What's the catch with Reaper?

[hakkamacher]

Different people have different ways of looking at working.

I like some aspects of the Nuendo mixer window. Reaper's channel strip has been a pet quibble (uh oh, go grab that cat...!) of mine for awhile... but at the same time, I *don't* like certain aspects about it (Nuendo's)... The overly busy "international/symbolic" silliness on the left; the overly-3d "recessed" buttons look cluttered and ill-defined as something you operate with... fader detents "overly 3d" are also distracting and unneccesary (IMO).

I love the meters; I love the pan control. I like the buttons being large; but not blurred into the pseudo-3d contouring. Looks nice, but also cluttered.

All of the sends-panel stuff looks horrible to me. If all of it is filled up, it's a mess to look at; it *doesn't* increase workflow, because it becomes a jigsaw puzzle of trying to discern what is on what channel among all of the info. Plus, there's a lot of superfluous info that isn't needed alot (by me) - all of the input assignments... As I work, once I've done that I don't need to keep seeing it.

It *looks* nice, but it's too busy IMO. (<---- "IMO")

Reaper does cater to "the dissenting faction" a bit. I like that it leans towards some CEP/Audition principles, which run counter to PT. PT drives me nuts both visually and from an operational standpoint - not everybody has to like the same thing.

It's a great thing there's an alternative, and one that is being developed with user involvment. In the end it will be an all encompassing-superior product because of it.

[DISCERN]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Wait, you surely arent sayin the same plugin gui is different in one daw than another?

No, Im saying that reaper first displays plugins within the fx browser which is physically bigger that the standard vst plugin window. In order to fit the bigger plugins completely on the screen you have to click again to "Window float selected FX". All the other vst plugins i've used in other software just open straight away into a much smaller float window.

for example, opening kontakt with the keyboard and outputs enabled fits perfectly on the screen in a floating window. In the fx browser with it set to auto resize, it doesn't because the browser window is bigger than the floating window.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by Todd24

Works for me. Well said.

You mean nobody's going to pick a fight with me? What kind of bullshit is that?

JSL

[DISCERN]

Originally Posted by hakkamacher

All of the sends-panel stuff looks horrible to me. If all of it is filled up, it's a mess to look at; it *doesn't* increase workflow, because it becomes a jigsaw puzzle of trying to discern what is on what channel among all of the info. Plus, there's a lot of superfluous info that isn't needed alot (by me) - all of the input assignments... As I work, once I've done that I don't need to keep seeing it.

Looks horrible and a mess? You must absolutely hate analog consoles then because its exactly the same. If something like this doesn't increase your workflow you must mix in a very unorthodox way, which is exactly why reaper needs something like this if users have a desire for it to be used widely in the industry. Its not like all of these windows in nuendo are constantly on display either. They can all be simply toggled so when I need to see whats going where I hit a single button and it shows me. The nuendo mixer folders in three pieces, as shown by the big button in 9 segments down in the left hand corner. The input assignment can be toggled at the press of a button so that just the channel faders remain.

By your description it sounds like reaper caters for the self-taught-unorthodox-never-used-an-analog-console crowd. Could be a good business move in this day and age.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by DISCERN

Looks horrible and a mess? You must absolutely hate analog consoles then because its exactly the same.

Let me know what kind of console lets you actually shove plugins inside the channel strip The ones I used handles that with a patchbay, same way reaper does.

If something like this doesn't increase your workflow you must mix in a very unorthodox way,

errrr unorthodaox means, anything other than exactly how you do? Nothing orthodox about cubendo for me. Feels like a MIDI sequencer that later got audio functions

which is exactly why reaper needs something like this if users have a desire for it to be used widely in the industry.

Actually it needs to be widely used in the industry for it to be widely used in the industry. Changing reaper in a way that slows users down or they dislike will likely not change that in a positive way.

By your description it sounds like reaper caters for the self-taught-unorthodox-never-used-an-analog-console crowd. Could be a good business move in this day and age.

