The reason why Logic, Cubase, etc. are widely used is, in my opinion, simply because they are classic tools.

Studio One is relatively new, but I was told it was made by former Steingberg devs and I presume it absorbed many users from Cubase.

And I've seen many online surveys indicating that Ableton has already overtaken Cubase, so your premise might not be true anymore.

Anyway, unlike video gamers who constantly explore new games, a significant portion of DAW users tend to stick to their main tools, because familiar DAWs are the most efficient tool for their workflow. Therfore DAWs unlikely to lose their user base EASILY.

Of course, there are exceptions like Cubase and Studio One mentioned above, which may also be partly related to Steinberg's decision to replace their cumbersome Dongle-based auth system with a simpler online auth, I think.

 

Cubase is one of the best DAWs for Pre-production, while Pro Tools is the best for Post-production.
In my opinion : if you have both, you don’t need anything else , although you can PP DAW for PPD.
But standard is Pro Tools for PPD

Opinions differ, but this is just my comment.
Personally, I use Cubase and Logic, but for pre-production, your DAW can be anything that suits you, like Studio One, Reaper, DP, and so on.

 

i would switch to Luna if they had the midi input filter Cubase has. (use case:my midi keyboard sends shitty pitch-change messages)

 

What qualifies as a workstation for you doesn't seem to qualify it for others (e.g., Steinberg, Magix, Native Instruments).

• An acronym for Digital Audio Workstation, DAWs cover every part of the music-making process from recording digital audio through creating beats and melodies with virtual instruments all the way to adding effects to make everything sound great and perfecting your final mix of all the tracks. They are all-in-one music creation suites that handle everything you might need to do on your musical journey. (https://www.steinberg.net/tutorials/what-is-a-daw/)

• A DAW, or Digital Audio Workstation, is a software used for recording, editing, mixing, and producing digital audio. It provides a complete set of tools and features to facilitate the entire music production process, recording audio tracks, applying effects, arranging music pieces, and mixing multiple tracks into a final audio file. (https://www.magix.com/us/music-editing/daw/)

• A Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) is a software application used to record, edit, and produce audio. You can record tracks, build up beats, add instruments or vocal parts, then lay out the arrangement, apply effects, and mix the finished work all within one interconnected hub.(https://blog.native-instruments.com/what-is-a-daw-in-music-digital-audio-workstations-explained/)

These definitions are pretty explicit. It's software, it's a complete set of tools, and you can load instruments and plugins.

Here's a bonus definition - note the "add effects," and "mix and master" and "from start to finish" aspects:

• A DAW is the primary piece of software you use in order to make music on a computer. It’s a one-stop-shop, and in most cases will allow you to; record and edit audio, import samples, play virtual instruments, add effects, mix and master your music. In other words, it will allow you to create a piece of music from start to finish within a single software environment.
  (https://www.soundgym.co/blog/item?id=what-is-a-daw)

So you see, "where I get my standards" from is the industry - in which I worked for 27 straight years, visiting and working with clients all over the world.

Soundscape had much more than a couple plugins from TC: it had the whole lot (System 6000) and a couple of dozen more third part plugins. It fits the definition of a DAW because it was able to record, edit, add FX, mix and master. "From start to finish."

That's cool, congratulations, happy for you and your clients and their audience. The key thing here is I worked 27 years in the software industry, specifically in all things digital media related. There is a difference between, say, a Ferrari, Porsche or BMW engineer, and the owner and driver of those cars - when it comes to a conversation about what's what in the industry. The same goes for digital audio.

Your opinion and input is valued, as a customer - that's (partly, not only) how we make our beloved products evolve, and again, I love RADAR (Note: I only saw PARIS once with my eyes - at Marcus Miller's place down the street from mine - but that was 15-20 years ago, so I can't really speak for it or comment about it).

As do I - I'm highly neurodivergent, so I live off facts, stats and numbers (my nickname in music school was "Number One.")
I am open minded though. RADAR isn't a DAW per se, I'd call it an Integrated Digital Audio Solution, but if it's so near and dear to your heart that you need to have it your way to move on and feel good about yourself, go for it, call it a DAW.
It isn't, but you can call it that.

If you really wanted to settle this debate, you'd call iZ Technology and ask them (the engineers, not the marketing department). Let's touch base again after that. Peace.

 

So the inclusion of FX, which is the major difference among the two, makes the difference from an

to a workstation. Errrr alright... I finally learned something new. Cheers.
Peace.

 

It is pretty hard a single DAW stands over the rest. Each user decision depends even on one's personality. Subjectiveness is a human feature and even more in this area (Music and engineering market combined)

However I do believe we are going to see more standards, such as interconections between DAWS or software like ARA implemented on each DAW.

 

I'm all in with Studio One! I love its streamlined approach to its linear work flow.
I used to work with Logic Pro back in the early 2000s up until version 5.X.X,
I came to that after Gibson's takeover of Opcode and StudioVision Pro died of starvation! Then I finally moved onto Ableton for a while.
Then I learned about Studio One! All of a sudden I was able to remove Excalibur from the stone, the skies were clear, God touched my shoulder as I heard His deep voice say unto me
"Be free my son" <---- Heavy Reverb. The Angles sang Ahhs in a beautiful crescendo, then I farted and their Ahhs turned into Oooos.
The sun shined down upon me. I'm ALIVE! I screamed! then I started to sing the words of that old Negro Spiritual "FREE @ LAST, FREE @ LAST THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I'M FREE @ LAST!
Man now I'm inspired to write a 30 minute set & get back on stage!

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2025 at 4:43 PM

Music is a sensitive art. Very few innovations become mainstream trends and many are forgotten. Innovation in the production of audio tools is like innovation in the production of music genres. If the innovation is done without taking into account the important and basic needs of the users and other things are offered instead, the tool will not be very successful. For example, in the case of LUNA, this tool follows many of the structures of the DAWs that I mentioned in the first post and will most likely become famous and popular.
But pay attention to the innovation that FLS created, this innovation is more of a hindrance than a facilitator, its creators try to return to previous and traditional architectures, but they are unable to do so for many reasons. From the beginning they wanted to offer something different and along the way they faced many problems and no one takes this tool very seriously.

 

You are absolutely correct. No one is taking you very seriously.

 

Everyone has his own priority but the most basic need of users is a powerful mixing engine. In the next stage, audio recording and later, midi facilities are seated. Next, sound design, arranging, mastering, etc.
Some DAWs invest more on the first two provisions (mixing and recording) and that's why they are always on top. Some developers' main concern is devoting their energy to doing everything in the box and getting disconnected from the real world (like Live, FLS, Reason, etc.) and this makes them less successful in spite of their modernized looks and VSTi s.