# Why I Love Reaper



## robgb (Aug 19, 2020)

Kenny points out Reaper's unique features that make it his (and my) DAW of choice.


----------



## Markrs (Aug 19, 2020)

robgb said:


> Kenny points out Reaper's unique features that make it his (and my) DAW of choice.



I have cubase but I keep using Reaper. Great thing about Reaper, if you want to do something that is specialised you probably can. The negative is finding out how to do or the script that can do it for you.

Though I am going to try to put some more time and effort to learning Cubase.


----------



## PuerAzaelis (Aug 19, 2020)

Reaper fan - the price, basically, is right.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 19, 2020)

looks good. I mean, most of these features have equivalents in the other major DAWs, but nothing matters more than workflow, comfort and a feeling inspiration from your DAW. More power to the reaper users!


----------



## Rory (Aug 19, 2020)

If one is using a MixPre v.2 recorder in 32-bit float mode, Reaper is one of a limited number of DAWs that can be used to bring clipped audio below 0dB. Recently, I used it for that purpose with a stereo recording of what turned out to be an unusually dramatic thunderstorm. I found Reaper a bit idiosyncratic, but Kenny Gioia's Reaper 6 videos on his Reaper Mania YouTube channel are very good. They're so well done that I expect Reaper is paying him to make them.

The first screen capture shows the recording (75 minutes, 96kHz WAVE) in iZotope RX6 Advanced. The Waveform Statistics box on the right tells the story: True Peak (+25.7dB), Minimum RMS (-34.2dB) and "Possibly Clipped Samples" (>100,000).*

The second screen capture shows the same file in Reaper before the peaks have been pulled down. Eliminating the clipping is a straightforward process, although balancing and processing audio with this much dynamic range is labour intensive.

This recording will be used to create background ambience and sound effects.

* RX7 Advanced, which I chose to skip, will also correct clipping in MixPre 32-bit recordings. I'll be purchasing RX8 when it's released, probably in the next couple of months.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Aug 19, 2020)

Impressive sales pitch. While each DAW has strength and weaknesses, I have to admit there were a few cool project management and workflow features that peaked my interest. 

If I were in the market to switch, I'd probably go for Reaper. I have soft spot in my heart for it.


----------



## drews (Aug 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> If one is using a MixPre v.2 recorder in 32-bit float mode, Reaper is one of a limited number of DAWs that can be used to bring clipped audio below 0dB. Recently, I used it for that purpose with a stereo recording of what turned out to be an unusually dramatic thunderstorm. I found Reaper a bit idiosyncratic, but Kenny Gioia's Reaper 6 videos on his Reaper Mania YouTube channel are very good. They're so well done that I suspect Reaper is paying him to make them.
> 
> The first screen capture shows the recording (75 minutes, 96kHz WAVE) in iZotope RX6 Advanced. The Waveform Statistics box on the right tells the story: True Peak (+25.7dB), Minimum RMS (-34.2dB) and "Possibly Clipped Samples" (>100,000).*
> 
> ...


This was the main reason i got reaper a few months ago, because i was having issues with my mixpre 32 bit files. And by far Reaper is the best and most intuitive DAW ive ever used


----------



## kitekrazy (Aug 19, 2020)

PuerAzaelis said:


> Reaper fan - the price, basically, is right.



The licensing allows for you to slap on every machine you have.


----------



## Rory (Aug 19, 2020)

drews said:


> This was the main reason i got reaper a few months ago, because i was having issues with my mixpre 32 bit files. And by far Reaper is the best and most intuitive DAW ive ever used



After spending some time with Kenny Gioia's tutorials, I found Reaper fairly straightforward. However, I like Logic and have no reason to change. Ideally, I'd do this kind of processing in iZotope RX anyway. It's normally the first stop for all of my audio recordings. When I upgrade to RX8 (I'm pretty sure that it's imminent), I'll no longer need to take recordings like the one in post #5 into other software just to address this issue. I rarely record in 32-bit in any event.

That said, I can see the attractions of Reaper, especially price.


----------



## Rory (Aug 19, 2020)

kitekrazy said:


> The licensing allows for you to slap on every machine you have.



Yeah, but it's not the only one. The same is true of Logic.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 19, 2020)

Studio One gives you 5 computers without dongle too...


----------



## easyrider (Aug 19, 2020)

hbjdk said:


> I use Reaper, but consider getting the crossgrade to Cubase. I've used it before and find it much more user-friendly.



I went Protools, Reaper, Cubase then studio one...I did a showreel recently for someone in cubase and couldn’t believe the long winded nature of simple tasks...

Ive now moved to Studio one , got myself a Faderport 16 and Console 1...


----------



## TomislavEP (Aug 19, 2020)

Switching from Pro Tools to REAPER was one of the best decisions I've made and a huge productivity boost for me. There are too many benefits and features exclusive to this DAW to mention, but these are the top ones in my book:

1) Affordable licence and update policy
2) Customization options
3) Lightweight and stable
4) Rapid and regular development
5) More than decent compatibility with various standards and devices


----------



## fakemaxwell (Aug 19, 2020)

I'm definitely a Reaper fanboy, but recognize that it's not a typical DAW experience. It's not that the initial learning curve is difficult, it's that the added functionality from scripting that people love takes some time to wrap your head around. In an industry where everybody likes to customize their workflow there's nothing that comes close. Plus, the developers have a very close relationship with the end users through the forums, and you'll get constant updates.

I bet that in a vacuum where you demonstrate what each DAW can do at its full potential, the "market share" for Reaper would skyrocket. And with more people using it, the more cool stuff comes out of it. I don't personally care what DAW somebody uses, but Reaper is the only one where more users = more features for everybody.

If you've ever been interested in switching from your current DAW because it can't do xyz, do a little searching and see if somebody's already done it in Reaper.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 19, 2020)

The allegiance of Reaper users does intrigue me. Sometimes that allegiance has the vibe of a religious affiliation, but never mind.

I watched the video at the beginning and it emphasised the same things I keep hearing: easy customisation and the ability to save complex processes quickly under a single keyswitch.

Some of it looks unique but, without wishing to quell enthusiasm for Reaper, quite a bit looks like things you can do in Digital Performer and, I would guess, in many DAWs.

Still, the tiny footprint is refreshing, especially in a world of laptops and high school students just wanting to make stuff, so hats off to Reaper either way. 

*Everybody's Changing Everything *

Reaper is also consistent, I'd say, with the increasing divergence of workflows that I think is obvious today. In the 1990s, most everyone had a pretty similar setup: 


stack of samplers/synths/sample playback boxes;
lots o' cables;
mixing board, amp, speakers

Today, it's all over the place. How many people own a physical mixing board now? Even if they are recording regularly, they can usually get by with just an interface.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Aug 19, 2020)

Often I get the sense that Reaper mostly is for hobbyists, while Cubase/Logic etc. are for professionals:

1) Reaper is dirt cheap compared to Cubase/Logic etc.

2) Reaper is (I think?) very customizable for the user compared to Cubase/Logic etc.

Both of these things typically appeal to hobbyists and/or people who like to tinker with their DAW. Those who work professionally are (I assume) more interested in things like having a user friendly GUI; that their project files can be shared back and forth with others involved in a given project, which is more likely if using one of the "standard" DAWs like Cubase/Logic.

This is just my impression anyway as a hobbyist.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 19, 2020)

You might be right for film scoring or regular TV work, @hbjdk but I think when it comes to experimental music, contemporary dance and what-not, there do seem to be plenty of pros who use Reaper.

And besides, it may be just "longevity." When first introduced, Performer (pre-"Digital Performer") was the best, so people who started in the early 90s use it. 

So maybe, once Reason has been around long enough, its fans will have matured in their professional connections and gigs and we'll see more "names" using it?


----------



## Markrs (Aug 19, 2020)

hbjdk said:


> Often I get the sense that Reaper mostly is for hobbyists, while Cubase/Logic etc. are for professionals:
> 
> 1) Reaper is dirt cheap compared to Cubase/Logic etc.
> 
> ...


I think the price does appeal to hobbist, but lots of pro audio engineers use in it in the studio over protools. Ended up watching more youtube videos on mixing and mastering on this journey in part because I used Reaper and so many audio enginners have videos on it on YouTube.


