Cubase vs Reaper

[David@MVS]

Originally Posted by jeronimo

that is amazing!!!
well, I'm really looking foward to dump my old G4 (where I track using PT LE 6.4) and DP 5.x (where I mix) to use only Reaper.

Can't wait the final release...

There is no final release to speak of.

2.x non beta will be out by the 15th or so, but updates continually stream down.

...But there is no final version. (Which is nice...it's like getting a new present every couple of weeks!)

You dont HAVE to upgrade, but if you are not running a production house why not. Plus upgrading consists of simply installing the new version. Your preferences will remain intact.

[jeronimo]

Originally Posted by David@MVS

There is no final release to speak of.

2.x non beta will be out by the 15th or so, but updates continually stream down.

...But there is no final version. (Which is nice...it's like getting a new present every couple of weeks!)

You dont HAVE to upgrade, but if you are not running a production house why not. Plus upgrading consists of simply installing the new version. Your preferences will remain intact.

noooooo, I didn't make myself clear.

the mac version is 0.4 alpha...

so when I say "final" I mean, "catch up the PC guys"

[kragg]

I haven"t read the whole thread and don't know CUbase.
But Reaper is very stable, and the reported bugs are fixed quickly.
It is not th emost intuitive host i know, but it is flexible and powerfull, once you have gotten a little bit in its workflow.
I don't want to get into "my app is better than your app" kinda thing, but i think you shoudl give Reaper a good try (a lot of help can be found from the forum users & a pdf manual is availbale) before dropping a lot more cash to Steinberg.
(my 2cents)

[ScottyD]

I just downloaded Reaper. Very impressed so far. I have been using Sonar for about 2 years and I like was I see with Reaper.

-ScottyD

[jdier]

Originally Posted by Tommy-boy

I think it's a no-brainer to go with Cubase for now. Reaper definitely has possibilities, but it's not even in the same ball-park as Cubase. Some the basic stuff that reaper doesn't have:
- Audio Editor
- Offline process history / Non-destructive audio editing
- Score Editor
- Control Room
- Hardware integration
- Device panels
- AND this is a biggie - midi is simply neglected in Reaper. It's not useable for anything but laying down the most basic midi tracks.

Reaper seems amaturish at the moment. It's lacking in features and the GUI is terrible.
-Tom

Do not mean to be combative but...
- I did all my editing on my last project in reaper. There is not a separate break out editor, but I was able to do all the eiditing I needed.
- Not sure what non destructive means. I like reaper because it leaves my audio files alone and the editing I do is saved as an overlay, so I can always go back to the original track
- These things I do not understand: - Score Editor - Control Room - Hardware integration - Device panels... if score editor means music staff midi editing, I think you are right. I do not believe it is present
- Your MIDI comment seems outdated. There is midi in there. I am not a big midi guy but I did some pads on my last project and from my very limited MIDI experience I found it capable of everything I needed to do.

If you want a real no brainer, download Reaper and use it for free for a month, or a day, or a year. If you find value, buy it.

I was a Sonar user about a month away from a $200 upgrade and thought I would mess with reaper for a few weeks before sending my $200 to cakewalk. Well, I wound up doing my next project on Reaper.

The routing and free bag of effects alone make it worth it to me.

Regarding the gui, I really could care less. I spend more time with mics and cables than I do with mouse and keyboard.

[jdier]

Originally Posted by Tallisman

Reaper presents a oddly different paradigm in terms of workflow, which, for some, is very difficult to adjust too. I was one of those. The toolless interface feels, at first a little thin and inhibiting; that changes with a little time and with an understanding of key-binding edit commands and user-macros.

I feel this is the biggest hurdle people have to get over. I think a lot of people struggle early on with this and wind up writing Reaper off.

My first few days with Reaper had me begging for Sonar like icons and toolbars. I spent a lot of time trying to write macros and assigning hotkey combos that replicated what sonar did.

When I bought the official license and installed it on my main computer I decided to not use any macros or hot keys at all for a week. My thinking was that the guys writing the software likely use it as it is, so I should be able to also.

