The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Cubase vs Reaper
Old 7th September 2007
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Herman Munster's Avatar
 

Cubase vs Reaper

I'm using Cubase SL3 and am considering upgrading to Cubase 4, but wanted to ask this question - how does Cubase 4 compare to Reaper? Anyone out there use both? I'm just wanting to make sure I'm not making a mistake before dropping the $$$. I'm a little bothered by the fact that Steinberg has dropped support for DX plugs. I also use a good number of soft synths/VSTi's and was curious as to Reaper's MIDI programming capabilities as I like Cubase quite a bit in this area. thanks.
Old 7th September 2007
  #2
Gear Maniac
 

Exclamation

Reaper still has a lot of bugs. REAPER Bug Reports - Cockos Confederated Forums
Old 7th September 2007
  #3
Lives for gear
I chose Cubase 4 over PT, Logic and the rest of them. Sounds great and the most logical of all of them...
Old 7th September 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 

munster.
all i can report are my rpr experiences.
useing rpr for last year.
not one crash.
i'm v happy.
runs all my powertracks dx plug ins great.
(i like the powertracks echo chorus real time dx plug in on lead vocs.)

best bet.
try it yourself on your pc.
and do your own independent evaluation.

re midi..if your smart youll lok at what one rpr user does.
diogenes i think his name is.
search the rpr user forum.
he uses pgmusic band in a box for bed track midi creation.....
imports the midi bed tracks into rpr....
then adds the audio tracks.
nice way of working n saves time imho.

my reasons for liking rpr...
1. low cost.
2. it just frickin RUNS !
3. low footprint....non intrusive n dont screw around with
my pc.
4. no dam dongles.
5. the included 100 plus fx floor me .
DO CHEK EM OUT. plus many of other users plug ins like losers n terry w etc.

in summary give it a good in depth test rather than a silly cursory test.
cos its dam deep.
thats all i gotta say.
(for midi i love pgmusics powertracks.
check it out sometime. nothing beats it imho for 49 buks.
no dongles. check pgmusic.com use forums if u doubt me for more user references.)

rpr n powertracks together cost me under 100 buks.
and both contain everything i'll ever need for recording.
there is no better value imho even if someone spends hundreds of buks more.
Old 7th September 2007
  #5
SRR
Gear Maniac
 
SRR's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHope View Post
Reaper still has a lot of bugs. REAPER Bug Reports - Cockos Confederated Forums
Most bugs in Reaper are bothersome at worst. Its not like Cubase's bugs.

Been using reaper for a year, wouldn't tell good friends to use anything else.
Old 7th September 2007
  #6
Stick with Cubase. Cubase 4.03 is very solid for me. It is a much deeper programm for midi then Reaper, wich is, for reasons beyond my grasp, declared holy around here. Maybe because it's cheap and quite nice for audio.
Old 7th September 2007
  #7
Gear Maniac
 

Since you can try out Reaper with out restriction, and the forum is full of helpful folks, you should maybe download and see for yourself.

Its true that if you are deep into MIDI, Reaper may not do it for you. On the other hand it likley to get some more development soon. There isnt to much more to do with audio at this point. That means you can help form the way MIDI gets handled. Cant say that about C4.
Old 7th September 2007
  #8
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctms777 View Post
Stick with Cubase. Cubase 4.03 is very solid for me. It is a much deeper programm for midi then Reaper, wich is, for reasons beyond my grasp, declared holy around here. Maybe because it's cheap and quite nice for audio.
I dont think its declared holy by any means but...........it is a very nice experiance haveing your thoughts and requests actually considered, and often implemented (in days no less).

Its worth looking at.
Old 9th September 2007
  #9
Lives for gear
 
jdier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHope View Post
Reaper still has a lot of bugs. REAPER Bug Reports - Cockos Confederated Forums
the list of bugs there is more representative of a company that is actively working with users and has nothing to hide.

I have NEVER run into a show stopping bug or a bug that caused loss of audio in Reaper. I have very limited exposure to Cubase, but am happy enough with Reaper that I do not see myself ever looking at Cubase.
Old 9th September 2007
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jdier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manning1 View Post

my reasons for liking rpr...
1. low cost.
2. it just frickin RUNS !
3. low footprint....non intrusive n dont screw around with
my pc.
4. no dam dongles.
5. the included 100 plus fx floor me .
I concur:

Runs remarkable well and loads very quick.
Does not put files all over my computer.... install is very clean
The free effects (namely ReaComp, ReaEQ) are crazy good. I LOVE ReaComp... very versatile.
Old 9th September 2007
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Tommy-boy's Avatar
 

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.

