# Cubase vs. Pro Tools in general



## MrJul (Mar 6, 2017)

Hi everybody,

I am new to film music (and stuff like that what it seems to be about in this forum) and - after searching some hours through a bunch of threads - I realized that a lot of you use Cubase. Coming from making more "commercial" music (pop, house, ...) with FL Studio, I want to switch the DAW (for creating bigger scores as well). That is why I would like to know what you guys think about the two mentioned softwares in general (not only: Cubase=MIDI, Pro Tools=audio).

Thanks in advance. 

Best regards,
MrJul


----------



## sazema (Mar 6, 2017)

Actually you can score in FL studio as well  At the end it's just a tool, and if you are Ninja in FL Studio then why not stay with FL Studio.
Many serious composers uses PT, many Cubase, many Logic, many Reaper... it's just a personal taste and deepth of wallet .
You cannot do something more in Cubase then you can do with PT or FL Studio in overall. It's just a little difference in some aspects, for example Cubase has articulation manager, other software not, but what if you like separate articulations on separate channels  then you can garbage articulation manager functionality. I would suggest to you this, learn and master your (one) tool and spread your ideas over orchestrating instead of floating over sequencer wars.
With Cubase you will not become better producer, neither PT. It's just a same tool as any other but with different skin and different learning curve.
Regarding to this watch this nice video



It's done with FL studio 

And who said that PT is best tool for mastering and mixing? This idea is from era of mixing desks provided by Digi Design. That time you have to buy dedicated sound-cards just for PT, because PT was unable to work without M-Audio, Digi Design, etc. It was software specialized for studios etc.

Now, these days, Avid (Digi Design) realized that you can do mastering even in Adobe Audition and they updated version of all-mighty PT to support any sound card. You know why? Because more and more people invest in Cubase, Live, etc... with home studios or small studios, and no one invest in their product. Imagine how much people uses mixing desks (hardware) and how many just pure workstations.


----------



## ontracktuts (Mar 6, 2017)

I think a big factor is if you're going to be using video to score to. Some DAWs are more advanced with the video integration. If you're not working to video then yeah stick with the DAW you know. Each DAW has its pros and cons. very tricky switching to another one. Personally I'm a fan of Studio One, Logic and Cubase. Each one has their own advantage with different feature sets.

So I'd say look at the different DAWs, see which features you like that they have, and then see if you can get a trial version of the software and test it out. I know there's trial versions of Ableton and Studio One. Don't think there's any with Logic and Cubase.

But FL is super amazing as well. I've only used it briefly, but it works really different then other DAWs, and it can do some things that others can. So it really just comes down to the feature set and what you want to use.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 6, 2017)

MrJul said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I am new to film music (and stuff like that what it seems to be about in this forum) and - after searching some hours through a bunch of threads - I realized that a lot of you use Cubase. Coming from making more "commercial" music (pop, house, ...) with FL Studio, I want to switch the DAW (for creating bigger scores as well). That is why I would like to know what you guys think about the two mentioned softwares in general (not only: Cubase=MIDI, Pro Tools=audio).
> 
> ...



I would stay away from pro tools for a while until they get their business shiat together.
Cubase seems like the winning horse. 
I use logic pro but if i would have to start over i would go forcubase. 

with all that said, all of those daws already do the same things. pro tools does good midi. cubase does good audio and so on. so the choices sometimes might be not about that but what it comes with, whats compatible and as i alluded about the business side. cubase keeps on bringing more pro features, logic is from apple and trying to dumb it down. 
pro tools still think is its 2004 when they where good and ableton goes for EDM crowd. for a daw i think long term commitment is a big factor in deciding. 

There is cubase elements and garageband that are like intro or demo. 

There are tons of videos about those daws so see the "how to get started with" so you can see the basic handling. as i remember, FL was very different in user interface.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 6, 2017)

I agree with those who suggest avoiding ProTools and focusing (especially at the beginning) on your writing. Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer -- any of these can be found on major motion pictures.

ProTools is on all of them too, but primarily for audio. Two main reasons:

1. Zero latency live recording -- this is extremely valuable if you are recording live players. It is possible with some, but not all, DAW software.

2. Ubiquity -- if you hire any engineer to work on your material at your place, he or she will know how to work with ProTools and therefore will be much faster at the mixing stage in it. However, a good bit of the time you will just export your stems to the engineer and he or she will work on it at the engineer's studio, using the plugins and all the gear the engineer already owns and with which the engineer is familiar.

One of my friends has made millions as a composer -- many millions -- and does not own ProTools. Just records into Digital Performer and exports his stems.

Good luck!

