How does REAPER do it?

[Xenakios]

How many hours do you suppose it takes to code a DAW from scratch -- even a modest one?

If I didn't have to write all the code from scratch, such as GUI libraries, audio file I/O and audio hardware I/O, I'd expect to be able to write a primitively functional multitrack audio application in less than a week. But obviously most of the remaining development time would go into supporting badly done 3rd party plugins and drivers and general performance etc...Also things like "commercial grade" timestretchers are not something one could necessarily roll from scratch with limited man hour resources.

[eduardo_b]

How many hours do you suppose it takes to code a DAW from scratch -- even a modest one?

If I didn't have to write all the code from scratch, such as GUI libraries, audio file I/O and audio hardware I/O, I'd expect to be able to write a primitively functional multitrack audio application in less than a week. But obviously most of the remaining development time would go into supporting badly done 3rd party plugins and drivers and general performance etc...Also things like "commercial grade" timestretchers are not something one could necessarily roll from scratch with limited man hour resources.

Primitively functional. I think I've tried one or two of those.

[Architeuthis]

HAHA...yeah seriously. Reaper this Reaper that...it only got to be where its at because there's a free version. I guarantee if from day one it would have cost a certain amount, it wouldn't be as popular. It's a piece of shit work environment and those who get anything done with it more than likely write self indulgent noise.

I used to use Cubase, and now I will never use anything but REAPER, and I've composed plenty of quality pieces. I still can't believe ProTools is the industry standard, makes me sick. I have to use that piece of garbage software every week in my Audio Production college class.

[EvilDragon]

+1 on above. I've done quite a bit with Reaper, as well.

[kelldammit]

With much less to lose, the Reaper guys can move quickly, recklessly even, if they so choose. They don't have legacy customers built up over ten years or more to please (or at least not disappoint too drastically)...

<snipped to save space>

that hits the nail on the head pretty well, i think.

the other disadvantage "the big boys" have is that they basically have a market-research-developed roadmap to follow, and often completely ignore features, bugs or performance issues their userbase might have been screaming for or about for years. then come the paid upgrades that will introduce "more junk", but not fix what's been broken since the last paid upgrade. even though most users eventually find good use for that "junk", it gets called "bloat" because their pet issues weren't addressed. peoples' tolerances hit their limits, and the b-word goes flying. every daw sees fairly regular influxes/outfluxes of users because of this stuff. if anything, i'd argue that reaper suffers feature bloat, but since its resource footprint is so small, it's called "feature rich". it's kinda like your bank account dictating whether you're stark raving crazy or just "a bit eccentric". if an empty reaper project sucked up 500mb ram, while cubase only used 250, you could bet "bloated POS" would be the word of the day, rather than just "POS" .

i also suspect that if there were parity from daw to daw as regards performance, "bloat" would largely disappear. the marginal, obsolete machines, despite how they're derided around here, clearly illustrate there is no such parity. for instance, i could run 2x as many of the same au vi's in logic as i could in dp on the same machine, at a given buffer setting, despite all the "bloat" logic installed that dp didn't. we'll say for the sake of argument that the hardware snobs sneer and go "well, your machine is obviously not up to snuff." so i obligingly go make a payment on some apple or intel exec's summer home. i can STILL use 2x as many vi's with logic than i can with dp. the only difference is how much farther i can get with dp before the brute force of the new hardware can no longer overcome the less efficient code. i could probably skip every other upgrade cycle just by sticking with logic, and get the same work accomplished.
i think the newer devs are clued into this, and as an act of selfless compassion, are trying to spare some intel execs' children the sheer hell of summering in aspen or the riviera

kell

[glokraw]

Reaper is small, fast, affordable, and has a useful demo that allows complete testing, and is rapidly improving. It can even be used for basic multi-track recording in linux. Does that description fit any of the big-box competitors?

(hinthint -it never will )

[eduardo_b]

the other disadvantage "the big boys" have is that they basically have a market-research-developed roadmap to follow, and often completely ignore features, bugs or performance issues their userbase might have been screaming for or about for years.

Ironic, really, because they want the user base for built-in upgrade revenue, but largely ignore them because also want to keep costs down and simply add more customers. They are probably correct in thinking that most will not jump ship for some issues because the learning curve of another DAW will be worse that living with the shortcomings of the current one. They're even willing to treat customers with indifference on support forums because that costs money to staff properly. Unless they feel the effect of new customers going elsewhere upon hearing of poor customer service, bugs that live on even through upgrades and other issues, and existing customers choosing not to upgrade, there's no compelling reason for them to change their business model.