Its amazing how much wanna be elitist hate reaper gets

[davemc]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Its amazing how much wanna be elitist hate reaper gets

Not to offend. It also goes both ways. A lot of Reaper zealots come in and say if you use anything else well your stupid.
There is a local forum where we have 3-4 people who just chime in on any thread saying use Reaper all others are crap. All those who do not use Reaper are idiots...
I personally tried it in three revisions. Does not work for me personally, sorry I rather see it all on one screen, I did not like the fact a new version is released every day (not what I call stable), it was not like other daws in setup so took a little bit to get my head around it and the manual did not help much.
When I mentioned this I was told I have no clue, I am a dinosaur which will be left in the dark ages and Reaper is cool....I did not say it was a crap product I just said it was not what I liked. Just seems a few Reaper users are a little to over board. Comes across a little Cult like sorry.

Personally I like Pro Tools as its all on one screen basically even Nuendo you still have to click through inserts and FX which annoys me. My mate prefers Sonar another Nuendo, I remixed something recorded in Garageband and Acid. I just do not see a right or wrong myself whatever you use

[manning1]

discern.....
youve made a number of points. as to your needs.
and thats perfectly fair thing to do.
constructive criticism is good cos it will realise a better product.
we all have a different way of working.
there is a feature requests area on the reaper forum,
thus why not request exactly how you would like your way of working to be met ??
theres no harm to that.
i dont use vst's much myself.
i tend to think of reaper for my uses as it saved me (not that i could afford it....lol.)
two 2 inch multitrack tape machines synched up.
i dont have chains of vst's happening.
i just use spareingly some of reapers own plug ins etc.
which works well for me.
i dont claim to be a gold engineer, but its a pity folks cant hear the mix i had yesterday in reaper. on a new song i'm doing collabing with another songwriter.
all i can say is i was jumping for joy at the sound picture and the dynamics and "oomph" of the song. of course the source traks make a difference.
but the whole sound quality i was getting considering i dont have the best convertors was just great. i was danceing roundthe room with joy.
i guess one factor also being that in the last year ive also gradually developed little mixing techniques useing reaper.
i maintain in the hands of a superb gifted (and i'm not one..i'm a songwriter.)
pro mix engineer reaper will produce just as good results as anything else.

[Bubbagump]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

OK. My question is why would I even do that? I mean can someone give me a reason why I'd even spend that much energy to check out the forum and read the manual and stuff like that? No?

For me it was simple... it was the first DAW the just worked . No screwing with latency crap, I can get 2-5ms latency with no tweaking. It is dead stable... no crashiness. My VSTis work. My effects work. My hardware works. It does full latency compensation and uses software controls for my outboard gear. (That's right, you can use your fancy outboard comps and verbs and Reaper will get the latency correction right and send to it like it was a plugin.) ReaMote allow me to use effects on remote machines across a network taking the load off of my main DAW. Plus it is just stupidly flexible in its routing. I know of no other app that can do the crazy routing of anything to anything that Reaper does. Crazy side chains are just the beginning. Plus the developer is very repsonsive. If something isn't right it gets fixed in days, not months. So those are a few reasons to give it a try.

My 2 cents. I am no zealot, just answering the question.

Here is my screen shot since we are all about showing off skins.. This is just an icon set I cobbled together for myself. The point is is that it is sutomizable. i wanted OSX looking buttons so I made them.:



A lot of folks say there is too much going on in Reaper visually... I find Cubase to be incredibly cluttered myself. So what ever. Diffrn't strokes.

[Lawrence]

I'm going to have to agree with DISCERN here regarding the mixer. You guys here know I love Reaper, I think it's a fantastic app and there are many things I like about it MORE than Cubase/Nuendo. However...

He's absolutely correct about Nuendo's mixer flexibility. I'm not sure why people get smacked down when they comment about things like that in this forum, is everyone here really that defensive? Are we being objective or are we so defensive that we can't recognize the truth when it's presented to us?

Look, there are literally thousands of people who use multiple different daws that include mixers similar to Nuendo's where you can expand the mixer and get instant visualization and tweaking of multiple sends, inserts, eq's or other plugins across multiple tracks. This is not an unusual way of working, it's in fact more the standard way of working in the industry as noted by the fact the the most popular (and most used) daws in the world are Pro Tools and Cubase which both certainly work that way. Take the next 3-4-5 in line and they all work that way.

