OTR v2.3.05 Update Released (January 4, 2024) ! Orchestral Template For Reaper Release Thread

[storyteller]

Downloads are now available All preorder customers should now have received an email letting them know.

Thanks to everyone for making this launch an amazing success! I look forward to hearing the many success stories and workflow improvement stories sure to be shared as we all journey down this path together.

-Jonathan

 

[calebfaith]

I'm in the process of reviewing OTR with an advance copy from Jonathan and I have to say so far I'm amazed at the depth this template goes into but at the same time it is so easy to use. Im only just scratching the surface after reading the manual, playing around with it and watching the walkthrough videos but already I'm seeing how this will simplify my life as a composer. With one click you can automatically render all the stems of each instrument section.

The template is constructed in a way that it guides you to mix professionally and the signal chain has been taken care of and requires minimal to no editing allowing you to focus on the important things like actually writing music! I have no complaints so far

 

[gregh]

I'm in the process of reviewing OTR with an advance copy from Jonathan and I have to say so far I'm amazed at the depth this template goes into but at the same time it is so easy to use. Im only just scratching the surface after reading the manual, playing around with it and watching the walkthrough videos but already I'm seeing how this will simplify my life as a composer. With one click you can automatically render all the stems of each instrument section.

The template is constructed in a way that it guides you to mix professionally and the signal chain has been taken care of and requires minimal to no editing allowing you to focus on the important things like actually writing music! I have no complaints so far

what I also like/hope is that this product encourages other people to commercialise other types of Reaper. For example, a Reaper that is set up to make sample libraries would be very handy for me and I imagine others. I do not really want to make it and doubt I could do as good a job as someone who is working professionally as a sample library developer. There must be other professional applications as well.

 

[calebfaith]

what I also like/hope is that this product encourages other people to commercialise other types of Reaper. For example, a Reaper that is set up to make sample libraries would be very handy for me and I imagine others. I do not really want to make it and doubt I could do as good a job as someone who is working professionally as a sample library developer. There must be other professional applications as well.

Yeah I totally agree and I could see myself using that as well. I love how customisable Reaper is and that it allows things like this to be created

 

[Mundano]

(From my smartphone, cant copy links) Jonathan are you aware of this thread? There are ppl switching to reaper...
Who is using Reaper for Film Scoring?

 

[storyteller]

(From my smartphone, cant copy links) Jonathan are you aware of this thread? There are ppl switching to reaper...
Who is using Reaper for Film Scoring?

Thanks for the heads up! I'll check it out!

 

[Sekkle]

Hey Jonathan,

I've been digging into OTR and it's awesome. I'm also loving Reaper as it's audio manipulation functions are incredible and most of the small workflow tweaks are pretty easy to implement, so it's getting close to how I usually work in Cubase.

I have read the manual and been playing around with the template and there's several things I'm trying to work out the best way to do in OTR. I just wanted to see if these methods are the best way to do these specific functions within OTR and apologies if it's a bit long winded!

Basically I use a lot of audio recording and resampling in my work alongside VI's. Many times for example I'll have say two recorded vocal takes hard panned Left-Right, sent to reverb/delay, which I then run into a group for filtering of the entire chain. Kind of like a self contained minimix that allows for really quick control and resampling. (I use this method alongside the type of mixing approach you have setup in OTR with more general send FX and VCA's etc.) To do this in OTR would best practice be to create two 'IMPORTED TRACK' s for the vocal recordings in the 'Vocal Category' import the audio and hard pan L/R - add another IMPORTED TRACK and insert the reverb/delay on this - send the vocals tracks to this - create a VI GROUP WITH FADER and nest all of the tracks within this - and finally insert the filter on the group. From my understading as long as I use these OTR specific tracks and keep them within the VI-C's then everything should flow correctly. I was thinking it would be cool to have specific AUDIO TRACKS that are recognised by OTR visibility to differentiate them from guide tracks and temp music on the IMPORTED TRACKS. (edit - actually maybe just using VI-LIVE tracks for this purpose is the way to go here?)

