Can a Single DAW Serve Advanced Veterans and Newbies?

[sintil8]

Over the years from when I started messing with computer based recording Daws have expanded into the available computing power. One of the challenges these days is getting a system that is transparent to use for the user, so that they/we can be creative.

Not only do you need a creative mind and enthusiasm but also a reasonable amount of tech skill to keep on top of a glitch free Daw.

Craig's modular approach makes a lot of sense toward that aim.
Resources could be freed up for the beginner so there is less stress on the OS/computing power and tech knowledge available for user's at whatever level they/us and are on track (pun intended) to be creative. It's a win win IMHO.

From what I can see the Daw's themselves are slowly morphing into becoming a musical instrument in their own right. I'm looking at this after delving into the likes of Ableton and Bitwig which both have a heavy leaning into Midi and certain genres of music, They are less of traditional recording studio approach but have their own pro's and con's. So here again ease of use raises it's head.

nuff said for now.

Kindest regards to all

 

[FinalGod]

I don’t think this would really be necessary these days.
There are tons of tutorials on YouTube that show beginners exactly how to get started and how to do specific things in a DAW. AI can also help a lot now, especially with questions like “how do I get started?” or “how do I do this specific task?”

Personally, I’d rather have a consistent interface than different levels that hide features.

 

[Craig Anderton]

So if I get Craig's initial post correctly he's contemplating a better way to teach a DAW like Studio Pro to newbies, in a structured but also fun way. One suggestion is to reveal controls only when needed for the level reached, to avoid distraction and to make the whole task less daunting. It's a thought...

Yes, exactly. I talk a lot with people who do tech support - it's eye-opening what trips up musicians when they start working with DAWs. Many newcomers have no idea what signal flow is. They can't wrap their heads around the concept of a bus ("what? It's a different
mixer inside another mixer?"), let alone gain-staging. The idea of tracks and channels not being the same thing is completely foreign, as are sample buffers and processing precision.

These are the kinds of basic issues that keep coming up. Concepts like zero-latency monitoring make their heads explode, because they need to understand latency, buffers, and what monitoring actually is. At seminars, people are often blown way that the recorded track is always dry. The way I explain it is that plug-ins are like a guitar's pedalboard. The guitar sound itself doesn't change, the pedalboard changes the sound. Relating DAW concepts to physical world concepts often helps.

This isn't a diss on newcomers. The problem is that when they load any DAW, it's pure option overload. They don't know what's important and what isn't. They don't understand why virtual instrument tracks aren't as straightforward as audio tracks, or why the metronome doesn't click - because it never occurred to them they have to click on two buttons (and they don't know why). They don't know that zero-latency monitoring, and note delays when playing a keyboard, are related subjects.

What's worse is that the documentation in DAWs is useful only if you already know what you're looking for. Newcomers don't. The reason why saying "read the manual" comes across to them as arrogant is because they often don't even know what the term is for what they want to find. Most documentation is feature-centric instead of task-centric.

The biggest benefit of a gradated course is it replaces frustration with escalating confidence. Disconnected videos and tips can't do this in the same way. Probably the most successful manual I ever wrote from a consumer standpoint was for the E-mu Emulator II. At the time, samplers were rare, expensive, and daunting. I wrote up a full manual that documented every function, BUT the most important element was a separate manual of "guided tours." Each guided tour had steps that referred to only the parts of the manual needed to accomplish specific, common tasks, and ignored all the other features and functionality. Basically, you took a highly selective tour through the manual for where you wanted to go. The manual for the E-Mu Drumulator was even more basic. I used comic strips as the model for explaining how it worked. Again, it went over really well with users.

Think of the learning process as a funnel, and you're pouring knowledge into it. You have to pour knowledge in at a controlled rate that doesn't overload the funnel, otherwise the liquid will just spill out all over the place. Newcomers have small, narrow funnels.

People often forget what it's like to be a beginner. Okay, I'll shut up now

 

[SwitchBack]

I don’t think this would really be necessary these days.
There are tons of tutorials on YouTube that show beginners exactly how to get started and how to do specific things in a DAW. AI can also help a lot now, especially with questions like “how do I get started?” or “how do I do this specific task?”

Personally, I’d rather have a consistent interface than different levels that hide features.