In that screen shot, he can adjust multiple (for instance) sends across mutiple tracks in seconds (or see what's being sent where). You simply cannot do that in Reaper as quickly and anyone who says they can is kidding themselves.

To say that this method is unwieldy and slow and unusual is just plain wrong. Go into large $$$ facility with a daw and see for yourself. This is the way most people work with daw mixers. Now if a person likes the way Reaper's mixer is setup better that's fine, but to call the others "a mess" is a little... shortsighted?

People come here to a forum to talk about a daw in development (obviously showing interest) and talk about why they think it might have issues for them personally and the replies are "... you daw is a mess..." What is that? I for one would also like an option to expand Reaper's mixer to view more of those types of things, even if some people here never need it. I need it, and I know for sure than thousands of other pro engineers could use it. If not, don't show it on the screen ... uh, never.... how hard is that? Uh, that's why it's called an "option". In Nuendo it's optional, it doesn't show those things unless you want to see them.

I love Reaper and I've been using it (while continuing to learn it better) almost everyday and I can personally tell you I can absolutely tweak plugs, sends, ch eq's and such things in Cubase's mixer much faster. MUCH faster.

For me , the speed differences balance out for me a little since I can load my plugins while Reaper is playing while I can't do that in Cubase without glitching. It's lower latency performance also gains me speed since I don't have to stop the daw and change latency settings. Along with some other things it kinda all works out.

So there are things that make up for (to me) Reaper's unorthodox (in comparison to other pro daws) mixer design, making it not that much of an issue. However, to ingore and/or dismiss the fact that you cannot view multiple plugs or sends in the mixer at the same time (like most every other pro daw) smacks a little of "Fanboy-ism".

Fanboyism: The act of finding obscure reasons to dismiss something that is absolutely true and happens to conflict with what you happen to like in your choice.

Are we (mostly) objective industry professionals or are we fanboys hopping on the bandwagon leaving inconvienient facts behind in the dust? DISCERN says that the mixer will slow him down. He's right... it slows me down too. Then people proceed to tell him how "messy" Nuendo's mixer is? I just don't get it. You have to present a certain amount of controls and buttons to visualize the things that pros NEED to see.

I'll say this again... when people start to make direct comparisons between Reaper and other pro daws being used these kinds of things will come up. Accept the fact that (for all their individual shortcomings) these other daws have things that define (or are defined by) the way the industry works. It's simply a fact.

I'm going to the studio to play around with Reaper some more now.

[Empty Planet]

I'm pretty much with you, Lawrence. Particularly so with the sentiment of your last statement. Whatever works, let's get a track down.

[Empty Planet]

Originally Posted by Todd24

Works for me. Well said.

Originally Posted by jslevin

You mean nobody's going to pick a fight with me? What kind of bullshit is that?

JSL

[Todd24]

DISERN,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I dont have time for a pictorial reply, I wish I did.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I was speaking to the Pt screen not the Neuendo one. I don’t dislike the Neuendo mixer. It is pretty well designed. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
To see the FX what I do is have the prefs set to only open one window at a time. Then by clicking the FX button on the track I want I can see the FX. No, I don’t see them all at once. I don’t see where that has ever been something I needed though. I am always focused in on one task at a time. I can’t adjust more than one at a time. I don’t see it as a problem. YMMV<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
For the sends (or any other more complicated routings, IE side chains etc) I can open the routing matrix. It has a lighted box wherever there is a routed channel(s). by hovering over the box, I can see the settings in DB. by clicking on the box, I get a window that allows me to adjust levels, pan, pre/post, and channel #s. Its not the same as Neuendo but it works fast and easy. I prefer this one. Although I have to say I don’t use it much as I still prefer to deal with one aspect of the mix at a time, I usually use the routing button on the TCP to get my info.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Extended meters? aint got em. I have them on Tracktion but never used them. If you were considering making a switch (I know your not) you would want to request them and see how the other users feel about it.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The narrow channel strips are very cool. I hope to see them in Reaper soon. It has been requested and people seem to agree. It feels like the GUI is on the backburner right now. That is a good thing as there are more important features to implement.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There really isn’t anything about Reaper that slows it down or makes it less professional. Except that you would have to learn a new paradigm. I can see why you wouldn’t want to do that. I chose to do it out of curiosity. I got hooked on th experience of learning a DAW as it was developed. This has my understanding my DAW better than any I have tried before. Plus there is allot of satisfaction in knowing the developer is listening. They aren’t buried by layers of pointless middle management. Sh!t gets done.

