Underestimating Mixcraft

[Dee-J]

Hi,

I've been an on and off Acoustica customer basically when it was just the Mp3 Audio Mixer days, lol. It evolved into Mixcraft and over the years Mixcraft has indeed come a long way in it's own evolution, becoming more professional while remaining cheaper than the industry standard "Big Boys".

What I don't get is why those in the recording industry underestimate cheaper DAWs like Mixcraft? I had a particular conversation with an upcoming producer like myself on the subject of which DAW we used, and this conversation is the source behind this whole post. The conversation goes:

Me: "I use a product called Mixcraft from Acoustica".
Him: "Oh ok, I never heard of that one. Well I use Pro Tools. That's what everybodys using because it has everything you need. It's the real deal".
Me: "What makes it the 'Real Deal' compared to any other DAW that can do the same thing?".
Him: "Well, honestly I haven't tried nothing else but Pro Tools, but there's no need when I got all the features I want".
Me: "That's understandable. Let me ask you a question though, if I would show you a little about Mixcraft and it was your first time starting with any DAW, would you use it?"
Him: "Fire it up, let's see what it's about"
Me: <<<<Fires it up on the laptop, showing him the features, etc. "So how do you feel about it?"
Him: "It's cool, I would definitely use it but I'm so used to all the stuff Pro Tools got goin on"
Me: Laughs out loud. "Ok cool, understandable"

Cutting the conversation dialogue and getting to the point, I've noticed a lot of people prefer the industry standard DAW Pro Tools which is understandable, but what I'm saying is that any DAW can get the job done as long as it has the essential features. Everything else is just extra. Besides being in the digital realm, a DAW in itself isn't going to make your project(s) sound any better or worse; It's all about the work you put into it.

Anyway, another scenario I had is when I invited a friend/client into this temporary studio setup I had. The guy was sitting beside me before we got started and looked on to the computer screen and said "I never heard of Mixcraft. I heard most people in the industry use Pro Tools though". I just kind of laughed it off and said "Nah, this is what I'm working with my friend. It gets the job done just as good". Of course once we got the production going, none of that even mattered and the guy was satisfied with the result.

Truthfully, his statement kind of made me feel like being as I wasn't using Pro Tools as my DAW, I wasn't "professional", but just as I stated earlier I showed that it's not so much about the DAW, it's how you use it.


So to conclude this, why do you think people overlook DAWs like Mixcraft, in your opinion? Also I would like to know if any of you had any similar experiences with clients underestimating your studio professionalism when they don't see you using the bigger named DAWs.

[chibear]

I went round & round with a couple of the 'pros' on the soundsonline forums awhile ago concerning this topic.

why do you think people overlook DAWs like Mixcraft, in your opinion?

From those conversations I could decipher 3 reasons.
1. The Big DAW had some bell, whistle, or thingy they thought they couldn't live without
2. The studio they worked with required Pro Tools (which spawned another thread about hiring someone with Pro Tools to load your project in Pro Tools format.
3. Mixcraft works just entirely too easily and shatters their mystique of being able to work magic with incomprehensible software.

I asked the further question: "So what do I get for the extra $400 that I don't get in Mixcraft" and of the long list that was presented, Mixcraft had it all except for maybe some of the video capabilities which I couldn't comment on as I've only done 2 videos.

As it stood at that time, I was able to run large orchestra libraries with fewer problems by bridging the 64 bit VSTis into Mixcraft than were the users of the high priced competitors. In beta testing 7 I can say I have not had one crash or freeze loading projects up to 35 GB.

[aj113]

Pro Tools, despite all of its issues is still the industry standard. All big studios have PT, so if you want to 'get on' in the industry you really should at least know all about PT, even if it's not your DAW of choice. That's why people use it. Once something becomes proliferated throughout the industry it's very difficult to prise it out of the market. Imagine trying to convince people to use a mic that is cheaper and sounds slightly better than an SM57 - it's just not going to happen, most people are going to stick with the SM57.