After about a week, I was smoking. I then wrote a few macros (Project Zoom to fit screen and Freeze/Commit Effects) and have been happy ever since.

[RusRant]

For what it's worth. I am in transition from another DAW to Reaper. It's the first time using a DAW that I have been able to truly use it like a tape machine. Set and forget. Very stable, reliable, everything is just a keystroke away, and even these are completely customizable. I can finally mix without looking at a screen the whole time. YAY!!!!

[Lawrence]

Reaper is really great. If it will be the daw for you depends on what you need in a daw. I've been playing around with Reaper on and off for some months so I think I have a good perspective of the potential "vs. Cubase" things.

It has so many great attributes it's hard to list them all. There are a few deal breakers for me but those are not a big deal if you have another daw and you're just doing the demo. I can honestly say that Reaper is a serious threat to many of the standard daws if it continues to develop at this pace.

Since this is a Cubase specific comparison and I use Cubase SX 3 I'll talk about some things you might miss from Cubase ...

For me, not being able to sync to incoming MTC or smpte is a deal breaker , and one reason I haven't really jumped in and tried to fully learn it. I also use a d8b as a control surface and Reaper doesn't support the HUI protocol so I'd have to go back to mixing with the mouse. Not a big deal but that's also holding me back as I have full control of transport, arming tracks, faders, pans, sends etc now from the console. Even when I demo Reaper in the studio I find myself hitting the d8b transport to play rewind etc... forgetting I can't.

The editing paradigm is different as there are really no tools per se, but it's users make do quite nicely and quickly with key commands. Tallisman is probably one of the most proficient Reaper operators I would think. He's posted a few very nice explanatory videos on the forum. If you are a tool nut like me you'll have to learn key commands or set some that you already know from another app. No big deal for many.

It added a Cubase style comping function but it needs some more work, splitting any item of any comps splits them all. Comping (tracking) is fine, editing the comps later is not quite as easy as in Cubase.

If you're accustomed (like me) to mixing multitimbral outboard midi devices with faders in the daw mixer you won't be able to do that in Reaper as it's faders and pans only control audio, not midi. I have lots of midi outboard hardware so that's not good for me. For people tracking bands or using all software instruments it's a non-issue.

One of the main things for me is not having a Cubase style range selection. You can select random items across tracks but not in quite the same way as you can do with the Cubase range tool. You'll see what I mean. It's automation facilities also need some more work, it's gotten much better recently though. In comparison it's a little klunky.

And you will certainly miss the Stenberg audio pool though I think similar is in the works.

There's a couple of other things that I would miss if I left Cubase like play order tracks and OMF support. I really also just much prefer the Cubase interface over most anything else. Although the new Reaper skins are quite nice and actually look better than Cubase in some ways, like the default mixer, the lack of true Inspector type functions and it's relative lack of (compared to Cubase) window customization are drawbacks for me. There are times in dense editing sessions when I only want to see audio and menus and nothing else. You can't yet hide everything in Reaper and maximize all of the screen space in that way.

Again... for many, many people that's also a non-issue, just a "what might I miss from Cubase" thing.

On the plus side (and there's tons on the plus side, much of it discussed earlier above by Tallisman and some other users) the routing is fabulous, the audio engine smokes and the price is unbeatable. Running it from a USB key on somebody else's PC is just plain ****ing fun. Having a daw that's portable like that is unheard of. You can run it and use it on any PC with no installation. Even Win 98 I think.

Don't let the price fool you. Reaper is a serious professional audio tool.

Conslusion?

If you are recording yourself or others in a typical setting and you don't need to sync to outboard devices that can't sync to MTC or smpte themselves (it does transmit), Reaper cannot be beat in many, many ways. You won't lose any audio quality by switching... it sounds like any other pro daw. If you run a more complicated setup where you do require external sync or 9-pin control or OMF support then Reaper may not be for you ... yet. That's where I am with it. As soon as they make some of those changes I'll probably be switching or at least starting the transition.

The best thing is it won't cost you anything to legally find out if it is the daw for you.

[eye208]

By the way, Reaper also works very well on Linux using WINE/WineASIO.

