Multi-DAW file format, does it have a chance of expanding?

[RABid]

Got this email from Bitwig today...

 

Bitwig and PreSonus are making it easy to share projects between programs

We know that many producers use multiple DAWs, but transferring projects between programs can be time-consuming or complex. That's why we teamed up with PreSonus to create a free, open, DAW-agnostic file format that allows you to save projects in one DAW and open them in another. This new DAWproject file format is as of today supported in Bitwig Studio (5.0.9) and Studio One (6.5).

 

I'm wondering how well this works and what restrictions they had to write into the format. Of course, every DAW maker includes their own range of plugins. I assume that will be represented by either a detailed MIDI channel or flattening to audio. Frankly, I'm amazed that dragging MIDI and audio loops from VST's to a DAW track works so well. I have enough trouble just moving a project from laptop to desktop while using the same DAW.

[Reezekeys]

What about AAF? That's been around a while.

 

https://www.motu.com.pl/software/mx4/42-digital-performer/270-session.html#:~:text=AAF is a widely adopted,professional audio and video applications.

[Reezekeys]

Just did a quick google and answered my question!

 

https://www.gearnews.com/dawproject-has-transferring-projects-between-daws-become-a-reality/

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, RABid said:

I'm wondering how well this works and what restrictions they had to write into the format. Of course, every DAW maker includes their own range of plugins.

 

I use Studio One all the time and am learning Bitwig, so I'll get a chance to check this out. Last time PreSonus got together with somebody was Celemony, and now almost every DAW has ARA. Maybe lightning will strike twice. 

 

Frankly, this is something I proposed so long ago probably everyone forgot about it. Part of the proposal was transferring EQ and compressor settings because I figured what the heck, a 3 dB boost at 2 kHz with a Q of 1 isn't going to sound that different on different EQs. Of course it will vary somewhat, based on the EQ's character. But it's not going to be a qualitative difference. 

 

I see a big advantage of this format as being able to use features unique to a program, and exporting tracks. For example, you have a project in Bitwig but you want to use Studio One's algorithmic composition tools to create a piano part. So you bounce over to Studio One, create the piano part, then import the piano into the original Bitwig file.

 

Betting pool: Which DAW will adopt this next? I don't know, but I suspect Logic and Pro Tools will adopt it last

[KuruPrionz]

Craig's post got me thinking and SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guessing).

I just read this, and the first thing that comes to my mind is that somebody could download trial versions of every possible DAW and write a plugin for each "value added feature" so everybody could use them with their DAW regardless which one they prefer.

Essentially, DAWs do more or less the same basic things although everybody has their way of doing them. 

If you had all the tools of all the DAWs as plugins, you could just use the one you have and keep life simple. 

Or maybe I'm just crazy... 

[ElmerJFudd]

OMF? Which precedes AAF. 
 

https://www.macprovideo.com/article/final-cut/exporting-and-importing-between-daws-without-losing-your-mind

 

 

[Anderton]

I've used OMF and AAF. OMF was introduced in 1994 and AAF in 1998, so while they were valiant attempts at the time, they're really not very useful in today's world...particularly  because OMF was never standardized the way MIDI was.

They're clunky, kludgy, and transfer little data between competing programs other than volume and pan.

[ElmerJFudd]

17 hours ago, Anderton said:

I've used OMF and AAF. OMF was introduced in 1994 and AAF in 1998, so while they were valiant attempts at the time, they're really not very useful in today's world...particularly  because OMF was never standardized the way MIDI was.

They're clunky, kludgy, and transfer little data between competing programs other than volume and pan.

Time stamping would be an important aspect of transfer of audio clips.  Otherwise you’re just as well to bounce stems from start.   If it also includes volume and pan that’s useful.    
 

I don’t really see a way to move anything created with proprietary plugins or even third party plugins the other studio doesn’t have without printing or freezing the track to audio.  At which point you’re committed.  (I know they’ve made software that removes reverb but still).   
 

[o0Ampy0o]

On 9/26/2023 at 2:51 PM, Anderton said:

I see a big advantage of this format as being able to use features unique to a program, and exporting tracks. For example, you have a project in Bitwig but you want to use Studio One's algorithmic composition tools to create a piano part. So you bounce over to Studio One, create the piano part, then import the piano into the original Bitwig file.

 

Are the unique contributions baked into the exported file, permanent and not editable if imported back into the originating DAW?

 

Just wondering. There are ways to work with and around that.

 

[bill5]

On 9/26/2023 at 5:51 PM, Anderton said:

Betting pool: Which DAW will adopt this next? I don't know, but I suspect Logic and Pro Tools will adopt it last

Are you saying Avid doesn't play well with others? Cmon that's crazy talk  

 

I've been saying something of this type has been needed for years. It doesn't matter to me personally because I only use one DAW, but it just makes sense. 

[Theo Verelst]

Assuming you work sample accurate and there is a way to define signal paths of a mix, it comes down to midi and audio standards like event sequences/Midi songs, and wav/aif/flac or so audio files, and some standardized way of linking the pieces. Optimizations, limitations and secret processing steps would be in the way of easy sequence/audio pre-render/plugin/DAW tracks compatibility.

 

T

[Anderton]

12 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

Are the unique contributions baked into the exported file, permanent and not editable if imported back into the originating DAW?

 

That's the only way I think it could be done. For example, nothing else does Studio One's harmonic editing. So I would need to import the Bitwig file into Studio One, process it, render it, export it, then bring it back into Bitwig. Of course, nothing prevents me from doing that now. But the advantage of the DAWproject file format is that I'd be able to do it in context of at least a really good approximation of the original music. 

 

I think this might be a boon to companies that do subscriptions. For example, I use a lot of Waves plugins. If I wanted you to work on one of my projects but you didn't use Waves plugins, I could buy you a subscription for a month so you'd have the same sounds I have.

 

For instruments, MIDI 2.0's profiles could get presets for common instruments like strings, organ, piano, etc. at least in the ballpark of having a similar sound.

[Reezekeys]

From the article I linked to:

 

"DAWproject files take the MIDI notes, the audio clips, the fades, volume and pan information that you can already transfer and adds in things like time warping, transposition, MPE, markers, and mixer automation. But the big story is how it handles plugins. It will take the full stored state of any loaded plugins plus all of their automation. This gets interesting when it comes to built-in plugins that are not transferable to another DAW. It will pull data in a generic form from EQ, Compressors, Gates and Limiters and be able to transfer that information into the built-in plugins of the destination DAW."

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, Reezekeys said:

This gets interesting when it comes to built-in plugins that are not transferable to another DAW. It will pull data in a generic form from EQ, Compressors, Gates and Limiters and be able to transfer that information into the built-in plugins of the destination DAW."

 

Yes, as I said "...a 3 dB boost at 2 kHz with a Q of 1 isn't going to sound that different on different EQs. Of course it will vary somewhat, based on the EQ's character. But it's not going to be a qualitative difference." So I don't see EQ, Compressors, Gates, and Limiters as much of an issue. Even basic delays could be quantified to some degree, but there will be real limits dealing with the kind of hyper-creative plugins that keep cropping up these days (let alone bread-and-butter items like amp sims). That's why signing up for a month's subscription when collaborating, or transferring a rendered file, would likely be part of the process. I don't see that as a deal-breaker, I think people who use more than one DAW for specific purposes (e.g., Digital Performer for notation) will be happy to get most of a project from point A to point B, make the needed changes, then send it back.