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

 

[Ken Morgan]

Another approach: Most/all DAW seem to eliminate the need for the fundamentals, such as gain staging, understanding the differences between stems and busses, and so on. (I think this is what Switchback was kind of getting at above, but in hands on, not academic situations)

Although I'm very happy with my self imposed limitations with available technology, overcoming limitations is perhaps the single most powerful and long lasting teacher. Less 'automatic' features and making user options of real time recording busses, for example, like what was done for the (arguably) best sounding rock, country, and jazz recordings in history may make any DAW a 'beginner to hit maker" tool.

Oh, yeah...enough with 500 track colors.

 

[TimC340]

As Craig intimates, there was a good deal of instruction available from Cakewalk for Sonar (and Music Creator, which was a bloody good and only partially cut-down version), and I very much appreciated it back in the day. I’ve used a couple of Udemy courses in my early days of Studio One and they were actually pretty good, but the phenomenal catalogue of instructional videos from Joe, Gregor, Quanta, Mike Enjo and of course Craig’s top tips mean that there’s no excuse for not finding the answer to any given question. However there is a bit of a lack of structured training available for the latest versions of the program.

I suspect the same is true for most of the current DAWs - some great informative content, but a lack of structured training.

 

[lokeyfly]

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.

When I think of a zillion options, I think of Cochos Reaper. The menus, and options are off the charts, and while I had fun doodling with Reaper many years ago for a few minths, my work accomplished was zero. The left brain took overs completely, and kept the right side out of the room. I was always pkaying with colors and skins. The beauty of Studio One for me and subsequently many who reported the same, is how elegant and lean the options, menus, and results of Studio One are. That has largely been maintained. If anything, its even better with those beautiful additions of event clip gain, VCA's and other nice touches.

Me thinks newcomers, and seasoned users are still attracted to this wonderfully simple yet efficient environment. That would include educational requirements as well. That might be where lesson construction could happen without impacting the rest of us. Consider. Questions on how to use Studio One/Pro have always been so light.The overall complexity isnt a zillion, but I realize it could seem like that for a genuine newbie just comung in. Thats where it could pay to have those users start on a light or an ootion scaled down version which already exists.

As for AI assuming what I may need would only pass me off enough to write a song about it. Id prefer AI stick with my shopping lists, and stay out of the creative path way.
OMMV of course, but I felt it necessary to remember how easy Studio One/Pro really is.
I wouldnt want to whittle down subscriptions, or licensing any further than they are. I'm guessing that might be the case. Although, perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[BobF]

IMO, yes, a single DAW can serve all levels of experience well. Rather strap training wheels on the DAW, or hide buttons, a better approach would a user manual that is task based rather than menu based. Start with basic recording/arrange/mix in the early chapters, moving to more advanced tasks in later chapters - BUT make the manual indexed by task rather than option/menu items so it is easy to skip around.

No need to temporarily cripple a DAW to progress someone thru the levels of experience.

 

[TimC340]

I tend to agree, Bob, but I think there’s also an economic factor involved for most newcomers. And Fender have that covered with the free Fender Studio. Not only is it free, and based on the same code as Studio Pro, but it’s available on just about every platform. What it perhaps needs is a more obvious (and mildly discounted) upgrade path to Studio Pro.

 

[SwitchBack]

IMO, yes, a single DAW can serve all levels of experience well. Rather strap training wheels on the DAW, or hide buttons, a better approach would a user manual that is task based rather than menu based. Start with basic recording/arrange/mix in the early chapters, moving to more advanced tasks in later chapters - BUT make the manual indexed by task rather than option/menu items so it is easy to skip around.

No need to temporarily cripple a DAW to progress someone thru the levels of experience.

The thing is that no-one of the current still-in-school generation is reading manuals, having a span of attention that could easily be confused with latency. 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...

 

[BobF]

I tend to agree, Bob, but I think there’s also an economic factor involved for most newcomers. And Fender have that covered with the free Fender Studio. Not only is it free, and based on the same code as Studio Pro, but it’s available on just about every platform. What it perhaps needs is a more obvious (and mildly discounted) upgrade path to Studio Pro.

I wasn't thinking of cost .... my bad

 

[BobF]

The thing is that no-one of the current still-in-school generation is reading manuals, having a span of attention that could easily be confused with latency. 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...

Good point re: attention span. OTOH, doing this stuff well will require a touch of mental focus to get beyond the basics.

 

[SwitchBack]

So does gaming, so that's where Craig is coming from I guess. Once the students reach a level where the acquired DAW knowledge should become rewarding by itself they'll either continue learning by using, or they choose another subject.