[kelldammit]

Ironic, really, because they want the user base for built-in upgrade revenue, but largely ignore them because also want to keep costs down and simply add more customers. They are probably correct in thinking that most will not jump ship for some issues because the learning curve of another DAW will be worse that living with the shortcomings of the current one. They're even willing to treat customers with indifference on support forums because that costs money to staff properly. Unless they feel the effect of new customers going elsewhere upon hearing of poor customer service, bugs that live on even through upgrades and other issues, and existing customers choosing not to upgrade, there's no compelling reason for them to change their business model.

exactly. it's a sad irony. i seem to remember steinberg's media bay really being a good example...it did work out to be a nice innovation, but it was a real sorespot for a while. old people bailed, and new people came in. the thing is that people change platforms or get burnt by this company or that, and there are really only so many places they can go. in the end, it seems that companies just trade customers rather than lose the business altogether. i don't know how much impact the reapers and podiums really have, as they too seem to gain and lose users in like fashion.
right now, i think digi's pretty much getting to the point where user frustration has become a pretty serious issue...i'm curious to see how they respond.

kell

[Beazlebug]

A couple of thoughts I had about all this:

at some point surely someone one at Steinberg, Cakewalk or whereever will have to admit that there nothing left to add. Audio production software can't indefinitely be improved can it? In the end it's just chucking unnecessary stuff in there (a new synth, effect etc)

I get nostalgic about the dys I first realised you could use a PC as an audio recording tool - I ditched my Fostex 4-track and spend months in rapture at the possibilites suddenly available. For ages it got better all the time, vsts' and all that. Now it seems to be getting a bit cynical. I remember reading the derision by old school hardware people about how writing/producing music on a computer was a laughable gimmick, of course they were all left in the dust, but these days people seem to forget the almost revolutionary turnaround that happened a mere 10 years or so ago. I spent a lot of money on a load of 2nd hand junk thatsomething off a computer music mags freebie sequencer and plug in suite can better tenfold

All these reaper vs logic vs this that and the other leave me a bit cold. I know people like having a dig at those who use an opposing DAW, but christ we are lucky to have what we do these days. I once phoned in sick to work for 3 days when I bought Tracktion 1, such was my joy!

[kelldammit]

lol, and i thought i was alone. you have me beat though. i only played hooky one day from work to buy/play with nuendo (1)
insofar as the daw wars go, my bets are on properformelogicubendoreapitude. it rules all!!!

[eduardo_b]

at some point surely someone one at Steinberg, Cakewalk or whereever will have to admit that there nothing left to add. Audio production software can't indefinitely be improved can it? In the end it's just chucking unnecessary stuff in there (a new synth, effect etc)

I actually think this is what determines the product cycles -- coming up with ideas "big" enough to use in marketing for another round of upgrades. Packing DAWs with instruments, samples and other paraphernalia, plus adding "features" that not even 5 percent of customers will use or care about, is what happens when products mature and the revenue streams begins to cool.

What I think I am seeing is a proliferation of less expensive versions with the stuff people really do use at least 80 percent of the time. I'm guessing the profit margin is lower, but the price points are much more attractive to buyers who aren't going to spend $400 for a host. Of course, there are always some who disparage these versions. "Who can create music with only 24 or 32 tracks?" They'd be surprised.

[dgkenney]

I still can't believe ProTools is the industry standard, makes me sick. I have to use that piece of garbage software every week in my Audio Production college class.

Get well soon.
Don't forget finals are coming.

Dan

[dgkenney]

"Who can create music with only 24 or 32 tracks?"

uhmm, talented creative people? (just a guess )

As John Lennon once said in an interview with Rolling Stone..."I'm an artist, and if you give me a tuba, I'll bring you something out of it even if I have to use Reaper."

Dan

[dgkenney]

Its a lot easier to develop an application when you can just cherry-pick the best features of the established players. Reimplementation is easier than R&D.

I thought I saw some of those feature somewhere.

Well said.

Dan

[Pipelineaudio]

Its a lot easier to develop an application when you can just cherry-pick the best features of the established players. Reimplementation is easier than R&D.

I thought I saw some of those feature somewhere.

Well said.

Dan

Could be, the basics of REAPER were well laid out back when the only DAW I really knew of was Audiofile