All that being said, I do admire Justin Frankel's responsiveness. I admire the fact that the programmer listens to the customers. I admire the fact that updates are frequent. I admire that user feedback on new features is welcomed and taken to heart.

If Steinberg fully embraced this philosophy, Cubase and Nuendo would be unstoppable. CubaseAI would have never been born, users wouldn't have been blind-sided with the removal of DX support, and Sequel wouldn't have gotten off of the ground until cubase / nuendo users were taken care of. Yamaha and Steinberg would have collaborated to make tightly integrated mixer/control surfaces to superceed the 02R and 01V. The midex8 would be supported, or at least another midi interface with timestamping (like motu stuff) would be supported in cubase. Freezing would be flawless. Tempo mapping would be miles ahead of where it is now. Full 100% backward compatability would be built into every new release.

-Tom
Old 9th September 2007
  #12
Gear Addict
 

fwiw, i record real bands, in real time. very old school. i have little use for midi other than to capture a performance and maybe change the sound later so i can't speak to that aspect.

as a nuendo owner, for MY NEEDS, reaper is untouchable. now YOUR mileage may vary.
excellent routing, no problems, glitches, etc.
flawlessly runs off of a thumb drive for remote work.
much like a tape machine, i simply don't have to think about it while recording. also, the timely support/updating is the BEST i've ever experienced.

many think reaper looks ugly in the GUI. i could give a ****. a 30k fairchild limiter is an ugly beast, but damn if i don't want one for the excellent job it does.

oh, and i probably spend more a day at the bar on beer than the reaper license costs.
Old 9th September 2007
  #13
I'm gonna see what happens with logic at AES this October. If there is no Logic update I will be slowly cheating with reaper for mac
Old 9th September 2007
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Tommy-boy.
with greatest respect i do a ton of audio editing
in rpr every day mate.
i'm doing a v difficult song now with lots of fancy editing.
has everything i need for editing.
i do it all the time mate.
tell me a feature youve found for audio editing it doesnt do ??
cos youve lost me on this point.
there are lots of triks also.
mebe you didnt discover some of em ??

re external hardware integration. i dont do it....
but a recent release allows this . correct me if i'm wrong someone.
heres a thread today about external hardware integration.
Best way to strap hardware across master bus? - Cockos Confederated Forums

with respect i think rpr's midi is more than basic.
(i use another package for wild sophisticated midi work/score/notation editing...
cost is 50 buks.).

re control room. thats a nice feature. but the fact extra
mixes are being created within the pc as well as the main stereo mix for playback prolly means added
computer processing overhead i suspect.
add in the fact the user is prolly playing back lots of traks n fx...
..well u get the picture. need a powerfull pc i suspect.
i dont do it...but...i suspect with a multi out sound device
and useing rpr's routing in conjunction with external monitor mixer being
fed from the sound device would realise the same result.
someone correct me if i'm wrong.


d. gauss.
i agree. about the gui. works for me.
i suspect i work same as you.
like a big ole multitrack tape machine.
the v2 gui looks dam dam nice to me.
n loads of wonderfull themes users have done.
look v pretty to me.
ive done boatloads of codeing in my life,
and would suggest while over the top graphics/gui's seem nice on the surface.
there is a potential downside ive found depending how coded.
viz....over the top sometimes = more n more computer resources used.

in business apps i was always suspicious of over the top graphics/gui's , cos i often found it was marketing related. and sometimes the app didnt ...underneath the glitz... address user needs properly.
but in rpr's case its very deep imho.
Old 9th September 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 
jchas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d. gauss View Post
oh, and i probably spend more a day at the bar on beer than the reaper license costs.
You put away more than $199 a day at the bar? I hope you're not driving home...
Old 9th September 2007
  #16
Lives for gear
 
True North's Avatar
 

I use SX3 primarily but I purchased a Reaper liscense because I want to encourage it continued devlopment (not that Justin needs the $$ heh)

The Reaper version 2 upgrade made some significant leaps. The addition of a fully functioning mixer is not groudbreaking as an idea but it was a much needed addition.

