This changed over time and today the manufacturers of DAWs must decide where they want to “sit” in this diverse market. What I do see is that the question “what IS a DAW?” can be answered in very different ways these days. Let me add some thoughts and maybe also clarify: I dont consider any request to extend the functionality of cubase as “bad” per se. Having said that: What you desire could be a simple addition. Defocussing (actually resulting in changing focus all the time and not getting things ready or mature) kills products. Good product management has to take FOCUS-decisions - and create a clear spot on the market for which the product is thought to be. The attempt to support ever type of usage usually leads to feature creap, immature and partly imlemented features, etc. etc.Īll these are possibilities where the various products could focus on certain strengths imho. The spectrum of what is done with DAWs by users has spread tremendously - some still use them more or less as an in-the-box replacement for recording and mixing the “old way”, some compose, some create sounds, etc. In an attempt to try to answer why this is not part of most DAWs: It has to do with genre and what a DAW is perceived to be - and its evolution over time.Ĭubase and many other DAWs have their roots in conventional sequencing and recording, in other words: These kinds of DAWS were orininally neither built for “sound design” nor for certain ways of composing.
Why not - it would be a cheap addition in terms of development effort.
0 kommentar(er)