Note that the training levels should not take anything away from Studio Pro, being just a step-by-step series of filters to build up beginners from knowing absolutely nothing about mixers, levels, digital recording and DAWs to being able to use Studio Pro in a structured way to turn tracks, inputs and ideas into decent quality mixes and music. They will take away the need (and frustration that comes with it) to wade through those tons of YouTube tutorials to find those that do not assume any previous knowledge or even the proper names that go with anything DAW/recording related, and do not skip the features and workflow steps you later wish you knew long before.

And if you're not a beginner and not in a learning mood then don't use the filters, easy as that. But I do know that come the time Studio Pro offers such a step-by-step training path I will run through it myself too, as it should be fun (if it is for a beginner then why not for me?) and I'm sure there will be nuggets along the way.

 

[lokeyfly]

Personally, I’d rather have a consistent interface than different levels that hide features.

This.

One of the challenges these days is getting a system that is transparent to use for the user, so that they/we can be creative.

You know. With all respect my friend, Call some of us lucky. or hacking out the required details, I've rarely found computing power to stand in the way from song productivity. The development, the bandwidth, is so insanely good these days. It is utterly a gift from the heavens. Those difficult early and SCSI drive DAW days are thanjfully gone, and man they were expensive!

What I do see all too often are people on largely the hobby side (if I may use that line of thought) share their systems with gaming, utilities, work, and so on. Then, gremlins fall into play. Lets not go to the equipment side of things. They are [respectfully], excuses.

When do we hear more song output from DAW users from any new release? So, now its about the learning? The training wheels, or hiding what is seemingly, too much? Yeah, we're getting more and more soft alright. Conversationally, of course.

No need to add more .... stuff/complexity.
people often confuse not getting off the ground, with needing more stuff. More baggage,, more or less options, more AI. I just dont. We don't all get a gold star for simply kicking the ball, or having the same AI approved style of what a mix is "supposed" to be.
.

We have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.

Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

 

[FinalGod]

Newcomers, beginner

What exactly is a newcomer or beginner?

In your posts, the beginner already seems to be at the stage where they have bought a DAW.
To me, that already means they have informed themselves at least a little about what kind of software they need.

A complete beginner who simply wants to record a guitar could just as easily start with something like the Windows recorder. If that is all they ever want to do, then they already have their perfect GUI with only a few buttons.

But once someone has decided that they want a DAW, compared different programs, watched presentation videos and finally bought one, they have already accepted that they are entering a more complex piece of software.

I came to music from a completely different direction: I wanted to make a game.
Did I think I only had to install one program and everything would be done? No.
I had to learn what software I needed for which task. My game development environment could not create the 3D models I wanted, so I had to find out what software could do that, install it and then learn the tools I actually needed.
Do I know every tool in 3ds Max or Maya today? Of course not. I learned the parts that were relevant for what I wanted to accomplish.

And that is the important point for me: when you decide that you want to create something, you should also accept that it may require a lot of time and learning.
Your first steps will not be perfect. They do not have to be. You improve with every step if you are willing to learn.
I am still a beginner all the time in different areas. I see something new, decide that I want to use it, and suddenly I am back at step one again.
Did my local Stable Diffusion installation install and configure itself? No. I had to learn about dependencies, models, workflows and all the things that can go wrong.

Would I want software with deliberately limited functionality just because I am new to it? No, because I may want to do more with it later.
To me, this is being overcomplicated a bit. No serious creative application can be perfectly tailored to every new user from the first minute. Learning the tool is simply part of the process.
Even if someone only wants to “make music” with a service like Suno, they still need to know what kind of music they want and learn how to prompt, iterate and guide the result.

This reminds me of an old discussion on CGTalk about people downloading a warez DCC application and then complaining that it was bad because they did not understand it. Someone joked that what they really wanted was a big “MAKE ART” button.
But that button does not exist. (quick created image since the forum don´t exist for a long time)

Whether it is a DAW, Maya, Blender, Unreal or even an AI tool, you have to invest some time in learning if you want meaningful results.
Tutorials, documentation and now AI can make that learning process much easier, but they cannot remove it completely.