The default skin is really nice. I was a big "Reaper is ugly" advocate but the new look and advanced skinning capabilities shattered that shortcoming. If you don't like the default and you can't figure how to get a look that is usable than that is more of a user issue as the possiblities are as expansive as your imagination will allow.

Reapers routing is better than Cubase and pretty much anything else on the market - but the routing page GUI window is a design disaster and needs to be fixed - this is not a major gripe and easily fixable IMO.

Reaper is really the only DAW to properly utilize 8 core computers at lower latencies

I am primarily an audio guy so I can't speak to MIDI. Here are the hold out points for me on Reaper;

1) Does not properly integrate with UAD cards (I have 4 in a Magma Chassis) in a multicore environment - I love their plugs and this is a big issue for me. Reaper claims that it is a UAD issue - I don't really care as it works in Cubase

2) Reaper automation is clutzy, confusing and a PITA to use - Cubase with Multiple lanes for automation easily trumps it.

3) Hardware integration is possible in Reaper but it is not as slick as Cubase. Pro Tools HD wins in this category

4) I am not a fan of how Reaper manages comp takes. Cubase really shines here. It is easy and flexible to use. Reaper still needs some tweaks here

5) Group Channels are poorly executed in both Reaper and Cubase - PT is king again in this area but a huge margin


CONCLUSION
As some have mentioned Reaper's service is really outstanding. It takes a lot of guts to be so open with your customer base and this is where I have the most admiration for what Reaper is offering. Bugs are fixed fast, updates with usable functions are very regular. I beleive Reaper still has some work to do but based on how slow Cubase and Sonar are, it won't be long (1 to 2 years) before Reaper surpasses those two programs for audio. I don't think PT is any danger of losing their perch but it is going to be an interesting couple of years, cheers!
Old 9th September 2007
  #17
Here for the gear
 
Tallisman's Avatar
 

Greetings.

my 2¢ I have been a long time user of Steinberg products. I am a self declared Cubase fanatic, and a well versed user. The Music store at which I used to run the Recording department, stills Cubase incarnations at a rate of 2 to 1 all other DAWs combined. This was due largely to in depth demonstrations (I always demonstrated Cubase last).

Early this year I grew very frustrated with Steinberg. They dropped, as you know DX support. But, they did so without prior notice to their loyal user-base. Many of my friends were left high and dry with a nasty ultimatum: roll back to SX3.1 and chalk the upgrade price up to a loss, or replace, upgrade or lose their DX plugins for which they paid a good deal of coin.

Cubase 4 was released and it was unusable. There were so many show stopping bugs that it was ridiculous. C4.01 was released very shortly afterwards and thus many folks could at least get it running. C4 was a mine field to navigate for the next 2 or 3 months while we eagerly awaited an update 4.02 was released and may folks were feeling a little better. Then, Steinberg announced that they were canceling the long awaited, in fact, promised final update to SX3 -SX3.2. The clamor of disapproval was intense over at cubase.net (search the forums and see). The din grew louder with the announcement of the end of support for midex8 hardware. It felt as though Steinberg was out of control and sabotaging their own existence. C4.03 - a hot fix was released, which quelled the discontent to some extent.

In January I began to look for another DAW as some form of personal protest. I found Reaper. I told myself that I would try and use it exclusively until Cubase 4.1 was released, at which time I would reevaluate the situation... this is what I have found:

Reaper is very stable. I have yet to experience a crash, regardless of what I throw at it. It handles all my VST, and DX plugins without issue, and I am suprisingly pleased with the quality of the bundled FX. CPU load is down and its behaviour in this department is very customizable. Reaper's user options are very deep - it opens the hood for you to tweak till your heart's content, if you like. 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 am very fast now... faster that I have ever been on any platform.

Cubase is beautiful. Hands down it is the more handsome application. It is also more mature and its extremely rich feature-set, benefits from years of development and refinement. That said, you can expect more, presently from Cubase in terms of Midi. Its midi is fantastic. Simple, powerful and close to if not complete. Reaper on the other hand lags well behind here. There are many reaper users, myself included, that work extensively with midi, but C4 is considerable ahead.. That said, I have failed in my attempts to use Reaper exclusively until C4.1 is released. On a handful of collisions, I have had to fire up C4 in order to make use of its groove quantize features. In Reaper it is impossible to steal the groove from one item - midi or audio - and use that as a template for quantizing other items. Thus, Reaper lacks: Groove Quantize, Input Quantize, Shuffle, and several other quantize options available in Cubase. Nevertheless, I am easily able to complete 95% of all my midi creation and editing tasks within Reaper.