John


----------



## MrJul (Mar 6, 2017)

Maybe I did not make it that clear: I am really not that new to music production, only to film music and those big scores. FL Studio is not bad at all, even if there are still people who underestimate that thing. I know that you can handle almost everything with all the big DAWs. But I was surprised that film music is relatively often composed with Cubase (compared to Pro Tools).


----------



## sazema (Mar 6, 2017)

MrJul said:


> Maybe I did not make it that clear: I am really not that new to music production, only to film music and those big scores. FL Studio is not bad at all, even if there are still people who underestimate that thing. I know that you can handle almost everything with all the big DAWs. But I was surprised that film music is relatively often composed with Cubase (compared to Pro Tools).



Ahh, it's higher logic behind that and fashion question. Cubase is "old" software, almost most older then others, and many composers worked with Cubase since first version because that time it was not many choices.
Now, imagine you are well known famous composer who is focused on own work and upcoming projects. You don't have time to explore sequencers and other stuff, and that's why you will mostly find answers like: "I'm using only Zebra, I don't have time to explore any vst today, I can do everything with Zebra".
Imagine what will happen if HZ every little do sequencer switching (new Bitwig is released) and analyses is this vst good or not. We will probably never heard Gladiator or Interstellar or Man of steel soundtracks. He uses Cubase for years and he know Cubase well for his needs. That's why I said "know your tool". If that time FL was reasonable choice, we would discuss now why most composers uses FL Studio or similar 
Why I said fashion question? Simply because, some guy see HZ uses Cubase and then say: "wow I will buy Cubase to do the same!".
It's the same thing with real instruments, put Tina Guo behind any cello (even school one) it will sound great. Some potential cellists will spent a lot of money just because Tina Guo plays that one.
It's general rule behind everything in sport, life...
In video production you have Avid Media Composer vs Adobe Premiere (which one is better, which one is standard?)
In photography, you have Nikon vs Canon fights...

As opposite, you can find M.Verta who throw away Mac and Logic and bought Windows machine with Pro Tools for scoring. It's just a personal taste question.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 6, 2017)

MrJul said:


> Maybe I did not make it that clear: I am really not that new to music production, only to film music and those big scores. FL Studio is not bad at all, even if there are still people who underestimate that thing. I know that you can handle almost everything with all the big DAWs. But I was surprised that film music is relatively often composed with Cubase (compared to Pro Tools).


ProTools will seem like a winning solution until you begin building out bigger templates. Its audio engine can't handle the complex routing required for orchestral templates. I really wanted to make it work. I really did. It simply chokes... and is a ram hog as well. I've been a user of ProTools from ProTools Free (was it? back around 2000) through 12.7. That said, the best designed audio engine is Reaper (my personal favorite even compared to ProTools), which can handle the most complex routing imaginable without breaking a sweat and allows for pretty much anything imaginable since it has its own API. So with Reaper on one end of the spectrum, ProTools on the other, now imagine every other DAW somewhere in between on routing/engine capability with the decision usually made based on usability, work-flow features, etc.

To @sazema's point, Cubase/Logic were really the only options for a long time and that's why they are the most widely used in the industry today. The early days of Emagic's Logic weren't prized for usability and though I used it over Cubase then, it eventually became apple-only so those that were on Windows or wanted to jump between platforms really had one option - Cubase (though Sonar is very good now too, but it has always been Windows only). Remove all of the features that make one better than the other and it still would be the same today due to Steinberg filling a gap where no one else was (and has done so very well). FruityLoops filled the gap on drum/rhythm sequencing and built upon its user base from there.

Hope this helps! 

EDIT: I should add Digital Performer has been around for quite a while too, but it was always Mac only which limited its audience appeal too.


----------



## MrJul (Mar 6, 2017)

First of all: Thank you for all your users, guys! 




ontracktuts said:


> I think a big factor is if you're going to be using video to score to. Some DAWs are more advanced with the video integration. [...]



Could someone tell me which DAWs are the best for video integretation?

There are some other questions (wherefore I don't want to start an extra topic):

As a FL Studio user I don't really understand Cubase's CC function. (For) What is it? Is there something like a workaround in Pro Tools?

And as well: I saw that people like Junkie XL or Hans Zimmer use Pro Tools (as a slave?) while using Cubase. What is the use and advantage?


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 6, 2017)

I like Pro Tools for analog recording/mixing. Although Pro Tools midi editing is fine, its lack of script function doesn't allow ability to make custom key switches and it doesn't have group folders, For those 2 reasons, large orchestral templates are much better suited for Cubase or other such as Logic, Studio One, DP, Reaper etc.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 6, 2017)

I believe that for live recording, zero latency is absolutely essential. With Pro Tools and its very expensive hardware, that's built in. 