My latest example was only a few weeks ago when I tried Music Flamingo. I hoped the AI could analyze my music and give me useful feedback about what could be improved. My conclusion was basically: interesting development, but not really ready for that yet.
And despite the documentation talking about Linux and server hardware like NVIDIA A100 or H100 GPUs, I still got it running on Windows 11.
Did that happen in one minute? No.
It took time, learning, trial and error.

And I think that is perfectly normal.

 

[SwitchBack]

The premise of this thread was [Craig]: "I had heard PreSonus wanted to crack the educational market". That would be about kids in school, students in college, and about the DAWs schools choose to 'promote' in music class to students who have to be there (to paint a mindset and likely level of knowledge).

So let's take a completely different angle on this: More kids/students using Studio Pro in school means higher Studio Pro sales later means more development and support for all Studio Pro users. So how can Fender make Studio Pro the No.1 choice of DAW in music class? More than anything this thread is about that, and not about (with all respect) old farts who've seen everything and heard everything.

 

[sintil8]

This.


You know. With all respect my friend, Call some of us lucky. or hacking out the required details, I've rarely found computing power to stand in the way from song productivity. The development, the bandwidth, is so insanely good these days. It is utterly a gift from the heavens. Those difficult early and SCSI drive DAW days are thanjfully gone, and man they were expensive!

{snip}

This is very true, but a person buying their first sound card and getting a DAW thrown in may be plugging it into an off the shelf laptop which may be somewhat limited in power and stuffed full of MS goodies and bloatware, I imagine the struggle and head scratching , not everyone lands on their feet. The old farts amongst us may remember Steinberg, back when it's first iterations ran in 64 kb... yes Kilobites of ram and was a midi recorder no audio.

Maybe my mind is stuck in the clouds, still hoping that one day MS will release a DAW flavour operating system. It's good that they are finally integrating midi2 and a subset of midi tools for the OS which is loooong overdue.

Back to the topic...just a user's opinion.
Schools and edu establishments are often running systems one or two generations back on the operating systems. Costs to replace machines an expensive option across a school or campus, that is how it used to be and it may be different these days, but if it is still the same, then some of the overheads of running a modern DAW might well impact ?

It's an interesting subject, how folk acquire the skill sets and deal with learning new skills and having a user GUI that is familiar is a fundamental part of the process. I imagine Craig is looking at this as a teaching aid and a means to get the fundamentals in place, a strong foundation being the aim?
Craig can call me out if I assume to much on his behalf.

It's interesting reading how folk approach this, I have been learning and still do learn new means and ways to achieve things. It was only the other day I came across the CV tool introduced in SO1 7. Having never run a Hardware Eurorack, it was quite a surprise as I cannot recall it ever being mentioned, but there you go.

Time for me to toddle off

Best of regards

 

[BobF]

re: older machines in edu: I agree 100% (discount for age). Apple did well throwing free hardware into edu, but I think software is different. The need to meet min hardware requirements and peripherals being a challenge. A naturally interested student might well be using a free version at home.

Then there is the actual teaching staff. How well do they know the promoted DAW vs what they personally use, if any at all. Not saying there isn't a path, just that an end-to-end path is hard to see and likely to vary widely amongst institutions.

I actually approached a local school a few years ago about trying to get some recording studio type activities established - all on my dime. They wouldn't touch it over concerns about administrative approvals and parent reactions.

How many here started with PSO/FSP? My own path was thru several others before landing here. And honestly, if SONAR/Gibson hadn't flamed out I would likely still be using SONAR. This is a point in favor of early experience. You prefer what you know

 

[Ken Morgan]

The main issue I see with newbies looking things up on YouTube or whatever is...so much of what is on social media is just wrong, on so many levels.

Unless the human learning model has changed in the past 40 years humans NEED both positive (yeah, that's IT) and negative (nope, try again, this time try it the way you were taught) near real time reinforcement for the information to actually stick. Mentoring, tutoring, internships, these sorts of things are IMO the only way to go IF aspiring engineers wish to continue beyond the bedroom level.

That said, I guess the original question might need revising to reflect who the users are, what their ultimate goals for finished products are, and pretty much what genre are they most interested in?