Where Reaper bounds ahead of Cubase (and any other DAW IMHO) is in terms of Routing capabilities, and the handling of Audio. In fact, Reaper is so far ahead of Cubase in this department that it feels an unfair comparison. Any track can handle up to 64 audio channels. There is only one type of a track. This singular track can contain midi items, audio items, or both - you can even crossfade between midi and audio! Tracks can be folders containing child tracks, they can be aux tracks... to put it briefly they'll do whatever you need then to, and in terms of routing if you can imagine it you can route it. You can even do feedback routing; Side chaining is native and built-in both of which are yet to be well implemented in Cubendo. For years Steinberg has been saying that freely movable/routable groups would be here soon. Hopefully that will be one of the selling points for C4.1.

Cubase has a very well designed and implemented Takes system that displays takes in lanes and makes for speedy and easy comping of performances. When i first began my trial of Reaper, this was a feature that I missed dearly - I often used Cubase's takes-in-lanes system as a writing tool. I hit up the Feature Request forum over at REAPER | About. Before I knew it I was engaged in a Persona Message conversation with Justin Frankel - the creater of the fricking application. He was trying to discern the nature of my request and investigating if Reapers current method would suffice my needs. Reaper could easily do takes, and if you wanted to see them in lanes for comping, you could explode the takes across tracks. I had been doing this, but found it cumbersome. I made a little video and posted it on Youtube, to illustrate why I was hung up on Cubase's method. He watched it and replied, saying that he would make me a video to show how I could accomplish the same thing, quicker and with less clicks using Reaper's current feature set. I replied saying don't bother with the video I'll take you word for it and figure this out. He replied again saying, "Hang on, int the time that it would take to make the video, I may be able to add something you'd like..." and hour later I got another PM, this time with an attchment: ReaperLanes.exe. In an hour's time he had coded the foundation for Reaper's current Takes-in-lanes featureset. I made a few more suggestions and within three hours of our conversation's start, Reaper's current takes-in-lanes featureset was developed, coded and refined. I was blown away by this experience. Try and get an answer from Steinberg, let alone a developer there! In fact, try and get some official support from them. You will, however notice that any mention of warez is quickly dealt with by their moderators. Back on topic: While the takes-in-lanes abilities of Cubase are more mature and flexible, that found in Reaper is easily workable. And it underscores how the Cockos value and consider the input and opinion of their userbase.

It would take too long to do a complete Cubase / Reaper feature comparison. That can be done easily by comparing the lists published by Steinberg and Cockos. What you will find is that the discrepancies are few when put side by side with their common ground.

If your work revolves around the most complete and efficient midi featureset, then Cubase is, currently the better choice. If you deal equally with midi and audio, the lines are blured, as Reaper is ahead in the audio department. If the treatment you receive from the producer holds weight as a concern, the Reaper is the hands down winner.

What you should do, is download Reaper, and take it around the block - it is free and un-crippled for 30 days (after which it remains un-crippled). It you find that it suffices, your wallet will thank you!

I am still curious as to what surprises C4.1 will hold when it drops. But I doubt if I will switch back.

All of this is but my opinion and my experience.

best regards,
Tallis
Old 9th September 2007
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Finnish's Avatar
 

Reaper rules. Haven't touched Pro Tools since I got into Reaper-world. Just my 2€
Old 9th September 2007
  #19
Gear Addict
 
JesseJ's Avatar
 

I've been using Cubase since.. well Atari.. and on a daily basis since 1999.
I love my SX3 and with the latest update (2005) it is quite stable. However, I think Steinberg should get their **** together and have updates and bugfixes a lot lot more often. Since I have used it so much, I know it inside out, all key commands etc have my hundred presets etc.

I've been testing reaper lately, and they pretty much nailed it. By version 3 I am pretty sure it is going to be the perfect killer app. The sucky things about reaper has not to do with functionality, but more with the looks of it. It is quite ugly and it seems they need to hire a GUI designer. I'm quite sure they will, eventually when it is out of the quick development stage, where you would have to redesign pretty things every second. Also the name REAPER.. they should definitely rethink the name as I don't think it sounds very professional, not something I would tell a client I'm using.

