DAW users - adding a "DAW in a box" to your setup - yey or nay?

The Lounge Other Gear
1

For those of you that use a DAW, I’ve been wondering how you’ve found the addition of a workstation to your setup (meaning you own a thing that can get you to 70-80% of a whole track before you ever open your DAW).

I’m thinking primarily of boxes that are sometimes loosely or literally called a “DAW in a box”, or standalone where the idea is you can complete a good chunk of a full track with that device alone. Good examples of devices promoted like this would be; Ableton Push 3, NI Maschine+, AKAI MPC One/Keys/Force, Roland MC707/Verselab etc. I’m sure there are others. All of these have an element of standalone functionality & at least some portability. While they will have limitations this means their key selling point is the ability to work away from your computer, or simply with the computer off.

What I’m interested in is how these devices affected your worfkflow if you were a DAW user.

Did a workstation detract from that side of your production (eg: did it add complexity, and distract you from finishing tracks due to 2 workflows?) Perhaps you’d rather have gotten an advanced MIDI controller? (Push 3 is interesting here as it is both) Or did it enhance it and “free” you from choice overload/the unrestricted naure of a DAW? Or perhaps it allowed a better balance? A minimised and focussed workflow for song creation, which can then be utilised in full in the DAW for those final touches.

Be interested to hear those of you who tried this and stuck with it, and those of you who tried it and went back fully ITB, as well as any other random thoughts on what triggered either approach for you.

1 Like
2

Was in and out of DAWs, tried DAWless and then got an MPC Live II and it’s perfect. The USB ports working just like a computer for midi and audio interfaces is amazingly flexible, SD card storage allows me to put a terrabyte card in and the way it syncs to the computer version, all brilliant. I’ve run it alongside the computer as well and it all works fine. It’s easy to get lost in all the things it does but the core workflow is so quick that I can’t imagine moving away from it.

It’s not going to beat things like Max, Adobe Audition, Dorico or Synthesizer V for their niche / specialist tasks that need a mouse and keyboard but for getting a track recorded it’s wonderful having something that you can just switch on and go with.

Currently just have my Nord Drum (both midi pads and audio), Digitakt and OB6 into it with a midi piano keyboard and can’t imagine needing much else.

3 Likes
3

I do this mainly with my MPC Live 2… coming away from Ableton and having a different workflow is the reason I use it, it creates different results and makes me think differently.

Key thing is ease of transfer back to your DAW when you have something to develop.
Push 3 would probably be the best option for this, but I still prefer the MPC workflow when I step away from Live.

Don’t overlook Elektron here too… I really like the Syntakt and Rytm for this… work standalone, get to a point, hook up by Overbridge and get it going in Live.

6 Likes
4

Yes this is somewhat where I’m at. I started out on hardware but switched quickly to a DAW to iron out my workflow kinks. Now I’m settled into that, I am open to returning to integrating some hardware into the workflow.

Currently investigating a box that’s versatile and sample based for this exact purpose. The ones in my mind are the MPC One+ (specifically as it controls Live over Bluetooth,) MPC Key 37 (which does not have the Ableton control but does have keys) and the Digitakt for a performance based tool. MPC seems like a great call as it covers a lot of bases. Somewhat portable, somewhat powerful, relatively easy management of storage & files etc.

5

For me, the Digitakt and my incoming Analog Keys are as far as I want to go in terms of a ‘DAW-in-a-box’ in that they both allow me to do complex sequencing and arrangement of my gear, but they allow me to do it quickly and with very little friction. Sequencing and building basic arrangements is what I want my hardware to do.

Then I record live and use the DAW for anything that needs to be done after I press stop, and that includes any extra tracks I might want to add, etc.

I really don’t see much point in duplicating these later steps in a hardware solution, but I could well be missing something.

1 Like
6

Actually, Digitakt and Digitone would be absolutely enough for me, but when it comes to complex automation and effects, I can’t do without DAW. That doesn’t have to be, it just makes music that isn’t too interesting maybe more worth listening to…

1 Like
7

I found the Polyend Tracker was really good for this except the filters suck so having that baked in when you could replace them with volcano was annoying

Currently trying out an iPad but I’m hoping I can just do the whole thing there.