[Starship Krupa]

So to conclude this, why do you think people overlook DAWs like Mixcraft, in your opinion?

First off, there's probably some notion of "you get what you pay for."

Something that costs a fraction of what the top names cost will at first be considered with suspicion. It must be missing something critical or otherwise be inadequate in some way in order to be so inexpensive.

Fortunately, this is easing up with Apple bundling GarageBand with every computer they sell, and with the growing popularity of Reaper.

Second, DAW's are very idiosyncratic. Unlike word processors, spreadsheets, or image editors, the workflow and even basic menu and key combinations are different from program to program. It is necessary, even with something as easy as Mixcraft, to spend a long time with it before one gets really good at doing things.

Mixcraft has one of the shortest learning curves between installing it and getting a usable project done, but I've been working with it for months including some intense beta testing and am just now feeling like I really know how to use it. That's a big investment in time and work.

Once someone has put in that time and work, they don't want to sit down with another program and feel like a novice again. It's scary and annoying. We all choose one and get good at it. We have to get very tired of it before we want to go to all the hassle and frustration of learning a new one.

I tried a bunch of DAW software before going with Mixcraft because I knew this. Reaper, Cubase, Studio One, Sonar, and others. Cost was definitely an issue, and the options in my price range ($100 region) mostly amounted to crippled versions of some company's flagship product. The whole idea of those versions is to leave out a critical feature or two so that you'll eventually feel the need to upgrade, so they wind up being annoying.

Third, just like anything else, there's the silly Ford/Chevy Macintosh/Windows iOS/Android rivalry mentality. It's just how humans are, it seems. Members of our consumer tribe are good and members of the other consumer tribe are not to be trusted.

The people I know who use Pro Tools do not love it. The company that sells it have a horrible reputation for taking care of their customers. It has hardware compatibility issues, is a giant resource hog, etc. The users just seem resigned to suffering because it's the "industry standard." They complain about it like they used to complain about the phone company when that was a monopoly. "They suck, but what are you gonna do?"

For big time recording artists, being able to work on a project at multiple studios is important. Being able to use the same platform no matter where you go to record is huge. Sure, with Mixcraft, if I want to go to my friend Myles' studio for the mixdown I can dump all my tracks to WAV, but then we're back to working with Pro Tools or Digital Performer or Cubase. There's also the issue where the "big guys" are mostly cross platform, at least Windows and Mac. Mixcraft is Windows only.

When I talk with other recordists, I just tell them that I use Mixcraft because I found it to be the least frustrating program to use. I'm fine with considering it a "prosumer" DAW. I think there's a place for that kind of thing in the market. It's aimed at home recordists and small studios and that's fine. I'm sure it would be great in a larger studio, but that's a different market, and they need to have what's familiar.

It will change as Mixcraft stays around on the market. People will hear about it, learn what a good solution and a great deal it is. Gotta not worry about what other people think.

[omtayslick]

Mixcraft is definitely underestimated by many people.

Some features Mixcraft had before some of the "big boys". I was using take lanes in Mixcraft for months before Sonar implemented this feature in an updated version.

ProTools required real-time rendering until a recent version. (welcome to this century, ProTools) My son made a lot of extra cash in a local studio (the owner won't consider any software but ProTools) bouncing down files in real time. For many years PT did not even have plug-in delay compensation. And until the last few years it was not flexible enough to use any hardware except digidesign interfaces. And we've just scratched the surface here. But it is so entrenched that it will likely remain the "industry standard".

People are sheep!

Mixcraft has a smaller installation footprint, and a lighter cpu load, while providing as many features as most DAWs, (and more than many). And at a nice price! What's not to like? And let's not forget the excellent and responsive customer service team!

[Brian S]

The main feature that Pro Tools has over Mixcraft right now is routing. Pro Tools routing is far, far more advanced. There are a number of smaller features, such as side chaining, better built in VST's, etc that are also in Pro Tools favor.