Anyways, I think Reaper will eventually end up being a wonderful product and I think it is a very welcome 'enema' for the competition.

You asked which is better.. 'vs'

My answer is that both are better. You can record and mix good music with both.
For the price Reaper is excellent.
Old 9th September 2007
  #20
Lives for gear
 

tallisman.
just want to say.
v good OBJECTIVE post.
kudos.
Old 9th September 2007
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Empty Planet's Avatar
 

Hear, hear. I agree. Nice one, Tallisman.

Been checking out the new beta. The basic functionality of the MIDI -- simple stuff like moving notes around and copy and paste -- seems to have gotten much better since the last time I worked with it.

The app's feature set is definitely growing by leaps and bounds.



Cheers.

Old 9th September 2007
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herman Munster View Post
I'm using Cubase SL3 and am considering upgrading to Cubase 4, but wanted to ask this question - how does Cubase 4 compare to Reaper? Anyone out there use both? I'm just wanting to make sure I'm not making a mistake before dropping the $$$. I'm a little bothered by the fact that Steinberg has dropped support for DX plugs. I also use a good number of soft synths/VSTi's and was curious as to Reaper's MIDI programming capabilities as I like Cubase quite a bit in this area. thanks.
As others have no doubt pointed out, Reaper is a young and evolving product.

If you compare it, feature-for-feature with mature DAWs put out by big publishers like Steinberg, Cakewalk, Apple, Digi, MOTU, etc, you're going to be comparing something that is in its early stages with products that have gone through many years of development.


But the real answer to your question is for you to simply try Reaper and evaluate its suitability to your needs yourself. Unlike some platforms, Reaper has not just a free demo -- but allows a full, unfettered evaluation.

And to anyone who would doubt Cockos commitment to advancing the product, read Tallisman's post above on how fast they added a "view takes in lanes" type feature -- a matter of hours.

I really like the idea that Frankel was first going to make a vid to show Tallis a quick workaround but then decided it would be just about as fast to code a new solution to the problem! Damn... that is developing with a big-ass capital D.


(FWIW, I'm very happy, in general with my own DAW, Sonar, which I've been using for mutlichannel audio DAW work since 1996. So I haven't switched. But I'm keeping a close eye on Reaper for all the reasons others have cited. I keep an eval copy on my machine and update it somewhat frequently just to see what's new. I think it's an exciting product from a really admirable developer.)
Old 10th September 2007
  #23
Damn, those posts got me sold on Reaper...
Downloading...
Old 11th September 2007
  #24
Lives for gear
 
GordZilla's Avatar
 

Nice work indeed Tallisman... awesome post

It's true!! Reaper is worth looking into

I was a bit skeptical at first, but after downloading the full-bore uncrippled demo, and giving it a good spin over the course of a weekend, I was quite impressed. Coming from a Sonar background, I found Reaper to be fairly intuitive... enough to be mixing within 10 minutes of installing it, and all without having to refer much to the very well written user guide...nice. I like the looks of it (already numerous great skins can be found and d/led), and found it's interface much more mature than I would have expected. The burgeoning and fanatical community that is developing along with it is exciting, and harkens back to another time.

I did have some issues with running my 2 UAD-1 cards with it though... I would get some pretty wicked stuttering and dropouts on playback, running half a dozen or so instances each of the 1176s and LA2As... but playing around with the buffer settings in Reaper helped.

I am hoping to try it out on a laptop with my Mackie Onyx board's firewire interface, and I suspect Reaper will compliment it nicely (and be easier to figure out than Tracktion).

I don't plan on ditching Sonar just yet... but I don't think I will be un-installing Reaper any time soon either. The unbelievably cheap cost of a license makes it a pretty compelling to have it around as another tool in the box, right along with whatever other DAW you may already have.

Two thumbs up for Reaper indeed
Old 11th September 2007
  #25
Well, for me right now, Reaper is gonna wait a little.
Since I work 100% on a mac the actual version is not fully functional.
But I liked what I had working. The program is fast, intuitive, and worked like a charm for the 1 1/2 hours I messed with it.
I'm waiting for the final release!
Old 11th September 2007
  #26
Lives for gear
 
FireMoon's Avatar
I've noticed an increasing number of people who are doig the basics in whatever DAW they ahve been suing for umpteen years..Rendering all the midi tracks then taking the whole project into Reaper for mixing...

