What can other DAWs offer that Ableton can not

[MarkH]

What can other DAWs like Cubase and Logic offer for finishing projects that Ableton can't.

I ask because I have read that Ableton doesn't cut it for adding polish to projects. Would someone be so kind to elaborate why as I may upgrade my copy of cubase sx 3 if there is a gain.

I would reverse the question. What can Ableton Live do that other DAWs can't? My opinion is you'll come up with more reasons to use Live than switch to something else.

Since the time Ableton introduced Live to the market, every release only gets better and includes so many enhancements and thought-provoking ways to be creative. Cubase and Pro Tools haven't introduced anything stellar to the market in years, Logic provides value for your money although in my opinion it's not a valid reason to switch to it, and while Digital Performer is a great DAW program, it's really just an alternative to the other programs with nothing that is innovative enough to seperate it from the rest. The one thing all of these DAWs have in common is people typically use 20% of the features 80% of the time. Ableton is different because it's so intuitive, you can easily reach out to everything it has to offer and get creative.

Live may not have Track Folders, but I'm confident it will come. Ableton can only do so much in a given time frame, but we've seen many requests over the years with Delay Compensation, Session View track meter re-sizing, searchable browser, mp3 support, track freeze, multi CPU support, control surface support, cross fader types, you get my point.

A while back, just when I thought I knew Ableton in and out, I picked up the ASK Video for Ableton Live 6. Even though most of the content was already familiar to me, I learned a bunch of new tricks that filled in the gaps where I thought Live was falling short. It was an eye opener to some really cool stuff.

Anyway, hang in there and stick with Live. Ableton won't let you down, I promise.

[kenporter]

What can other DAWs like Cubase and Logic offer for finishing projects that Ableton can't.

I ask because I have read that Ableton doesn't cut it for adding polish to projects. Would someone be so kind to elaborate why as I may upgrade my copy of cubase sx 3 if there is a gain.

I would reverse the question. What can Ableton Live do that other DAWs can't? My opinion is you'll come up with more reasons to use Live than switch to something else.

Since the time Ableton introduced Live to the market, every release only gets better and includes so many enhancements and thought-provoking ways to be creative. Cubase and Pro Tools haven't introduced anything stellar to the market in years, Logic provides value for your money although in my opinion it's not a valid reason to switch to it, and while Digital Performer is a great DAW program, it's really just an alternative to the other programs with nothing that is innovative enough to seperate it from the rest. The one thing all of these DAWs have in common is people typically use 20% of the features 80% of the time. Ableton is different because it's so intuitive, you can easily reach out to everything it has to offer and get creative.

Live may not have Track Folders, but I'm confident it will come. Ableton can only do so much in a given time frame, but we've seen many requests over the years with Delay Compensation, Session View track meter re-sizing, searchable browser, mp3 support, track freeze, multi CPU support, control surface support, cross fader types, you get my point.

A while back, just when I thought I knew Ableton in and out, I picked up the ASK Video for Ableton Live 6. Even though most of the content was already familiar to me, I learned a bunch of new tricks that filled in the gaps where I thought Live was falling short. It was an eye opener to some really cool stuff.

Anyway, hang in there and stick with Live. Ableton won't let you down, I promise.

I couldn't agree more with your post!!! You're from Phoenix, no wonder!

Ken

[Anubis]

Lot's of menus pointing to lot's of hidden features.

[Khazul]

Agree with almost all of this. I'm confused a bit by the MIDI cc in bold? Do you mean if you want to assign a hardware controller to a Hardware synth MIDI cc?

OK, if I was writing/speccing the external instrument and external fx plugins, I would have made expose a whole load of automation parameters labeled CC 0 to CC127, OR given each of them some number (8 seems to be the norm in live) mapable knobs that would be automatable and emit CCs (or even sysex, NRPN etc) to the designated external synth or fx box.

Not one of my synths has no controls at all. Yes - I can record CCs into a clips, or hand edit them in a clip etc (Zzzzz....) whhat I would really want however is a trivial means of mapping a few of them via Live midi controller mappings just as you could do for a soft synth. The only hardware synth I can do this with currently is the virus TI. (I know there are hack work-arounds, but they are a complete pain in the arse and have to be saved with the project - a bit useless).

I get the impression these two useful features were tick box items specced and/or implemented by someone who has never touched a hardware synth in their lives.

[jamester]

I'll just say that for me, Live lacks a lot of "basic daw functionality" which I am used to in other apps. A short list off the top of my head would include no track folders, no crossfades/fade in-out and clip overlap, nonsensical key commands with limited ability to customize, can't select multiple non-contiguous clips across different tracks, no Rewind button, no multiple takes/lanes recording, no per-clip effects, no customizeable mousewheel zooming etc...

Once again I am hoping for these things in v.8. If not all, at least some. Fingers crossed...

[Pasha]

Live lacks something for sure but as has been demonstrated with tests the audio quality is equal to other DAWS.
Getting this as a starting point everything comes only down to how you do things with your DAW. I like Live's clean GUI because with some minor exception
everything is there. Some ideas are at the beginning like external instrument implementation. I have asked during beta to implement at least a program change there, because you can automate MIDI in the clips, no need to clutter there. I have never came across the 128 MIDI parameters limit so I do not understand why this topic is so hot. I guess you all know why simply it's me.
My wish list since version 4 is ability to load Patch description for external synth because I hate select patches by numbers. At the end I have tweaked my BCF2000 so that I select what I ear not what I see. Another thing I would need is hide MIDI tracks (the one pointing to external instruments which you do not need anymore after rendering) or sub mixed tracks to have a cleaner view.
The last one thing I need would be the ability to create a custom mapping using the actual user configuration but extended to all controllable parameters in Live.
For me It's easier that way than using MIDI Learn. Being only a composer not performing live but using Live as a composition and arrangement tool I do not need more than what I have found in the boxed suite.