I also render-in-place a lot when resampling sounds for further manipulation in the audio domain. Just a side note -after messing around with audio for a couple of hours I have realised that Reaper is way ahead in manipulating audio than any other DAW I have used, which is really exciting! Anyway - I tried simply rendering a VI via the file menu and importing to a new track, however I wasn't sure if this would work correctly in OTR as the track looked different and didn't contain an OT prefix. Another way I tried was to freeze the VI and then copy the frozen audio to a new IMPORTED TRACK for further manipulation. After which I could unfreeze the VI. For the pre-mapped outs on a VI-M it was cool as it renders the individual outs depending on what VI-OUT is selected (If freezing the actual midi clip/VI-M it creates a multitrack file which isn't as much use for this). Another idea was to render a stem and then copy this back to a new IMPORTED TRACK as it would contain the full signal chain. Pretty much all the options I want are here but I wanted to see if you thought it was the best way to do it especially in terms of keeping OTR happy.

When mixing with the intention of supplying stems I tend to not really use master buss processing. This is due to the fact that when each stem is rendered through the master fx separately and recombined, the mix isn't the same as the dynamic processors react differently to the individual stems. I have read there is a possible way around this by using sidechaining (so the processor reacts to the full mix sidechained when processing the stems) however I haven't explored this yet. So far I always end up applying buss fx to the individual stems and generally leave the master buss clear other than a brickwall limiter just in case there's the odd over on the combined mix. I have experimented with trying to do this in OTR but I am unclear on the best way to do it. If I apply buss effects on the VI-C's I understand they are effected after any send effects from the individual instruments. I need to apply buss fx on the entire stem including all fx sends, so would it be best to apply these on the BOUNCE-STEM tracks? I experimented and found that these did in fact render the effects on the stems although in the manual it's says to not insert fx's on these tracks. I was thinking that by unmuting the stem BOUNCE-STEM tracks sections that I will be using (probably the advanced stems in most cases) and muting the Full Mix and ALL (basic stems tracks) tracks, it should achieve what I'm after. The only thing I'd need is to somehow create the FULL MIX after the fact with the mastered stems and the brickwall limiter (maybe in a sub project..)

On the VI-C tracks there are a number of pre-routed sends and I was wondering if it's safe to add more send's to FX like reverb directly from these tracks? (in the slots after the pre-routed sends) I use reverb for 'feathering' the tails of sounds and usually from the full stems themselves.

Another thing I would be very interested in is being able to split up the categories into further sub stems, particularly for strings. After reading Henson's string tutorial on the Spitfire site (How to program realistic strings 2), I'm interested in implementing his method and separating the strings into -

1. Longs & Legatos
   
2. Shorts
   
3. Pizzicatos & Col Legno
   
4. Trems, Harmonics and FX

I'm thinking maybe a workaround would be to split these out into separate VI-C's and maybe rename them after the prefix? I won't use all of the VI-C categories and will probably adapt them per cue.

One final thing - on P49 manual where it outlines how fx can be applied, many of them say to use 'the 16 channel track workflow for inserting a plugin'. I have become a little confused with this as I couldn't find this 16 track workflow in the manual and am not sure if I have simply missed it? Does it mean that FX can be applied on the individual outs as well as the submixes? I played around with inserting FX on the submixe's and typical stereo fx's seem to work in all cases.

OTR is quite amazing and I applaud you for making Reaper accessible for composers as I think it's going to be a game changer!

Thanks

Erin

 

[storyteller]

Hey Jonathan,

I've been digging into OTR and it's awesome. I'm also loving Reaper as it's audio manipulation functions are incredible and most of the small workflow tweaks are pretty easy to implement, so it's getting close to how I usually work in Cubase.

Thank you so much! This is honestly one of the best compliments I could hope to receive.

I have read the manual and been playing around with the template and there's several things I'm trying to work out the best way to do in OTR. I just wanted to see if these methods are the best way to do these specific functions within OTR and apologies if it's a bit long winded!

No problem! These are the good questions that everyone benefits from

Basically I use a lot of audio recording and resampling in my work alongside VI's. Many times for example I'll have say two recorded vocal takes hard panned Left-Right, sent to reverb/delay, which I then run into a group for filtering of the entire chain. Kind of like a self contained minimix that allows for really quick control and resampling. (I use this method alongside the type of mixing approach you have setup in OTR with more general send FX and VCA's etc.) To do this in OTR would best practice be to create two 'IMPORTED TRACK' s for the vocal recordings in the 'Vocal Category' import the audio and hard pan L/R - add another IMPORTED TRACK and insert the reverb/delay on this - send the vocals tracks to this - create a VI GROUP WITH FADER and nest all of the tracks within this - and finally insert the filter on the group. From my understading as long as I use these OTR specific tracks and keep them within the VI-C's then everything should flow correctly. I was thinking it would be cool to have specific AUDIO TRACKS that are recognised by OTR visibility to differentiate them from guide tracks and temp music on the IMPORTED TRACKS. (edit - actually maybe just using VI-LIVE tracks for this purpose is the way to go here?)

