Digital Performer?

[dasmetre]

Is anyone using DP 5.1 with any great success? It's been about a year since I got it and I can't get into it--switched from Sonar on a PC to my mac, and didn't get anything done for two months while I was trying to get my head around DP. I finally got back to work when I got myself an Mbox 2 Pro.

I'd like to be able to take advantage of a couple things in DP (like getting 24 analog outs for less cash than it would take to get 8 analog and 8 digital out of Pro Tools, for one) but have not been able to work with it.

I don't know if this is anxiety from learning a new daw or if DP is just not intuitive.

Whattaya Think?

[drBill]

DP works well for me when I'm writing and in the MIDI world. As soon as audio crops up, I run for PT HD as fast as I can.

[electropoet]

Nothing will seem intuitive after using Sonar. I used Cakewalk since version 7, and finally switching over myself about a year ago and went threw the same thing. If I hadn't already commited to Mac I'd have probably switched back. I found Sonar 15 times easier use and my workflow seriously impeded. I did slowly begin to get more comfortable...i didn't like the manual, but I got the macproaudio dvd and while i thought the video sucked...when i took the time to sit down and follow along, thats when i made my giant leap. In any case, I totally agree and had the same thing happen, but I eventually saw the light, and now Sonar seems like a toy...I liked it, and got very use to it...I still thinks its nicely set up...well at least version 3 was, but DP is way deeper and now that I've spent time with it...I think thats a good thing. If I want simple, I go for ableton live...which I often rewire into DP, as well as Reason. A lot of power. Finally, if you can think of DP like an actual hardware set-up...it becomes easier to get your head around. I heard that a few times early on...but now I really agree with that...and I think it also makes DP unique from everything else...i have no experience with Pro-tools, so it might be similar, but the rest of them are uniquely software. Hope this helps...I think you should make sure you don't like DP before you give up...its really cool...just a much steeper curve these days than the old pro's would have you believe.

[uncle duncan]

DP works great for me. Audio and midi. I use 2 monitors and spread out the windows. When they came out with consolidated windows, I just turned that function off. Perhaps that's part of the problem. If you're on a newer Mac, you should be able to plug in a second monitor wihout having to buy a video card - you just get an adapter at the Mac store for $19 or something like that.
I've got my track window on the left monitor, with the monitor resolution set so the track window looks larger, which makes it easier to see what the hell is going on. The mixer window is on the right monitor, and when I double click on a track to open the edit window, it pops up on the right monitor, so you can always see what's going on in the song while you're editing.
I use the 'insert' funtion in the edit window for doing volume automation. I find it's easier than trying to ride a fader with a mouse in real time, cause you're going to have to go back and tweak it anyway, and riding the fader gives you hundreds of breaks in the automation curve, where if you do it with a mouse, you only have a few. Or you can use the pencil tool. (Go to the 'studio' menu and click on 'tools' and the tool menu pops up next to the edit window.)
I learned all this by reading the manual, and I've only scratched the surface. But I use DP as I would use a tape recorder, so it's really easy. For loops I use Stylus (what a great program!) and drag & drop the midi for the loops, so instead of triggering loops, the midi plays the loop. That way you can mess with the loop using the midi data. I've turned a 4/4 loop into a 6/8 loop that way.
I guess if you had a huge acid loop library, you'd want Sonar, but other than that, DP is totally pro; a transparent and intuitive tool for making music.
Gotta mention the time stretch/compress function, which allows you to stretch a piece of audio and watch it on screen, so you can line up the ends of harmony vocal parts. You know how there's always one 'ooooh' that hangs over the others in a vocal stack? Instead of slicing the ooh and dragging the end to match the others, and then finding a splice point and crossfading so you don't notice the splice, you can just use the 'seperate audio' command and split off the last second of the ooh into a new soundbite, and then time-compress or stretch it with the 'hand' tool to match the other ooohs in the adjacent tracks. I've also transposed vocal oohs up or down a few notes. I transposed a bass note down a 5th one time to accomodate a new ending, and it sounded fine.
And what you said about getting 24 channels of audio for the price of 8 in PT is also a good reason to stick with DP. I'm telling you, that whole PT thing is a scam. Lucky for you, you haven't been sucked in yet.
If you're ever stuck, you can go to UnicorNation and post your question, and they'll help you out.