[Bassmankr]

I did the stress testing on an extreme overclocked AMD mobile Athlon rig (2.6 Ghz on air cooling). This is a single core CPU. I used the same RME ASIO driver at the same latency for both apps. While using taskmoniter is a more reliable method for checking CPU usage the fact that I brought each app to it's knees to the point of clicks and/or slow graphics pretty much showed me what each app would do. It was just a quick, dirty apples to apple test on my rig. Any guys out there with Duels or Quads that want to run a simular stress test to see if multicores make a big difference in the efficiency of Reaper's code?

[manning1]

bass..
i dont know how much this applies.
but reaper projects on my old athlon pc that were sitting around 60
per cent resource useage are now barely makeing the new dual amd 64 break a sweat.
remember folks doing this testing that in rpr prefs is a setting if i remember that should be checked....but i think its done automatically .....for multi cores.
on the reaper forums is a thread showing 8 cores all in use out of interest.

[Lawrence]

Do this with both Reaper and Cubase (or another daw with an extended mixer with insert slots and send controls) and time yourself. First open an empty session with 24 tracks, no audio just 24 empty tracks. Now time yourself doing this...

1. Go in and add an insert plugin on every track. Any plugin.
2. Create a FX send bus and insert a plugin to it. Any plugin.
3. Go to each of the 24 tracks and send a random level to that FX bus.

Seriously, that will be MUCH faster in Nuendo, Cubase or any daw with an extended mixer. No way can that happen as fast in the routing matrix or in another manner in Reaper with multiple clicks and multiple screens.

Not a "knock" on Reaper... it is what it is. Those extra few seconds can add up - considerably - over the course of a four hour mix. If you like the application (like me) you just take a little longer to mix in it (like me when I have).

And - as I stated earlier - that may be offset somewhat by other features in Reaper that may speed things up as opposed to using another daw.

For $1000+ and after many years of development Nuendo should do _something_ better than Reaper don't you think..

This is one of those things.

[Todd24]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Do this with both Reaper and Cubase (or another daw with an extended mixer with insert slots and send controls) and time yourself. First open an empty session with 24 tracks, no audio just 24 empty tracks. Now time yourself doing this...

1. Go in and add an insert plugin on every track. Any plugin.
2. Create a FX send bus and insert a plugin to it. Any plugin.
3. Go to each of the 24 tracks and send a random level to that FX bus.

Seriously, that will be MUCH faster in Nuendo, Cubase or any daw with an extended mixer. No way can that happen as fast in the routing matrix or in another manner in Reaper with multiple clicks and multiple screens.

Not a "knock" on Reaper... it is what it is. Those extra few seconds can add up - considerably - over the course of a four hour mix. If you like the application (like me) you just take a little longer to mix in it (like me when I have).

And - as I stated earlier - that may be offset somewhat by other features in Reaper that may speed things up as opposed to using another daw.

For $1000+ and after many years of development Nuendo should do _something_ better than Reaper don't you think..

This is one of those things.

It should.............but seeing as how I can do all these thing right there in the TCP, it doesnt.

[Empty Planet]

Todd.

Clarify. Give us a step by step, as Lawrence did.

Don't taunt.

Explicate.

[Lawrence]

Please do. I have no idea how you can tweak multiple send levels faster (without a control surface) than just simply touching a send level control that's always visible on the screen with a mouse and tweaking.

Me in Reaper adjusting a send in the mixer or the matrix or from the TCP: Move the mouse to the fader (or matrix box), Right-click, move the mouse a little to the level control on the screen that pops up, tweak.

