Questions about Reaper

[LawrenceF]

what you'd be doing in your hypothetical situation you're admitting you're not qualified to assess is utterly and completely missing the point. coding is not always logic driven, full stop.

Very true. We're on the web though so for some 'experts on everything' the only applicable code lines are...

Code: Select all

Do Until The Internet Shuts Down
  Blather on endlessly without really knowing;
Loop

[BMoore]

Reaper is coded the way it is because that means you can customize it to whatever workflow you want.
The artist doesn't need to customize to Reaper.

not really- I want all window and element sizing to follow the same conventions - can't be done in Reaper - resizing an audio track or fx window uses a completely different convention to lanes/edit pane in the midi editor.
reaper is coded the way it is because the dev likes keeping the codebase manageable so uses a lot of OS inbuilt libraries where possible and has no interest in UX (says so himself).

You clearly misunderstood my post.

[woggle]

Reaper is coded the way it is because that means you can customize it to whatever workflow you want.
The artist doesn't need to customize to Reaper.

not really- I want all window and element sizing to follow the same conventions - can't be done in Reaper - resizing an audio track or fx window uses a completely different convention to lanes/edit pane in the midi editor.
reaper is coded the way it is because the dev likes keeping the codebase manageable so uses a lot of OS inbuilt libraries where possible and has no interest in UX (says so himself).

You clearly misunderstood my post.

in what way? - one workflow consideration is changing the size of tracks/items etc. I would like as a fundamental aspect of workflow to have consistency in how I do that - which is not possible in Reaper.

[JerGoertz]

I understand Reaper has a bridge for 32-bit plugins but is natively 64 bit... is this correct? How is the bridge's stability/timing-reliability/CPU-usage? Anyone compared it to JBridge running on Cubase?

I'm finally making the transition to 64-bit DAWs, as my sample libraries tend to overwhelm a 4gb memory space nowadays. Thanks for everyone's input, this has been enlightening for me! It sounds like Reaper is customizable enough with the features I need and good CPU usage and stability to meet my needs.

[BMoore]

Reaper is coded the way it is because that means you can customize it to whatever workflow you want.
The artist doesn't need to customize to Reaper.

not really- I want all window and element sizing to follow the same conventions - can't be done in Reaper - resizing an audio track or fx window uses a completely different convention to lanes/edit pane in the midi editor.
reaper is coded the way it is because the dev likes keeping the codebase manageable so uses a lot of OS inbuilt libraries where possible and has no interest in UX (says so himself).

You clearly misunderstood my post.

in what way? - one workflow consideration is changing the size of tracks/items etc. I would like as a fundamental aspect of workflow to have consistency in how I do that - which is not possible in Reaper.

I’m not saying everything is customizable.
But Reaper IS very customizable, despite you finding resizing items in Reaper so different from other DAWs and what you’re used to, to be a workflow issue.

[aMUSEd]

I understand Reaper has a bridge for 32-bit plugins but is natively 64 bit... is this correct? How is the bridge's stability/timing-reliability/CPU-usage? Anyone compared it to JBridge running on Cubase?

Don't have Cubase but compared to JBridge Reaper's bridge is much more stable and works better (on Mac). It also works better than Bitwigs now, used to be the other way round though, I like the workflow of Bitwig's better but currently it's bugged on Mac.

[woggle]

Reaper is coded the way it is because that means you can customize it to whatever workflow you want.
The artist doesn't need to customize to Reaper.

not really- I want all window and element sizing to follow the same conventions - can't be done in Reaper - resizing an audio track or fx window uses a completely different convention to lanes/edit pane in the midi editor.
reaper is coded the way it is because the dev likes keeping the codebase manageable so uses a lot of OS inbuilt libraries where possible and has no interest in UX (says so himself).

You clearly misunderstood my post.

in what way? - one workflow consideration is changing the size of tracks/items etc. I would like as a fundamental aspect of workflow to have consistency in how I do that - which is not possible in Reaper.

I’m not saying everything is customizable.
But Reaper IS very customizable, despite you finding resizing items in Reaper so different from other DAWs and what you’re used to, to be a workflow issue.

LOL - trying to get the insult in re "what you're used to" what a fanboi. Guys like you have really held Reaper back by smothering critical evaluation in fanboi hostility and ignorant fud. Hopeless.

[Trancit]

I understand Reaper has a bridge for 32-bit plugins but is natively 64 bit... is this correct? How is the bridge's stability/timing-reliability/CPU-usage? Anyone compared it to JBridge running on Cubase?

Don't have Cubase but compared to JBridge Reaper's bridge is much more stable and works better (on Mac). It also works better than Bitwigs now, used to be the other way round though, I like the workflow of Bitwig's better but currently it's bugged on Mac.

Funny, for me on PC it´s the opposite...
The most problems give me Reaper´s internal bridge, while I never had a problem with jbridge or Bitwig´s bridge

[EvilDragon]

Personally I've never had stability issues with Reaper's bit-bridge (Windows here as well). There were a couple of GUI sizing issues with old NI plugins (Vokator, Spektral Delay), but nothing that made it crash really.

All 20 32-bit plugins that I still use are running perfectly... (Pro-53, SQ8L, Virtual Sound Canvas, ProSoloVST, RMI-EP, VL-122, Fuzzpilz, old GSi stuff, quadraSID, VAZ Modular, Elektrostudio, Yamaha's XG softsynth...)