It's possible to achieve it in Cubase as well. When I started with Cubase, I used a hardware mixer to monitor live recording and that worked well. Now I use a MOTU Ultralite with a MOTU software front end that allows for zero latency. If you do live recording at all, I would suggest you at least consider a zero latency solution. Good luck.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 6, 2017)

As far as I can tell there are really only two considerations

*1. Pipe into Pro Tools* Look, PT simply _is_ _the_ audio post software. Eventually your audio, no matter how or where you record it, will flow through PT so you need to ensure you have a smooth workflow for that handoff. One composer told me his #1 pitch to other people to adopt PT as their composing rig, is how easy it is to go from composing to mix to delivery. Several other times I've seen composers using a "dual rig" as @MrJul alludes to. Cubase or Logic handles the MIDI editing and then the audio gets rewired over to Pro Tools in real time for bouncing. All of the audio mixing and bucketing for stems gets handled on the PT as well. It's pretty sweet... as long as it's working...

*2. Network effects* The more pros use a software, the more marketable your knowledge of it becomes. Kontakt scripters are a lot more in demand than UVI scripters etc. As far as I've ever heard, there are only four camps among professional Hollywood composers - the Cubase camp, the Logic camp, the Pro Tools camp, and some guys who are still adhering to Digital Performer. Realistically, knowledge of FL Studio and Reaper just don't seem to be marketable skills. Ableton is kind of a strange bird, a lot of composers seem to use it for sound design & inspiration, but again far fewer as their scoring rig as far as I'm aware.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 6, 2017)

storyteller said:


> ProTools will seem like a winning solution until you begin building out bigger templates. Its audio engine can't handle the complex routing required for orchestral templates. I really wanted to make it work. I really did. It simply chokes... and is a ram hog as well.



Thanks for the warning! I was thinking of moving over to PT in the near future and building templates for it. What kind of routing or RAM limits were you running into?


----------



## storyteller (Mar 6, 2017)

NoamL said:


> Thanks for the warning! I was thinking of moving over to PT in the near future and building templates for it. What kind of routing or RAM limits were you running into?


No problem! Also know I'm not anti-protools. There are some things it does really well, and other places where it falters among DAWs. I don't want to derail this thread with a long discussion, but in summary, PT will use somewhere around 4.5GB for a session compared to something like Reaper which clocks in at 170MB. It also leaks ram throughout the sessions that can't be recovered with memory management tools so you have to close and reopen the sessions. As for routing, you will cause the audio engine to grind to a halt when doing anything that would be considered routine with groups, vcas, aux fx in a larger orchestral template. I can PM you with more details if you'd like and walk through what scenarios lead to the various situations you'll face in ProTools.


----------



## MrJul (Mar 7, 2017)

Is someone out there who could give me a few additional answers:

Could someone tell me which DAWs are the best for video integretation?

As a FL Studio user I don't really understand Cubase's CC function. (For) What is it? Is there something like a workaround in Pro Tools?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## C-Wave (Mar 7, 2017)

Steinberg are rewriting and should come out this month with a robust free update for integrating latest video codecs into Cubase 9 film scoring engine.. you might as well wait and see if that turns into a viable solution.


----------



## sazema (Mar 7, 2017)

MrJul said:


> Is someone out there who could give me a few additional answers:
> 
> Could someone tell me which DAWs are the best for video integretation?
> 
> ...



Cubase CC? You mean Midi CC functions. Any sequencer can do that... Open your midi clip and add CC automation for modwheel, vibrato, etc.


----------



## Spip (Mar 7, 2017)

storyteller said:


> I don't want to derail this thread with a long discussion



The topic being Pro Tools general advantages or problems, i'm sure it could be interesting to have your point of view on the subject. The two main "problems" with Pro Tools, every time there is a discussion comparing it to the other DAWs are MIDI and efficiency (RAM, CPU, etc.).
About MIDI, the only thing missing is expression map, for me. Everything else is enough. Not ideal, of course, but more than fine.
About performance. I'm trying to choose between Pro Tools or Reaper. (I know both well. I don't have Cubase yet but it could be the next step) And so far, on my system, Pro Tools is really the best. Roughly : for the same amount of kontakt tracks (500 the maximum for PT) it gives 25% against 40% of CPU usage. And the GUI is much more snappy.



> but in summary, PT will use somewhere around 4.5GB for a session compared to something like Reaper which clocks in at 170MB. It also leaks ram throughout the sessions that can't be recovered with memory management tools so you have to close and reopen the sessions. As for routing, you will cause the audio engine to grind to a halt when doing anything that would be considered routine with groups, vcas, aux fx in a larger orchestral template.



That's true that Pro Tools needs a lot of RAM just for working (Avid says at least 8G) but, chances are that, if you're doing orchestral projects, your computer has already a lot of RAM.
And in my experience, Reaper is not problem free with RAM. Try to activate/deactivate a few times some kontakt tracks with some heavy VI. The RAM is not "cleaned" well while Pro Tools do its job each time without any problem.

