KVR Audio

Delta Sign · Post by **Delta Sign** » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:57 pm

Those numbers taste like pie to me.

I'll show myself out.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:21 pm

Delta Sign wrote:Those numbers taste like pie to me.

There's something missing though, I can't quite put my finger on it.

Chris-S · Post by **Chris-S** » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:43 am

digitalboytn wrote:Like someone else said,check out Kenny Gioia's videos...

The Reaper Blog is very good also:

https://www.youtube.com/user/audiogeekzine/videos

fluffy_little_something · Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:24 pm

Why are synths considered FX?

enroe · Post by **enroe** » Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:05 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Why are synths considered FX?

Haayeah, that might be confusing.

Reaper is the DAW of abstraction. Because in Reaper
every term gets "abstracted".

So a track is always both: An audio-track and a midi-track.
An item can be both: An audio-Item and a midi-Item.
The same with FX: Everything that can be inserted in
a track or into an item is just "FX".

So "FX" can be VST, VSTi (which are synthesizers or
samplers), JS, DX, ...

So also synthesizer are summed up to the generalized
term "FX". "FX" doesn't mean only "effect". Instead it
is an abstract name for anything that can be inserted.

fluffy_little_something · Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:15 pm

Weird, well, I will get used to it

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:20 pm

enroe wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:Why are synths considered FX?
Haayeah, that might be confusing.

Reaper is the DAW of abstraction. Because in Reaper
every term gets "abstracted".

So a track is always both: An audio-track and a midi-track.
An item can be both: An audio-Item and a midi-Item.
The same with FX: Everything that can be inserted in
a track or into an item is just "FX".

So "FX" can be VST, VSTi (which are synthesizers or
samplers), JS, DX, ...

So also synthesizer are summed up to the generalized
term "FX". "FX" doesn't mean only "effect". Instead it
is an abstract name for anything that can be inserted.

I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.

swatwork · Post by **swatwork** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:19 pm

chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.

It's really not that complicated...

reaper_instruments.png

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:25 pm

swatwork wrote:
chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.
It's really not that complicated...
reaper_instruments.png

Yeah. But no one uses that menu, unless you’re a noob.
Everything else is referred to as «fx».

fluffy_little_something · Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:55 pm

Actually, I do use that menu in order to add new tracks.

eluherlu · Post by **eluherlu** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:26 am

The best thing of Reaper is its customization.. It makes me want to build my 'own' daw. I even started to think what if I learn about software development. But it's all too late anyway

Rockatansky · Post by **Rockatansky** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:03 am

chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.

It's the thing I love most about Reaper. I don't have to get lost in specifics. I need a new track, I add a new track. Who cares what it's for. I can use it to record audio and copy the recorded audio items to other tracks, I can use it to do the same with MIDI, I can use it to store text items... call my workflow messy if you must, but I'd rather have one track that does it all, instead of 25 tracks that all do something super specific. And if I want to use the track for something else for a few minutes, I don't have to replace it or add new tracks temporarily. Instrument hosting track, MIDI track, AUX track, folder track, send track, return track, automation track, who the hell has time to think about all those things when you're in a creative mood. Just add a darn track and be done with it. I truly have a hard time understanding why just about any other DAW software would insist on such unnecessary overcomplication. Or why any user would want to distract their creativity with track type handling.

Rockatansky · Post by **Rockatansky** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:09 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:Actually, I do use that menu in order to add new tracks.

Add new empty track: double-click the empty area in the arranger track list. (The dark part on the left, under "2. here" in the screenshot)

Add a new track with an instrument, MIDI routing and recording automatically enabled:

reaper_instruments.png

AdvancedFollower · Post by **AdvancedFollower** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:43 pm

swatwork wrote:
chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.
It's really not that complicated...
reaper_instruments.png

Actually this complicates it further, because in one place (this menu), a VST instrument is referred to as a "virtual instrument", but everywhere else it's still called "FX". So now there's a lack of consistency, in addition to the "abstraction"

For consistency, this menu item should be called "Insert FX on new track", but that would be even more confusing...

swatwork · Post by **swatwork** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:57 pm

AdvancedFollower wrote:Actually this complicates it further, because in one place (this menu), a VST instrument is referred to as a "virtual instrument", but everywhere else it's still called "FX". So now there's a lack of consistency, in addition to the "abstraction" For consistency, this menu item should be called "Insert FX on new track", but that would be even more confusing...

It's not inconsistent at all - this menu option does exactly what it says, insert a virtual instrument. It's specifically dealing with the instrument subset of the available 'FX'.

I guess I don't find this 'FX' thing confusing because I just think 'plugin' when I see it. It might be a little odd at first but I don't think it takes too long to get used to.

General questions on Reaper