1 Like
8

I wish that you could add the Elektron transfer software to a daw in a box as an app or something like that. That would be hugely convenient for people who want to work with one of those type of devices and also interface with Elektron gear on a deeper level without involving a computer.

2 Likes
9

Been making music for pleasure & money for a long time. Was fully DAW (Logic, then Cubase) plus a few choice pieces (Roland MKS-70, Korg N5, a few Volcas etc) but over the last 5 years been getting more hardware.

Now working a hybrid setup with Cubase or Ableton, plenty of VSTs, a slew of hardware synths, drum machines and FX, with Allen & Heath SQ5 as mixer, fx send/sampling router and interface.

Added Akai Force and MioXL to the setup… total game changer.

I can now do the following:

  1. sequence / control everything from the Force or the DAW so no need to turn on PC for routing midi or audio = winning
  2. Multitrack audio to Force or DAW (usually DAW)
  3. Multitrack midi to DAW having sequenced from the Force, and/or live play from the Force or any of the other midi generating devices I have

So I can capture a live hardware jam that is sequenced or played live from the Force (and other sequencers on the hardware), as midi AND audio into Cubase or Ableton for later refinement. Then play it back out again through the hardware if needed!

I don’t like doing deeper detailed edits of midi on the Force - too fiddly - much prefer Cubase for that.

But I do like the clip based / live loop capture of midi data that the Force enables - frees me up to be more loose and flowing.

So now often I get started on the Force, sequencing my hardware (or using the hardware’s sown sequencers), rough up some loops and structure, then perform the track from the Force into Cubase as midi AND audio for later refinement.

I do still make tracks fully in the DAW though for speed of setup and recall, particularly for clients.

Overall I like the new ways of working this setup offers - was a lot of work to configure, but it’s super quick to get going now and I’m using my hardware more cos it’s all very immediate with the templates I’ve got in the Force, Cubase and Ableton.

3 Likes
10

Not distracting but an extra step going from hardware to software. I personally like the tactile approach to browsing for samples, punching in beats etc on a hardware box - at the same time I’m a huge fan of Ableton so I’m lucky I can go between both worlds. Some people can’t.

2 Likes
11

I’ve tried this so many times and it’s fine but also adds fraction to the process since I’m going to finish in the daw anyway.

For getting out of the box or whatever I just have some hardware synths that I sit down and play now. Along with my basses.

The more time I spend in the daw the better I got at fine tuning a workflow because I learned the software inside and out. Plus no screwing with midi jitter or overbridge acting up or addling latency when it’s time to print to audio.

1 Like
12

I think people need to be more task oriented, and stop thinking this way in general.

We’re talking about making music. So, start with your instrument of choice, because that is the seed and the impetus of it all, and acquire whatever modest tools you might need to capture the results, based on your aspirations.

From there, if (and only if) you find yourself with a problem to solve, change or augment your setup as needed. To which end, if you have a reason and a clear objective, you can’t fail.

If, on the other hand, you’re shooting in the dark, hoping that a random selection of tools will inform your workflow, you’re doomed to be lost in a swamp of arbitrary choices.

There is no in-the-box vs. out-of-the-box debate to be had, hardware vs. software, or what have you… There is only that which you need to realize your goals.

The music comes from within, the gear is just a vehicle. Do you need a sportscar or an SUV? Because if you need an SUV, but you buy a sportscar, fashion over function, then you’re bound to dread getting the groceries, and destined to lose your licence.

:wink:

Cheers!

4 Likes
13

It is definitely more of a hassle - more failure / frustration points for sure. But for me, when it works, its buzzing! It’s like buckaroo to set up but it gives me the joy of hardware jams with easy editing later.