Anyway, this topic comes at the right time for me as I'm really interested in any infos about large orchestral templates in Pro Tools vs Reaper, Cubase, etc.

So far, for me :

Pro Tools : performance, activation/de-activation and freezing of tracks is working really well.
Cubase : expression maps, no limited numbers of tracks.


----------



## MrJul (Mar 7, 2017)

Spip said:


> Pro Tools : performance, activation/de-activation and freezing of tracks is working really well.
> Cubase : expression maps, no limited numbers of tracks.



This ist definitely something what I thought about! But how could you handle large projects with a thousand tracks in Pro Tools?


----------



## sazema (Mar 7, 2017)

MrJul said:


> This ist definitely something what I thought about! But how could you handle large projects with a thousand tracks in Pro Tools?



Easy, you have groups manager, so you can set groups over violin section, group over woodwinds and then in manager just turn on/off groups.
http://www.audio-times.com/2012/12/02/track-grouping-in-pro-tools-and-how-to-work-without-folder-tracks/


----------



## sazema (Mar 7, 2017)

Just found this. It's a series of videos about orchestrating with Pro Tools (from template to ...)



As I said already, you can do that with any sequencer today. It's just a question of personal taste and money.

Thousand of tracks... 
It's more matter of your workflow, do you really need 400 tracks?
To orchestrate string quintet you will load large template with brasses, woodwinds, percussion etc  

For example, I have few templates in Reaper

trailer template
classic template
string quintet
felt (weird) template
etc
Each of them have multiple variants, for example

trailer (ARK + Albion)
trailer (Berlin + something)
etc
(felt  is for type music of Olafur Arnalds, Max Richter, etc)

Depending on material I'm recalling right or nearly right template.
Also, I build my templates with one Kontakt instance per channel so I can easy switch instrument etc.. or load another articulation. I can easy freeze tracks. By default each section in my template has enabled only few track (for example VLN1 sus soft, VLN1 spic, FLUTE sus, FLUTE spic, etc...) other tracks (articulations) are disabled. Why? Because you will always start with common articulations.
When I start to compose and I need VLN1 trills - ok enable track and go.
If I need more tracks, it's easy... select track -> duplicate -> load instrument and articulation.
At the end, when everything is done, I delete each unused track, and that's it.
For me, template is just a starting point and I tend to have aprox. articulation and instruments I will use. For god sake, do I need flute 2 glissandi loaded always - NO!
Again, it's a matter of personal workflow.


----------



## Mishabou (Mar 7, 2017)

I use PT with a decent size template (900 odd tracks). I also collaborate with a few composers who use CB and DP so i have the same template in CB and DP as well. My VIs are hosted in VEP pro 6.

When i first got my nMP, i tested the VIs hosted directly in the DAWs (with no VEP) and the results were about the same with PT, CB and DP. By using VEP pro 6, i can easily load 30-40% more patches and again the performance and stability were about the same with all 3 DAWs in the master/slave set up. 

I actually prefer doing midi in PT vs CB and DP but as we all know, this is such a personal thing and at the end of the day, they all offer more than enough tools for my composition's needs.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 7, 2017)

MrJul said:


> Could someone tell me which DAWs are the best for video integretation?



Best? Reaper again by a significant margin. Not to sound like a Reaper cheerleader, but honestly the developers got it right. You can edit you entire AV clip in Reaper if you want...



Spip said:


> The topic being Pro Tools general advantages or problems, i'm sure it could be interesting to have your point of view on the subject. The two main "problems" with Pro Tools, every time there is a discussion comparing it to the other DAWs are MIDI and efficiency (RAM, CPU, etc.).
> About MIDI, the only thing missing is expression map, for me. Everything else is enough. Not ideal, of course, but more than fine.
> About performance. I'm trying to choose between Pro Tools or Reaper. (I know both well. I don't have Cubase yet but it could be the next step) And so far, on my system, Pro Tools is really the best. Roughly : for the same amount of kontakt tracks (500 the maximum for PT) it gives 25% against 40% of CPU usage. And the GUI is much more snappy.



So there are a number of things I want to share about this subject - so I apologize upfront if this is long-winded. First, I want share that I've used every DAW since the early days. All have pros and cons, but as you know orchestral templates will stretch a DAW to its limits. With that said, there is a very black and white way to look at the basics. The rest is going to based on what inspires you with your personal workflow. After all, you want to be excited and inspired at what you stare at all day.