[rodrigo]

I have been using DP for several years and I think is very intuitive and user friendly. However, I was lucky a friend of mine showed me around the first couple of times I was trying it out. It really helped me get on my feet and start learning the program.

If you can't find someone who is familiarized with the program, I would suggest you buy a DVD that explains the depths of the software. This could probably be the fastest way to get around it. You could also try watching the podcasts at Tutorial Depot. They're free and they explain some shortcuts and features of DP. It really is a great DAW application, don't give up on it!!

MacAudioLab Ultimate DP5 Learning Series | Sweetwater.com

HOW TO: Digital Performer

[winvbass]

Originally Posted by drBill

DP works well for me when I'm writing and in the MIDI world. As soon as audio crops up, I run for PT HD as fast as I can.

Ever used DP as a front-end to the PT HD system?
I'm moving to a studio that has an HD3 setup and although PT is alright i'd rather use DP as that's where i feel more at home.

[jeronimo]

I use DP since 4.5 and now I´m with 5.11.
I´m really familiar with PT LE, I pretty much mastered it ´till verson 6.0, now on 6.4 there are a few thing I never used and I don´t why they´re for.
I mix only using DP and I think it´s pretty easy to get around when you´re used to PT.
The basic way of thinking is pretty much the same on all DAWs, but when you try to get deep into it..........

[donsolo]

OK, here's my place lol.

DP as a HD3 is going to run as DP but in RTAS mode (I think you can open TDM plugs in that mode)

DP is NOT the program for built in plugins though admittedly, I'm spoiled. Where DP is really nice is in the routing Scheme "bus 1-2 bus 3-4 etc" Easier than logic's Enviroment and I used Cakewalk from Ver 5-Sonar2.2XL I used DP from 4-5.11

DP is NOT intuitive out of the box. This is true, and the manual is well...Thick. I've read it cover to cover several times, I put it on the back of the toilet. A good book to start DP with is "Producing Music with Digital Performer" I was required to buy it for PW161 at Berklee and by the time I bought it, I was lightyears ahead of it. But, it's a good way to get you up and running around the program. The other thing that I love about DP is if you use the DP midi output and use Soundflower, you can use external programs (like weird freeware Comodore 64 emulations etc) to create sounds.

The Audio Unit format is great in my opinion vs the Direct X and VST formats. Because it's a mac thing, it's pretty stable. DP is also really good about checking in new AUs so you're not crashing every 6 minutes...though it's happened to me...save often.

What I really love about DP is the Midi Control and the Meter Bridge (though I forget to use MB because I got so used to 4.62) The film scoring capabilities of DP is so wonderful too because of the incredible midi Implimentation. Howard Shore uses it.

[theblotted]

DP is the least intuitive DAW i've ever used. even worse than Logic. huge learning curves.

i'm used to most of DP by now... but everything takes longer to find out how it works, features are always hidden somewhere in the menu, really disrupting the workflow. plus not being able to resize arrange window vertically is major pain.

there are others but i'll stay with the above for now. flame on.

[jeronimo]

Originally Posted by theblotted

DP is the least intuitive DAW i've ever used. even worse than Logic. huge learning curves.

to me logic is the steepest learning curve of all, just ridiculous... but it's just personal taste

[Tony Shepperd]

I only have a couple of issues with the mixing capabilities of DP.
I have a composer I work with who is an HD3 accel with DP as the front end.
If you are using it as a mixing environment, it doesn't seem to be accurate.

In his system, I cannot option drag my Aux sends from one channel to another.

If I want an Aux send to to have a certain value, say -10, I just can't got to the Aux send and type in that value. (to me, that's odd)

When I go to his studio to work, after he has a rough mix of everything I still have to go and set a level for automation of volume. That seems strange to me.
Why can't I just have the ability to automate immediately.