As I was about to reply, I just saw your edit. Yep! VI-LIVE tracks are what you are looking for. Either way works, but I'd use VI-LIVE since it also gives you the option of selecting if they go the orchestral hall and choir hall too and adds further differentiation to imported tracks. The way you are using the VI GROUP WITH FADER track is just as it was intended! Great to hear!

I also render-in-place a lot when resampling sounds for further manipulation in the audio domain. Just a side note -after messing around with audio for a couple of hours I have realised that Reaper is way ahead in manipulating audio than any other DAW I have used, which is really exciting! Anyway - I tried simply rendering a VI via the file menu and importing to a new track, however I wasn't sure if this would work correctly in OTR as the track looked different and didn't contain an OT prefix. Another way I tried was to freeze the VI and then copy the frozen audio to a new IMPORTED TRACK for further manipulation. After which I could unfreeze the VI. For the pre-mapped outs on a VI-M it was cool as it renders the individual outs depending on what VI-OUT is selected (If freezing the actual midi clip/VI-M it creates a multitrack file which isn't as much use for this). Another idea was to render a stem and then copy this back to a new IMPORTED TRACK as it would contain the full signal chain. Pretty much all the options I want are here but I wanted to see if you thought it was the best way to do it especially in terms of keeping OTR happy.

Probably the easiest is to right click on the track and click "Render track to mono/stereo/multichannel and mute original." This will create a stem track with all of the naming conventions in place. I think this is likely exactly what you are looking for. It will retain a gray color though instead of the original blueish shade. If there is a chain of FX you want to use repeatedly, you could save the chain in your original track as an "FX Chain" and just reinsert the FX chain on the new track. FX Chains are a really cool feature of Reaper. As for freezing, Reaper allows up to 6 levels of freeze depth you can roll back through. Not sure if that is what you are looking for, but I thought I'd throw that out there too. I think the first thing I mentioned might be the winner though.

When mixing with the intention of supplying stems I tend to not really use master buss processing. This is due to the fact that when each stem is rendered through the master fx separately and recombined, the mix isn't the same as the dynamic processors react differently to the individual stems. I have read there is a possible way around this by using sidechaining (so the processor reacts to the full mix sidechained when processing the stems) however I haven't explored this yet. So far I always end up applying buss fx to the individual stems and generally leave the master buss clear other than a brickwall limiter just in case there's the odd over on the combined mix. I have experimented with trying to do this in OTR but I am unclear on the best way to do it. If I apply buss effects on the VI-C's I understand they are effected after any send effects from the individual instruments. I need to apply buss fx on the entire stem including all fx sends, so would it be best to apply these on the BOUNCE-STEM tracks? I experimented and found that these did in fact render the effects on the stems although in the manual it's says to not insert fx's on these tracks. I was thinking that by unmuting the stem BOUNCE-STEM tracks sections that I will be using (probably the advanced stems in most cases) and muting the Full Mix and ALL (basic stems tracks) tracks, it should achieve what I'm after. The only thing I'd need is to somehow create the FULL MIX after the fact with the mastered stems and the brickwall limiter (maybe in a sub project..)

The intention with OTR is to do it through placing your FX chain on the master FX bus (edited for clarity. I didn't mean the overall master bus) and allowing OTR to render through them with each pass. I would definitely suggest trying the method you described first if you are planning to render master chain of FX on stems. I'd suggest rendering the Full Mix, then using that STEM as the playback source sidechain on the FX Chain of Plugins you are using. You will need to move the rendered audio to an imported track before using it as a sidechain since the Bounce process systematically mutes everything within the BOUNCE-STEMS folder which would defeat the purpose of using it as a sidechain. This was a great question and one I think many people will find valuable. I might should add a video on this too.

With the other options you mentioned, you are correct that buss effects on a VI-C would not include the sends on each VI-TRACK. Also, adding inserts to the Bounce Stems should technically not work due to circular routing though it is my understanding that Reaper allows this in some cases. I haven't actually tried it in the way you have mentioned While I wouldn't recommend it, you could add in-line FX like compression and such to the Bounce Stems though you are also correct that it would leave you without a full-mix option.