 

[TimC340]

I started on Steinberg Pro24 - which is what Sintil was referring to, I think. I moved to Sonar when Cubase got too pricy to make it worth leaving the high seas and only moved to Studio One in 2020. By then I'd experienced GarageBand (I was Mac only for a while), which is an excellent learning tool, and Cakewalk's Music Creator which was probably better than GarageBand as it allowed plugins and pretty much all the workflows of a full-scale DAW (and had some awesome associated sound and loop libraries). I'd also been burned by FLStudio as it was (and still is) my daughter's choice of DAW. I hate that crap with a passion!

Studio One had the lower tiers which were often free (Artist?), and were also great intros to DAW handling. The free Fender Studio product also looks pretty good.

 

[sintil8]

re: older machines in edu: I agree 100% (discount for age). Apple did well throwing free hardware into edu, but I think software is different. The need to meet min hardware requirements and peripherals being a challenge. A naturally interested student might well be using a free version at home.

Then there is the actual teaching staff. How well do they know the promoted DAW vs what they personally use, if any at all. Not saying there isn't a path, just that an end-to-end path is hard to see and likely to vary widely amongst institutions.

I actually approached a local school a few years ago about trying to get some recording studio type activities established - all on my dime. They wouldn't touch it over concerns about administrative approvals and parent reactions.

How many here started with PSO/FSP? My own path was thru several others before landing here. And honestly, if SONAR/Gibson hadn't flamed out I would likely still be using SONAR. This is a point in favor of early experience. You prefer what you know

Yes,
Apple are not the only one's. Ableton were offering part ex on their Push 1 hardware to folk upgrading to a Push 2 the returned Push 1's they distributed to schools ex gratia, which I imagine came with a tax break and a promotional hand in the cookie jar down the road.

Bit of a bind over your generous offer to the school. That's the thing with institutions and regulations. The parents I imagine having nightmares of the teenager upstairs kicking hell out of drum kit

I have purveyed a few DAWS over the years and SO/FPS covers most of the territory I find useful, but I do have contact on a local level with folk using other DAWS so I try to keep abreast of what they are doing.

Just a random thought,
I would imagine if there was any real intention to snag the education market some gesture of support and a survey to find out what level of computers the different establishments are running would be a first step?
Then something like Craig's suggestion including a curriculum/lesson plan might be a runner.

Kindest of regards

 

[sintil8]

I started on Steinberg Pro24 - which is what Sintil was referring to, {snip}

More or less the same time Commodore 64 with a Steinberg cartridge midi interface and a 5 1/2 inch floppy disc. Imagine Fred Flintstone.

You got that teenager on the Fruity Loops upstairs...

Best of regards

 

[Craig Anderton]

Personally, I’d rather have a consistent interface than different levels that hide features.

The interface would be consistent, that's the whole point. Change is a problem only if you need to unlearn things. For example, Studio One has an Audio menu. Adding Separate Stems or Detect Tempo didn't change any of your muscle memory in finding functions you already use. Show/hide is the same thing. You didn't have to relearn the mixer just because Studio Pro added a flip fader function. You didn't have to relearn anything to show the new Channel Overview window.

Studio One is very good with respect to expanding the program while maintaining consistency within the interface. (Microsoft could learn a thing or two about UX from them.)

 

[SwitchBack]

... Then there is the actual teaching staff. How well do they know the promoted DAW vs what they personally use, if any at all. Not saying there isn't a path, just that an end-to-end path is hard to see and likely to vary widely amongst institutions. ...

Good point as you absolutely need buy-in from the staff to make it work. But if the training system is fun for the students then it should be fun for the teachers too, right? Make it easy for them to use, and to stay ahead of the class.

As for the minimum system requirements that one is on Fender alone. When they are serious about growing their share of the educational market then they should be conservative in raising the minimum system specs. I'd like that too

 

[FinalGod]

How many here started with PSO/FSP?

Some unknown mod tracker on the Amiga
Cakewalk from Twelve Tone Systems
Cakewalk by BandLab, during the time it was offered for free
REAPER 7.x
Studio One 7
Fender Studio Pro 8 + 12M Pro+ = It has everything I need - and probably quite a bit more I still need to explore. ;D

 

[Craig Anderton]

Good point as you absolutely need buy-in from the staff to make it work.

