DAWproject file exchange standard

[Bapu]

On 11/6/2023 at 1:56 AM, azslow3 said:

 

1) Please for VST/state in question save .vstpreset (state file) in REAPER and load it in Bitwig. Does it loads correctly?
 

2) If you give an example to Jürgen (the author of ProjectConverter), he can probably understand the reason quick (since he knows exactly what and how is converted, so he can guess what from that can be incompatible).

1) I need to test that still.

2) I gave  Jürgen the example and he found a condition of "mix slahes" in the filenames. He said he will give me a test build tomorrow.

 

Strange that the mixed slashes are ok in Bitwig but not Studio One, but he's the developer.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Bapu

[Bapu]

On 11/6/2023 at 1:56 AM, azslow3 said:

If you give an example to Jürgen (the author of ProjectConverter), he can probably understand the reason quick (since he knows exactly what and how is converted, so he can guess what from that can be incompatible).

Jürgen sent me a 'pre-release' to test of what I suspect will be ProjectConverter 1.1.4

Works perfectly with all the audio converted.

One small note about ReaCWP.  If I don't bounce to clips all the tracks then ProjectConverter starts any clip at 1:1 regardless of its actual timeline position.

The 'workaround' is to insure all tracks have their start at 1:1 or 'consolidated' as it is sometime referred to before sending it through ProjectConverter.

FWIW, ReaCWP does create the Reaper project with small clips ( non consolidated) in their proper place, so maybe this is yet another 'bug' in ProjectConverter which I will report to Jürgen.

[azslow3]

4 hours ago, Bapu said:

FWIW, ReaCWP does create the Reaper project with small clips ( non consolidated) in their proper place, so maybe this is yet another 'bug' in ProjectConverter which I will report to Jürgen.

ReaCWP tries to put clips with "all goodies" specified in Cakewalk (sec/beat, clip, offset, loop, etc.). I went throw DAWProject documentation and all that is possible to specify. But what is the "right" way to do that is unclear. Unfortunately, unlike in Cakewalk and REAPER, where "track with all related parameters(->lane)->clip with all related parameters" is hard to interpret wrong (since that is logical and follows what users see and do...), DAWProject introduce different hierarchy of containers, without precise specification how it should be build (at least at first look, all provided with the specification examples are "too simple").

PS. I hope DAWProject is not going to be another "VST3" (where no-one knows how to implement many things "right", not even if the "right" way exists...). Triggering endless incompatibilities...

Edited November 8, 2023 by azslow3

[Bapu]

45 minutes ago, azslow3 said:

ReaCWP tries to put clips with "all goodies" specified in Cakewalk (sec/beat, clip, offset, loop, etc.). I went throw DAWProject documentation and all that is possible to specify. But what is the "right" way to do that is unclear. Unfortunately, unlike in Cakewalk and REAPER, where "track with all related parameters(->lane)->clip with all related parameters" is hard to interpret wrong (since that is logical and follows what users see and do...), DAWProject introduce different hierarchy of containers, without precise specification how it should be build (at least at first look, all provided with the specification examples are "too simple").

PS. I hope DAWProject is not going to be another "VST3" (where no-one knows how to implement many things "right", not even if the "right" way exists...). Triggering endless incompatibilities...

Jürgen said he reported the "problem" to Presonus. He has my example to work from if he needs to make any adjustments to his code.

[chuckebaby]

This is really the future of DAW mixing. Having a standard similar to midi. An interface which to translate projects from one DAW to another.

[Glenn Stanton]

all this just in time for engineers and artists to be replaced by AI 🙂 you know, those AI / Machine Learning plugins we have nothing to worry about 🙂 

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 11/10/2023 at 9:07 PM, chuckebaby said:

This is really the future of DAW mixing. Having a standard similar to midi. An interface which to translate projects from one DAW to another.

I don't think it is as you'll be hamstrung to a lowest common demoinator featureset in a world where DAW manufacturers are trying to one up each other for more users. On a commercial level what would be the point?

[Starship Krupa]

4 hours ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

in a world where DAW manufacturers are trying to one up each other for more users. On a commercial level what would be the point?

The goal isn't to have more users, it's to sell more licenses.

Think of the two companies who initially worked together on it, PreSonus and Bitwig. I have never worked with Bitwig, but I read that it has some really interesting and unique features for MIDI composition. As a relatively new product that is oriented toward ITB composition, I suspect that when it comes to mixing that it's not a powerhouse. And if you need to generate staff music as a deliverable, I doubt that you can print it from Bitwig.

So a Bitwig user can either sit around praying that the features that they have requested (maybe something like external inserts, if Bitwig doesn't have them, or maybe a staff view) will appear in the next release, or they can buy a license for Studio One (or now REAPER) and have the best of both worlds.

To go back to the MIDI comparison, think of all of the specialized MIDI controllers there are now, 40 years on. If MIDI had never happened, in order to use one of these controllers, someone would be stuck in the ecosystem of whatever synth manufacturer produced them. Wow, great, if you want to use a Yamaha wind controller, you're stuck with having to use Yamaha synths. Roland guitar controller? Welcome to Roland World.

With an interoperability standard, someone can have a great idea for a MIDI controller and just start making it. The user can buy it with the confidence that it will work with any synth or software that accepts MIDI input, which is ALL of them.

This could free programmers from having to do a ton of coding and UI design work that they might not be good at or want to become good at. Thereby bringing the license price down and allowing them to focus on what they do best.

There could be a whole new market for DAW's whose purpose is mainly composition. With the idea that when the project gets to heavy lifting mixing and routing tasks, the user will export the project to be finished in a general purpose or mixing-centric DAW. And of course they'll need to have licenses for both of them.

What if someone were to come up with a DAW that tried to be the perfect compositional tool for orchestration and scoring? The designers know how they want it to work, with a killer staff view, sample library management, sound design features, video editing, etc. But due to time constraints, personal knowledge and understanding, whatever, it only has basic routing and mixing features.

With DAWProject, no worries. Get the project together in the scoring DAW, then export it to your favorite general purpose DAW that supports DAWProject import. At this point, that could be Studio One or REAPER.

Wouldn't it be nice if Sonar were on that list?

How it sells more licenses is by giving potential users confidence that if they invest in the general purpose DAW, if something else (like the theoretical scoring powerhouse DAW I mentioned) comes along, time and money invested in the general purpose DAW won't be wasted. The GP DAW will still do what it does best and they can also get the specialized one if it interests them.

For those of us who like shiny things, along with hundreds of licenses for plug-ins we seldom use, we could add a few licenses for specialized DAW's we seldom use.

Right now, I have 4 full-featured DAW's on my system, all licensed. Cakewalk, Mixcraft Pro Studio 10, Studio One Artist 6.5, and Waveform Free. I like to play around with things. If more DAW's under $100 existed, especially if they did things no other DAW can do, that list might be longer.

[Bapu]

22 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

What if someone were to come up with a DAW that tried to be the perfect compositional tool for orchestration and scoring?

Do you mean Digital Performer? My understanding is that is much more geared to orchestration. I went to NAMM one year and sat in on a demonstration on the latest features of Digital Performer (v11 IIRC). Can you guess what they used in the demonstration? It was *not* EDM, Trap, R&B, Metal, Rock or K-Pop. It was an orchestration.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Bapu

[Bapu]

I've put in a feature request for DAWproject in Cubase as well as Harrison's Mixbus/32C. I'd like to see it in DP too.

I'm a little less desirous for Reason and MixCraft even though I own those DAWs too. But hey if it was there I would not complain.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Bapu