----------



## Markrs (Aug 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> If one is using a MixPre v.2 recorder in 32-bit float mode, Reaper is one of a limited number of DAWs that can be used to bring clipped audio below 0dB. Recently, I used it for that purpose with a stereo recording of what turned out to be an unusually dramatic thunderstorm. I found Reaper a bit idiosyncratic, but Kenny Gioia's Reaper 6 videos on his Reaper Mania YouTube channel are very good. They're so well done that I expect Reaper is paying him to make them.
> 
> The first screen capture shows the recording (75 minutes, 96kHz WAVE) in iZotope RX6 Advanced. The Waveform Statistics box on the right tells the story: True Peak (+25.7dB), Minimum RMS (-34.2dB) and "Possibly Clipped Samples" (>100,000).*
> 
> ...


Kenny Gioia is paid for his Reaper videos by Cockos who make Reaper


----------



## Rory (Aug 19, 2020)

I don't go around telling people that Logic is "better" than other DAWs. For one thing, it isn't true. For another, playing evangelist, whether it's about religion or a piece of software, understandably turns off a lot of people.

There are legitimate reasons to believe that some DAWs are preferable to others for certain kinds of collaborative workflows. ProTools is an obvious example.

There are also occasional cases where one's DAW has a technical limitation that can be addressed by using a different DAW. I gave an example in post #5. However, that's a temporary problem, arising from quite new technology, that I expect to be able to fix shortly, without changing my whole workflow and inviting a significant learning curve. In any event, had I not decided to treat the issue as an opportunity to check out Reaper, I could have addressed it with DaVinci Resolve or Final Cut Pro X, both of which I own, or by downloading a trial copy of Adobe Audition. I said that Reaper was one of a limited number of apps that could deal with the issue, not that it was the only one.

I stopped watching Kenny Gioia's video (first post) after 2 1/2 minutes because he wasn't saying anything that I care about. I liked what I saw of Reaper well enough. Its relatively low entry cost is undoubtedly attractive to a lot of people. Some of the features that Gioia discusses may well be more appealing to some people than they are to me.

However, the take-no-prisoners evangelism is a complete turnoff.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 19, 2020)

JohnG said:


> The allegiance of Reaper users does intrigue me. Sometimes that allegiance has the vibe of a religious affiliation, but never mind.



It’s the same as UAD owners


----------



## Rory (Aug 19, 2020)

Markrs said:


> Kenny Gioia is paid for his Reaper videos by Cockos who make Reaper



I like Kenny Gioia and I think that he's a good teacher, notwithstanding his controversial - some might say eccentric - views on setting recording levels. But the fact is, and as anyone who has seen his Groove 3 tutorials knows, he has been making money by pushing Reaper for years. The series on Reaper 6 on his YouTube channel, which has all of 80,000 subscribers, is a polished, professional product that took a_ lot_ of work. Somebody was paying. Nothing wrong with that, but he isn't exactly a disinterested observer.


----------



## MauroPantin (Aug 19, 2020)

I love Reaper. The reasons:

1- The price is unbeatable

2- I have not found anything I wanted to do but could not do with it. I've been using it for several years and have yet to find something that could not be accomplished. Some things are not included by default but you can always script them yourself or create custom actions for those

3- Any task that I need to be able to do repeatedly, anything that is part of my workflow that involves audio or MIDI, I can automate and do in batch

Of course, there are drawbacks to it. It demands a lot from the user, to take full advantage of all of this you have to learn LUA or some other compatible scripting language. It is definitely not for everyone. But for me it is the perfect DAW.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 19, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Sometimes that allegiance has the vibe of a religious affiliation



Same is with almost any other DAW ever really


----------



## JohnG (Aug 19, 2020)

Markrs said:


> lots of pro audio engineers use in it in the studio over protools



I am quite surprised to read this. I have never met a pro audio engineer who didn't exclusively use Pro Tools. Possibly, that is true because I inhabit film/game/TV and in that realm, Pro Tools is king.

Except....

...I have worked for one large TV network outside the US (at least one) uses a different audio system for editing sound. They still use PT for recording music, but not for everything. (the other one is not Reaper but not having a go at Reaper).


----------



## robgb (Aug 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> Kenny Gioia's Reaper 6 videos on his Reaper Mania YouTube channel are very good. They're so well done that I expect Reaper is paying him to make them.


I think he started out making them on his own, but now works for them.


----------



## robgb (Aug 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> Yeah, but it's not the only one. The same is true of Logic.


I don't think Logic works on a Windows machine, does it?


----------



## robgb (Aug 19, 2020)

easyrider said:


> Studio One gives you 5 computers without dongle too...


Studio One is a great DAW. Unfortunately, for me, it crashes constantly. One of the reasons I switched.


----------



## robgb (Aug 19, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Some of it looks unique but, without wishing to quell enthusiasm for Reaper, quite a bit looks like things you can do in Digital Performer and, I would guess, in many DAWs.


Keep in mind that Kenny is coming from Pro Tools, so maybe these are features you can't find there. I don't know what his experience is with other DAWs.


----------



## robgb (Aug 19, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Possibly, that is true because I inhabit film/game/TV and in that realm, Pro Tools is king.


The gaming world LOVES Reaper. Talk to anyone doing sound design for games.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 19, 2020)

robgb said:


> The gaming world LOVES Reaper. Talk to anyone doing sound design for games.



I believe you -- I could have specified "music for games." If you're recording a big orchestra, you're still going to use Pro Tools.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 19, 2020)

robgb said:


> Keep in mind that Kenny is coming from Pro Tools, so maybe these are features you can't find there. I don't know what his experience is with other DAWs.



Could be -- good point.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 19, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> Same is with almost any other DAW ever really


I don’t feel that way. I use Cubase but never try to sell it to anyone. I suspect other DAWS do certain things better, but I use Cubase because I have for over 20 years and I’m comfortable with it despite whatever flaws it has. No zealotry, no salesmanship, no need for any of that.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 19, 2020)

Let’s not start a DAW war...for the most part the most recent releases of these daws have them doing like 80% of the same stuff.

We should all come together, and just agree, that pro tools is terrible. 😜


----------



## fakemaxwell (Aug 19, 2020)

The only DAW I don't understand people using by choice is Pro Tools. Terrible company. Anything else? Go nuts.

Pro Tools is unfortunately deeply intrenched due to 30 years of inertia. Digi really did change the game with the first version back in the 90s, which has had a bit of a deleterious effect on us here in the ~future~ 

Pretty much any DAW nowadays has the capability to do all of the work necessary for composing and post, but there are so many plugins made exclusively for Pro Tools in use today we just have to cross our fingers that they all get released on VST eventually. Right now Dolby Atmos is Pro Tools + Mac only which is a huge bummer.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 19, 2020)

fakemaxwell said:


> The only DAW I don't understand people using by choice is Pro Tools. Terrible company. Anything else? Go nuts.
> 
> Pro Tools is unfortunately deeply intrenched due to 30 years of inertia. Digi really did change the game with the first version back in the 90s, which has had a bit of a deleterious effect on us here in the ~future~
> 
> Pretty much any DAW nowadays has the capability to do all of the work necessary for composing and post, but there are so many plugins made exclusively for Pro Tools in use today we just have to cross our fingers that they all get released on VST eventually. Right now Dolby Atmos is Pro Tools + Mac only which is a huge bummer.



it seems like they're comfortable with their status as the pro studio standard, and are skimping on making it the best daw for every other scenario. That's why every other DAW is pretty much the same. They're all trying to bite away at pro tool's feature set to make sufficient alternatives, and they're doing it well. Meanwhile, Pro Tools is applying ridiculous licensing/subscription models and trying to impress people with their limited number of midi tracks. 

Use whatever you want, but let's get pro tools out of its comfy spot as the standard and steal those extra exclusive features over into our favorite DAWs.


----------



## darcvision (Aug 19, 2020)

i started migrating reaper from FL Studio 4 month ago, and i really enjoy it because its really suitable for creating orchestra music in my opinion, and of course ReJJ which is fab filter pro q clone. but if i do mixing, or producing electronic music/avant garde music, i prefer FL Studio, maybe its because easy to use and i could do some weird stuff.

also changing theme is an really nice feature for make it reaper looks like logic pro x or pro tools.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Aug 19, 2020)

Reaper is cool for those who want to waste some time building a shittier version of Cubase, Logic, Studio One etc. The Emacs of DAW's...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 19, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> Reaper is cool for those who want to waste some time building a shittier version of Cubase, Logic, Studio One etc. The Emacs of DAW's...



shots fired!


----------



## Locks (Aug 19, 2020)

I use Live pretty much exclusively these days and have no intention of switching. But whenever anyone I know is in the market for a DAW I'll pretty much always suggest Reaper. You really can't beat it when it comes to value for money.