It's not a native app yet, but that's OK since WINE also gives you access to the vast majority of VST plugins available for Windows.

[Dougie Murray]

I was tought Cubase all through my tertiary studies, but I'm definitely going to be a faithful Reaper user from now on. This thread has given me proof that reaper is setting the standards of what the current industry heavyweight applications should be striving for at prices that they should be charging.

[Herman Munster]

I just saw that this thread was revived and interestingly I still have not upgraded. My main concern is that I do use a fair number of VSTi's and occasionally us MIDI sync for an external keyboard loop, etc. Reaper OK with these areas? If so, I still might dive in. Cubase 4 is still getting a lot of bug reports and seems to be more CPU intensive from what I'm reading....

[pipelineaudio]

You should be ok, either way itll take you less than 5 minutes to download an install (mere seconds if you are on high speed) to test.

BTW REAPER 2.020 adds chase sync! Both audio and MTC

[MrHope]

BTW, I think they've added MIDI input quantize to Reaper these days.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

I chose Cubase 4 over PT, Logic and the rest of them. Sounds great and the most logical of all of them...

same here, Cubase is really great !!

[CapnMarvel]

As a near zero-level modern DAW user, I have to say that I was able to get more done in a shorter amount of time with Reaper than I ever was able to do with Cubase. I should probably give Sonar a try since I was a somewhat adept Cakewalk user way back many aeons ago, but if Reaper keeps me going and runs all the DX and VST plugins I want to use, I may not.

And it's $200. Boner.

[ewegogetemtiger]

REAP has been updated more than 10 times since this thread was started.

REAPER | REAPER old version downloads

I dabbled with REAP out of curiosity while waiting for Steiny to get cubendo up to v4

I saved a ton (bought a nice G&L guitar with the savings) and haven't used anything but REAP for months now.

[illacov]

I was completely into Cubase SX3 for a considerable period of time and then I happened to hear about Reaper.

I finally got my hands on Reaper around 1.1 ish and I opened it....It was the ugliest damn thing I'd ever seen, but the one thing I remember about it is that I was able to set up my converters in two clicks versus cubases 6 or 7.

But, I just didnt get it at the time and went on with mixing the project.

Fast forward, a completed project and some 8 months later...I began to think about upgrading my studio.

I checked out Reaper at version 1.87 or something wild like that and it was AWESOME.

The only thing that pissed me off was the midi editing. The drum pattern editor sucked big time. It still does - compared to cubase's drum editor you had to say wtf at least a few times, because Reaper was audio first and midi second.

That being stated.

I got alot better at A) Playing midi drums by hand and B) I hired a real drummer, so drum machines are just for scratch tracks now.

Reaper became great for a butthead like me because I did more recording than midi parts. However, lo and behold Justin (one of many people who created and coded the prog) turns the midi engine into a monstrous behemoth.

At this point I'd already spent my 40 bucks because after 2.0 came out the license for non-commercial was going up.

But the midi engine was way better. My players love it and the fact that they can use it ad infinitum has made it that much better for them to embrace it.

I can tell you that despite not using SX3 anymore (but I do need at least SL or SE3 to get some archived tracks back up - dammit!) I love Reaper for all of its flaws and strengths.

One thing that stands out alot though is the SOUND QUALITY.

Yes its ITB, but this program does some really GOOD things to headroom and audio.

I'd say if they could improve the saturation on the channels (make it a selectable option for the channels to be analog or digital) you'd have a console killer.

Because I can get damn near the headroom I experience on boards with this program but that mojo distortion/saturation still aint there even with loads of saturation plug ins and that children is the missing ingredient in the pudding.

That being stated, why spend 700 bucks on inferior product?

I've got a great (LIGHTNING FAST) product. I laugh thinking about how I would go take a leak waiting for SX3 to load (lots of plugins)

Reaper is like zip ZOOM FLY!!

Love it.

Skins are awesome. The Stillwell plugins are the SHIZNIT...Almost to the point where all those Abbey Road, UAD, Chandler, George Massey plugins are like a big puff of smoke to me.

I want to try out VTape, but beyond that Im happy where Im at.

I have hardware for the rest of the fun.

But Im Reaper for life.


And just so you know, Yes you too can make some dope Hip Hop in Reaper! Dont believe the ProTools hype!!

Stay tuned for more!!

Peace
Illumination

[1ManBand]

I have some questions for the reaper pro's...

ive learned fl studio front to back.. cubase 4 handles fl studio as a plugin pretty good. except when i load up sampletank/philarmonik as a vst inside cubase and control it with the fl studio midi out.. it works but with only one channel. the other channels f*ck up.

what i dont like about cubase is.. the lame sidechaining.. i can only use vst3 plugins in order to sidechain. maybe that wont be a problem soon since steinburg will let people release the vst3 format plugins sometime in a month. can i sidechain with any plugin in reaper? even with the duende?

and my last question is.. will upgrading be free?

[1ManBand]

damn 225. they should have a crossgrade available. steal some customers away from other products.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by 1ManBand

what i dont like about cubase is.. the lame sidechaining.. i can only use vst3 plugins in order to sidechain. maybe that wont be a problem soon since steinburg will let people release the vst3 format plugins sometime in a month. can i sidechain with any plugin in reaper? even with the duende?

In the interest of *correct* information, and personally being a Reaper and Cubase *owner* (I paid for both) ... sidechaining in Cubase SX3 is identical to sidechaining in Reaper. Sidechaining / ducking in Cubase 4 is better and more logical than both.

The only difference being is that Reaper (Cockos) actually provides a compressor plug with a sidechain input and SX does not. You can use that same plugin in it's VST version (ReaComp) in Cubase SX and it works the exact same way. Or any plugin with a sidechain input. The patching of the audio in both to sidechain (duck) is nearly identical.

Using that same plugin in Cubase 4 is easier than both.

You use a four-channel path to do sidechaining in both Reaper and SX ... meaning that you can use non-vst3 plugins to sidechain the old way in Cubase 4 the same way Reaper and Cubase SX do now. Or you can use the new VST3 plugs for true sidechaining... i.e. no multichannel path routing to get there. Cubase 4 allows patching the source audio directly into the sidechain inputs without any routing tricks, directly from the original mono or stereo audio source, rather than using a secondard audio path to create a key input source path.

Or you can do it the old way with any plugin with sidechain inputs in Cubase 4. You are not limited to VST3 plugins.

However... there are at least 11 plugins in Cubase 4 with sidechain inputs including 3-4 comps?

If it's "lame" then Reaper's basic sidechaining is also "lame". I would also be curious as to what daw's sidechaining you don't consider lame, as Cubase 4's method imho is one of the most logical and easiest that I've seen. Pull the source audio into the key input... done.

I suspect user error.

And yes, you can use Duende to sidechain in Reaper or Cubase *IF* it has a secondary key input. No, you cannot sidechain with any plugin in Reaper or Cubase... it has to have a key input.

With all of that said... if you can make good music in Cubase, you can make good music in Reaper... or vice versa.

[imloggedin]

reaper is nice to play around with for free but i would never do my recording/audio editing to it. PT's audio editing is so far above that its not even funny. if you think reapers audio editing it good you need to explorer PT further. youre missing out.

[amino]

I can't believe people is recommending Steinberg products claiming that they are stable. I have used Steinbergs sequencers/DAW's for 15 years or so (but not anymore) and I have yet to try a stable version of Cubase. Yes, bugs are eventuelly fixed, but many of them only in expensive updates and then you get a whole bunch of new bugs at the same time. Do you see the evil circle?

dfegad Steinberg - Creativity Last

PS. If anyone wants to buy a Cubase SL3 or a Cubase VST something let me know...

[illacov]

Dudes first of all get your facts straight, besides the waves plug ins you had to get some pretty wacked out aka shitty vst compressors for sidechaining in SX3, mainly because you had limited controls of the settings like oh you know really unimportant shit like attack and release.

That being stated, most all of the plug ins that are for Reaper like Stillwell who also nicely make vst versions of the plugins for all the other non Reaper users and alot of the JS effects.

As far as making those sidechaining tracks work. In Cubase SX3, you're smoking crack rocks (SWEET ROCKS!) claming that the "method" is the same for Reaper.