On the VI-C tracks there are a number of pre-routed sends and I was wondering if it's safe to add more send's to FX like reverb directly from these tracks? (in the slots after the pre-routed sends) I use reverb for 'feathering' the tails of sounds and usually from the full stems themselves.

Yep. It is safe. It is however a 16 channel track so you would need to make sure you had sends on the appropriate channels....which gets to your later question about the reference on page 49 in the manual. It is referencing Page 34.

(cont'd)

 

[storyteller]

(cont'd)

Another thing I would be very interested in is being able to split up the categories into further sub stems, particularly for strings. After reading Henson's string tutorial on the Spitfire site (How to program realistic strings 2), I'm interested in implementing his method and separating the strings into -

1. Longs & Legatos
   
2. Shorts
   
3. Pizzicatos & Col Legno
   
4. Trems, Harmonics and FX

I'm thinking maybe a workaround would be to split these out into separate VI-C's and maybe rename them after the prefix? I won't use all of the VI-C categories and will probably adapt them per cue.

I had not seen that particular video. Great video btw!

Renaming categories probably wouldn't be a great option since some of the categories are grouped together for the basic stems. If you are only using the advanced stems, you could however re-name the VI-C and the corresponding BOUNCE-STEM tracks. Also, you'd have to change the names on the advanced render buttons too unless you wanted to remember which button went to which VI-C. In a future update I will be including a "generic advanced render" menu tab for people that choose to rename the tracks. The buttons will just read "VI-C 1", "VI-C 2", etc. I've already completed that, but it will likely be part of a larger incremental update rather than the v1.0x patches.

If it were me and I was going down this path, I would probably place each of the 4 stacks of track articulations in a VI-GROUP and then manually mute the ones not needed before punching the render button. It would add 4 extra passes on the stems, but it would be a pretty easy solution. I've also been considering adding a feature that might be able to augment the render process to include this feature. I'll certainly explore it further.

One final thing - on P49 manual where it outlines how fx can be applied, many of them say to use 'the 16 channel track workflow for inserting a plugin'. I have become a little confused with this as I couldn't find this 16 track workflow in the manual and am not sure if I have simply missed it? Does it mean that FX can be applied on the individual outs as well as the submixes? I played around with inserting FX on the submixe's and typical stereo fx's seem to work in all cases.

Check out pages 33 and 34 in the manual for further clarity on this topic. If you are using just main mix tracks, it should work like a standard stereo track since they are routed through the 1/2 channels. It is when you get into the OTR mapped tracks that you will need to make additional considerations when placing FX on the VI-C tracks.

OTR is quite amazing and I applaud you for making Reaper accessible for composers as I think it's going to be a game changer!

Thanks so much!! I genuinely hope it does! I also hope I didn't miss any of your questions above. But if I did, or if you need further clarity, let me know. I'm happy to help! Also - for the record - these questions are phenomenal and I think many people will gain a lot of perspective and the sheer amount of capacity OTR has already preconfigured just by reading through these.

 

[Sekkle]

Hey Jonathan,

Thank you for such a fast response!

Some great ideas and especially in terms of using the main mix stem as a sidechain for the stems. That will actually make me nut out how to do it properly which I have been putting off

Also muting the separate string parts for printing stems is a great solution as it means they will be together rather than in different VI-C's which makes more sense when composing.

I think I now understand the considerations for placing FX on the VI-C tracks. Where I became a little confused was the difference between -

Kontakt5 - MultiOut 16 (8 Stereo) Submixed To Main Mix + 16 Midi
and a
Kontakt5 - MultiOut 16 (8 Stereo) Submixed To OTR Mapped Outs + Master Midi

I loaded up both of these, inserted a Metropolis Ark String patch on both and routed the separate mics to the mapped outputs in Kontakt. On both track templates I am able to process and send to FX via the separate VI-OUT's individually. The main difference I see is that I would use the 'Submixed To OTR Mapped Outs' version if I wanted to send the mics to the Orchestra/Choir Halls as well. If I'm just using the sample patch's mics I could in theory use either 'Submixed To Main Mix' or 'Submixed To OTR Mapped Outs' as I think in both cases the mics are summed to the Main Mix? Would using 'Submixed To Main Mix' in this case would allow stereo inserts/sends to process the summed mix of sampled mics on the VI-MC and/or VI-C without having to worry about routing all 8 stereo channels individually?