----------



## Locks (Aug 19, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I am quite surprised to read this. I have never met a pro audio engineer who didn't exclusively use Pro Tools. Possibly, that is true because I inhabit film/game/TV and in that realm, Pro Tools is king.
> 
> Except....
> 
> ...I have worked for one large TV network outside the US (at least one) uses a different audio system for editing sound. They still use PT for recording music, but not for everything. (the other one is not Reaper but not having a go at Reaper).



Have you watched any of Dan Worral's tutorials? He definitely qualifies as a Pro and uses Reaper a lot in his videos.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Aug 20, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> shots fired!


INCOMIIIING!


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Aug 20, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> Reaper is cool for those who want to waste some time building a shittier version of Cubase, Logic, Studio One etc. The Emacs of DAW's...


----------



## Kent (Aug 20, 2020)

robgb said:


> Kenny points out Reaper's unique features that make it his (and my) DAW of choice.



He's great, knowledgeable, and thorough...but man, does it sound, like Christopher, Walken, when he talks.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 20, 2020)

NYC Composer said:


> I don’t feel that way. I use Cubase but never try to sell it to anyone. I suspect other DAWS do certain things better, but I use Cubase because I have for over 20 years and I’m comfortable with it despite whatever flaws it has. No zealotry, no salesmanship, no need for any of that.



Sure, you might not feel that way. But there are zealots for any DAW out there. Of course, depends how widely used a DAW is there's more or less of them per particular DAW. But DAW zealotry is a thing. 



kmaster said:


> He's great, knowledgeable, and thorough...but man, does it sound, like Christopher, Walken, when he talks.



That's actually the most awesome part.


----------



## MGdepp (Aug 20, 2020)

I really love many ideas in reaper including the things that have already been said in this thread. However, I use hundreds of virtual midi ports - hundreds, because I use VEpro standalone instead of the plugin and Madi to route the audio to the DAW. It has just worked out for me way better and is linked to all my settings, ,certain customizations with external software, template stuff, ... you name it! In other words: I am not gonna change that! 

In Cubase, every midi track created can receive midi from any midi port available. I can also route the outgoing midi of that track to any of these midi ports. This is what I extensively use: Every track in my template (most of them being disabled per default) have their unique midi input and out put. This leads to more then. 100 midi ports I get 50x16= 800 Template tracks. That is why I need a lot more than 100 ports and with every library I buy the number of ports I need grows.

Now, In Reaper, the good news is, every track can also be setup to receive midi from any port and you can also send the ouput of that track it to any port!

The bad news is, however, there is a limitation in Reaper: It only allows 64 midi ports! After that limit has been reached, further virtual midi ports created (e.g. IAC midi ports) will not be shown in the program. There are several requests in the reaper forums to remove that limitations, but those are some years old and the limitation still exists.

To the reaper experts: Is there any way to route midi to any virtual midi port on your Mac, if there are far more on your system then 64? And is the same possible with the midi input of those tracks? I am just new to reaper, so, there is a lot of features I don't know about. However, when this is not possible, any time invested into learning reaper is wasted, as I am not going to change that technique of working with VEpro Standalone.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Aug 20, 2020)

I think the religious zealotry towards Reaper is understandable and somewhat excusable. It's always had the reputation of being the scrappy underdog. 

Even though I'm not a user, it's hard not to root for it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> Sure, you might not feel that way. But there are zealots for any DAW out there. Of course, depends how widely used a DAW is there's more or less of them per particular DAW. But DAW zealotry is a thing.


No question about it. It's an argument people love to have. Why, you yourself...


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 20, 2020)

MGdepp said:


> To the reaper experts: Is there any way to route midi to any virtual midi port on your Mac, if there are far more on your system then 64? And is the same possible with the midi input of those tracks?



The limitation in Reaper stems from the way MIDI I/O port enable state is stored (it's a bitmask in a 64-bit integer variable).


----------



## MGdepp (Aug 20, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> The limitation in Reaper stems from the way MIDI I/O port enable state is stored (it's a bitmask in a 64-bit integer variable).


And what would be the fix? Using multiple integers instead? I guess that is never gonna happen, so, I will probably have to stick with cubase.


And thanks for the link! I com enter your question.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 20, 2020)

JohnG said:


> watched the video at the beginning and it emphasised the same things I keep hearing: easy customisation and the ability to save complex processes quickly under a single keyswitch.



I use a single cycle action - where I hit the button, and in a time selection - I can move any knob on anything anywhere(any plugin parameters, any knob, any fader, pan pots ect) and then press another button and it commits it to that section in automation and leaves everything else before and after the way it was and un-arms them for automation. 

this means I can't accidently bump a fader and have to figure out where it was, ect - and completely removes the pains of automation for me. Just press a button, dial in the right sound, then press it again. I can also choose to have it hide all automation lanes at the same time, so after I hit the button I don't have to look at the lines from every parameter I moved. oboe and clarinet bumping heads in unison? just drag a single EQ band and move it to where it needs to be so they sit together better - and it's like it never happened in 4 bars.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 20, 2020)

MGdepp said:


> And what would be the fix? Using multiple integers instead? I guess that is never gonna happen, so, I will probably have to stick with cubase.
> 
> 
> And thanks for the link! I com enter your question.


I mean, you could only put things that you need in a template inside VEpro, and everything else inside reaper as track templates.


you can add all the tracks from a library into reaper, select them all and save as track template. then right click in the track pane and it'll add them, their settings, plugins, routing, ect. If you don't use cinewinds pro ethnic instruments all the time, no reason to waste space in a vepro template when you can just right click and drop them in. You can organize these track templates by a folder structure on your machine, creating a menu.






in this case, I used bread and butter libraries as an example - but if I was going to use VE pro, I'd load all my strings/brass/woodwinds/percussion into that, and then use tracktemplates for things like ethnic instruments, electronic elements, sound designy stuff, ect. 

I wont be using the bagpipes everyday - and having an army of pipes a single right click and a menu away is fine enough for those sorts of things.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 20, 2020)

Locks said:


> Have you watched any of Dan Worral's tutorials? He definitely qualifies as a Pro and uses Reaper a lot in his videos.



Hi Locks,

I like a lot of your posts, by the way. You bring great positivity here.

Like you, I'm more interested in what something can do and I didn't (and wouldn't) say there aren't any pro engineers using Reaper, although I haven't met any. Since the long ago days of tape and 24-tracks, I never encountered anyone trying to record an orchestra using anything other than Pro Tools.

I'm not bashing Reaper at all. It looks great.

One of its chief strengths appears to be customisation. While super fun for creating and composing, the more customisation you have, the harder it can be to collaborate, at least in midi. Once you go to audio, of course that's another matter. 

How does that work in practice when you're trying to write a song or a piece with another Reaper user? Can that user open up and understand your midi or do you trade audio?


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 20, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Hi Locks,
> 
> I like a lot of your posts, by the way. You bring great positivity here.
> 
> ...



well, a few things worth noting there - we're actually seeing tons of developers using this. Both in games, because of it's batch processing capabilities - as well as sample developers(possibly again because it's ability to batch/automate an insane amount of things to fit a developers workflow)

I've noticed more and more developer walkthroughs/daw casts in reaper, much to my suprise. This obviously makes functional sense to developers and NOT to people just "pressing record". Recording an orchestra only requires a DAW that can use an interfact and record live instruments - every thing you need to do that effectively is readily available in any major DAW, and things only change when they NEED to. 

That's why sample developers seem to be drifting towards reaper, because unlike your example with recording an orchestra; there are many workflow and efficiency reasons a developer would end up using reaper. Find every transient, go 30 ms before and after the signal falls below a DB threshold, applying 10 seconds of fade in at the beginning and end - and create a new region named in a linear fashion? done. you've just editted a ton of drum samples in a single action - now you can render them using their wildcard system into a folder, with a naming structure of "Piccolo_Snare-mf1-30rr(x)" where X is the round robin. want to make sure they are consistent? before you render you can in 1 gesture normalize all of those transients to a specified DB peak. This is why the developers of the sample libraries are using this, and it's getting some use in the game world - because sound effects sometimes need to be mass edited, chopped, and exported out in a uniform fashion for the project. 



as far as the midi, midi is midi. Nobody needs my scripts that I use to edit midi in order to open midi on their end. Scripts/extensions allow you to do things to audio/midi - but they don't do anything to audio or midi that makes them incompatible with anything. Creating regions with a script for example - then sending them the project - they'll see the regions and everything, they just don't automatically have access to the script you used to easily place them(although you don't need a script for this - region from time selection is a keybindable auction)

the fun thing is, I've gotten setup some fun things using my machine JAM and reaper - controlling project wide VCA's no matter what I'm doing - and using midi (program change messages on random channels like 14) to make editing midi easier(select notes, then press a button on my midi controller to turn it into channel 3, or 5 - or change the grid size to 8th triples)

being able to assign any midi message to anything equal to a keybind is really cool. 