Me in Cubase mixer: Move the mouse to the send control, tweak. 1st "mouse down" event, I haven't even let go of the mouse button yet on the first down-click and I'm tweaking a send level. It's not even a full "mouse-click" yet.

Please explain how you get that done in Reaper with fewer steps and in less time and how that won't physically translate to "being slower" when dealing with large mixes and multiple channels.

Maybe I missed something.

[Scott@RealTraps]

Lawrence, I was noticing you clicking all the windows, etc. while you were doing that mix in your video -- I kept thinking . . . man . . . why is he still doing that when he can just dock the FX window? Just dock one FX window, then set it up in the prefs to allow only one FX window open at a time -- then each time you hit the FX button for a given track you want to work on, all the FX stuff for that track will show in the docked FX window. (I've described this more in a previous post in this thread)

Have you tried this? I find it speeds things up *tremendously*, and I should think that it would help in the way we are discussing that the FX are set up in Nuendo's mixer. I have actually come to like this BETTER than the other way, because I have SO MUCH MORE information and control available within a manageably small space.

I'm not bashing Nuendo, here . . . I like the look of Nuendo, and I have long held lust in my heart for Nuendo (though it is out of my price range for now).

I was still using Cubase VST 5.1 until recently, and had been meaning to upgrade to SX3 . . . then Cubase 4 came out, and went in directions I didn't like, and then Steinberg pulled their latest series of Shennanigans, and I decided that this was the end of the road for me and Steinberg.

That's when I actually started to try out Reaper, to see if it offered what I really needed, and I am more impressed with it by the day, especially as I watch the speed of development, etc. And I keep having little discoveries every time I use Reaper that make me say . . . DAMN!!! I LOVE this DAW!

I might be a little less impressed if I already owned and had been using something like Nuendo, but . . . I'm sorry . . . I REFUSE to allow myself to be subjected to their way of doing business. That's one of the big reasons I made a decision against Pro Tools in the first place. It's overly proprietary, and it puts you in a sort of forced upgrade path. It limits your choices and forces loyalty well beyond the point at which such loyalty is warranted, just because you have so much already invested.

I don't think that's helpful to anybody except the top executives at Digidesign . . . or Steinberg/Yamaha.

This is one of the things that I see being so different about REAPER. The whole idea seems to be one of making it as easy as possible for artists to work together, even across platforms. It isn't about putting its efforts into shutting other players out of the market -- those efforts are instead put into development that benefits the end users.

That's the way I think it should be.

This top heavy, overly corporatized business model that is being pushed on us from the big multinationals and is trickling down to push other smaller companies to follow that model to survive . . . it's just a completely unsustainable economic model. I've seen this from the inside, from back in my days as a paralegal/legal editor in many of the big wall street legal and financial firms here in NYC. Believe me . . . some of the stuff I've seen . . . it's NOT pretty. I pretty much watched our economy collapse from the inside, and I told people it was going to happen several years before it did.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Scott@RealTraps

Lawrence, I was noticing you clicking all the windows, etc. while you were doing that mix in your video -- I kept thinking . . . man . . . why is he still doing that when he can just dock the FX window?

Yeah that was when I was first learning it. I know better ways to approach those things now. I think in the post I even stated I made "lots of mistakes". Pretty goofy video huh?

I might be a little less impressed if I already owned and had been using something like Nuendo, but . . . I'm sorry . . . I REFUSE to allow myself to be subjected to their way of doing business. That's one of the big reasons I made a decision against Pro Tools in the first place. It's overly proprietary, and it puts you in a sort of forced upgrade path. It limits your choices and forces loyalty well beyond the point at which such loyalty is warranted, just because you have so much already invested.

This is exactly what I mean and what I don't like about many Reaper conversations, it always falls back to "but they do this and they do that".

Here we are talking about a specific thing in Reaper (the mixer) and how it compares to a specific thing in Nuendo (the mixer) and as usual the conversation goes into the Reaper philosophy. Why Steinberg and Digi and (enter other corporations here) do what they do. Which has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

This wasn't about the differences in their respective philosophies, this was about whether some people think Reaper needs and extended mixer or not.