- Best
- Pasha

[silicon1138]

regarding the following:

"1. One click/keystroke recording. If you blow the take you only need another two keystrokes to abort the recording, put the file to the trash and start a new recording."

It's even easier in Live:1 single click. Recording vocals or whatever in Live, so long as the track is armed, if you get a bad take just leave the song running and click once onto the next blank clip down.
Track doesn't stop/loose the vibe, the singer just goes for it again.
As for moving things to the trash, while the new take is recording, just click and delete the previous bad one.

Again, never stopping - WORK THAT SINGER.

[friend_kami]

proper curves.

[amcnally336]

I think my experience is different from many users here. My first DAW was Ableton, and only recently have I started using Cubase. I really LOVE the workflow for composition in Live. It is the BEST for sketching out ideas and putting together creative meanderings. Also, I think if you are a solo artist producing your own music, Live will probably suit your needs. However, if you plan on doing traditional multi-tracking with many instruments/artists in a field of music other than experimental electronica, I really think a more traditional DAW will work better for you. There is a reason recording studios are using Logic, Nuendo, and ProTools...if Live could really do all the same things more efficiently, people would switch...they are not a bunch of stupid idiots...millions of dollars are spent recording albums and engineers are a bright bunch. Live simply does not have the feature set or power to accomplish many of these traditional goals. Have you ever tracked a full band? Seriously, one of the most BASIC necessities is the ability to cycle record (real cycle record...not Live's workaround record)...I mean, REALLY! No track folders (which can be used for more than just organization...they also allow mute/solo operations that let you do thing like easily listen to all tracks wet/dry, adjust all volume sliders simultaneously, etc.), no crossfades, Live's ongoing sync issues...these things are more than an inconvenience.
I also found that because Live is so easy to compose on, I was endlessly composing...and composing...and composing...I just kept Jamming on it because it is, in many way, an instrument. By importing this audio into Cubase, I force myself to switch out of Live's creative flow and into a more Linear environment which I find forces me to complete the mix-down of my tracks more efficiently. Plus, Cubase is simply a much more powerful and appealing place to mix in (MIDI editing, audio editing, etc, etc). It IS more of a hassle to set the project up in Cubase (VST connections and all), but once set-up, it is not really that difficult to grasp...everything (inserts/sends, ETC) is a hot key away. More to the point, in the Cubase environmet I have now conciously (or sub-conciously) told myself I am OUT of the creative phase and INTO the mixing phase. There is a reason traditional studios seperate the roles of artist, recording engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer. I actually find the linear environment of Cubase to be a blessing in this regard, not something to slam on like most users of Live (OMG! other DAWS are so...linear!).
Maybe they are linear because that is the most efficient way to proceed when mixing an arrangement...again, recording studios are NOT idiots and they ALL use a more traditional approach...wonder why?
So, please don't think I am bashing Live, because I am not. It is an indispensible tool that for many, will be all they will ever need. I use it ALL the time and it is my preferred environment for creativity! It all depends on your applications. If you are not planning on doing traditional multi-track recording, many features in Cubase would not be needed, and you would probably actually find a lot of these features annoying. But in my experience, the more complex and varied your multi-tracks get, the more you will find yourself craving some of these more powerful features. Also, in a backwards way, you may find the linear approach of a traditional DAW an inspiration for certain phases of your production...I know I certainly did!

[mholloway]

However, thefool (and others) touched on the fact that Cubase is much nicer to mix their projects on. Whilst Live is used for composition and rough arrangment.

+1

that's precisely my process. also, i like to do the vocal tracks in cubase. when doing vox i'm always exporting/rendering files because lots of different FX go into the process, at different times, and I don't want a zillion seperate tracks so i just keep exporting into a main vox channel. this is much easier to do in cubase than in ableton, for me anyway.....then you've got the crossfades, and just a much better environment for "arrangement" work than I find in Ableton.

but again, nothing beats live's session view for initial songwriting/composition.l it's the best.

[monobeach]

However, thefool (and others) touched on the fact that Cubase is much nicer to mix their projects on. Whilst Live is used for composition and rough arrangment.

+1

that's precisely my process. also, i like to do the vocal tracks in cubase. when doing vox i'm always exporting/rendering files because lots of different FX go into the process, at different times, and I don't want a zillion seperate tracks so i just keep exporting into a main vox channel. this is much easier to do in cubase than in ableton, for me anyway.....then you've got the crossfades, and just a much better environment for "arrangement" work than I find in Ableton.

but again, nothing beats live's session view for initial songwriting/composition.l it's the best.

+1 (and also for the poster above)

after 2 and a half years using Cubase and one year of using Live, I also like to work that way. although initially I thought it would be too much of a hassle to transfer a project started and layed out in Live to Cubase, I also work that way now, especially for recording vocals, which I find better to manage in Cubase.

One thing though: it took me almost all this time to be able to lay out the arrangement of a song with some confidence. I like to do that in Live for a basic arrangement using record to arrangement.

I prefer Live for adding some unusual effects and twist the audio in some way. I prefer a more traditional environment like Cubase to mix, that is EQ, grouping, compressing etc. And also for doing some harsher changes to the arrangement like cutting and moving whole parts and add another one (although this function in Cubase is not so trustworthy). But I just feel that it's easier to move all the stuff around in Cubase.

So, yeah, like leedsquietman sometimes points out: there is nothing more depressing than an empty Cubase project. But on the other hand, a traditional daw can be helpful for organizing tracks, arranging a song and mixing.
In the end, I guess, it's just a matter of experience. developing a sense of song structure over the time, of the techniques and usage of tools to achieve the sound you aim for etc.

my 2 cents