In Pro Tools I can highlight a waveform and the use a tool to raise or lower a volume automation, right on the screen. That seems almost impossible to do elegantly in DP.

I cannot normalize just one section of a waveform. You have to normalize the entire waveform. If I only want to normalize the bridge of a vocal, it's very convoluted to do so.

I cannot elegantly grab multiple tracks and drag them up or down in the arrange/edit window. This is bogus!

And ultimately, my problem with DP is they have not fully implemented MAS and DAE. The functions for one program should be 100% for the other. Why offer DAE if you are not going to fully implement it at the release of an upgrade.
You find a great feature and then you find out it's only under MAS not DAE. That's kinda amateurish.

[bannerj]

I guess I'm the odd one here because DP has always seemed more intutive to me than PT. I started on an mbox and then switched because I got a great deal on a Metric Halo 2882. I've always felt like it was pretty straightforward to find whatever commands I needed. BUT, I heard/read once that this is the deal with the diifferent DAWs...that some of them just make sense to different people because that is the way their minds work. I really enjoy DP quite a bit.

[Geert van den Berg]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

When I go to his studio to work, after he has a rough mix of everything I still have to go and set a level for automation of volume. That seems strange to me.
Why can't I just have the ability to automate immediately.

I don't really understand what you mean here. If you tell DP to automate every parameter and go into write automation it will write everything.

Then with the View filters you can turn on or off automation data or the soundbites if you want to edit something individually.

I do think that the automation in DP misses some neat feats that PT has like 'write to start/all/end' or 'next breakpoint'

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

In Pro Tools I can highlight a waveform and the use a tool to raise or lower a volume automation, right on the screen. That seems almost impossible to do elegantly in DP.

I understand what you mean, the trim tool is very handy in PT, you can do something similar in DP though, you can either use the new clipbased gain, or place 2 breakpoints in the volume automation track, and then you can use the change continuous data window to alter the levels once you select these points, this works for every automation track btw and can also be handy if you want to raise or lower the total volume automation of a track. (if you doubleclick a breakpoint or the trackname it will select all the breakpoints)

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

I cannot normalize just one section of a waveform. You have to normalize the entire waveform. If I only want to normalize the bridge of a vocal, it's very convoluted to do so.

Not if you use the i-beam selecter and select a portion of the waveform? If that doesn't work you might have to hit 'split' first. I can't check it out now, I am on a PC laptop now (yuck...)

[Silver Sonya]

To me, DP is a more elegant and intuitive program than Pro Tools, but I wholly concur: the "Consolidated Windows" thing is just stupid and awful. Turn it off and you have a wonderful program.

Remember "New Coke"? Consolidated windows is kinda like that. It's what happens when a corporation gets a bad notion to "improve" the look and feel of its product. Consolidated windows was supposed to be elastic and simplifying, but it is just irritating and counter-intuitive.

Ultimately, all DAWs are kinda the same (with the exception of radical, paradigm-shifting things like Ableton Live), they all do pretty much the same thing in slightly different ways.

Pick one, get used to it, make peace with its limitations, and get some work done.

- c

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Pick one, get used to it, make peace with its limitations, and get some work done.

Exactly!

I always think that people who jump from one DAW app to another are kidding themselves.

I use DP. I find it perfectly intuitive (I don't know what's throwing you guys). I also mess around with PT and Sonar (at the studio and with collaborator, respectively) and find them equally approachable and capable.

It's all about familiarity. Get to know them. They all pretty much do the same shit.

[donsolo]

and Feature-wise, DP has just as much to offer as any other program out there.

The way I describe DP is like an Egg...it's got a really tough shell to crack but once you're in, you're in. I find the ones that SEEM more intuitive usually are an Egg cased in foam, easy to get into then you hit a nasty wall.