But of course, as usual, it had to go there. I give up. There's simply no objectivity when talking about perceived shortcomings in this program. It always reverts to the "us against them" thing.

Reaper's mixer is fine as is. Okay?

[Justin Frankel]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Do this with both Reaper and Cubase (or another daw with an extended mixer with insert slots and send controls) and time yourself. First open an empty session with 24 tracks, no audio just 24 empty tracks. Now time yourself doing this...

1. Go in and add an insert plugin on every track. Any plugin.
2. Create a FX send bus and insert a plugin to it. Any plugin.
3. Go to each of the 24 tracks and send a random level to that FX bus.

Seriously, that will be MUCH faster in Nuendo, Cubase or any daw with an extended mixer. No way can that happen as fast in the routing matrix or in another manner in Reaper with multiple clicks and multiple screens.

Not a "knock" on Reaper... it is what it is. Those extra few seconds can add up - considerably - over the course of a four hour mix. If you like the application (like me) you just take a little longer to mix in it (like me when I have).

And - as I stated earlier - that may be offset somewhat by other features in Reaper that may speed things up as opposed to using another daw.

For $1000+ and after many years of development Nuendo should do _something_ better than Reaper don't you think..

This is one of those things.

I don't want to come off as argumentative here, and I understand that for the way you are used to doing this you are correct, but perhaps I will make you a video of me doing these things, and you will see it is equally fast..

that being said, the extended mixer views are planned for 2.x.

[amberience]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

1. Go in and add an insert plugin on every track. Any plugin.
2. Create a FX send bus and insert a plugin to it. Any plugin.
3. Go to each of the 24 tracks and send a random level to that FX bus.

Hey Lawrence. Don't know if you're aware, but Reaper can have track templates and also default settings for a track. So, the most common inserts for a track then, you can have them assigned to every track you create.
You can have them automatically load up a certain patch, you can even deactivate them to save on CPU cycles - if you don't use the reverb, deactivate it, for instance. My Reaper default track settings are three plugins, all deactivated. I have an EQ, a compressor, and a gate. I activate them when I need to.
So.... all I have to do is press ctrl+t 24 times, and my tracks are there ready to be used. In Cubase, I would have to still add the plugins (as far as I'm aware)
I use Cubase SX3, Ableton Live, EnergyXT 1.4, EnergyXT2, and Reaper. So I'm in no way a snob, I use whatever does the job. But I don't agree with your assessment that the task you list would be much faster in Nuendo/Cubase... track templates speed things up so much in Reaper. You can have a collection of templates, have a kick ass bass sound going on? Save it as a template and keep it forever and ever!! mwahahaha! It's kickass. ps: I've read through this entire thread, and even the disagreements are civil and polite, unlike places like KvR - so kudos to y'all.

[TheGreatL]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Please do. I have no idea how you can tweak multiple send levels faster (without a control surface) than just simply touching a send level control that's always visible on the screen with a mouse and tweaking.

Me in Reaper adjusting a send in the mixer or the matrix or from the TCP: Move the mouse to the fader (or matrix box), Right-click, move the mouse a little to the level control on the screen that pops up, tweak.

[Maybe I missed something.

maybe, if I understood you correctly. In fact, the fastest way to create multiple sends and tweaking them is from the I/O-dialog of the receiving (!) channel. Example: Tracks 1-4 shall send to Track 5. So create Track5, click on its I/O-button, create the receives for Track 1-4 in that dialog and tweak their levels. No need to go to the I/O-dialogs of each Track to tweak their send-levels.

[Lawrence]

So create Track5, click on its I/O-button, create the receives for Track 1-4 in that dialog and tweak their levels. No need to go to the I/O-dialogs of each Track to tweak their send-levels.

Yep, that works great. But to send to another FX track I have to close that window and open another and adjust the receives on that one. While (again) in Cubase I can adjust multiple sends to multiple FX channels or groups or whatever ... right there in the mixer without ever leaving that screen. Like I would do on a real analog mixer.

I'm also aware of track templates, quite cool ... and many of the other really cool features of Reaper.

Again, this - was - a conversation about a typical mix operation in one daw vs. another and why some who have used both think one is faster in that ONE SINGLE AREA, the mixer.

That's all. Then someone who admittedly never even used Nuendo starts talking about "corporate cultures" and such, as if that had anything to do with the respective mixers or what professional audio engineers prefer generally. It doesn't matter what you say regarding Reaper (or if you actually use it) people will tell you that every part is better, faster etc, than the similar part of any other daw. I just get tired of that.

"Their way of doing things" (as it relates to the mixer design) is the industry's way of doing things... top to bottom, input to fader with everything in between in it's proper place, graphic design choices aside.

[statikcat]

Originally Posted by amberience

In Cubase, I would have to still add the plugins (as far as I'm aware)

No.. Cubase has track presets. You can also copy fx from one track to another easily by drag and drop or copy/paste tracks fx.

[amberience]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

I'm aware of track templates... and all the other really cool features of Reaper.

Again, this - was - a conversation about a typical mix operation in one daw vs. another and why those who have used both think one is faster in that ONE SINGLE AREA, the mixer.

That's all. Then someone who admittedly never even used Nuendo starts talking about "corporate cultures" and such, as if that had anything to do with the respective mixers. It doesn't matter what you say regarding Reaper (or if you actually use it) people will tell you that every part is better, faster etc, than the similar part of any other daw. I just get tired of that.

"Their way of doing things" (as it relates to the mixer design) is the industry's way of doing things... top to bottom, input to fader with everything in between in it's proper place, design choices aside.

Well, I do hope that Reaper gets a Cubase-like mixer view in the future. It would be good to have a full overview of all of the plugins, even if just by name and then you had to double click on the name to go to the track editing page. The mixer at the bottom of Reaper is one of my favourite things though. I would hate to see that disappear.

[amberience]

Originally Posted by statikcat

No.. Cubase has track presets. You can also copy fx from one track to another easily by drag and drop or copy/paste tracks fx.

Like I said, as far as I was aware. I knew you could copy effects, a very cool feature. I'll have to dig into the track presets. Do you have to create a track and then load a track preset, or can you do it just by loading a track preset and have that become a new track?

[statikcat]

Originally Posted by amberience

Like I said, as far as I was aware. I knew you could copy effects, a very cool feature. I'll have to dig into the track presets. Do you have to create a track and then load a track preset, or can you do it just by loading a track preset and have that become a new track?

Well I am talking Cubase 4, but it is only fair to compare latest versions on both sides

When you choose to create a new track you can add mult tracks and browse presets all in that screen. So you can create the track(s) with the preset and not have to add it after the fact.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by TheGreatL

maybe, if I understood you correctly. In fact, the fastest way to create multiple sends and tweaking them is from the I/O-dialog of the receiving (!) channel. Example: Tracks 1-4 shall send to Track 5. So create Track5, click on its I/O-button, create the receives for Track 1-4 in that dialog and tweak their levels. No need to go to the I/O-dialogs of each Track to tweak their send-levels.

I'll say this one last time and I'm done with this thread... I'm getting a headache.

Opening another seperate and different screen (I/O dialog), popping up another small screen (right- click on fader), opening the matrix, (whatever else you can do to get to a send level control in Reaper) to tweak a send would be unneccesary if it was already there on the screen with send level controls on every mixer channel just waiting to be tweaked.

What is so difficult to understand about that? Why are people continuing to try and find ways in Reaper that are "faster than that" when there is nothing faster than that? Reach out and tweak it. 2-3-4 sends they are all right there in line just waiting for when you need them.

Cubase, Sonar, PT, DP, etc, etc, etc. They all have that as an optional view in the mixer since that's how analog consoles are built, send controls that you can reach out and adjust on every single mixer channel. Without doing anything else.

I'm glad Reaper is following suit in that regard.

[amberience]

Originally Posted by statikcat

Well I am talking Cubase 4, but it is only fair to compare latest versions on both sides

When you choose to create a new track you can add mult tracks and browse presets all in that screen. So you can create the track(s) with the preset and not have to add it after the fact.

[/quote]

Righteo, I see. Seems the same in Cubase SX3 also. Thanks!