*Audio Engines: *Reaper by far. Analytically, this one aspect is night and day compared to other DAWs. To the point about your CPU usage in Reaper vs ProTools, you will find that Reaper has a variety of customization and preference options intended to be tuned to your usage. Once you play with those based on your system, you will find that you can load 1000s of tracks in Reaper while maintaining a usable latency and keeping the CPU usage low. There is also a feature that by muting a track in Reaper it will unload it from the audio engine. This won't unload ram usage of a VST, but it will unload the track from the buffer. You will also find that ProTools artificially lowers the CPU meter at idle. Try to play it back and watch your CPU meter peak out and clip. Measurements are not the same between the two.

*Freezing/Disabled Tracks:* When Pro Tools introduced these features, I became very excited. I thought this was the much needed feature that would make a large disabled template possible. But it won't. Disabled tracks still count toward the max track count. There is also a quirk with the way it handles the disabled/frozen state of the VIs with RAM usage. It will leak ram and when you load a project with frozen tracks, the ram will spike (as if it has to process them unloaded first inside the engine then freeze them again). I'm not sure if that is what is happening, but it seems to process frozen/disabled tracks in an unexpected way. This can cause a template to crash or not load that was pushing the ram limit.

*On disabled tracks in Cubase...* there is a bug that has been discussed here quite frequently that requires midi channels/ports to be reset when re-activating a track. That makes the feature utterly unusable. That may (or may not) have been resolved in Cubase 9 as it is in a present discussion here on VIC and I am not using Cubase 9 to verify.

*On disabled tracks in Reaper...* You will find more options within Reaper's preferences that define how you want the ram managed with disabled tracks. You want to make sure to enable the option that fully removes the instrument from memory when disabled. The other way keeps stuff cached for quicker access. Comparing apples to apples, Reaper again wins in ram management by a long margin. If you haven't played with these settings, it would be easy to think Reaper uses ram less efficiently with disabled tracks. But once you tailor the settings to your needs, it is much more efficient than ProTools especially - but also better than any other DAW. Also, if there is any ram leakage, this is easily solved with a RAM management app. (I really want to emphasize here that I have used ProTools forever and I desperately wanted it to be a solution - so this is not a gang-up-on-ProTools reply. It does so many things really well and can be great for someone stepping into the audio world).

*On RAM management in general...* Using a memory cleaner is imperative with any DAW when using VIs. You will find all DAWs leak memory from time to time that can be recovered.... well, except for Pro Tools. As of version 12.7, it's leaks flow into "wired" states that are irrecoverable with a memory cleaner until the application is closed. This is important to note. Unfamiliar with memory cleaners? Check out something like Memory Cleaner by RockySandStudio.com. Essentially, what you thought was lost is now magically restored with a push of a button.

*On Track Folders...* Cubase has track folders. Logic has folders. Pro Tools does not. Logic and Cubase both have restricted ways of what is visible/hidden within a folder making them more of an organizational strategy versus a robust way of managing work flow. Reaper offers basically anything you could want when it comes to how folders are visible, hidden, grouped, etc. Also, folders can be treated as grouped tracks with different routing options, bypassed in the routing chain, etc. Essentially, Reaper offers folder-style workflow with a mind-boggling capacity to route audio in various ways with every track in the project.

*On Track Routing...* While all DAWs offer various ways to manage track flow, this is where a line can be drawn in the sand. ProTools track counts run out far before a proper routing strategy is setup - especially if you like articulation based templates versus keyswitch templates. Cubase is limited in the way it treats its Instrument racks and outputs. In fact, it has a limited number of instrument racks which causes consolatory design decisions to be made. While you may be able to have a wonderful template set up, you will likely be confined to managing mic position mixes of your larger orchestral libraries within Kontakt itself due to the way most people end up setting up their templates. Again, it can work, but with compromises to workflow. I would say it is more geared to composing _or_ mixing, rather than being able to do both within the same template with the same degree of detail. With Reaper, again...everything is possible at once because it was designed modularly for a digital workflow. All other DAWs were modeled after an analog workflow and have been modifying their architecture to accommodate for modern digital trends. I know this sounds like another Reaper cheerleading moment, but this is again, a very analytical look at the different capabilities of DAWs.

*On Expression Maps...* Cubase has this feature natively. Logic has a plugin called SkiSwitcher that is highly regarded with an active developer here on this board. SkiSwitcher essentially provides expression maps for Logic. Reaper has two separate plugins that offer pseudo-solutions to expression maps, but the native feature is in the latest Reaper betas and should be implemented as a full feature in Reaper soon. In this present moment, here Cubase wins, Logic second, Reaper third. ProTools is nowhere to be seen...

