Can a Single DAW Serve Advanced Veterans and Newbies?

[Craig Anderton]

Here's an issue to consider. Are beginners enticed by a pro-level program with a zillion options, but bolts on some features intended for those new to recording? I suspect they would prefer a program built from the ground up toward that goal. That may be what Universal Audio is attempting with Luna.

Interestingly, I tried to address this issue in a proposal for PreSonus well over a decade ago, when Studio One was in its infancy. My goal was a DAW that could appeal to users throughout the process of learning how to make music with a DAW. The core concept was not to follow a multitrack tape studio model like everyone else, but a videogame model with multiple, distinct skill levels. For example, Level 1 would have an ADAT-type user interface - record, play back, and punch, with a mixer to set levels, mute, solo, and pan. That's all. Level 2 would add effects plug-ins. Level 3 would add MIDI and virtual instruments. Level 4 would include comping, and so on.

I had heard PreSonus wanted to crack the educational market, so the proposal involved pairing the DAW with a course on recording that would take the user through each level. I also saw it as a logical way to deal with upgrades. For example, each level would be another $20-$50. Once you hit the 10th level, that would be the final version and would receive periodic free or paid updates. If you were a veteran, you could start there if you wanted. The lower levels would receive only bug fixes, because the whole point was that they would not have "feature creep." The videogame model would also have been ripe for certification, and have psychological ramifications - every time you completed a level, you'd have a feeling of accomplishment, and be excited to move on to the next level.

But the thinking was just too far out of the box at that time, and there was no interest in pursuing it. Nonetheless, I still think the videogame paradigm would be a viable way to create a DAW capable of catering seamlessly to multiple levels of expertise. Or maybe it's just another one of my crazy ideas, like multiband distortion

 

[TimC340]

When you look at how capable free DAWs like Fender's own Studio are, it's difficult to justify a paid product that is less capable and needs paid upgrades to catch up with the free stuff! However, I do like the idea of a modular DAW that allows configuration at the point of purchase and can receive upgrades as and when the user needs and can afford them. That might also fit the educational market better than the free stuff that's around now.

 

[SwitchBack]

Part of working effectively with any (software) tool is to know where the controls are, and that those controls (mostly) stay where they are through updates and upgrades. So a HUI that changes with each next level seems counterproductive.

On the other hand I do like the idea of configurability of controls and functions shown by complex software like DAWs, allowing users to tailor the tool to what's actually used. It could even be made smart in keeping track of what's used over time: "You never seem to use this-and-this group of functions, would you like me to hide them (until you re-select them from the config menu)?". That also opens the door to educational 'functionality templates', to start simple and add (displayed) functionality step-by step: All controls stay in place but gradually the empty spaces get filled. And creating functionality templates is something available to all users, so all users can benefit from hiding stuff not used (yet).

 

[Vocalpoint]

It could even be made smart in keeping track of what's used over time: "You never seem to use this-and-this group of functions, would you like me to hide them (until you re-select them from the config menu)?".

Yes please. The ability to "sorta" turn some stuff off right now - is appreciated but doesn't go anywhere close to where I would like it to be. Especially when it comes to hiding add-ons and items that have no bearing on any work I would ever do.

VP

 

[SwitchBack]

It is also important that such a filter doesn't remove functionality but only hides it. Otherwise it would result in a QA nightmare for Fender and a poor experience for users trying to open songs that use blocked functionality.

 

[Stuart Welwood]

Level 1 would have an ADAT-type user interface - record, play back, and punch, with a mixer to set levels, mute, solo, and pan. That's all. Level 2 would add effects plug-ins. Level 3 would add MIDI and virtual instruments. Level 4 would include comping, and so on.

I would add some simple EQ to Level 1. Maybe just high and low cut switches, like the Teac Model 2 mixer:

For the guitarists, I like the simple options presented by the original Rockman:

And some sort of simple reverb, too.

 

[MisterE]

I would add some simple EQ to Level 1. Maybe just high and low cut switches, like the Teac Model 2 mixer:
View attachment 4022

For the guitarists, I like the simple options presented by the original Rockman:
View attachment 4021

And some sort of simple reverb, too.

Craig, please excuse the brief departure but the word "Rockman" is dear to my heart. I owned an original. If anyone's looking for a modern plug you won't have to maintain like the aging hardware, I find the one in Amplitude/Steve Vai Signature Collection gets me where I like to go and sits great in a mix just like the hardware. I believe the amp is called "Boston." Back to the original subject...

 

[Crossinger]

When you look at how capable free DAWs like Fender's own Studio are, it's difficult to justify a paid product that is less capable and needs paid upgrades to catch up with the free stuff!

and Reason Studios (formerly Propellerheads) has recently left the competition in the dust with the release of “Reason Free”, a full fledged DAW with 16 tracks. The sparse selection of original Reason devices can easily be filled with VST’s. Except for the track limitation and only a subset of devices, it is basically the same as the paid tier.

 

[Craig Anderton]

Part of working effectively with any (software) tool is to know where the controls are, and that those controls (mostly) stay where they are through updates and upgrades. So a HUI that changes with each next level seems counterproductive.

Agreed, so the original design involved creating the final version's UI first, then removing features to end up with the tiers. The changes were about adding items to a stripped-down UI, building it up over time, and adding more menu items and nav bar headings.

In a way, Studio Pro's customizable options for the Inspector allow the user to decide on at least part of the user inteface's complexity. What inspired the tier concept was that pre-Skylight versions of Sonar had an almost totally customizable interface. At one point, I created a UI that was virtually identical to Sound Forge, not just in terms of look and functionality but even the nav bar and how menus were arranged. I also did an ADAT-style Sonar interface for a non-technical friend who couldn't wrap his head around the program. He thrived with the minimal interface because he owned an ADAT, so he was able to get actual work done with a computer.

Also note that the concept involved a strong tie-in to a course on recording. 15 years ago, there was a perceived need for more education about computer+software-based recording. Grtanted, today the videogame paradigm may be a concept whose time has come and gone. Nonetheless, I don't think we have a solution yet for how to bring a newbie along, in a gradated way, from knowing nothing about a DAW to feeling comfortable with that DAW's advanced features.

 

[SwitchBack]

Probably a distinction is needed between:

1. 'Learning enough to use it today' for results today, and
2. 'Learning to use a DAW proper' in a structured way as part of an education.

Both options need simplification at first, reducing the plethora of functions to a 'basic-T', but each in a different way. As efficient as 2. can be planned and plotted it won't be the shortcut asked for in 1. by someone with probably practical knowledge about mixers and recording already. Yet functionality templates can be both as there can be a numbered set from 1 to x for the full course (complete with test material and main mixes to match before progressing to the next level) and there can also be many many job specific templates that leave out anything not essential for those jobs. And all templates use the full version of Studio Pro, with hopefully a smart help function telling you when controls related to your question are currently hidden, offering to unhide them