Why Is Learning a DAW So Difficult?

[shmuelyosef]

Totally in agreement...I was an electrical engineer by training. I still don't understand why DAWs don't have a "Patch Panel View"...the closest thing is something like ProChannel, but that's only for downstream effects. I love my Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 interface, but similarly the so-called "MixControl" software bears no resemblance to a common mixer other than the soft sliders...

[audioicon]

It took me years to suss out how to record stuff on a DAW. I still probably don't use about 90% of the features on mine. There's too much information. I like things kept simple

 

I drive a bloody car delivering dental lab work, for God's sake! I'm not intelligent enough to know how to operate a computer-based digital audio workstation

 

 

This is so funny!

 

Oh man, you should try Stand-up.

[happwith12strin]

You nned a book with any daw Like Sonar powerBetter yet The Big book of SonarTIPS by craig anderton!!!

[Beck]

I still treat DAWs like tape machines and that's how I like them to behave. And again, at the risk of repeating myself, repeating myself a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) includes software and hardware. When someone calls Reaper, Audition, Sonar, Pro Tools, etc, a DAW, I cringe. Either they're too young to know better or so old they forgot that those programs are "DAW Software." I'd like to see someone try to use the software without a computer or interface of some kind, which are DAW hardware. DAW software and DAW hardware make a DAW. One without the other is nothing. Not trying to be old and cranky about it, but IMO about the time people get the terminology right is about the time DAWs will be conceptually easier to learn.

 

On another note, once you've learned an analog multi-track tape machine and a good analog mixing board, it's quick work to move from one tape machine and/or mixing board to another brand/type with minimal learning curve and fuss. DAW software and hardware makers could start by taking a cue from that.

 

 

[Etienne Rambert]

Auria for iPad. Superb.

[Etienne Rambert]

Perhaps the question really is: why weren't DAWs designed with ease of use in mind in the first place?

 

I wonder…

 

Bingo! I've been using them almost 30 years. It all started to go south when Cubase introduced VST plugs in the 90's. I did not want no steenking

plugs. But DAW's came bloated with them anyway.

 

So today DAWs are ugly, cluttered, unreliable and too ******* difficult to use. They're dinosaurs.

 

Somehow, DAW makers think they are above basic market forces. I recently bought another car. I knew exactly how to use it when I drove off the lot. No manual in the glove box but no sweat.

 

Automobiles are much more complex than DAWs. Yet we already know how to operate them. DAW designers are making dog food us dogs don't want to eat. They will go out of business just like any dog food company or automaker would.

 

Their only chance to survive is to hire people such as myself as beta testers and pay us well for our efforts. Otherwise, they will deservedly go extinct. And I will enjoy watching them disappear into the tar sands.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I started in the all analog era, so I already knew the fundamentals of recording well before I started using a DAW.

 

That knowledge base can not be assumed for people who are launching a DAW program for the first time, and without it, you're going to have a lot of learning to do, no matter how well designed and visually appealing the software is. You would still have a steep learning curve even if you were using an all-analog, hardware-based system.

 

On top of that are the computer system issues - drivers, operating system configuration tweaks, software incompatibility (for example, knowing that you have to turn off multiprocessor support in Kontakt in order for things to work right in PT 10), incompatible hardware and hardware conflicts, etc. etc. I've been using computers since the late 1970s and I've had far more issues overall that were along those lines than I've ever had issues with figuring out how to use the basic recording features of the software. And 9 times out of 10 when something isn't working, the companies point the finger at someone else.

 

If a company REALLY wants to make it as easy as possible to use a DAW, the entire system needs to be turnkey. Computer. Interface. Software. All from the same company and pre-configured and optimized, with built-in tutorials, videos, templates and routing assignments, etc. etc.

 

Of just make a hardware-based DAW and do all of the above. Even then, when it comes to recording audio and/or MIDI, there's still going to be a learning curve until we develop smart AI-based virtual assistants who can respond to your verbal requests for assistance and who can configure the system for you based on what you say you want to do.

 

[MikeRivers]

 

If a company REALLY wants to make it as easy as possible to use a DAW, the entire system needs to be turnkey. Computer. Interface. Software. All from the same company and pre-configured and optimized, with built-in tutorials, videos, templates and routing assignments, etc. etc.