*(cont'd)*


----------



## storyteller (Mar 7, 2017)

*(cont'd from post #23)*

*On VEPro... *Each DAW can integrate it seamlessly. However, VEPro only truly makes sense on a multi-system setup because disabling/freezing tracks within the DAW doesn't work the same with a VEPro instrument since you are essentially running another host outside of the DAW. It also introduces latency. And, if you choose to use a multi-system setup with VEPro, here is another Reaper-only feature.... Reaper comes with a separate slave app called Reamote, which is essentially another Reaper application slaved to the primary DAW. So, if you did not want to maintain separate licenses for VEPro, you could use Reamote and on other pcs/macs on your network using the network audio/midi streaming plugins included with Reaper. Essentially, what I am describing is that Reaper comes with its own answer to VEPro. 

*On Pricing... *Every DAW has a price of admission, plus updates. Cubase is pricey upfront and is like clockwork with annual updates ranging in the $99-$149 range. Logic, FruityLoops and Sonar, buy them once and that is it. Updates for life...or so it seems as of right now. ProTools - buy the pricy software once and the annual $100 updates contract is a steal of a deal. Let it lapse, and then you are faced with a $300 bill the next time you renew. Reaper? You guessed it. It wins again. A personal license is $60 and covers through the end of the _next_ version cycle. Based on their past release cycle, you are covered for a couple of years. A commercial license is $225. Same thing applies to it too. There is also an unlimited free demo to try it out.

*On 5.1...* ProTools? You will need the HD version. Add several thousand dollars here. The other DAWs have this feature natively. 7.1 and above? You'll have to do some more digging.

Now, with all of that said, I want to emphasize you can get the job done in whatever DAW you choose - you'll just have to make compromises in every one that is not Reaper. That is simply the truth. So the question may be, if Reaper is so good, why isn't everyone using Reaper?

Great question! I'm glad you asked. Reaper is presently on version 5. It took until version 5 for it to reach par with every other DAW in features (freeze, disable, instruments, midi, etc). The engine has always been rock-solid, but the developers had quite a long road to journey in order to implement all of the present day features in modern DAWs. But with version 5, they pretty much accelerated past the pack. It was built right from the beginning, so it was only a matter of time until the feature set blew past other DAWs. And the crazy thing? Programmatically, every other DAW will likely have to be rewritten to be able to keep pace with Reaper's roadmap.

Ah, but alas! There is a downfall. You might have noticed I mentioned several times, "if you play with settings..." Well, that's because Reaper gives the user every option under the sun to tune the DAW for each user. They even provide an API to program your own actions within the DAW. This is an _incredible_ feature that allows basically anything imaginable to be created. But this is daunting for a first time user. I tried Reaper many times over the years only to lose my wits because the mouse didn't behave as I expected with scrolling, or some other setting like ripple editing was enabled by default which was different than ProTools. I didn't want to take the time to dive into the settings. I assumed everything should just work like I wanted it to. So what you have when loading up Reaper for the first time is a toolbox that requires customization for your workflow. Once you climb that small hill, you find yourself standing on a mountain looking out over the rest of the valley with all of the other DAWs somewhere below.

That said, Reaper is not the most friendly DAW for someone stepping into it with experience in other DAWs. In fact, you will likely find many routine actions perform unexpectedly (like horizontal and vertical scrolling). But once you investigate why the developers chose the defaults as they did, and whether you decide to revert them to the way you desire, you will find that you now have options that weren't there with any other DAW...options that enhance the workflow in ways that are unexpected and extremely thoughtful.

When I was building out my templates, I bounced between DAWs. I've helped others set up their own templates. But eventually after the headaches with the most recent versions of Pro Tools, I dove into Reaper head-first and committed to not coming up for air until I had my creation. This brought about the best template I could have hoped for complete with over 300+ custom scripts and actions for Reaper to perform everything needed for the most efficient composer workflow possible. And while it was a design for myself, I recently ported it into a commercial product called Orchestral Template For Reaper (OTR) for others who didn't want to deep-dive into Reaper. I'll say first and foremost, that making this template available for others was and will always be based on an effort to help others by lighting a way on a path already travelled. If someone is figuring out the pitfalls ahead of others, it only makes sense that the path is illuminated for the others rather than have each person face the same sets of challenges.

Analytically speaking, all of the points above are the reality of the DAW marketplace. But if you want to see what is possible with Reaper (and maybe realize some features that may be missing in other DAWs or some of the challenges that will be faced) - you will find over 30 videos and how-to's on using OTR on its website which showcase Reaper with OTR. If that is for you, wonderful! If you are a create-it-yourself kind of person, you can see what is possible in the videos. They are more educational on how to approach orchestral template workflows than anything. If you are simply wanting to see the shortfalls in other DAWs illustrated in black and white terms, you will see that here too. Mostly, the videos should challenge each person's mindset on how they have approached templates in the past versus what is presently available. Why make compromises when you can have the ideal setup - or maybe better said, isn't it better to choose a DAW with a wider breadth of knowledge going into the decision making process? Anyway - I hope that does not come off as marketing as there is no agenda here, but rather a way to say, "Hey - this is the path I took through the forest. I've experienced it all when it comes to DAWs. If you like it, that path is illuminated. If you want to see the approach someone else took and then be an adventurer into the unknown yourself, that is there too." 