[BMoore]

Reaper is coded the way it is because that means you can customize it to whatever workflow you want.
The artist doesn't need to customize to Reaper.

not really- I want all window and element sizing to follow the same conventions - can't be done in Reaper - resizing an audio track or fx window uses a completely different convention to lanes/edit pane in the midi editor.
reaper is coded the way it is because the dev likes keeping the codebase manageable so uses a lot of OS inbuilt libraries where possible and has no interest in UX (says so himself).

You clearly misunderstood my post.

in what way? - one workflow consideration is changing the size of tracks/items etc. I would like as a fundamental aspect of workflow to have consistency in how I do that - which is not possible in Reaper.

I’m not saying everything is customizable.
But Reaper IS very customizable, despite you finding resizing items in Reaper so different from other DAWs and what you’re used to, to be a workflow issue.

LOL - trying to get the insult in re "what you're used to" what a fanboi. Guys like you have really held Reaper back by smothering critical evaluation in fanboi hostility and ignorant fud. Hopeless.

Oh wow. What a moronic reply. Running out of arguments already? Now shees.

[huberkinky]

Going back to an original question, Reaper is best as a DAW without major h/ware. If you have Cubase, use for MIDI if you are very creative and you're composing a lot.

But for recording audio, it's VERY stable, even on old plugins 32, very efficient and fast. Highly customized - it's almost crazy how far you can go with customizing.

Only shoddy plugging will give you problems and causally new plugins version 1.0. But expect the same problems with plugins on any other DAW, but much more frequently.

The biggest problem is learn how to customize it. It's not EASY at all. But when you past through it, you can even... love it. I'm so stubborn and also I could not stand Cubase as a DAW, only great as MIDI and the rest... heard of lot of complains about other DAW's much worse and not very stable, so I'm still with Reaper, dreaming that someday some obvious problems will be polished.

Because has only 11.5 MB file, it's FAST and does not take enormous resources from Windows. Meaning, more tricks you could use and more plugins.

Lately I have used two heavy songs for, using my machine 28% each and I was copying some tracks with FX from one song to another, playing often one and another and, while sometimes is a risky, worked very well. As a audio Reaper is fantastic. But you have to learn a lot, even if you have made several songs in different DAW. It's very different and better be prepared for slow process of learning.

[dupont]

@huderkinky

It don't think Reaper is so difficult to customize.
It is quite easy to create a toolbar and add shortcuts on it, once you understand how to do (a mather of few minutes) you can make several shortcuts and make a DAW that's suits your need. Imagine you add a shortcut a day, within 1 month, you have the most powerfull DAW on earth made for you !
It is also esay to download a theme in the Reaper stash and change if you don't like the official.
I used several DAWs to make techno tracks, Logic, Studio one, Live and Reaper.
Currently, all my tracks are done with Reaper because I have customized it to my need.
You can make heavy midi editing thanks to scripts which are also are easy to add to reaper.
Every DAW has a learning curve, Reaper is perhaps a little slower but at the end, once you customised it according to your need, you will noticed that it worth it and it becomes hard to work with another DAW.
The other day, I started to make a track on Logic and wish I had started it in Reaper because I missed all that usefull toolbars and shortcuts. So I closed Logic and went back to Reaper !

I send this reply and open Reaper to work on my next track !

[huberkinky]

Every DAW has a learning curve, Reaper is perhaps a little slower but at the end, once you customized it according to your need, you will noticed that it worth it and it becomes hard to work with another DAW.
The other day, I started to make a track on Logic and wish I had started it in Reaper because I missed all that usefull toolbars and shortcuts. So I closed Logic and went back to Reaper !

Because you came from Logic!

I didn't even try to record in Logic. I've tried in Cubase and gave up as well.

I still have some problems unsolved and what puzzles me is that no one cares. On every track you can write many information, like what sound you used, what tricks you have done. That would be a brilliant idea, but that thing will wipe out all information you have written. I have few synths and I have designed several good sounds. In one mix I had a brilliant pad with nice sweeping filter.
A needed that pad on other song and I could not find it for 2 weeks, searching like a mad.

Finally I have found it accidentally. Compared with an original and bingo. Now I'm writing on Notepad all sounds I'm using on songs. That will NEVER disappear!

Another less annoying thing is automation lines are not working properly, having some square lines, not following what I have done.

Of course I can live with that, but... can you imagine some hot shot producer with Reaper in studio, swearing on Reaper because all of his notes are gone and his client is waiting for some info!?

Of course, when you made Reaper working for you and you have customize it, it's almost impossible to go to Logic or Cubase.

But I have PTools 5.4 20 years old and going back sometimes to PT, I'm recording on PT vocals, having hardware 888 I/O and my Avalone 737 - no latency and great sound from slightly busted 888.

Never swearing on PT, however their producers have a reputation... I'll better shut up!

Hahahahahahaha...

[ENV1]

Now I'm writing on Notepad all sounds I'm using on songs.

You could also use VSTNotepad:

https://www.codefn42.com/vstnotepad/

[huberkinky]

You're champion man!

Many thanx. Works very well. If I'm changing anything in Preferences, it does in all instances of that song, which is great!

Just Reaper wiped out again all my sounds name on 22 tracks, but I've opened song saved 4 days ago and copied all names and sources on right tracks. I'm always saving songs I'm working on every 2 or 4 days, If I'm changing something bigger, like sound or track, or different track of vocals or reverb etc..

In my case that's a very important info I have to have. Even when I want to use the same sound on another track and another song, I can always go to previous song and find what I have used.

It uses 0.1 of processor but I rather have it than not!

Thanx again...