The other fun thing, is that you can actually create a portable version of reaper - which simply makes it self contained. This means if you're working on a project - you can actually have a version of reaper you were using when you made it, entirely self contained and non-conflicting with any other reaper installs... this takes practically no space at all - and this allows you to also use the same exact scripts/extensions on any other machine... if you're collaborating with someone and you're wanting them to use the same exact setup for some reason - you can actually set it up and send it to them. 

Infact, @storyteller made OTR with this, which is an orchestral scoring focused portable reaper - using scripts and tweaks that make it more efficient/focused for that task. He even had versions that used a theme(that I didn't really like much and changed) but it's a cool concept and I discovered things that I ended up using in my own version of reaper. 

I'll admit I haven't got my reaper as CPU efficient as his version - he must know every little setting that should be changed to optimize around VI workflows.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 20, 2020)

does it have a notation editor? And can you export the notation as MusicXML?


----------



## Locks (Aug 20, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Hi Locks,
> 
> I like a lot of your posts, by the way. You bring great positivity here.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your warm words John! I'm glad to be here. And for the record, I didn't interpret your comment to be a criticism of Reaper by any means. I completely agree, Pro Tools is undeniably the primary DAW within the pro audio community.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 20, 2020)

JohnG said:


> does it have a notation editor? And can you export the notation as MusicXML?


arguably the single weakest part of the program, admittedly - I simply don't know enough about it because I don't use it often. @Phryq don't you use the notation religiously?

I tried to do so, and while it has the option - I couldn't figure out how to just export this time selection.

maybe there is a way - but I'm not familiar with the tool. Infact I'm not sure how many markings you can add, so you'd be better off in a dedicated notation software if that's actually your endgame.

That said, while the notation can be useful, if your mockup is the end product - the notation is of little value... if your mockup is just that, you're better off using cubase/dorico/dp with more robust score editing.

I've never heard anyone even mention protools score editor, is that on par with the one's I just mentioned?

I've got hope that overtime the score editor will get some love, but it all comes down to need, and it's simply not a commonly needed thing for any daw. Composers might use it, but for time efficiency there's no reason to use the score editor if your end product will be midi... so the entire eletronic/pop/rock/hiphop/ect doesn't have a use for the score editor. I'd actually wager many of the people who use DAWs can't even read sheet music if we're honest. So reaper is slowly gaining some features for the score editor, but it's simply a very small but vocal niche group that actually pushes for improvements on it - so it's not exactly the dev's priority. IIRC there are some scripts/packs people made to actually add icons, be able to select notes - and then use actions/click the icon to perform midi tasks to change articulations/CC data ect mimicing a notation editor... but I'm sure there are some limitations(does this export with XML?)


----------



## JohnG (Aug 20, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> That said, while the notation can be useful, if your mockup is the end product - the notation is of little value... if your mockup is just that, you're better off using cubase/dorico/dp with more robust score editing.



Thing is, it's not all or nothing. Many movie / tv scores these days include both acoustic and electronic elements. Accordingly, you need to be able to compose in your DAW so it sounds good and can be auditioned by the producer/director team, then quickly translated for players into notation. Sometimes you replace the fake orchestral parts, sometimes just soloists, sometimes you mix the two. Most likely, you know all this.

I use Digital Performer for a DAW and PT for recording and mixing. 

One of DP's strongest features is its notation editor, which is remarkably good at interpreting what you translating your playing into readable notation. As a composing tool, you can quickly see, from the notation, what's going on harmonically and edit the notation instead of a midi roll or something. I have a separate screen just to view (and compose in) notation as well as the standard DAW screens.

But you can also then export the notation into MusicXML so it can be imported seamlessly into Sibelius or another notation program for any live players.

Plenty of times, you just print the parts straight from DP and hand-write in dynamics, slurs, and articulations. If you have just a couple of players, it's faster than doing it in a notation program.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 20, 2020)

I suppose the functionality would be the same for reaper in the regards of just manually writing dynamics/ect in or importing it into notation software. it DOES export to XML though - either part or full score. However it looks like you admittedly use two seperate DAW for your needs so must not be "all or nothing"

But I see the absolute need for easy notation export if you're often times having players play it, sorry I'm not much help on the capabilities of the score editor... Unfortunately, one of reapers greatest strengths(user input) means if there is a solution to fit your workflow, I don't know it because someone on the forum made it and chucked it into the repository haha


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 20, 2020)

One pretty special thing Reaper does with notation is - it stores all the notation information as MIDI meta events, so this can be imported in another instance of Reaper without resorting to MusicXML export/import - you just render to MIDI and all the notation events you set up are stored there. Pretty nifty.



ProfoundSilence said:


> Infact I'm not sure how many markings you can add



A decent amount.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

interesting mario. 

If I had the attention span to actually make music, I'd still not be in the position to have other people play my work, but it's nice to know.


----------



## rudi (Aug 21, 2020)

Here is an overview of the notation editor in REAPER - it gives you a good idea of what's available. 
Whilst it won't compete with dedicated notation programs, it's actually quite capable.
Of course being REAPER you can customise it to your heart's content and add shortcuts and buttons to access the actions you use most.






My one major request would be for more professional looking note shapes and spacing - it would make it much more pleasant to look at whilst editing!


----------



## MGdepp (Aug 21, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> I mean, you could only put things that you need in a template inside VEpro, and everything else inside reaper as track templates.
> 
> 
> you can add all the tracks from a library into reaper, select them all and save as track template. then right click in the track pane and it'll add them, their settings, plugins, routing, ect. If you don't use cinewinds pro ethnic instruments all the time, no reason to waste space in a vepro template when you can just right click and drop them in. You can organize these track templates by a folder structure on your machine, creating a menu.
> ...


It is not so much that so need all of my tracks at once. It is rather special, so, I guess I have to explain: All my midi controllers including tablet programs are routed into a custom midi program (I built that myself with Max MSP). By giving every library a dedicated input and output port and midi channel, I can do many cool things with that custom program, that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. E.g., I can easily create a multi so that my keyboard is able to play multiple tracks at the same time in zones or by other voicing rules. The last example wouldn’t work without having a dedicated midi inpuo port and channel for every template track. Evens, if only a few of those template tracks were loaded at the same time. At least not without a lot of setting up.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

MGdepp said:


> It is not so much that so need all of my tracks at once. It is rather special, so, I guess I have to explain: All my midi controllers including tablet programs are routed into a custom midi program (I built that myself with Max MSP). By giving every library a dedicated input and output port and midi channel, I can do many cool things with that custom program, that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. E.g., I can easily create a multi so that my keyboard is able to play multiple tracks at the same time in zones or by other voicing rules. The last example wouldn’t work without having a dedicated midi inpuo port and channel for every template track. Evens, if only a few of those template tracks were loaded at the same time. At least not without a lot of setting up.


that's cool, and given your setup seems more suited for performance and is super niche 

I suppose it's not hurting you staying with Cubase. 

would be interesting to see how you built that and its function/advantages seems like something reaperfolk would appreciate coincidentally


----------



## JohnG (Aug 21, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> I suppose the functionality would be the same for reaper in the regards of just manually writing dynamics/ect in or importing it into notation software. it DOES export to XML though - either part or full score. However it looks like you admittedly use two seperate DAW for your needs so must not be "all or nothing"



Actually, it looks like Reaper does have pretty good notation stuff. If you really want notation to look polished, you're going to export to Sibelius or Finale or Dorico, but that's true (afaik) of all DAW notation.

I have never used PT as a "DAW," in the sense that I don't use any midi functions in it. Some guys do, of course, but I grew up with it as a record/mix device, and relearning how you make music is a lot to face. 

Some guys use several, but Reaper seems like one of the few that's meaningfully differentiated from Cubase/Logic/DP.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

yeah thats kinda how i viewed PT

It used to have all sorts of recording/mixing driven features that didn't yet exist in other daws, but that kind of stalled a bit so they are catching up


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I believe you -- I could have specified "music for games." If you're recording a big orchestra, you're still going to use Pro Tools.





JohnG said:


> Since the long ago days of tape and 24-tracks, I never encountered anyone trying to record an orchestra using anything other than Pro Tools.


There's a very simple explanation for this. Pro Tools got there first. Nobody wants to change horses mid-stream. It really has nothing at all to do with superior quality and everything to do with convenience and familiarity.