As for the consolidated windows, I use a 15" powerbook so the consolidated windows work great for me because I just click to get to the next one. When I switch to a larger external screen, I'll start popping things like my mixer window out or my drum editor (though I'm probably the only one using that thing) and keep a few other things open.

But the bus sends not being able to type in the amt is such a small thing...

[morebutter]

I use DP 5.11, I've never used any other DAW. I do MIDI and audio. MIDI is great, audio is good. There are some things missing from the program like easily automatable track mutes. I still can't figure out why they would leave out such a basic feature.

[OldTimey]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

I cannot elegantly grab multiple tracks and drag them up or down in the arrange/edit window. This is bogus!

Posted by Shooshie @ Unicornation.com:

Select the tracks you want to move and:

CONTROL - PAGE-UP/PAGE-DOWN (moves track or group of tracks up or down by one increment)
CONTROL - HOME/END (moves track or group of tracks to top, together)

Pretty elegant if you ask me. But yeah, they haven't implemented mouse click and drag. I think it has something to do with its deep Mac roots.

DP is a really deep program. Check out the "Commands" window some day. You can assign a key command for almost anything.

[kelldammit]

i was kinda weirded out at first a little by dp, too...but it was pretty amazing how quickly i caught on. i was used to using cubase, nuendo, samp (pc) previously. there are going to be differences, so don't be freaked. what i did is took an old project, that i wanted to redo (so i already knew how it went, etc) and just did that...that way the creativity wasn't thwarted. i could just concentrate on "how-to". keep the manual and www.unicornation.com close at hand, and go with it as it comes. you'll be fine.

at any rate, no matter what you choose, there's a learning curve. i've not used sonar (only cubase, nuendo, samp on pc), so i can't really make any suggestions as to what program might suit you better if dp isn't "it". all of the bigboys are very powerful and capable programs, and they each have different strengths and weaknesses. i like different programs for different reasons, and would love one that was an amalgam of all of them, but you can't really go wrong insofar as what you can accomplish with any one of them. i'd suggest doing a full project in something before you decide, if at all possible.

insofar as some of the other talk here..."intuitive"= figured out w/intuition, so an hour neck-deep in the manual to perform a simple function would seem to imply the inverse. that said, different people seem to have completely different intuitions as to how things should work...so there you go!
is brand x right for you? the answer is absolutely a firm, positively definite maybe.

kell

[henryrobinett]

Depends in what is meant by intuitive. DP is intuitive for me, but I've been using it since version 2.72 and have been using Performer since 1.2. So it's pretty intuitive for me. I'm still on version 4.61 though. If t ain't broke don't fix it philosophy. I haven't seen anything I need in 5.1 I can't get in 4.61. And this is stable for me.

Admittedly I have limited experience with Logic and a little more with PT. I have PT 7.3 but only use it when I must. DP does everything I need it to do. And I know where everything is. This is kind of the definition of intuitive. "Learning new" stuff takes the intuitiveness out of it.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

To me, DP is a more elegant and intuitive program than Pro Tools, but I wholly concur: the "Consolidated Windows" thing is just stupid and awful. Turn it off and you have a wonderful program.

Remember "New Coke"? Consolidated windows is kinda like that. It's what happens when a corporation gets a bad notion to "improve" the look and feel of its product. Consolidated windows was supposed to be elastic and simplifying, but it is just irritating and counter-intuitive.

Ultimately, all DAWs are kinda the same (with the exception of radical, paradigm-shifting things like Ableton Live), they all do pretty much the same thing in slightly different ways.

Pick one, get used to it, make peace with its limitations, and get some work done.

- c

I have ended up on DP as Logic was doing my head in and Steinberg pissed me off a while back.
Thing is, I LOVE consolidated windows. MUCH better to me.

I agree though about picking one and using it. All of them have issues, but DP does the basic recording stuff very well I think and I can live with the rest.

[Psyko/Acoustics]

Hey guys,

Off topic here, but how is MOTU's tech support these days? Before I sold my 2408mkII last year they were still looking for more support staff and phone waits were rough.