Anyway, I hope this helps  I know it is long winded, but the question was asked and I hope this brings value to the process for you and also to what forum searchers may find in terms of these questions/answers in the future. Cheers!


----------



## emid (Mar 7, 2017)

storyteller said:


> *On Expression Maps...* Reaper has two separate plugins that offer pseudo-solutions to expression maps, but the native feature is in the latest Reaper betas and should be implemented as a full feature in Reaper soon.



If all what you've said is true (which it is), this feature will make Reaper far superior. However, Stephane has given the best solution so far that integrates well like a native feature apart from BRSO.


----------



## MrJul (Mar 7, 2017)

Hey, you all!
Thanks again for all the great help. Glad that we have this forum with people having so much and different knowledge.


----------



## heisenberg (Mar 7, 2017)

C-Wave said:


> Steinberg are rewriting and should come out this month with a robust free update for integrating latest video codecs into Cubase...



It ought to be out at the end of March, however, they are already 3 months late from their previous target date and they cannot release this until it is reliable. It would be great if it was released in a few weeks but I think it would be best to look at this with suggested time frame with cautious or guarded optimism.


----------



## colony nofi (Mar 8, 2017)

heisenberg said:


> It ought to be out at the end of March, however, they are already 3 months late from their previous target date and they cannot release this until it is reliable. It would be great if it was released in a few weeks but I think it would be best to look at this with suggested time frame with cautious or guarded optimism.



Where was the last public notice of when they wanted it out? Curious to find out more.

It should be noted that what they are doing is a completely NEW video engine for cubase and nuendo. It is because the current engine is based on quicktime, and quicktime is being deprecated by apple. Thus, they are moving onto something new. This video engine needs to be written for both the cubase AND nuendo users - and nuendo users often have "post" workflow (and use of various pieces of video hardware) that means loads of compatibility needs to be checked. They also need to make sure their adr / streamer tools etc can be re-written for the new engine.

Video is a huge one for us media composers/noise makers. I'm constantly disappointed that I can't select a loop marker and export audio+video as a clip from nuendo.... but pretty much everything else nuendo can do with video (including snips of bits of video if necessary - though YMMV depending in codec / video playback hardware - as to be expected.)

Q for PT guys - does non HD PT allow more than one video file per session yet? That would be a massive issue for a lot of media composers due to the need of having multiple version of the same cue (say for a 60, 30 and 15 version of a commercial) in the same timeline etc. I used to (and still occasionally mix) in PT - but we only have a HD rig at the studio. 

Also - as for all things ending up in PT - that's just not true anymore. Perhaps it is in the US, but in europe, the big post audio houses use all sorts of things. I went to a mix @ 750mph a few months back and they were entirely on Fairlights. Wave was on Nuendo. Grand Central on PT but also using hardware mixes for their trailer room. And a VR company over in Shoreditch (forgive me - I forget its name right now) mixes everything in Reaper. Indeed - so did the SONY games research center when I vistied (as they were using 3rd order ambisonics...)


----------



## heisenberg (Mar 8, 2017)

Look in the Nuendo section of the Steinberg Forum. Timo would have made the statement. I believe he said around the end of March but they have a very aggressive development schedule on a number of fronts, so I think things could easily slip.


----------



## colony nofi (Mar 8, 2017)

Found it! Thanks.
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=104457


----------



## Spip (Mar 8, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> I use PT with a decent size template (900 odd tracks). I also collaborate with a few composers who use CB and DP so i have the same template in CB and DP as well. My VIs are hosted in VEP pro 6.
> 
> When i first got my nMP, i tested the VIs hosted directly in the DAWs (with no VEP) and the results were about the same with PT, CB and DP. By using VEP pro 6, i can easily load 30-40% more patches and again the performance and stability were about the same with all 3 DAWs in the master/slave set up.



I'm very tempted by VEP but what about latency ? I like to play a lot of parts live and need a relatively low buffer. (256 max at 48kHz)
What buffer do you use in PT with VEP ?

@storyteller : thanks for your detailed posts.


----------



## heisenberg (Mar 8, 2017)

This was posted on the Steinberg Forum by a SB employee on Feb 16, 2017 (emphasis is mine):



> Of course. Nuendo 7 will get the new video engine in a Nuendo 7 maintenance update as promised.
> *The video engine update will be available Q2 2017*. This is independent from the Nuendo 8 release.