I think this is for two reasons. 1. That Reaper is so easy to mix in, ala it's layout and it does give you routing options no other DAW seems to.

2 Goodwill, there seems to be a groundswell amongst the music fraternity that at last, there is someone out there listening to the people who actually use the software. There is no sesne of , buy our product, oh it doesn't work so what is your ilok/registration number please, before they will speak to you. No hiding behind shoddy work under the banner of ,"it must be your system".

It is , IMHO, frankly both churlish and chidlish to sit sniping about Reaper from the sidelines then start moaning about your own DAW and the total lack of responce you get from customer service over your problems.


If there is something you have a beef about with Reaper, get it and make a noise about it.If it is something that many people seem to want fixed, chances are, it will be.
Old 11th September 2007
  #27
Does Reaper have delay compensation for stuff like UAD, LM, Duende, etc...?
Old 11th September 2007
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeronimo View Post
Does Reaper have delay compensation for stuff like UAD, LM, Duende, etc...?
Yes, auto and user-definable.


Cheers,
David
Old 11th September 2007
  #29
Lives for gear
 

I dont think it is that clear.

Tallisman gave better details but the short of it is it depends on what you need the DAW to do (midi, audio or both) and to what degree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy-boy View Post
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:
Agreed, Reaper is well advanced of Cbase in audio routing/handling.

True, Cbase's midi is vast and much better than Reaper.

Quote:
- Audio Editor
Not true. Reaper and Cubase have similar audio editors. Not the way they edit, but in features. I might even give the nod to Reaper.

Reaper also allows you to integrate two editors of your choice. (I have not felt the need to include SoundForge and will not get further upgrades. )

Quote:
- Offline process history / Non-destructive audio editing
Not true. In fact Reaper has a more comprehensive undo/process history mechanism and is also non-destructive.
From the feature list:
Multi-layer undo/redo with history window (works on all project settings including edits, routing, plug-ins, etc)

Quote:
- Score Editor
True, to the degree of maturity Cbase has.

Quote:
- Control Room
Well, eh. I believe others covered this but:
Control room as tracks routed to HW for additional outs....that is totally doable in reaper to a much greater degree of flexibility and configurability.

Quote:
- Hardware integration
As in control surface or external FX?
Either way both are covered in Reaper though Cbase has more control surface support. (I use a US2400 and Tranzport just fine.)

Quote:
- Device panels
Reaper contains this info in the Preferences dialog. Which, btw, is a text file that is save-able/move-able to any location for easy profile/environment backup and human readable/editable.
Ask about EASE of upgrades. Cake.

Quote:
- 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.
It is basic, yes, but not that limiting. It really depends on what you do.

It works fine for me, but I just use an occasional synth/string here or there.

Plus, that area is being target recently by the developer. And given the past progress of upgrades, I expect big things to happen quickly.

Quote:
Reaper seems amaturish at the moment. It's lacking in features and the GUI is terrible.
Amaturish is hard to quantify. Too subjective to the end user.

Features...well aside from midi it is advanced in features.
REAPER | Features Overview
GUI, well version 1.x stock, yes. Version 2.X is great. BUT...BUT either way, it is oh so customizable. So, no there.

Quote:
All that being said, I do admire Justin Frankel's responsiveness. I admire the fact that the programmer listens to the customers. I admire the fact that updates are frequent. I admire that user feedback on new features is welcomed and taken to heart.
-Tom
Agreed. He rocks.

Really, the you have to live with this thing to really get it OR, better yet, read the manual.

It really offers insights into the design mentality which is what really sheds light on the way it should be done.

That is really the take-away. It was designed by someone who really uses the product and not just makes do with the tools at hand.

I used version 1.7x for the first-time on a project I mixed in about 4 hours. That was learning the tool AND the song. That sealed the deal for me.


Regards,
David
Old 11th September 2007
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Yes, auto and user-definable.


Cheers,
David
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...
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
mahasandi / Cockos Reaper
38
Kyle S / Cockos Reaper
45
Cymbals / Q+A with - Justin Frankel (designer of Reaper)
1
pipelineaudio / Q+A with - Justin Frankel (designer of Reaper)
5
Ravian / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump