There’s a misunderstanding on your end about what makes a DAW stable. Older DAWs are built on outdated code, which developers have to keep maintaining. This old code can make it hard to add new features, and sometimes it even causes crashes.Bitwig is the most expensive to maintain of the two overall but.... Bitwig is by far more stable than Cubase. Yes Cubase is feature rich (Cartel Style) but in my experience (many others too) that comes with a huge headache, Stability. Bitwig on the other had isnt anywhere near as feature rich but you can stick a skyscraper on its bench in 500mph winds and you still got stability.![:hihi:]( "HiHi")
The subjective part: Personally, i'd pay for stability over features all day because as stated, toooo many features causes tooooo many other problems and Steinberg has had this on show for the past decade+ (<--idea for a plugin).
I don't need features to make good music where as good stability sets the tone to produce good music, you just dont need to worry about crashing all the time. This, amongst other things is why i decided to settle with Bitwig even knowing i'd be spending more.
P.S im basing the above on retail pricing without sales discounts.
. Some DAWs also allow third-party companies programs to mess with their core code. A good example is ARA support. While it adds benefits, it can also make the software less stable. That’s why I’m against Bitwig adding ARA.
Bitwig, on the other hand, has a modern engine and code. No matter how many features they add, it won’t make the program less stable. There might be small bugs here and there, but nothing major.
In fact, Bitwig has a lot of little bugs, but most people either get used to them or don’t notice them because they’re so specific. Since you agree Bitwig is already stable, it’s clear that adding more features isn’t a problem.
Statistics: Posted by vroteg — Wed Nov 13, 2024 3:12 pm