First of all you another set of channels to a track you want to sidechain (drop down menu, takes a nanosecond). Take the key track and create a send to that (another 2 nanoseconds) and you have sidechaining! Adjust the compressor to taste.

You have ridiculous options on what to sidechain with and how.

SX3 was a joke in comparison, you need to get real.

As far as Cubase 4 I'm sure its the bees knees, but I'm not spending 600 bucks to find out. I miss the drum editor, but I'll live.

As far as getting what I pay for, well that quote works until you look at the car industry.

LOTS of Americans pay dearly for GARBAGE.

So no you don't always get what you pay for.

I'm glad Reaper exists, because at the bare minimum you'd have to be a fool to even look up a unlock for the program because its unlocked once you download it! All you get is a few seconds of nag and then you have full features available.

If you do buy the license, I think its upgrades for life. Maybe I'm wrong, but even if I pay 50 bucks in 2 years from now, I think that's a pittance for my uses.

Download the program and do a real thorough run with it. You'll see why we like it, it's no cult following I tell you that.

Peace
Illumination

[manning1]

imloggedin.
(takeing a break from xmas parties/functions...stuffed with food...lol.)
re your comment... pt's audio editing so far above etc.

i would love to know what i'm missing out on.
what editing functions are reap missing ?
all the normal editing functions are there plus all sorts of things one can do to individual clips mate. a smorgasboard in fact.
i can even do things like tune one vocal note that might be slightly "off".
fade in/out/split/silence/volume changes n god knows what else are in reap.
on some songs i do very intense audio editing on some traks,
such as subtle edits on a letter of a word and so on.
with respect have you worked with reap in detail or just had a cursory look ?
cos i just dont understand your generalised comment.
which i feel needs to be backed up by detailing specific editing features that PT has as an advantage.

merry xmas.

[djbrough]

Are you going to need MIDI functionality?

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by illacov

As far as making those sidechaining tracks work. In Cubase SX3, you're smoking crack rocks (SWEET ROCKS!) claming that the "method" is the same for Reaper.

First of all you another set of channels to a track you want to sidechain (drop down menu, takes a nanosecond). Take the key track and create a send to that (another 2 nanoseconds) and you have sidechaining! Adjust the compressor to taste.

I guess I'm smoking crack. I've only been using Cubase forever. Whatever.

Look, the point is that the Reaper and Cubase SX use the same method for getting the key audio into the key input, using a secondary channel, and requiring multichannel routing, as the key source. It's funny how people called Cubase's sidechaining "quasi-workaround-fake-ass- sidechaining" and suddenly the same method in Reaper is "true sidechaining". And it is the same method... multichannel routing.

I set them up virtually the same way and neither is really easier than the other TO ME. Insult me by calling me a crackhead for voicing my opinion. Thank you. An opinon that I can back up with facts btw... instead of name calling.

Here it is step by step in both.... from a crackhead who's been using daws for many, may years.

STEP 1:

Reaper: Change the target channel to 4 ch's so you can use the second pair for the key input. A Quad channel. You need a quad (or two channel for mono) channel to sidechain, just like Cubase.

Cubase: Cubase groups support multiple streams/channels (for surround up to 7.1) just like Reaper internal channels so I create a quad group, give it two stereo child channels and send the original track to the group.

Now both daws have a single channel with the original audio playing on it and a secondary unused stereo stream inside of it that we will use for the key audio. Identical.

ReaComp is on the original target track in Reaper.

ReaComp is on the group track in Cubase.

The next step is getting the key audio into the secondary channel.

STEP 2:

Reaper: Send the output of the track being used as the key to the second stereo channel of the target channel 3/4 . Or pull in a receive from that channel. Same thing.

Cubase: Send the output of the track being used as the key to the second stereo channel of the target group. Ls Rs Same thing.

Now both daws have a single channel with the original audio playing through it and also the key audio coming through the second stereo stream on that same channel. Exactly the same thing.

The next step is to assign the key audio to the ReaComp key input.

