Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Why I Love Reaper

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 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).

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom