LMMS • Forums

I enjoy working with different DAWs and of course find that each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I haven't been using LMMS as much these days, except for working on a new remix for a track of mine. I definitely will use LMMS again in the near future. Some really great native virtual instruments and with the right plug-ins it's really great. I don't understand why it isn't more popular especially when it's amazing for open source software.
Anything you like more about LMMS than other DAWs?

Strengths:
- Free and open-source
- Easy to figure out
- Light on resources (not counting plugins)
- Doesn't fool your brain with twinkling visuals
- Sequencing/editing is a pleasure to do

Weaknesses:
- No support for LV2 plugin gui (yet)
- No proper per-channel output and export
- Midi I/O is handled very unprofessionally
- No custom routing for effects, only simple stereo insert (yet)

This is my personal opinion based on personal experiences.

ShanonHeller wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:42 am

I enjoy working with different DAWs and of course find that each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I haven't been using LMMS as much these days, except for working on a new remix for a track of mine. I definitely will use LMMS again in the near future. Some really great native virtual instruments and with the right plug-ins it's really great. I don't understand why it isn't more popular especially when it's amazing for open source software.
Anything you like more about LMMS than other DAWs?

First off, Welcome to the Forum ShanonHeller !
Here are all important links:
http://lmms.io/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4740
-A few rules and useful forum instructions
If you like to introduce yourself, to the community, go here:
http://lmms.io/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4480

trancwolfe is nailing our weeknes' accurately, we may need to add "No recording/ internal sample-edit" as a weeknes, and User-driven development as a strength. All user inputs are always answered, and in very short time, mostly over night. Almost all features in LMMS are from user-suggestions, after all our devs are also users, it is actually all :p. That is unique for LMMS, and imo our strongest quality.

The step editor is great for sample sequencing and playback. I just wish there was a way to put a dynamic limiter on each channel as an insert instead of as a send. Also, it would be nice to have a slot for a dynamic limiter on the main output to utilise during renders to prevent clipping. Hydrogen has these strengths and weaknesses too.

But thank goodness LMMS lets us save and reopen our projects unlike FL Studio's demo. So the LMMS step editor is still somewhat competitive.