Final Step

Reaper: Assign the key input of the ReaComp to the Aux pair using ReaComps detector input list. 3-4
Cubase: Assign the key input of the ReaComp to the Aux pair using ReaComps detector input list. Ls-Rs

It's the same thing. EXACTLY the same thing routing wise, using a secondary channel to feed the key input. I cand set that up in Cubase in about 7-10 seconds and in Reaper in about 5. Big difference huh?

Now Reaper can do more stuff because of it's routing flexibility but basic sidechaining is done in an almost identical way. But yes ... it can do more. But the same multi-channel routing that people complained about being "semi-quasi-half-ass-fake" ducking / sidechaining in Cubase for years is suddenly "true sidechaining" in Reaper when the routing to get there is near IDENTICAL and it works exactly the same way in practice.

Schwa's fine VST plugins (with key inputs) will work in Cubase also. Any plug with multi-channel inputs (seperate inputs for key sources) will work in SX or Cubase 4 or Reaper using the above method.

Most people only want to key the input for a track like they did with a real analog comp. That's what most people were crying like little babies for in Cuibase and they had it already. If it's "quasi-fake" then they both are "quasi-fake".

Is Reaper's just a tiny tiny bit easier to setup?. Yes a very tiny bit as you don't need the group. The METHOD to get the souce to the key input is near identical, using a secondary audio channel to bring the source audio into the key input. M_E_T_H_O_D

Cubase 4 takes the key input source directly from the original souce channel without additional audio paths. There is no additional routing to do... just assign the key to any track in the project. A different method.

To me, that method for ducking or getting a key source to a plugin key input is better than both SX and Reaper.

Both daws are GREAT daws. Even to crackheads like me.

[mahasandi]

I have found coming from pt to reaper
hard. The editing is very different.

I think reaper is just plain more intuitive.
Its not a contradiction ; its just taken me a while
to re-learn how to do almost unconscious commands.

I think reapers routing is great.
The customizing of key strokes:

Why wouldn't you want to do this?

Its a growing program , but for someone
who is doing OTB summed rock its already there.
For those doing a ton of midi,I hear its younger.

All in all I feel its the most intuitive flexable and
fluid Daw Ive used.
YMMV but I feel like transitioning platforms takes longer thensome might think

[imloggedin]

Originally Posted by manning1

imloggedin.
(takeing a break from xmas parties/functions...stuffed with food...lol.)
re your comment... pt's audio editing so far above etc.

i would love to know what i'm missing out on.
what editing functions are reap missing ?
all the normal editing functions are there plus all sorts of things one can do to individual clips mate. a smorgasboard in fact.
i can even do things like tune one vocal note that might be slightly "off".
fade in/out/split/silence/volume changes n god knows what else are in reap.
on some songs i do very intense audio editing on some traks,
such as subtle edits on a letter of a word and so on.
with respect have you worked with reap in detail or just had a cursory look ?
cos i just dont understand your generalised comment.
which i feel needs to be backed up by detailing specific editing features that PT has as an advantage.

merry xmas.

many things are missing. for instance, can you press tab to goto transients? there are many simple logical things that PT has that most DAW's dont. for instance you want to play a small portion of the song over and over so you just highlite that portion on any track and hit spacebar, wahlah. selecting on a timeline is soo stupid, and very unintuitive. how does grouping and track comping compare? doesnt. PT is far ahead of reaper in editing.

[ewegogetemtiger]

Originally Posted by imloggedin

many things are missing. for instance, can you press tab to goto transients? there are many simple logical things that PT has that most DAW's dont. for instance you want to play a small portion of the song over and over so you just highlite that portion on any track and hit spacebar, wahlah. selecting on a timeline is soo stupid, and very unintuitive. how does grouping and track comping compare? doesnt. PT is far ahead of reaper in editing.

right there you just proved you don't know what you're talking about. you obviously haven't even used reap.

you came to troll, you did, move on fuuck

[1ManBand]

hey lawrence thanks for the tutorial! damn if you wouldmake a youtube tutorial video i would pay you. ive seen other videos but i just cant seem to find that quad channel. u just click new group right and select it? i have cubase 4 studio.. so it should work with the waves de esser and the waves c1 correct?