I remember, years ago, when I had a day job in education, the department I worked for had a database system that was a bit long in the tooth. But anytime I suggested we switch to a new, more efficient and easier to use system, the response was always, "Think about all the training we'd have to do. It would cost a fortune. Let's stick with what we already know works."

This is undoubtedly the thinking of most studios and recording engineers who have years invested in Pro Tools. While I think Pro Tools is a fine DAW for audio work, there's nothing it does that makes it more special than any other DAW. It's simply comfortable for a lot of people—and there's nothing wrong with that.

EDIT: By the way, for anyone considering a jump from PT to Reaper, there's a guy who has created a bunch of Reaper actions/keyboard commands to make that transition easier. The key commands correspond to PT's commands. I can't remember who he is, so you'd have to do a Google search to find them.

Here's a link to his site: https://www.protoolstoreaper.com/media


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

MGdepp said:


> It is not so much that so need all of my tracks at once. It is rather special, so, I guess I have to explain: All my midi controllers including tablet programs are routed into a custom midi program (I built that myself with Max MSP). By giving every library a dedicated input and output port and midi channel, I can do many cool things with that custom program, that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. E.g., I can easily create a multi so that my keyboard is able to play multiple tracks at the same time in zones or by other voicing rules. The last example wouldn’t work without having a dedicated midi inpuo port and channel for every template track. Evens, if only a few of those template tracks were loaded at the same time. At least not without a lot of setting up.


Yours is a case of stick with what you already know works. I would say, however, that your set up is definitely an outlier.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> There's a very simple explanation for this. Pro Tools got there first. Nobody wants to change horses mid-stream. It really has nothing at all to do with superior quality and everything to do with convenience and familiarity.



Are there other devices that can record hundreds of tracks simultaneously with near-zero latency? And do that reliably all day long, with an orchestra sitting there at $10k an hour?

I am not interested in taking sides, honestly. But there are two things that really set PT apart, in my own experience:

1. Near-zero latency; and
2. Very fast changeover from cue to cue, even with dozens / a hundred prelays and many takes, each with dozens, sometimes over 100 tracks.

I am not aware of another program that can reliably do that. When you're standing there and there is 10 minutes left with the orchestra, if you have to wait five of those minutes to change something, that can be a catastrophe, financially. A quarter of an hour of overtime with an orchestra is really costly.

*Market*

Moreover, looking at "the marketplace" of commercial studios, which I would say is ferociously competitive, all the recording studios I've worked in all these years (since tape went away) use it. Some of them are famous but plenty are not at all famous and could presumably save a lot of money using something else. If PT were only popular because of hype, people would change. They are in business and PT is expensive.

Certainly, PT is the standard, and has been for a long time. Unquestionably, "getting there first" accounts for a portion, maybe a significant portion, of its strength. But, as a grudging user, my experience is that its strength is not all hype and flimflam.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Are there other devices that can record hundreds of tracks simultaneously with near-zero latency? And do that reliably all day long, with an orchestra sitting there at $10k an hour?


Are you talking about near-zero latency for monitoring? Latency is largely an issue with capabilities of the hardware interface, not the software. But in any DAW you can adjust block sizes to a bare minimum. The power of the CPU will determine how low that can go without getting crackle city, not the DAW itself.

In Reaper, however, you can adjust the audio driver's latency to zero using manual offset for both input and output in milliseconds or samples, depending on which you prefer.

As for recording hundreds of tracks all day long, I have no doubt there are numerous DAWs that can do this. And some of them won't crash. Pro Tools is notorious for crashing a lot.

Again. Pro Tools is a great DAW. But there's absolutely nothing that makes it the "best" for recording orchestras. That's just silly.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> I remember, years ago, when I had a day job in education, the department I worked for had a database system that was a bit long in the tooth. But anytime I suggested we switch to a new, more efficient and easier to use system, the response was always, "Think about all the training we'd have to do. It would cost a fortune. Let's stick with what we already know works."





JohnG said:


> If PT were only popular because of hype, people would change. They are in business and PT is expensive.



If you've used something daily for long enough, it's not just the "cost" of switching, it's also the "pain". I've been using Photoshop for over half of my life, trying to use any other graphics software that doesn't have the exact same shortcuts and features is so painful, I just can't get over it. And I hate Adobe with a passion, I have even bought other tools out of spite to support their competition, but I just can't get over how crippled I feel on all of them. It's worse than working with one arm tied behind my back. It would take a long time to relearn any other tool to that same level of efficiency and the process is so uncomfortable, you'd need to pay me a _lot _to make me go through with it.





JohnG said:


> Are there other devices that can record hundreds of tracks simultaneously with near-zero latency? And do that reliably all day long, with an orchestra sitting there at $10k an hour?
> 
> I am not interested in taking sides, honestly. But there are two things that really set PT apart, in my own experience:
> 
> ...



I have no clue if Reaper can do it, but at those financial stakes, I doubt anyone will ever try it out :-/.


----------



## fakemaxwell (Aug 21, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I am not interested in taking sides, honestly. But there are two things that really set PT apart, in my own experience:
> 
> 1. Near-zero latency; and
> 2. Very fast changeover from cue to cue, even with dozens / a hundred prelays and many takes, each with dozens, sometimes over 100 tracks.
> ...



I'm a bit confused here, to be honest, but can't you do that in everything? Latency has much more to do with interface and drivers than the program.

As far as the changeover, can you explain what you mean there? Are you doing this all in the same project?

If I had multiple separate cues and was using Reaper, I would set up a subproject per cue, and have them ready to go in project tabs. Then it's a single click to change from cue to cue. Various strategies for multiple passthroughs but I like Reaper's take system for this.

As far as stability, especially with high track counts, Reaper is far, far, far more stable than Pro Tools. I'd take a lot of things over Pro Tools in terms of stability.

Again not to bash, your workflow is your workflow. But the things you mentioned that you prioritize are pretty basic for current DAWs and you might find one that has other perks that help you with the process.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> I've been using Photoshop for over half of my life, trying to use any other graphics software that doesn't have the exact same shortcuts and features is so painful, I just can't get over it. And I hate Adobe with a passion, I have even bought other tools out of spite to support their competition, but I just can't get over how crippled I feel on all of them.


I used Photoshop for over a decade and found the switch to Affinity Photo to be pretty painless. Most of the key commands are the same, the app's abilities are 99% the same as Photoshop, and Affinity even does a few things better. You might look into it. No subscription. $30 when there's a sale. $50 otherwise.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

@JohnG

If you want a short video that was half inspired by this thread and also inspired by the fact that I always forgot my installations of scoring synths was corrupt - so this was kind of a celebration of finally being able to open half of the patches.(no fault of audioollies, i just had a lot of issues with pulse for some reason)



the full video goes into some serious sound design territory - modulating parameters all over the place. The last bit shows you a practical example of how/why that can actually be used in regular mixing. In this case, I used reapers routing to side chain a kick and snare signal - to control independant bands on an EQ. 

in the end, that little step sequence i'd automated everything from delay blend, panning, an EQ sweep's gain, frequency, and stereo pan - the resonance of the distortion, the frequency of the distortion, the amount of distortion, the placement of the "virtual mics" in Mikko(an guitar cab impulse blender)


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 21, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Are there other devices that can record hundreds of tracks simultaneously with near-zero latency? And do that reliably all day long, with an orchestra sitting there at $10k an hour?



Yes. In fact, many PT refugees praised Reaper because of its greater overall stability. And you don't need an "Avid certified" machine to run it either.

Obviously a fast hard drive is a must for the above scenario - and Reaper has no problems with it. As long as you have the drive space, Reaper ain't stopping for anything, because audio output and audio recording are done with highest priority (higher than smooth GUI operations, which some other DAWs put before everything else).

I remember a good number of people mentioning they did live recordings with a bunch of tracks, using Reaper on an old (think Pentium 4 era) laptop with nary a hiccup.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> Yes. In fact, many PT refugees praised Reaper because of its greater overall stability. And you don't need an "Avid certified" machine to run it either.
> 
> Obviously a fast hard drive is a must for the above scenario - and Reaper has no problems with it. As long as you have the drive space, Reaper ain't stopping for anything, because audio output and audio recording are done with highest priority (higher than smooth GUI operations, which some other DAWs put before everything else).
> 
> I remember a good number of people mentioning they did live recordings with a bunch of tracks, using Reaper on an old (think Pentium 4 era) laptop with nary a hiccup.


it's worth pointing out that being early makes a big difference here. 

they've got consistency and stability - early on in the game, and while there are others that perform on par now, there's no incentive for people looking for consistency and stability to suddenly change their functioning tool for another one with a new coat of paint. 