 

Of just make a hardware-based DAW and do all of the above.

 

Great idea. Unfortunately, most of the people recording today wouldn't want to buy an itegrated system - for two reasons:

 

1. It would probably cost at least $10,000.

2. It would be "proprietary" so they couldn't add new features to it cheaply.

 

 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Great idea. Unfortunately, most of the people recording today wouldn't want to buy an itegrated system - for two reasons:

 

1. It would probably cost at least $10,000.

2. It would be "proprietary" so they couldn't add new features to it cheaply.

 

 

 

Very true Mike - remember when Digidesign's systems were all proprietary in terms of the interfaces? People couldn't wait to be able to use whatever interface they wanted to along with Pro Tools software. Of course, that was because people thought they could get similar (or better) quality interfaces for less than what Digi was charging...

[MikeRivers]

 

remember when Digidesign's systems were all proprietary in terms of the interfaces? People couldn't wait to be able to use whatever interface they wanted to along with Pro Tools software. Of course, that was because people thought they could get similar (or better) quality interfaces for less than what Digi was charging...

 

Well, until recently, they could get better quality than what Digidesign was offering, and they probably still can, at least in some people's opinion. Lots of big name studios are using Pro Tools with Burl or the high end Apogee interfaces, and now that DAD has some distribution and a modular system, that'll probably replace a lot of Digidesign hardware.

 

And remember, too, for how long Pro Tools was only supported on Macs. So since all Macs are the same, they pretty much had a turnkey system if you brought your own house. There was a free Pro Tools for Windows, but I think that stopped at Windows 98. I might even have a copy of it around here somewhere on a 5-1/4" floppy disk.

 

 

[Etienne Rambert]

DAW manufacturers have made a hell of a mess. The only conceivable way out for them is to pay me money and give me free stuff. It's absolutely critical to their survival. They are facing a real crisis of confidence here. And I'm likely the only one who can pull them out of this mess.

 

Time's wasting and time is money. I'm talking to you Steinberg/Yamaha. PM me for my Paypal info and we'll get started extricating your chestnuts from the fire forthwith. Sonar/12-Tone? I'm likely the only one who knows how to make your software a cakewalk again.

 

Logic? You've got some splaining to do.

[MikeRivers]

DAW manufacturers have made a hell of a mess. The only conceivable way out for them is to pay me money and give me free stuff. It's absolutely critical to their survival.

 

Time's wasting and time is money. I'm talking to you Steinberg/Yamaha.

 

Well, now that we know what you are, we only need to haggle about your price. [that's from an old joke]

 

You could try MixBus. You can run a demo for free, and occasionally the price (regularly $80, I think) is as low as $29. What have you got to lose other than a couple of days to get used to their way?

 

 

[1001gear]

Besides DAWs are a self contained recording empire, (when was the last time you ran or crashed and burned one?) (all with a mouse no less)

they need a standardized AND CHEAP hardware input GUI. Real knobs, faders, buttons - virtual patching of course; a real workstation panel.

[Etienne Rambert]

Dogs can't be bribed into eating dog food they don't like. People OTOH, can be bribed into doing things they don't like - such as learning to navigate a frustating DAW.

 

More than once, I've been another barking dog in a kennel after finding myself dumped into a stupid DAW tech support forum.

 

So I suggest consumers and DAW manufacturers explore a new market model. Instead of consumers purchasing DAWs -- maybe DAWs should purchase consumers. Maybe they should pay us to use their products. The more they pay, the more we will be willing to tolerate problems their products commonly present.

 

I'm using Auria for iPad now. But I can be bribed. I'd like to use something that does MIDI. If Steinberg or Sonar want to pay me - I'm willing to take on the learning curve.

 

Otherwise - no. Time is a finite resource. Some of us have already wasted too much time trying to learn a DAW we paid money for.

 

I've already given a shout-out to Steinberg/Yamaha. Now here's a tip for Sonar. Your Sonar University does not make me want to buy your product. In fact, it has the opposite effect.

 

I have post-grad degrees already. I don't want to go back to college just to be able to use a product I paid for. That product should be useful straight out of the box. The fact that Sonar University exists is an admission your product failed the 'ease of use' part of the exam.

 

Whoever thought of that dumb idea needs to take under-grad courses in marketing. It's the worst selling point I've ever seen.