Collaborative DAWS

Hey you guys! Hope everyone is doing well.

I created a few DAWS on my own - I made 2 and 1 is fully collaborative the other one is in the works as well…

Please check them out and give me your inputs on them if you can. Feedback is always appreciated.

Im still new to Audio Programming only about 6-7 months under my belt but any input would be appreciated

Also we are looking for developers too so if you’re interested don’t be afraid to reach out.

Thank you again to the JUCE framework and to Jules and everyone on this forum,

your constructive criticism was always appreciated as it made my product better and it made me a better coder in general also because of you guys I can pay rent!!! LOL

We are not fully done, I will be adding 150 plugins, 5k Sounds, 3k Samples, FaceTime and a Social Network. We also still have to make our 2nd DAW collaborative which should take about 1 months time. Our products already have chat.

I will also be making one more DAW that is supposed to be my crowing jewel. So a total of 3 DAWS that are all collaborative.

We will be working on adding streaming services as well.

If you end up using us and notice ANY bugs at all please don’t hesitate to let me know, I will work hard to make sure that this platform is up to your standards.


What are the links to the products you shared pictures of?

Why ?

So one I can PM you for because its still BETA but the other one is live at
That one isn’t fully collaborative yet but will be in the near future.
The one that Is collaborative I can share you a direct link. That one is still beta but will be released this month as well.
We will be releasing the Non-Collab this week with plans to update with collaboration in about 3-4 weeks

Did you have any questions or something I could help with? :smiley:

I just don’t see why there would be any need for “yet another” new full blown DAW, and even two.
If some very special features are implemented, a single one should be enough - or some kind of extension to an existing one.

1 Like

Perhaps you’re right and maybe some people agree

I just made one anyways. I can get passive income and I truly hate working for a living.

If people bite it helps support my life and the progress of my company.

There are lots of goods out there that might not be necessary but they exist anyways.

Also we break our DAWs down into three tiers to represent the growth of a musician from beginner to medium to pro.

We break our pricing to a freemium model to bring down costs and people can customize which ones they want so they only use what they absolutely need.

Also not too many DAWS support desktop based collaboration. Some due but the process is complicated for newbies to set up P2P tunnels and many collaborative DAWS don’t support plugins.

We are also trying to help make this studio software more accessible to people that can’t afford to spend $400+ dollars on a software they aren’t 100% sure how to use.

If you are ‘selling’ legitimate software that you want users to take seriously, referencing Cubase in the background of your images as the intended software isn’t a good look.

1 Like

I checked out your website - looks cool!

I totally understand that you didn’t ask for advice, so feel free to disregard this if you’d like, but I had a couple of thoughts when browsing your site:

  • there’s a grammar mistake on the main landing page - it says “we are make software for musicians”
  • on the downloads page, I thought it was strange that the only option is a 30-day license for $7. There doesn’t appear to be either a free trial or a perpetual license - if there is, I missed it
  • in the “download instructions” section, it starts talking about something else called Montage? That I’m supposed to sign up for? What is this, is it a different product…?

Lastly, it seems like collaboration is the main selling point of this DAW, but that’s not mentioned anywhere on that website.

I hope this helps. Good work on it, seems like a cool product.

Thanks I made a quick change.

Again user feedback is appreciated.

My mistake.

Thanks for your feedback it is greatly appreciated!

Montage is licensing software that we use to ensure proper subscription plans. Users must sign up for montage in the initial stages of our deployment so we can manage user subscription plans.

Also for the collaboration I have 2 DAWs and the one show in the website is non collaborative however I can send you a link for my collaborative one as well but id like to keep that one private for right now.

The one shown in the website will be fully collaborative in about 2 months time after we upload 150 plugins and make user improvements. For collab it should be about a 3 week wait…

but to ease the transition I can give you a link to download my other fully collaborative one.

For that reason I didn’t market it as collaborative as of right now because I dont want users to get confused as to what they are buying. For right now it is regular but will be collaborative in the near future. The original platform we have that is collaborative has most of our work done already so the integration shall not take long.

Again thank you for your kind works, support and criticisms!

I see…

I’m a bit confused about what you’re selling. I understand the unique appeal of a collaborative DAW, I honestly do – but what is particularly unique or interesting about this other, non-collaborative DAW that is live now?

I’m a bit confused about why you have 3 different DAWs, with different features and separate marketing campaigns. Especially for a young company, my advice would be to present a clear and focused image of one very well thought-through and specific product. Just my two cents.

1 Like

if you hate working for a living you might want to consider not developing daws, at least not more than one at a time. i don’t have an income from my work yet, but i literally just work on three very small plugins atm and it takes so extremely long to really nail any of them, that i can barely imagine giving support for a full daw is easier. i see your first daw has no real look and feel, just a bunch of juce default looks. ofc when you work like that you might get to a result rather quickly. but you’ll notice dev time exponentionally grows the more you try to get a certain identity across and when people come with bug reports you can end up not working on actual features anymore for weeks

1 Like

There isn’t much different about my non collaborative DAW apart from its pricing but I was selling that one to push my project forward and start getting my name out there especially since my company is almost done with all of its work for the first two the next month and a half will be us crossing t’s and dotting i’s from a collaborative and audio standpoint.

We also host a social media and streaming platform that streamlines ISRC codes for people to auto apply for their rights to songs, software, loops etc…

But we will definitely make sure to take your advice and hone in on a specific target. It will more than likely be the customizability and collaboration of the DAWS that we create.

I haven’t done SUPER huge marketing for it yet, this was just to kind of get us out there first and see what people think. Lots of valid points, but I am grateful for the support.

Thank you for your insight ill take that into account.

Yeah your right in the sense I chose the most gruesome part of audio for me to make the claim I don’t like to work, but the point you made was valid that sticking with the basics of juce will get me where I need to go quicker. For this reason I make the DAW really quick albeit it might not look the best but it is fully functional. Then from there Id do what any other company does and issue updates for both the look and feel as well as the functionality…

Apart from that I also really enjoyed making the DAW it feels so cool be to able to say I made something that interesting. Id love to make more and the thing is that as I keep going and make more and more audio projects it becomes easy for me over time.

for DAWs I’m stopping at 3, one lite, one medium , one hard, and that’s all I’d want from my end, after that I leave it to my team of developers who kind of take the mantle from me now that I’m done so I don’t really have to do much now just inform and manage my team.

Again, to iterate on what @benvining has mentioned… if you are trying to sell a product, your should be explicit in the marketing of what you are selling or ‘offering’ to a potential customer.

Changing the background image on the main page to a ‘DJ’, is misleading to the consumer. This isn’t a DJ product, its an Audio Workstation. I would advise against any material that isn’t reflective of the actual product.

So perhaps a picture of the DAW itself would be more representative?

I just didn’t think it would look good to have two back to back pictures of the DAW

ill keep thinking of more something to put that would look better.

I changed it to a studio I hope that makes more sense

Represent the product itself. It’s absolutely fine to shoot some new material in a studio that is using the product, but referencing random images that aren’t aligned with the product itself is misleading and confusing to the consumer.

1 Like