I always pictured the course as being offered to anyone who wanted it, not just to schools. Dealing with school system bureaucracieshas always been a nightmare, and these days, budgets have been cut for music programs anyway. (The foundation created in honor of my late wife has addressed this in a small way by raising money that goes 100% to schools in danger of losing music education programs.)

But there's a much bigger issue. The music business is not doing well right now. As much as I dislike Suno CEO Mikey Shulman's comment that most musicians don't enjoy making music, he was spot-on that DAWs are too complex for most people. He has transformed that specific insight into a company with a couple hundred employees, and a lowest valuation of $500 million (the LATKA SaaS database's high-end valuation is $5.4 billion). He recognized that there are far more beginners than veterans.

The people commenting in this thread use a DAW. They are not the target audience. The target audience is people who give up after trying a demo or trial version of a DAW. The fact that they tried it meant they were interested. The fact that they quit meant they couldn't derive satisfaction from the experience. That's a reality that needs to be addressed rather than ignored. I'm trying to address it.

 

[lokeyfly]

I think we're all providing a positive approach here. We dont have to be lock step in agreement, and all points made provide a stimulus or come from a good place. Bettering the program.

I'm rolling over two possibilities: Both of which have their advantages/disadvantages.
But in hearing myself think......is all.

Option 1 - supportive seperate lower tier software
One way to look at it is have supportive training software on its own if we are indeed including Studio Pro in the educational areas. Such training software would be dedicated to that task. Scaled down, and cheaper in cost yet provide user traction benefits. Thereby minimizing any new release snags that would rattle any production reliability issues.

Option 2 - included development software within the main software package.
Another option is having that software be a part of a full open ended version which also has its perks. At least how I'm seeing it as what if students or newbies care to advance themselves faster along? No musical endeavor should be tied up from moving forward, because its on some limitted teather line. So there are varying ways to go. Can a DAW play both sides of the fiddle? New technology, catching up with relevant competition, and finally, adding a path to some instructional aids? Maybe. Books have always helped with course instruction. Only books are sadly becoming old hat. Even digitally. The application might be best served to not have AI tweeks, but flags as to what the user may want to accomplish.

1. For instance, if the user wishes, they select Assistant on (off when not needeed)

2. The user on a bass track selects the assistant button on the Pro EQ

The assistant has standard 3 level support buttons. Yellow (newbie), green (intermediate), blue (advanced).

The yellow button could detail the general EQ usage, its parametric bands, Q. frequency, and level.

The green could display a preferred bass curve. Typical to how implemented with the current song.

The blue button could display side-chain, and dynamic enhancement.

Lastly, and likely possible this day and age, AI instructional support. The fix selection could be used to fix or provide an example for how the user chooses to proceed. Users who wish to have no AI interference would have zero interference, or flags, or help choices.

The difficulty in option 1 is hitting a wall with the user instantly needing to jump ahead, gain instant development. How many times have we uttered "Wow, that is cool, by some accident! Perhaps the current lessen can roll over or quickly export to the full version. This option 1 on a whole would minimize potential latest development snags with new releases.

Option 2 can also be worrisome. Potential holdups from new releases will undoubtedly upset the core users. Not an age issue, either.

So anyhow, I present this as a possability. Given the most recent developments, I'd expect an option 1 where lessons are proofed out, first. Then structured for option 2, later on. There is the possability that even option one could impede on the main program's development. For example, Fender Studio Pro didn't impact current issues that needed to be addressed? Sure it did. There's little other excuses. Time is money. Sometimes the best outcome is to have people like Craig or a reputable audio institute, outline course structure. I came from one, and I still use those lessons today. Only, that likely strikes up Pro Tools, because of their hold on the professional market. Does the home Studio warrant course development? That could have been the "dropped" part of Craig's premise. Yet, it is still a worthy question. Development even on a proprietary Fender course costs money. So they'd likely keep control of what they can within the framework of Studio Pro, and to its family of home users.

All this, to hopefully make the end users, new or old, be more production and song developmemt savvy. A heck of a lot more fulfilling than having AI just dive in, pat our fanny and say we got this. Problem is, preventing human laziness, only now I'm rambling
But if it can be made interesting, and educational, it can ultimately be rewarding.
For all. Better discussions, too!