In case some do not know, Nuendo and Cubase are largely intertwined products.


----------



## Spip (Mar 8, 2017)

colony nofi said:


> Q for PT guys - does non HD PT allow more than one video file per session yet? That would be a massive issue for a lot of media composers due to the need of having multiple version of the same cue (say for a 60, 30 and 15 version of a commercial) in the same timeline etc. I used to (and still occasionally mix) in PT - but we only have a HD rig at the studio.



One video file for Pro Tools Native. (details here)

Reaper wins here, without any doubt. It has no limit. No idea about Cubase.


----------



## Mishabou (Mar 8, 2017)

Spip said:


> I'm very tempted by VEP but what about latency ? I like to play a lot of parts live and need a relatively low buffer. (256 max at 48kHz)
> What buffer do you use in PT with VEP ?
> 
> @storyteller : thanks for your detailed posts.



All my parts are played live. My buffer is set at 128 @ 48Khz.


----------



## colony nofi (Mar 9, 2017)

Spip said:


> One video file for Pro Tools Native. (details here)
> 
> Reaper wins here, without any doubt. It has no limit. No idea about Cubase.


Cubase is unlimited as well. Nuendo has a bunch of very cool extra video tools that I've never seen in any other program (other than dedicated ADR / Foley recording progs) Does reaper have countdowns / streamers / dialog on screen? I must get deeper into reaper - there's loads to like about it. (I'm converting a live show to reaper over the next couple of months, but I've never considered it for sound post / sync music jobs....


----------



## Spip (Mar 10, 2017)

Demo for Cubase 9 just announced ! 

https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/steinberg_trial_versions/cubase.html


----------



## MrJul (Mar 10, 2017)

Does anyone know when Pro Tools 13 will come out? Considering to buy Pro Tools 12 in the next few months but I don't want to spend hundreds of bucks due to wrong timing.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Mar 11, 2017)

I thought if you bought pro tools you now got one year of updates with it....


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 11, 2017)

storyteller said:


> Now, with all of that said, I want to emphasize you can get the job done in whatever DAW you choose - you'll just have to make compromises in every one that is not Reaper. That is simply the truth. So the question may be, if Reaper is so good, why isn't everyone using Reaper?


Hm, I like Reaper, but ... no compromises? I am sorry! Reaper will only accept 64 Midi Ports on your Mac/PC. You might say, who needs more, but I want to use virtual midi channels going to slave PCs without the use of VEpro. So, I need them. Pretty big compromise, isn't it?
I would have loved to explore all those fantastic scripting features and what not and I also like the business model. But this fact had me jump of the train pretty quickly when testing the demo ...


----------



## storyteller (Mar 11, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> Hm, I like Reaper, but ... no compromises? I am sorry! Reaper will only accept 64 Midi Ports on your Mac/PC. You might say, who needs more, but I want to use virtual midi channels going to slave PCs without the use of VEpro. So, I need them. Pretty big compromise, isn't it?
> I would have loved to explore all those fantastic scripting features and what not and I also like the business model. But this fact had me jump of the train pretty quickly when testing the demo ...


I stand corrected brother.  I didn't know that limitation existed. With that said - and I have not journeyed down this particular path personally to test all of the ins and outs - it is my understanding that by using Reamote on your slave PCs and by adding a "Reastream" FX insert on your session's midi channel to broadcast your midi across the network (and receive audio back), you would be able to have an unlimited number of virtual ports/channels. Instead of choosing virtual midi ports, you would be establishing connections via virtual IP midi ports thus removing the limitation. Albeit, this is far from obvious. Did you happen to try that method? I often find that the Reaper devs tend to think outside the box and the solutions to problems end up being unexpected, but often times more robust in the long haul. But like I said, I haven't personally tried the solution I wrote about above so it might face other hurdles - but I haven't read anything about limits on it at least.


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 11, 2017)

storyteller said:


> I stand corrected brother.  I didn't know that limitation existed. With that said - and I have not journeyed down this particular path personally to test all of the ins and outs - it is my understanding that by using Reamote on your slave PCs and by adding a "Reastream" FX insert on your session's midi channel to broadcast your midi across the network (and receive audio back), you would be able to have an unlimited number of virtual ports/channels. Instead of choosing virtual midi ports, you would be establishing connections via virtual IP midi ports thus removing the limitation. Albeit, this is far from obvious. Did you happen to try that method? I often find that the Reaper devs tend to think outside the box and the solutions to problems end up being unexpected, but often times more robust in the long haul. But like I said, I haven't personally tried the solution I wrote about above so it might face other hurdles - but I haven't read anything about limits on it at least.


Thanks for the tip! Right now, I am to tired to even think about switching, but I will look into it some time, maybe.


----------