I would say there are plenty who have no reason to switch.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 21, 2020)

First off, I am not trying to sell/ or proselytize for Pro Tools on behalf of Avid! Far from it; that's why I'm curious about Reaper.

That said, I'm just not sure that I'm being heard, and I can't help wondering if some who are telling me PT is overrated have experience with a full orchestra recording that _wasn't_ done on PT. A recording that the composer (you or me) would be paying for.

Once upon a time, full orchestras came with Warner Bros. or Universal budgets. That is more rare now unless you are one of a handful of people. When I'm recording an orchestra, I'm usually paying; if I'm _not_ paying, there is going to be arguably even more at stake.

Consequently, a "problem" is potentially a career-ending (or financial solvency-ending) catastrophe.

*The Whole System*

Yes, it's "the whole system." That's the problem PT solved first, both the hardware and the software. As some have written, yes -- you can always adjust midi offsets and all that in any software, of course, but that's not what I'm talking about. 

It's the round trip from the drummer's stick hitting the head of the drum back into his headphones -- and everyone else's -- while you have 60-90 microphones open in the room and recording who knows how many tracks; plus pre-lays; all the while monitoring through reverb (if the players want it).

Zero, or near-zero latency under those circumstances is a tall order.

And switching between pieces in seconds is also something PT solved early on, even with lowly hard drives.

If you guys have actually recorded a full orchestra with something other than Pro Tools, I would be quite keen to know.

As far as stability, PT used to get stuck all the time, but that was 10 years ago. I haven't witnessed that in many years, though it used to be a real issue.

Again, I'm definitely, 100% not trying to peddle PT to anyone. If I didn't work the way I do, I would probably just use DP, which does quite a nice job and (like all the DAWs) has steadily added capabilities over the years in both midi and audio, then export the tracks to PT if that's what the recording engineer or dub stage wanted.

I also don't quite understand why more studios wouldn't happily jettison PT if something else really worked as well or better. PT is wicked expensive.


----------



## EgM (Aug 21, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> I remember a good number of people mentioning they did live recordings with a bunch of tracks, using Reaper on an old (think Pentium 4 era) laptop with nary a hiccup.



I did this in 2007 with success with Reaper, a P4 laptop, Firepod @ 4ms, fx on all tracks, recorded for 1h35m :D






Another success story! :) - Cockos Incorporated Forums


Another success story! :) REAPER General Discussion Forum



forum.cockos.com


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> I used Photoshop for over a decade and found the switch to Affinity Photo to be pretty painless. Most of the key commands are the same, the app's abilities are 99% the same as Photoshop, and Affinity even does a few things better. You might look into it. No subscription. $30 when there's a sale. $50 otherwise.



I appreciate the recommendation and I'm rooting for them. If it made you ditch Photoshop, more power to you! 

I tried switching from Adobe Illustrator to Affinity Designer because I hate Illustrator, have nearly zero investment into it, and only use less than 10% of its featureset. So you'd think switching should be easy, but it's not. Took me less than a minute to hit a roadblock of a missing feature, without which I simply couldn't do the thing I wanted to do with it. So I had to go back to Illustrator.

With Photoshop, I'm using such a large amount of it's total featureset, there's no friggin way Affinity Photo is ready to replace that, not even close. Nothing short of 100% feature parity on the things I use will do. None of the stuff that's better in AP than in PS can balance out the problems I get from the things that are worse or missing.
I could swear we've had this conversation before, so I'll leave it at that. 

For anyone who isn't as invested into Photoshop yet, definitly give Affinity Photo a try, it's _great _value for its price for sure!


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> With Photoshop, I'm using such a large amount of it's total featureset, there's no friggin way Affinity Photo is ready to replace that, not even close.


I thought the same thing. Then I found myself going back to Photoshop less and less. I use Affinity all the time and haven't touched Photoshop in months. I'm literally annoyed at the thought of having to open it. I don't know what features you're looking for, but I own a small publishing company and I design covers with some fairly involved compositing, and I don't miss PS at all.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Aug 21, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> If you've used something daily for long enough, it's not just the "cost" of switching, it's also the "pain".


Totally agree. Some folks seem to be able switch DAWs and other software like they change underwear. I'm definitely NOT one of those people. I've switched DAWs several times and I've sworn I won't do it again. The learning curve was always a HUGE productivity killer. Whatever features some DAW might have, switching isn't worth the time that's lost. 

Having said that, I came damn close to becoming a "Reapist" about a year ago when Steinberg support pissed me off royally...


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

Tim_Wells said:


> The learning curve was always a HUGE productivity killer. Whatever features some DAW might have, switching isn't worth the time that's lost.


I thought this the first couple times I flirted with Reaper (I was using S1 at the time), but then I found Kenny Gioia's video tutorials, watched enough of them to have an "aha!" moment, and haven't looked back since. With Kenny's help, getting up to speed for me, at most, two or three days of playing around with Reaper.

Now, I get that for some, two or three days' investment cuts into valuable time. And I honestly don't think anyone should switch DAWs unless they're unhappy with their current DAW as I was. Otherwise, what's the point? If you can do everything you need to do with the DAW you have and you like the workflow, why bother?

I don't think anyone switches DAWs just for fun,


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Aug 21, 2020)

I switched from Logic to Cubase back when Apple bought eMagic and killed off Logic on the pc platform.

While I hated both being forced to quit Logic and learning to use a new DAW, it was surprising to me how easy it was to learn Cubase coming from Logic.

Today I’m trying to learn Reaper after having sold Cubase a few years ago. And I gotta say, I hate every minute using Reaper. I should never have sold Cubase.

What I’m trying to say is that for me, switching to another program than the one you’ve grown used to after years of use is sometimes easy, other times hard.

I think it (for me) depends on how similar in operation the new program is to the old program.


----------



## fakemaxwell (Aug 21, 2020)

JohnG said:


> That said, I'm just not sure that I'm being heard, and I can't help wondering if some who are telling me PT is overrated have experience with a full orchestra recording that _wasn't_ done on PT. A recording that the composer (you or me) would be paying for.
> 
> I also don't quite understand why more studios wouldn't happily jettison PT if something else really worked as well or better. PT is wicked expensive.



That's what I was getting at- is there a difference between recording a high track count orchestra (which I haven't done) and a high track count rock band (which I have)? 

I've been paid plenty of money for long, live, single take performances, and have used Reaper on all of them. A lot of the people doing immersive audio, which requires a ton of tracks, were basically forced to switch to Reaper as it was the only thing stable enough. 

The disconnect seems to be that the workflow you're describing, as far as anybody else can tell, can be done by pretty much any DAW. Unless there's something I'm missing?

Pro Tools use in studios is nearly 100% inertia. I used it for a decade before throwing it to the curb because it was "the standard." If Reaper can't do it, Cubase or Logic probably can, and as far as I can tell those guys aren't run by assholes either.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

Yeah, I'm not sure where the the idea that "Pro Tools can record hundreds of tracks better" thing came from. It's a freaking DAW, that, from my understanding, crashes a lot. But a large part of the "better" in any equation is the hardware being used, not the software. I admittedly have never used Reaper to record an orchestra, but I don't see why it would be a struggle, especially since we're talking about tracking, and not hundreds of midi instruments loaded up. I can't imagine Reaper being even slightly bothered by a hundred audio tracks.

EDIT: A guy on the Reaper forums says he records on well over a hundred tracks easily.

EDIT 2: Also, how are getting to a hundred tracks for an orchestra? According to this chart, the average orchestra takes about thirty or so mics to record, which means thirty or so tracks on average. What are the other seventy tracks for? 







Again, I'm ignorant when it comes to orchestral recording, so my logic may be faulty.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 21, 2020)

Last time at Abbey Road we had 90 microphones for the orchestra. Maybe we should ask an engineer, like Sean Murphy or Alan Meyerson or one of their guys?

I'm not saying it's the best way to do it. I'm just saying it's the only way I've seen it done. So far, it appears the guys who say "that's stupid and they should use Reaper" have never recorded an orchestra. So it would be interesting to see if we can find a buddy who could reliably confirm -- not guess, not imagine -- that Reaper is just as good for that application.

As far as a creative tool, though, it looks awesome.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

the difference is pretty obvious

losing half a day from a rock band who's paying you = sucks

losing half a day of a booked hall you paid for, and 60 session musicians someone else paid for?

if you get paid exactly the same as them, and you lose half a session you just lost 30 days worth of money, possibly putting an expensive production into an even worse position. 

mechanically the same but the stakes are massively different.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

JohnG said:


> So far, it appears the guys who say "that's stupid and they should use Reaper" have never recorded an orchestra.