All that said, Mixcraft is an extremely capable DAW, and currently my DAW of choice. It does everything "I" need it to do. It does it well.

I realize that at some point I'll be forced to move to Pro Tools because yes, it is the standard. As a mixer, if I want to interact with the industry as a whole I'll need to be able to accept a Pro Tools session or hand off a Pro Tools session.

[Dee-J]

Wow! All very valid points here, and I appreciate everyone's input!

The biggest thing here is that it's not a matter of abandoning the industry standard for something new. Obviously if something is so well established, it's not going anywhere. What I'm saying is that cheaper/lesser known DAWs such as Mixcraft aren't given the opportunity to be viewed as capable and "professional".

I can't really touch on much else in my post without sounding redundant, because you guys already covered the most valid points in your posts.

Still, I'm actually glad this discussion was made because there are plenty of people out there that may feel the same way or need some questions answered on this matter.

Cheers!

[Tiasdad]

It's not only in the music industry, the same applies in any other industry which uses computers for processing. As far as I've seen, much of it boils down to the age old debate of PC v Mac.

There is an elitist attitude n photography, despite most users using the same cross-platform software (PhotoShop), there is a definite improvement in picture quality when it's used on a Mac, or so some think.

As Pro Tools is Mac only, it will always attract the people who MUST use the 'best' regardless of cost or their ability to actually use the software.

I think Acoustical has it right. Keeping the cost affordable, a simple GUI which is so intuitive, it can instantly be used by any beginner and lots of depth and new things to learn, the more you explore it.

[aj113]

...As Pro Tools is Mac only, ...

Er...no, it's Windows too.

[Mark Bliss]

Yep. And furthermore.... I've exchanged tracks back and forth with PT users numerous times. Oddly, they sound fine in Mixcraft.
So before anyone lets their PT envy get out of hand, keep in mind its the user, not the software that in the end produces the project.
Of the folks I know using it, maybe one or two really know its nooks and crannies well enough to take anything close to full advantage of its complexities. I know a really good producer who prefers Studio One. Another insists Logic is the superior DAW. Who cares in the end?
If it really bothers you, don't tell what you use. When I hear good work, the last thing on my mind is the question of what software might have been used.

Use what works for you.

[dung_beetle]

I was impressed today when for the first time I used the computer keyboard typing thingy because my midi controller broke. It works very well. Sure, it is not velocity sensitive, but still way better than a mouse-operated piano roll. The only thing I dislike is that that little window needs to be focused in order to work. So I have to switch back and forth between the typing window and the synth window when changing parameters. But other than that, very good for those situation where you don't have a midi controller

[gypsy101]

yeas, Pro Tools is the "industry standard" and is what it taught in recording schools,workshops,&in the studio training but....
if you think you need it for home use be sure to read the fine print-
(the short version)
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_U ... y/en419171
System Requirements and Compatibility with Pro Tools 10 Software

Computer: Avid-qualified Windows-based computer (see details)
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_U ... popup=true

Avid-qualified Windows-based computer (see details)
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_U ... popup=true

Pro Tools 10 Approved Audio Interfaces and Peripherals-
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_U ... y/en422327

and the really good parts-
Audio Drive Requirements: One or More Hard Disk Drives Dedicated for Audio Record and Playback (see details)
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_U ... popup=true

basically,for support & correct operation Avid requires an Avid qualified dedicated computer just for Pro Tools and that's over & above the cost of just the software.

[Tiasdad]

...As Pro Tools is Mac only, ...

Er...no, it's Windows too.

I stand corrected )

[GrizzKarizz]

I must say, if it wasn't for Mixcraft, I might not be able to afford to make music.

That's one major thing Mixcraft has over other DAWs.

[clavguy]

I asked the further question: "So what do I get for the extra $400 that I don't get in Mixcraft" and of the long list that was presented

LOL Clyde....
You get a tool that only works with mega dollar proprietary hardware