1 Like
14

…does not to be a daw in a box…any hw device to go can do pretty well…
many people get lost in front of a blank daw project…
and it’s always good to have something to start with…

so any sonic device that can be with u, ready to sketch or fool around with whenever and where ever it hits u/feels right or just helps u to kill some time inbetween can let u create a nice little snippet to end up in ur daw…

that’s an essential and pretty much the last undeniable argument for all sorts of hw…it’s always simply the more tactile aproach to get into “it”…

i’m, personally, still in love with the idea to get me a m8 tracker for example…

perfect pocket size, nice to handle and get’s ideas and fooling around with it to some cool results pretty fast…something that let’s u create a synthline and also let’s u catch audio snippets wherever u go is a real blast for all kind of sonic progress…

especially if ur already aware of the fact, that at some point, to get things really finished to officially acceptabele and comparable degree, there’s no way around a daw anyway…

even in those years where i was into hw only, it needed a daw to at least record, arrange and mix all that stuff i came up with…

ur not adding anything to ur set up, since it needs no dedicated device that let’s u flawlessly transfer any hw created stuff…u can also just rerecord the stuff u created with anything anywhere…so if u pick something, don’t go for something that’s also tryin’ to be a daw…pick a hw device that’s an instrument of it’s own kind and does nothing but that…

15

Yeah no reason not to have both if it’s productive. I go back and forth but for a year now have been having majority of my success with stuff written in bitwig and live performing the arrangement with mapped project macros. That’s quite a fun combo.

1 Like
16

This is one of the main reasons I enjoy the Force - the macros on crossfader, knobs and pad fx are great fun - controlling my hardware with multiple parameter changes at once for radical shifts / morphs / fills / builds etc - really opens stuff up in ways a one-to-one midi controller mapping cannot.

Love the action on the Force knobs too - silky smooth with a nice resistance to them. I’d buy a bank of 32 of those with the OLED displays as a separate midi controller in a flash! Like the Mackie C4 if anyone remembers that.

17

This is how I’m using my Syntakt. Come up with an idea and then record it into Ableton via overbridge and finish the track there.

My portable setup is Korg Gadget on the iPad. I’ve got the Mac version too so I sketch out ideas on the iPad and export as an Ableton project to finish in the DAW.

I’m much more productive with this kind of workflow but I need systems that transfer to Ableton seamlessly. Couldn’t go back to recording individual tracks from my Korg EMX.

18

If you ever intend to play live or with a band then daw in a box is useful.

I use my MPC as my core live jamming machine then do final mixes in bitwig. When I go jam with “actual musician” friends its all I bring and maybe the syntakt if Im feeling “drum machiney”.

1 Like
19

for me, there are three main problems with «DAW-in-a-box» inherited from regular DAWs:
– generic (not properly realtime) OS (even if it’s a Linux with realtime kernel)
– latency that can fluctuate depending on CPU load (due to resource allocation handling in generic OSes)
– sound artifacts that can happen in case of system overload (unlike «proper» gear that handles it in the form of voice stealing, which is definitely a lesser evil than sound artifacts).

so my answer is … maybe.

20

Cheers for all the answers folks; I hear a combo of yes, no and maybe! Which is all good.

Yeah I feel these points for sure. I think what triggered this (admittedly random thought) for me was getting back into hardware (just with the PE Tracker Mini atm.) It’s interesting mainly because the power of the portable boxes and standalone units is in a nice zone at the moment. The Tracker is one example where they quadrupled the storage space and did various other things, and it’s basically the size of a Kindle. You can go a long way with that, and I wouldn’t even say it’s a DAW in a box.

The MPC & Push are also interesting here, but with them I feel like it’s about playing stuff in a tactile way on pads rather than a super unique workflow. Looking at this new MPC Key 37, they seem to have bundled an excellent sampler with some good bread & butter synths in a package that also includes pads, keys, a screen and a sequencer.

In theory, this is counter intuitive because your DAW is of course much more powerful and capable than these units. All you need is a MIDI controller and any modern computer blows that MPC out of the water. And yet, I can see why companies are releasing these devices, because they do seem to get people moving when it comes to getting ideas down.

I guess getting re-aquainted with the tracker reminded me that there’s a lot to be said for arriving at the DAW with a sketch. And maybe even more so seperating those 2 parts of the process out. Get the track skeleton down in one place, bring it to the other (I guess like going from acoustic guitar in your room, to an electric in the studio.)