I don't think anyone is actually saying that. All we're saying is that we don't see any reason why Reaper wouldn't be able to handle it. If I owned a multimillion dollar studio that was used to running PT, I doubt I'd be much interested in a change, either. But that's my point. PT got in early and works for their needs. So they feel no need to change.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> I don't think anyone is actually saying that. All we're saying is that we don't see any reason why Reaper wouldn't be able to handle it. If I owned a multimillion dollar studio that was used to running PT, I doubt I'd be much interested in a change, either. But that's my point. PT got in early and works for their needs. So they feel no need to change.



agreed. if you have the right computer, any of the DAWS should be able to handle the task same as pro tools. The difference is hardware. Much like how UAD talks about their zero-latency, because of their hardware doing the lifting instead of your system for their plugins. I think cubase and studio one both have hardware options that allow them to do similar low latecy recording. Pro Tools is king of the hill because they‘ve locked in the market in studios and exclusive partnerships. 

If we had a reliable project file format that any daw could use to open projects with all the settings intact (better than AAF), we probably would see the pro tools market decline in pro studios.


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

easyrider said:


> Studio One gives you 5 computers without dongle too...


5 computers? The fact that there is a number at all implies that you have to activate it remotely and that the activation is logged and monitored. Is this true?

With Reaper, you just have a local file key that you can carry with you on a thumb drive and use on any computer you like. No Big Brother is overseeing your activity.

I'm not a religious zealot when it comes to DAWs. That would be beyond silly. I am, however, a fanatical religious zealot, a _crusader, _when it comes to the freedom to use purchased software however we choose. Reaper makes the grade on this score with flying colors. I only wish their activation system were universal.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> 5 computers? The fact that there is a number at all implies that you have to activate it remotely and that the activation is logged and monitored. Is this true?
> 
> With Reaper, you just have a local file key that you can carry with you on a thumb drive and use on any computer you like. No Big Brother is overseeing your activity.
> 
> I'm not a religious zealot when it comes to DAWs. That would be beyond silly. I am, however, a fanatical religious zealot, a _crusader, _when it comes to the freedom to use purchased software however we choose. Reaper makes the grade on this score with flying colors. I only wish their activation system were universal.


small point of contention, you're not being software, you're buying license to use software XD

although I do generally agree that developers need to appropriately balance anti theft benefits with being able to ensure that a licensee is able to actually use the product they spent money to use without significant hoops to jump through. 

it's one thing to protect your investment, it's another to make paying customers miserable as punishment for non paying "customers".

reaper also just has the beautiful freedom of not packing a daw full of useless bundled software that inflate the price. This also means no advertising. Its non chelant enough to not care if you even have a license and just assumes people will police themselves and buy it instead of demo mode for 100 years


----------



## EgM (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> 5 computers? The fact that there is a number at all implies that you have to activate it remotely and that the activation is logged and monitored. Is this true?
> 
> With Reaper, you just have a local file key that you can carry with you on a thumb drive and use on any computer you like. No Big Brother is overseeing your activity.
> 
> I'm not a religious zealot when it comes to DAWs. That would be beyond silly. I am, however, a fanatical religious zealot, a _crusader, _when it comes to the freedom to use purchased software however we choose. Reaper makes the grade on this score with flying colors. I only wish their activation system were universal.



Hold your horses there man, once activated you don't have to be online again. You can even activate offline!

It does not check *ever* if you're online once you're activated, Presonus doesn't do that.

But man, seriously, you need to get your reality checked. In 10 years from now, it will not get more offline.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> Hold your horses there man, once activated you don't have to be online again. You can even activate offline!
> 
> It does not check *ever* if you're online once you're activated, Presonus doesn't do that.
> 
> But man, seriously, you need to get your reality checked. In 10 years from now, it will not get more offline.



with offline activation you can download a license file, so i imagine its not much different


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> Hold your horses there man, once activated you don't have to be online again. You can even activate offline!
> 
> It does not check *ever* if you're online once you're activated, Presonus doesn't do that.
> 
> But man, seriously, you need to get your reality checked. In 10 years from now, it will not get more offline.


Well, the thing about Reaper is that you never really have to buy it at all, if you're willing to sit through a few seconds of nag screen. The demo—which is fully functional—never expires. Most of us (at least I hope it's most) do the right thing and pay the $60 (another point in Reaper's favor), but you can put it on a hundred machines if you want to and never pay for it.

I do not advise this, however. Your dollars make further development possible. And we get new updates approximately every three weeks or so. The developers are constantly striving to make it better and better.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> Well, the thing about Reaper is that you never really have to buy it at all, if you're willing to sit through a few seconds of nag screen. The demo—which is fully functional—never expires. Most of us (at least I hope it's most) do the right thing and pay the $60 (another point in Reaper's favor), but you can put it on a hundred machines if you want to and never pay for it.
> 
> I do not advise this, however. Your dollars make further development possible. And we get new updates approximately every three weeks or so.



In Reaper, Pirating is a feature!


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> In Reaper, Pirating is a feature!


It ain't piracy if they allow it.


----------



## EgM (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> It ain't piracy if they allow it.



Allowing it now?


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

they don't allow it, it's not allowed

the keyword is that they don't ENFORCE it.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> Allowing it now?


They could easily cut it off after sixty days. They don't. Which suggests to me they aren't too worried about it. Again, I think most who decide to keep it pay for it. Kenny talks about it in the video I posted.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> They could easily cut it off after sixty days. They don't. Which suggests to me they aren't too worried about it. Again, I think most who decide to keep it pay for it. Kenny talks about it in the video I posted.



lol its a flimsy premise, but either way, whatever satisfies Reaper users. I hope its everything you guys want it to be.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> lol its a flimsy premise, but either way, whatever satisfies Reaper users. I hope its everything you guys want it to be.


And more. Much more.


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> small point of contention, you're not being software, you're buying license to use software XD


No, fuck all of that., I don't care what games capitalist lawyers play with EULAs. They're garbage. When I buy a piece of software it's mine.


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> Hold your horses there man, once activated you don't have to be online again. You can even activate offline!
> 
> It does not check *ever* if you're online once you're activated, Presonus doesn't do that.
> 
> But man, seriously, you need to get your reality checked. In 10 years from now, it will not get more offline.


No, it's the fascist oppressors who need to get their reality checked. History will not be on their side.


----------



## EgM (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> No, fuck all of that., I don't care what games capitalist lawyers play with EULAs. They're garbage. When I by a piece of software it's mine.



You're buying a license, agreeing to it and that's what it is. You complying to it or not is irrelevant.

I've seen so many posts from you about all sorts of crap concerning offline activations such as Native Access and it's getting very tiresome.

You agree to the license of the products you buy, if you don't agree, ask for a refund!


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> No, it's the fascist oppressors who need to get their reality checked. History will not be on their side.



this will no doubt become a tangent, but I'm curious about the end game with this logic. If I buy your music, do I have free right to use the song, and components of your song any way I choose? Can I take your melody and use it in my own work?


----------



## EgM (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> No, it's the fascist oppressors who need to get their reality checked. History will not be on their side.



Now sample library developers are fascists, cute.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> You agree to the license of the products you buy, if you don't agree, ask for a refund!


You can't get refunds for most sample libraries, unfortunately. Life would be so much better if you could. I can't tell you how many times I've felt like I'd been burned.


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> You're buying a license, agreeing to it and that's what it is. You complying to it or not is irrelevant.
> 
> I've seen so many posts from you about all sorts of crap concerning offline activations such as Native Access and it's getting very tiresome.
> 
> You agree to the license of the products you buy, if you don't agree, ask for a refund!


We're all tired of something. You're tired of my (and others) complaints about a profound oppression and injustice. I'm tired of the injustice, and will stop complaining when the injustice has been rectified.


----------



## EgM (Aug 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> You can't get refunds for most sample libraries, unfortunately. Life would be so much better if you could. I can't tell you how many times I've felt like I'd been burned.



True, but there are countless review videos out there and reaching out to developers ain't hard.

Doesn't invalidate license agreements though.


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> Now sample library developers are fascists, cute.


I don't think they have fascist intentions, and they're probably mostly very nice people. But we tend to become enured to the culture in which we're ensconced. Just look at history, and try to find a time when the mainstream culture didn't accept as a matter of course routine practices which we now find abhorrent. This era is no exception...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> I don't think they have fascist intentions, and they're probably mostly very nice people. But we tend to become enured to the culture in which we're ensconced. Just look at history, and try to find a time when the mainstream culture didn't accept as a matter of routine practices which we now find abhorrent. This era is no exception...



license agreements are tyranny?


