DAWs have serious draw backs like faulty plugin latency compensation and automation (Logic) or reduced routing possibilities (FL).
If you want to mix what you produce you can likely just use the same DAW. So long as it is 32bit or higher precision and has latency compensation and basic routing for groups it's probably OK.
If you want to be a mix engineer than again you can probably use whatever you want but I expect there are workflow advantages to using what everyone else uses, which is probably pro tools. You can share project files.
Mixing, really, is generally a fairly simple application of DAW software.
If you want to be a mix engineer than again you can probably use whatever you want but I expect there are workflow advantages to using what everyone else uses, which is probably pro tools. You can share project files.
Mixing, really, is generally a fairly simple application of DAW software.
Various DAW software have been designed to support the creation of various types of qualities. For instance most DAWs don't support sample rates above 192 kHz, but some do. In combination with 256 times oversampling such a sample rate feature in a DAW software alone can make a substantial quality difference to your work (given of course that you have an audio interface that supports 384 kHz sample rate) and hence yes you can say a particular DAW software was part of creating that.
Last edited:
Shinen
New member
The same DAW for making a song
crimsonhawk47
New member
Nothing beats Cubase, nothing.
Jokes aside, some DAWs have serious draw backs like faulty plugin latency compensation and automation (Logic) or reduced routing possibilities (FL).
And to your point, as much as I love FL studio, there are PDC issues with its routing. There are work arounds, but things get really messy when you try to do group parallel processing without it being a submix, Andrew scheps style. And sometimes the makeshift sends can actually be AHEAD of what you are sending to them.
24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
To summarize, there is no real advantage to 192 khz over 44.1 khz in terms of audio quality other than one specific technical reason, which I'll mention in a second.
Samples in audio are not like "frames" in film, they are sinc functions (Google Lavry sampling theory). They are more than just a single instantaneous point in time. When you have a sample rate that is double the frequency range you want to represent, you get a perfect sampling of the waveform. That doesn't mean we will get a perfect end result, as quantization can create noise. But higher bit depth just gives us more accurate quantization so the quantization errors are even quieter than we will possibly hear. 16 bits give us 96db of dynamic range, and quantization errors are in the least significant bit, so unless you're paranoid that someone is going to turn your song up to the point that it will literally kill them and hear quantization errors, this isn't a problem, and neither are lower sampling rates. This is how audio works, and 192khz is not the holy grail of mixing.
The only reason to work at such high sample rates is it it was already recorded this high, and you know you'll need to do a lot of stretching and time adjustments. More samples can make these adjustments less dramatic.
More importantly, if you're into any song ever on any online service, then clearly sample rates don't matter that much. Most services use MP3 or CD quality WAV.
Use as high sample rate as possible during the recording and thereafter to maximize the resonance potential and do not dither your signal, route it out preferrably when possible externally at 384 kHz sample rate (and max bit depth) and then once you've applied your hardware, route it back in straight to the final playback format. Every little bit counts, whether that comes from high clock stability, low latency, optimal voltages... Use a good meter when handling the true peaks. Filter out electrostatic and electromagnetic noise with power conditioners for optimal voltages. (metal oxide varistors, gas discharge tubes, fast-blow fuses, and high voltage inductors and capacitors to suppress voltage spikes and surges)
Last edited:
Close.
Cubase is a tension DAW, it is the type of DAW that in some situations work the best for certain parts of a production. Why, because it is absolutely brutal towards the user about latency.Remember that tension and release is something that works multi-dimensionally and hierarchically, like this:
T = Tension
R = Release
1:T->R...
...|
2:T -> R -> T -> R...
...
Please remember that still today a pro production is album oriented, so when you plan your project you might want a few of the songs on the album to be pure tension songs in order to balance out the energy of the album as a whole. A DAW like Cubase running at 44.1 kHz sample rate is an excellent choice for these types of songs on the album, while song nr 3 and/or 4 on the album might be best recorded at 384 kHz sample rate using a DAW software that supports such a sample rate. And on some of the songs on the album you might want to use a mixed set of DAW software in the same production.
Can a tension song on an album pop into a hit? Sure, it's all about the energy within the context. View an album as a field of energy with shifting energy density that the listener walks through. (similar to what a life experience might be) Use that energy density to your advantage.
Last edited:
Synapsis
The Mepsyah's Dipsyples
See... Your a small minded trollop, I will trace every post you have made... I bet they show a lot about you...
Synapsis
The Mepsyah's Dipsyples
Close.
Remember that tension and release is something that works multi-dimensionally and hierarchically, like this:
T = Tension
R = Release
1:T->R...
...|
2:T -> R -> T -> R...
...
Please remember that still today a pro production is album oriented, so when you plan your project you might want a few of the songs on the album to be pure tension songs in order to balance out the energy of the album as a whole. A DAW like Cubase running at 44.1 kHz sample rate is an excellent choice for these types of songs on the album, while song nr 3 and/or 4 on the album might be best recorded at 384 kHz sample rate using a DAW software that supports such a sample rate. And on some of the songs on the album you might want to use a mixed set of DAW software in the same production.
Can a tension song on an album pop into a hit? Sure, it's all about the energy within the context. View an album as a field of energy with shifting energy density that the listener walks through. (similar to what a life experience might be) Use that energy density to your advantage.
He was trolling u bro... U handled it well...
I've heard people say Cubase' automation is superior to Live's. I've used Cubase only briefly and found that although it has some things on Live (like how you can select a bunch of automation points and bend them into ramps and stuff like that) I found it's automation to be a mess. Plus you can get round many of the limitations by using multiple stages of automation (e.g. one utility for gain fades, one for gain riding etc)
Live automation is like Bezier curves, rather than a mass of points, and I find it far easier and quicker to use.
That said I don't think any DAW has really nailed automation yet.
Live automation is like Bezier curves, rather than a mass of points, and I find it far easier and quicker to use.
That said I don't think any DAW has really nailed automation yet.
redh0t
New member
I usually mix with the same DAW I produced the track in, which happens to be Studio One or Logic Pro, sometimes Pro Tools if the track is more "complicated" and if I need some of its plug-ins.
I never use Pro Tools for electronic tho'
But I think as RYA mentioned, it doesn't really matter what you use, your ears do the work, not the software!
I never use Pro Tools for electronic tho'
But I think as RYA mentioned, it doesn't really matter what you use, your ears do the work, not the software!
I prefer Pro Tools, because it has awesome plugins like BF-76 and Dyn3 Compressor and I really like the elastic audio feature on Pro Tools. I also like the automation. But it's my opinion, all professional DAWs like Ableton, Logic Pro 9, Logic Pro X, FL Studio... will be good, it's more what you like.
Last edited:
S
StylisshBeats
Guest
Only used FL Studios and LOGIC. You can get similar results depending on how YOU structure, your mixes. But in my experience, Logic is better for live recording.