Subject:DAW redefined...

Posted by: Kappeesh

Date:10/17/2010 7:30:00 AM

As I consider the current state of terminology in our industry and the use of acronyms I am becoming discontent calling computers that handle all sorts of media - not just audio - a DAW. During conversation with colleagues and others I almost never find myself referring to the applications I use to create media as a "DAW". I refer to it by what it is, "Acid", "Premier", etc. Of course Acid used to be exclusively a DAW but certainly not anymore. So what's your opinion? Should it be DMW (digital media workstation) or some other cleverly coined reference? Or how about we drop it altogether? not that I lose a wink over this subject but how do you feel about DAW? Please, be...Creative. ¦]

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:10/20/2010 10:06:30 AM

Wait...DAW doesn't mean, "Doom and Wrath"? >.> <.< >.>

<jk> :D

Seriously, I'm fine with "DAW", mostly because I have to actually explain what a DAW is to people who are less...technical.

Iacobus

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: PeterWright

Date:10/24/2010 9:30:40 PM

Not sure what the problem is - it's generally not computers that get called DAWs (unless they only have one use I guess) but audio editing and creating software such as Acid.

I don't know why you say Acid is "certainly not a DAW anymore". To me, that's what it's been ever since it's had the ability to mix Audio, Loops and Midi, and it still does just this.

Having said that, although I've often read it, I don't think I ever use the expression DAW. I just call it my music editing program.

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: Kappeesh

Date:10/25/2010 5:53:59 AM

I felt the same way a few years ago. But one day I had to render a video to another format. other software I thought would work didn't. as an experiment I brought it into acid and it worked. I never use acid for video work. that day made me realize that its way beyond being an audio only program. I've always been aware that it can handle graphics but never tested it. when I read industry magazines and catalogs I always seem to see DAW used. makes no sense to continue to use this acronym when acid and similar programs have graphic capability...and will continue to be developed.

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: PeterWright

Date:10/26/2010 1:06:14 AM

The video side of Acid is very limited - maybe it has some ability to render as, but with only a single video track and no real video editing functions, the main reason it has this side is to be able to create and synch music and sound effects to vision, which it does very well.

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: Kappeesh

Date:10/26/2010 7:00:30 AM

Exactly! Which imio acid will continued to be developed and enhanced to have more multimedia features in the same way that many other programs have. take photoshop as an example. back in the version 2 days they probably had no idea that 3d and video would be incorporated in later versions. and there are many examples of the same scenario. even vegas - although primarily a video editing program - could easily be used for multitrack audio (I don't own vegas but I assume that's true) so the lines are blurred wouldn't you say?

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:10/27/2010 11:39:12 AM

Vegas can do multitrack audio but nowhere near ACID's creative paradigm concerning audio. (What most of us would call, "music.") :D

ACID had the ability to use a video track as reference for quite some time now. The intent was (is) to create your audio around this video track, which makes it perfect for musicians who are collaborating with video professionals (and other multimedia professionals).

Subject:RE: DAW redefined...

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:10/27/2010 7:07:36 PM

I consider Vegas to be primarily a multitrack audio program with some amazing video features added in.

As far as Vegas vs. ACID, i'd say Vegas is an audio editor and ACID is a music editor. Since i primarily deal with audio (which is often music, but that doesn't matter for what i do, i'm merely editing the sound recording), i find Vegas to be a much more useful and handy program than ACID. Vegas lets me slice, dice, and manipulate any way i want. ACID keeps trying to conform my edits to various musical parameters and that gets in my way.

I think what happens way to often is that people expect Vegas to be primarily focused on video and overlook it's extensive audio capabilities.