Just curious.

More on-topic: I met a producer from Hong Kong last month who said he used DP, he really praised the pitch-tuning features.

Cheers

[henryrobinett]

I'm very glad to report that I haven't had to call Motu tech support in years. So I have no idea whether they've improved or not. I doubt it. But since I haven't had to call, their product must've improved as well.

[scott petito]

Mutes are complete automate-able as is virtually every other parameter


cheers
SP

[n8tron]

Originally Posted by Psyko/Acoustics

Hey guys,

Off topic here, but how is MOTU's tech support these days? Before I sold my 2408mkII last year they were still looking for more support staff and phone waits were rough.

Just curious.

More on-topic: I met a producer from Hong Kong last month who said he used DP, he really praised the pitch-tuning features.

Cheers

yeah the pitch tuning in dp is great! i'm surprised that it isn't mentioned more. There is no good autotune mode, its more in depth draw based, but it works very well. You can technically auto quantize pitch but it is pretty rough. I'm hoping other daws include this feature. in one swoop dp has nearly made separate tuning programs almost useless for some people.

[Killahurts]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

I'm very glad to report that I haven't had to call Motu tech support in years. So I have no idea whether they've improved or not. I doubt it. But since I haven't had to call, their product must've improved as well.

Yeah, this is where I am with it as well.

Besides, I know more about DP than most of their tech support ever could. I've been using it for 16 years.

[quincyg]

Originally Posted by theblotted

DP is the least intuitive DAW i've ever used. even worse than Logic. huge learning curves.

i'm used to most of DP by now... but everything takes longer to find out how it works, features are always hidden somewhere in the menu, really disrupting the workflow. plus not being able to resize arrange window vertically is major pain.

there are others but i'll stay with the above for now. flame on.

for me dp was way easier to learn than logic. pt is easiest.

[MT Groove]

I used DP for a few years and here's a few opinions about it. DP shares a lot of handicap kinda like Pro Tools. First it uses the Sound Designer II file format. (Even Pro Tools has gotten away from that). It's such a dated and incompatible format I can't understand why DP still uses it. Then, it can only have one file type in each session. ALL files must be one rate/file type and bit depth. If you import a 16 bit file into a 24 Bit Session, it will add zeros to the 16 bit file. What a waste. It treats Stereo interleaved files as .L, and .R files having to split it upon import. And, it can't import 32-Bit Float Files. As of DP 4.6, you can bounce down to 32 Bit float but guess what, it's actually a 24 Bit file with zeros added...that's right....check them out with a bitscope and you'll know what I'm talking about. It may have been fixed now. I'm not sure.

The GUI is sleek and smooth, but it's downright sluggish. Even with a fast mac it still seem sluggish. All fades must be rendered as new files....like in Pro Tools. You can't have long throw faders in the mixer, you can't re-skin the program. All the buses and Aux are just numbers (Bus 1-2, Aux 7-8) etc. It can't automatically assign a name to the sends by naming the actual Buss or Aux channel. There's no import audio to track function. So, if you have 70 tracks to import, you gotta drag them one by one. (Not sure if this is fixed in DP5)

On the bright side, the MIDI feature and Scoring Capabilities are awesome. For Audio....blah.....use something else.

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by MT Groove

All the buses and Aux are just numbers (Bus 1-2, Aux 7-8) etc. It can't automatically assign a name to the sends by naming the actual Buss or Aux channel.

You can rename aux sends (e.g., "to 1176" or similar). You just have to do it via the audio bundles window.

[MT Groove]

Originally Posted by chrispick

You can rename aux sends (e.g., "to 1176" or similar). You just have to do it via the audio bundles window.

Yes I am aware that you can rename it in the audio bundles. What I'm trying to imply is that it can't automatically be named in the mixer. Say you create a new Aux track. Call it Reverb 1. In DAWs such as Samplitude and Nuendo, the aux sends for each track automatically has "Reverb 1" available. Makes it so much easier than "Aux 1" or "Aux 6" etc.