Just an idea I had - is there a potential to have all mapped outputs - say for example 'MIXED' 'CLOSE' 'MID' etc for all instruments landing into a dedicated FX (Buss) channel much like how the Orchestral/Choir Hall's are setup? This could be very cool as it could allow a kind of macro control over these mics like the two virtual Hall's. I'm going to start experimenting with sending just the room mics for all instruments to a reverb to extend the size and depth of space much like how Alan Meyerson talks about, and this could make it very easy to do.

 

[storyteller]

Hey Jonathan,

Thank you for such a fast response!

Some great ideas and especially in terms of using the main mix stem as a sidechain for the stems. That will actually make me nut out how to do it properly which I have been putting off

Also muting the separate string parts for printing stems is a great solution as it means they will be together rather than in different VI-C's which makes more sense when composing.

I think I now understand the considerations for placing FX on the VI-C tracks. Where I became a little confused was the difference between -

Kontakt5 - MultiOut 16 (8 Stereo) Submixed To Main Mix + 16 Midi
and a
Kontakt5 - MultiOut 16 (8 Stereo) Submixed To OTR Mapped Outs + Master Midi

I loaded up both of these, inserted a Metropolis Ark String patch on both and routed the separate mics to the mapped outputs in Kontakt. On both track templates I am able to process and send to FX via the separate VI-OUT's individually. The main difference I see is that I would use the 'Submixed To OTR Mapped Outs' version if I wanted to send the mics to the Orchestra/Choir Halls as well. If I'm just using the sample patch's mics I could in theory use either 'Submixed To Main Mix' or 'Submixed To OTR Mapped Outs' as I think in both cases the mics are summed to the Main Mix? Would using 'Submixed To Main Mix' in this case would allow stereo inserts/sends to process the summed mix of sampled mics on the VI-MC and/or VI-C without having to worry about routing all 8 stereo channels individually?

Just an idea I had - is there a potential to have all mapped outputs - say for example 'MIXED' 'CLOSE' 'MID' etc for all instruments landing into a dedicated FX (Buss) channel much like how the Orchestral/Choir Hall's are setup? This could be very cool as it could allow a kind of macro control over these mics like the two virtual Hall's. I'm going to start experimenting with sending just the room mics for all instruments to a reverb to extend the size and depth of space much like how Alan Meyerson talks about, and this could make it very easy to do.

You're welcome! I could only smile as I read through your post because I could see the idea wheel churning on the possibilities as you wrote! But your closing thought is one of the reasons the OTR Mapped tracks exist So let me walk you through this...

First, to address your question regarding "Submitted to Main Mix versus Submitted to OTR Mapped Outs" - The difference here is the number of track lanes taken up. As with any audio application, the higher the number of streams of audio, the more demand it will place on the CPU. So while these two types of tracks appear the same when using the standard template, the difference is that the "Submix to Main Mix" track reduces the footprint to a stereo channel before it reaches the VI-C group track (which in turn is sent to the FX Master Bus). While the VI-C group track is 16 channels, reducing audio streams beforehand can be useful when managing CPU. Also - the possibilities will really open up when you begin exploring the QUAD template and will really shine when the full surround template is released. So understanding the difference now will really blossom when you begin using the more advanced templates.

In the QUAD template, for example, reducing the tracks to a stereo pair before they reach the VI-C group track will cause it to only be sent to the front speakers whereas having all of the mic positions streaming simultaneously will allow for the "twist and pivot" options discussed in the QUAD video. Even greater possibilities exist with the yet-unreleased surround template.

But the good news is that your final suggestion about having ways to send just room mics to a reverb does presently exist. OTR was crafted for this specifically! But it is performed by sending mic positions from each VI-C versus a global option. To do this, you would insert a reverb send on the VI-C for the mic position you are using for room mics (example: if using FAR, the send would need to be placed on channels 9/10). You would also have to use OTR Mapped tracks to make sure your audio is flowing horizontally in up to 16 lanes upstream before it hits the VI-C track group. I'm ecstatic that you've considered this as it is part of where I personally think OTR really shines.

