What I want to know is, why the hell isn't MC the industry standard? I mean, not only is NOT the industry standard, but it's waaaay down the pecking order behind PT, Cubase, Ableton, Reason and probably a few more. EDIT: Yes, Reaper and Cakewalk
I just don't get it. When people ask me which DAW I use and I answer 'Mixcraft', the usual reply is 'eh?'
People don't even know about it, let alone actually use it.
Last edited by aj113 on Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And I got Cubase 5 free with my interface - took best part of a day just to get the thing registered and when I opened it to have a look, I just had a blank screen - no tracks - couldn't work out how to get started so I didn't.
Viva Mixcraft!
Old Dudes Rock! Trevor OFC™ Founding Member Dell 3050 SFF; i3; 32 gig RAM; MX 8, 9 and 10.5 Pro; Win 11 Pro
Focusrite Solo; Sennheiser HD650 cans
Well Mixcraft could be better if they would just put some effort into hiding most of the features and functions somewhere out in the garage......... NOT!
PT10 is a pretty amazing piece of software, but so incredibly complex I'd die of old age before I created my first signal path for my first track. I am completely blown away when I watch someone who has mastered it work.
chibear wrote:Answer: MixCraft is too cheap, too user friendly, with too natural a work flow. Can't have that!.....For the so-called' power' user it seems that bloat + complexity = better
I know this post is kinda tongue-in-cheek but I honestly think you're spot on. MC is what a DAW should be, and the "elite pro's" don't like that. It takes their power away.
They are all awesome and for what you pay is probably worth it.
I think for the small to average home studio producer Mixcraft is
just a lot less complicated and easier to get quicker results for making
great recordings.
Seriously though, I got a copy of Pro Tools SE with my M-Audio Fast Track C400 (nice audio interface btw) and have not installed it yet. Not so much because I am pleased with Mixcraft but it simply isn't supported on XP. Guess I need to upgrade my 'puter?
I also have Ableton Live Lite that came with my M-Audion Keystation 88es. Nice software but the workflow in Ableton is not what I am used to. The session mode drives me nuts. Doing certain things such as adding loops and throwing on some FX is a chore in Live. Mixcraft is much more intuitive in this respect.
I have also tried FL Studio, Studio One, Reason, Reaper and Mixcraft is simply...better for my workflow/style.
The only other DAW I can give some props to here is Sony Acid. I use a lot of loops and Acid is simply the best in terms of loop based production. Acid has not been updated in many years and their policy is to keep customers in the dark regarding software releases (this is aggravating). Sorry to say that Sony cannot hold a candle to the feedback and support we get from the Acoustica team. Acoustica runs circles around Sony with their support and communications.
Seriously though, I got a copy of Pro Tools SE with my M-Audio Fast Track C400 (nice audio interface btw) and have not installed it yet. Not so much because I am pleased with Mixcraft but it simply isn't supported on XP. Guess I need to upgrade my 'puter?
quote]
Why isn't it the industry standard? I'm not sure if you're seriously asking the question, or just trying to pat them on the back.
It's not the industry standard, IMO, because:
1) the industry already had its standard DAWs before Mixcraft existed. People already own it. People already know how to use it. You open up Pro Tools and say "how the hell do I do X?"; they open it up, hit a few shortcuts, and have it done before you can open up google to find the answer.
2) it still is (or until recently was) catching up in terms of functionality. Mixcraft 6 was a huge leap forward, IMO, and there may not be anything "missing" that I care about these days, but this was not always the case.
3) money isn't an issue in the industry. The cost difference isn't really that big, particularly if you're talking about people whose entire life revolves around making music.
Why would a producer change to Mixcraft? They have no incentive to do so. And since the established producers won't be switching to Mixcraft, the up-and-comers have no incentive to use it either. If you want to stay indie, that's great, use Mixcraft. If you want to get into the business, you're probably going to have to learn one or two of the Big Name products at some point.
For the beginner, for an indie musician or producer, I believe Mixcraft is the best out there. The price is great, it's got a much lower learning curve, and it's got a lot of great features.
Mixcraft is great, I love, I use it exclusively these days; but let's be honest here. Just because you don't know how to use those other programs doesn't mean they suck.
I would compare some of those other DAWs to something like vi on Linux. If you know how it works and have all the shortcuts embedded in your brain, it's fast and powerful and an amazing tool. If you don't, it's bleeping annoying to work with.
For the most part, those other Big Name expensive DAWs are extremely powerful, they just have a steep learning curve.
And consider this. If Mixcraft was $500 and they had a proportionally larger production staff we would have seen and passed the MX6 version levels a long time ago..........
And it would have more features that make a beginner confused too!
Just a matter of perspective.
I think the best points of Mixcraft is its intuitive nature and ease of use due to Acoustica's design philosophy, combined with its exceptional interaction with its user base. Clearly a great and thoughtful design team, and being open to outside input and ideas has had somewhat of an effect of so many additional contributors.
ChubbyJerk wrote:....Mixcraft is great, I love, I use it exclusively these days; but let's be honest here. Just because you don't know how to use those other programs doesn't mean they suck...
Just to clarify:
1. I'm not a beginner. As far as I am concerned I am producing commercial quality masters (or very near) and MC is my DAW of choice.
2. I didn't say I don't know how to use PT. If I didn't know how to use it, I would not be in a position to state that it is poor compared to MC.
Agree with your points about MC only coming up to fully pro standard very recently, and in the end this may be what keeps Mixcraft from ever becoming popular with the masses.
The most consistent comment I see about MC is that it is intuitive. I couldn't agree more. I think I've used the help file about three times. My first day using PT I had to use the help file about 20 times. For me, workflow is a huge part of any DAW. The fact is, MC has it, PT does not.