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> license agreements are tyranny?


As currently constructed, this is almost universally true.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 21, 2020)

Quasar said:


> As currently constructed, this is almost universally true.



unpacking this no doubt needs a new thread. anywayssssss have fun with reaper.


----------



## Quasar (Aug 21, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> unpacking this no doubt needs a new thread. anywayssssss have fun with reaper.


I dig Reaper, and am now going back to my project. Peace out.


----------



## robgb (Aug 21, 2020)

EgM said:


> True, but there are countless review videos out there


Watching videos is not quite the same as actually using the library. Unfortunately it's usually the best we can hope for.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 21, 2020)

very harsh reality when a voluntary agreement is called fascism and tyranny let alone compared to it. 

history must've woke up on the wrong side if someone is comparing not liking the EULA of software to the actual oppression of fascist tyrants of the 20th century

My profile picture is Shostakovich. Who survived the brutal rule of Stalin - if that offers some perspective. Mahler luckily died young enough to not have to suffer Nazi Germany - but his music, along with any music from Jewish composers, was banned before WWII even started. This might have a little to do with why your perspective seems to have little to do with "history" and is generally hard to relate to.


----------



## vicontrolu (Aug 22, 2020)

Think of all of the times you thought "i wish I could do this with a click". You can do it with a click in Reaper. 

I just get it done earlier with it than with any other DAW


----------



## Suganthan (Aug 22, 2020)

fakemaxwell said:


> If I had multiple separate cues and was using Reaper, I would set up a subproject per cue, and have them ready to go in project tabs. Then it's a single click to change from cue to cue



Subprojects seem to be a great feature for film scoring. Here is a video on this, if anyone wants to know more about it.



Like, changing tempo in one cue doesn't change that in other cues, etc.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 22, 2020)

robgb said:


> They could easily cut it off after sixty days. They don't. Which suggests to me they aren't too worried about it. Again, I think most who decide to keep it pay for it. Kenny talks about it in the video I posted.


They know it's pointless because it's easily cracked and there may be a small percentage who buy it in the end just because they had a year or so to make up their mind while using it, instead of being rushed to make a decision and picking a more "proven" (in the sense of market share) competitor.




robgb said:


> Most of us (at least I hope it's most) do the right thing and pay the $60 (another point in Reaper's favor), but you can put it on a hundred machines if you want to and never pay for it.


Actually 60$ is just the discounted license, for which most qualify. I bought the 225$ commercial license with the last upgrade to support them, even though I do qualify for the cheaper one. 

I had to look it up to make sure because it's been so long: 2016 is when I bought it and it's still good till version 6.99 and we're just at 6.13. Reaper really is a steal, even at the commercial license price.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 22, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> They know it's pointless because it's easily cracked and there may be a small percentage who buy it in the end just because they had a year or so to make up their mind while using it, instead of being rushed to make a decision and picking a more "proven" (in the sense of market share) competitor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah I felt like even if I qualified - it's not worth the time, so I'm not even sure what the criteria was. I don't make money from music, and I don't make a whole lot of money(instead of booze I buy samples, don't judge) I may or may not meet the criteria technically, but If I can spend 900$ on berlin woodwinds - I can pay full price. I've dumped more than 225$ on a dumb sale buying things I know I wont use multiple times a year... (I've slowed down substantially since JXL though)

I can drop that kind of money for something I use mathematically far more.







plus, I figure for every full license, there are probably like 10 other nerds who didn't pay for reaper, who pirate every plugin and then complain that nobody wants to pay for their music XD


----------



## Ivan M. (Nov 9, 2020)

Tried another daw, it is nice, but it just feels so limiting. I think I'm going back to my trusty old reaper. 

Although people claim reaper to be complex, I think it's actually simpler in terms of philosophy: one type of track, send anywhere, one list for audio processing, and you can do anything. So you have a few really basic building blocks (no instrument racks, dedicated channels, or special use case handling, just put the thing you need on the track and you're done).

The complexity comes from it not being streamlined for basic usage out of the box: unintuitive shortcuts, mouse modifiers and toolbars, no predefined screen layouts for different purposes, unorganized menus. But, if you change these you can really make it simple. I've changed all of the kbd shorcuts (removed most), and assigned the simplest possible mapping for how I use it.
I do miss the articulation manager, a visual one, one of the "click click click done" type.


----------



## Ivan Duch (Nov 17, 2020)

Ivan M. said:


> Tried another daw, it is nice, but it just feels so limiting. I think I'm going back to my trusty old reaper.
> 
> Although people claim reaper to be complex, I think it's actually simpler in terms of philosophy: one type of track, send anywhere, one list for audio processing, and you can do anything. So you have a few really basic building blocks (no instrument racks, dedicated channels, or special use case handling, just put the thing you need on the track and you're done).
> 
> ...



Have you tried Reaticulate for managing articulations? It's awesome.


----------



## Ivan M. (Nov 17, 2020)

Ivan Duch said:


> Have you tried Reaticulate for managing articulations? It's awesome.



I have, very nice indeed!


----------



## Jetzer (Nov 18, 2020)

This thread (amongst others) made me curious. I have been using Cubase for almost 10 years now. I am still happy with it, but I am interested in trying another DAW, just to see if I can come up with some interesting workflows that are different and inspiring. Also, I am looking into using a laptop for some smaller productions and I like the idea of Reaper having a smaller footprint. Also the customization options I love.

Now on for a few days of watching Kenny's videos....:D


----------



## chrisr (Nov 18, 2020)

Must have missed this thread previously. Would just like to add my voice to the list of pro's using and loving Reaper. For clarity - I write in Cubase but print stems to Reaper, which I then further balance / mix / process, before sending on the the dubbing stage, who use PT. I deliver stems or mixes as bwavs and just make sure that everything is in good order. Works a treat and never had a single problem. Almost all of my work uses virtual instruments, with the addition of the odd live player or singer, who I would record myself - so to be fair, I'm not working at the level of composers who are regularly recording ensembles.

I used PT professionally as an engineer for _many_ years and know it well (well, versions up until a few years ago in fairness). There's no good technical reason that Reaper or any other solid daw (and reaper is _rock_ solid in my experience) couldn't track a massive session given the right hardware interface(s) - but there's no call for change in that area of the business because tracking is frankly a very straightforward process, software wise. If it ain't broke and all that... PT has still got that market cornered.

Remember that protools found success because of it's innovation in _hardware. _In fact for years, those of us working with it every day would bemoan how far behind others the _software_ parts of protools were_. _Remember the agonising, years long wait for full automatic delay compensation, anyone?

That PT _hardware _advantage, which used to be very real, has now largely disappeared - recently there are loads of really solid hardware solutions that could be paired with pretty much any daw to run a fairly large tracking session if needed. AVID themselves partnered with DAD when they recognised that they were no longer quite leading the pack. The I/O bottlenecks have mostly gone. Get a solid audio interface(s), run a synchronous backup recorder, and you're good to go. If you're one of the _handful_ of studios in the world who are going to run 90 mics in a session (!) then sure - absolutely stick with PT.

Further downstream, post tracking, I personally would say that Reaper leaves PT in the dust. It's a really good fit for me and my workflows. I don't use it's midi - but for audio/mixing it's so much faster and smarter than anything else I've ever worked with.


----------



## woodslanding (Nov 30, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Are there other devices that can record hundreds of tracks simultaneously with near-zero latency? And do that reliably all day long, with an orchestra sitting there at $10k an hour?
> 
> I am not interested in taking sides, honestly. But there are two things that really set PT apart, in my own experience:
> 
> ...



Boy that is not my experience. I'm rarely on big sessions, at most 5-7 people, and most of what I do is overdubs. All three of the pro tools studios I work in regularly just crash a lot. On average once a session (3-5 hours) even when there is only one stereo input being recorded on an overdub session! 

By contrast, the Cubase studio I work in has never crashed that I can remember. At home, Reaper never crashes for me. I'm trying to remember a time, and I just can't. And RME has been building high-fidelity, high track-count ultra-stable low-latency interfaces for 20 years now.

From my experience, I just don't get it.


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Dec 3, 2020)

A license is cheap, you don't pay for upgrades, it's stable and it just works. Yes, there's learning curve, but all DAWs do.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 24, 2021)




----------



## Ivan M. (Aug 30, 2021)

Just in case someone didn't know about this:


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 10, 2022)

Just discovered this:


----------