As for your suggestion on having each mic position routed in the FX section individually, I highly considered putting separate receive tracks in the FX Master section but ultimately sided against it in the initial release due to end users potentially not understanding the purpose. For example, if I had those tracks split out individually, someone would inevitably try to adjust the fader levels on each one which would cause the reverb send levels on the individual tracks within the VI-Cs to have to be individually re-adjusted since these receive channels would not control the primary channels like VCAs would. The VCAs compensate and allow for the flexibility of routing individual mic positions within a VI-C to individual reverbs, but you could not architect this feature globally without opening the potential for user-error when using that portion of the template. This is the single feature I have bounced back and forth between the most. In the 1.1 update, I have seriously considered just opening this feature up to everyone but placing full meters on the tracks so people aren't tempted to adjust the volume levels of each track. It is why the full meter exists on the FX 1 channel presently. As I type this, I am leaning more toward including this in the 1.1 update for the basic template. The surround template and updated QUAD template will have them split out for sure, and I want to maintain as much continuity in the templates as possible.

Hope that helps clarify a bit. I'm really excited to hear how the advanced flexibility in OTR is being discovered and applied. I also hope both present and future OTR users manage to read these particular posts because they do reveal some of the tremendous pre-routed flexibility in the template that is beyond the basic approaches to audio routing.

 

[Sekkle]

Thanks for walking me through this as it makes perfect sense now!

As I delve further into it I am realising just how deep and considered OTR is. I was also thinking more about the Alan Meyerson technique and he does say he applies reverb fx to the individual mics rather than a global receive track which allows more control. Where he brings in global fx is with the 3 Bricasti's on the 5.1 orchestral stems which I can't wait to try and replicate using Slate Verbsuite M7 Mechanic's Hall IR I can also see how the extra receive tracks in the FX section for the OTR mapped outs could potentially cause confusion if the end user doesn't fully understand the signal flow.

I have tried Reaper on and off for many years now and always found there were some crucial functions missing for my workflow. However I honestly must say that I think it has finally come to age as it does everything now plus more! Here's just a few things in no particular order that I have discovered which blow me away..

Stretch Markers - better than audio warp in Cubase, elastic audio in Pro Tools and warp in Ableton as it actually allows you to ramp the speed between points. Visually I think it's the best too and it's on the actual track like Pro Tools which is cool.

Item based fx and envelopes - the one function I always wanted from Samplitude - object based fx and mixing. Coming from a film sound design background this is awesome and insanely powerful.

Volume/PreFX Volume and Volume/Trim - The amount of control when mixing and the interaction between Volume/Trim automation is excellent. Add VCAs to this and it's got everything.

Inserts/sends - I don''t know how many there are per track but there are a lot! This means no more routing to extra group channels just for more plugins in Cubase... finally.

Video FX - The fact you can apply and automate visual FX on the video just like with audio means I can finally create my own Streamers and Punches for live players in Reaper itself! Something I always wanted from Digital Performer and I was also considering VideoSlave for this (and still might to offload resources on bigger projects)

Varispeed - One of the most fundamental audio manipulation tools which has been overlooked since the days of samplers imo. Sure, Cubase and Pro Tools can do it but not musically.. Finally I can literally highlight an audio clip and speed/slow it by a semitone with a click on the numpad. It's like having a visual classic sampler. I have wanted this function since I was using a tracker in DOS.. Ableton came the closest but it wasn't great as it seemed messy especially with multiple clips. The most amazing thing is that if you add Stretch Markers it's possible to ramp the speed dynamically!

Subprojects - I have experimented with this by importing OTR templates per cue and it's working really well. The chunk feature of DP essentially in Reaper which I think will make my life a lot easier on bigger multi-cue projects.

Freeze - Multiple levels of freeze and the ability to actually use the frozen material as audio - awesome. The way you have configured this with OTR (the snowflake visual cue and the history) makes it extremely powerful.

There is no doubt more to discover and I'm finding the video tutorials on the Reaper site to be very easy to understand.

Thanks again for everything and I will check back in with more discoveries as I work through OTR!

Erin

 

[EvilDragon]

I don''t know how many there are per track but there are a lot!

In a word: unlimited. Or better said - whatever your CPU can take.

Freeze - Multiple levels of freeze and the ability to actually use the frozen material as audio - awesome.

And not just that - you can freeze only up to a certain FX on the track, too.

 

[Sekkle]

Reaper is quite a revelation to be honest. I am nearly through mapping all my Cubase shortcuts and have added some powerful new ones too..

 

[storyteller]

I've seen a lot of people on VIC recently discussing how to implement touch navigation to large templates from a tablet rather than scrolling through hundreds of tracks within their template in order to move between sections/libraries/instruments. I believe much of this discussion has stemmed from the Hans Zimmer Masterclass videos that showcase his touch interface. It is a wonderful way to work, and today I'm very proud to say that with the latest update to OTR (v1.03), users now have access to a similar touch-navigation workflow as seen in HZ's custom interface. OTR users can now "jump to" different parts of their template via the newly updated TouchOSC template included with OTR. This update to the TouchOSC interface also brings native Orchestral Tools and Spitfire-specific MIDI CC screens for each of these developer's specific mappings. More information on the template is available here: https://otr.storyteller.im/touch-osc-template/

 

[jadedsean]

I've seen a lot of people on VIC recently discussing how to implement touch navigation to large templates from a tablet rather than scrolling through hundreds of tracks within their template in order to move between sections/libraries/instruments. I believe much of this discussion has stemmed from the Hans Zimmer Masterclass videos that showcase his touch interface. It is a wonderful way to work, and today I'm very proud to say that with the latest update to OTR (v1.03), users now have access to a similar touch-navigation workflow as seen in HZ's custom interface. OTR users can now "jump to" different parts of their template via the newly updated TouchOSC template included with OTR. This update to the TouchOSC interface also brings native Orchestral Tools and Spitfire-specific MIDI CC screens for each of these developer's specific mappings. More information on the template is available here: https://otr.storyteller.im/touch-osc-template/

Hi Johnathon,

just wondering will there be a video showcasing this new feature? I'd imagine It would greatly appreciated to for the newbies coming to Reaper.

 

[storyteller]

Hi Johnathon,

just wondering will there be a video showcasing this new feature? I'd imagine It would greatly appreciated to for the newbies coming to Reaper.

I will at some point soon. All of the other videos have been screen captures so far, but to do one with the TouchOSC tablet and OTR template simultaneously, I have to record it a little bit differently to capture everything on and off screen. But I definitely plan to.

 

[jadedsean]

I will at some point soon. All of the other videos have been screen captures so far, but to do one with the TouchOSC tablet and OTR template simultaneously, I have to record it a little bit differently to capture everything on and off screen. But I definitely plan to.

Great can't wait for this, i was super jealous when i saw Han's Zimmer set up and now it's longer a dream.

 

[samphony]

I've seen a lot of people on VIC recently discussing how to implement touch navigation to large templates from a tablet rather than scrolling through hundreds of tracks within their template in order to move between sections/libraries/instruments. I believe much of this discussion has stemmed from the Hans Zimmer Masterclass videos that showcase his touch interface. It is a wonderful way to work, and today I'm very proud to say that with the latest update to OTR (v1.03), users now have access to a similar touch-navigation workflow as seen in HZ's custom interface. OTR users can now "jump to" different parts of their template via the newly updated TouchOSC template included with OTR. This update to the TouchOSC interface also brings native Orchestral Tools and Spitfire-specific MIDI CC screens for each of these developer's specific mappings. More information on the template is available here: https://otr.storyteller.im/touch-osc-template/

Hi Jonathan.

Does OTR and its touch OSC template cover visibility actions like

- show only tracks with content at play cursor/edit cursor incl routing
- show only tracks with content at play cursor/edit cursor exclude routing
- Hide all tracks
- Show all tracks

?

 

[storyteller]

Hi Jonathan.

Does OTR and its touch OSC template cover visibility actions like

- show only tracks with content at play cursor/edit cursor incl routing
- show only tracks with content at play cursor/edit cursor exclude routing
- Hide all tracks
- Show all tracks

?

Hey @samphony. There are 5 menu tabs in OTR devoted to different visibility toggles. So you can pretty much slice-and-dice the screen view very quickly in a way that makes since to your workflow. Many of these buttons/functions also have pre-assigned keyboard shortcuts as well. And of course, you can always assign your own keyboard shortcuts with Reaper too.

The portion of the OTR TouchOSC interface devoted to template navigation is presently focused on "jumping to" specific sections in the template and also allowing you to toggle on/off the 22 different categories (Strings, Brass, Winds, etc). So effectively, you have a show all/hide all on the OSC template (it is just category-based and not in a single button). If that is something specific that is needed for your workflow, those functions can easily have a keyboard shortcut assigned to them in Reaper. I can also look into adding that in the next OTR update as well. There have been three updates so far in the first 45 days of release.

As for the "content at play cursor" functionality, that is not presently a feature in OTR but I could add that quite easily and could look at having that available in the next update. There is presently a visibility toggle in OTR that allows you to "show only midi tracks with content." So, I'd just have to adapt a version of it to account for the play cursor.

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.