EnergyXT is a nice LOW OVERHEAD DAW

[tadam]

can u elaborate?

I edited the post.

However, i think you are familiar with this situation:
One sets the loop marker, set the transport in cycle mode, hit record and then watch the wave straying away from the loop markers, defeating its purpose.

It doesn't have to be a sophisticated system but at least having a way to choose between takes (Loop layers) would increase XT value exponentially. All the rest and then some it's already there.

[theorize]

low overhead? maybe if you're not using vsti's. for me it seems to hog system resources and crashes a lot when using plugins but hey maybe others have better luck

[xx JPRacer xx]

low overhead? maybe if you're not using vsti's. for me it seems to hog system resources and crashes a lot when using plugins but hey maybe others have better luck

I use only vstis and eXT has even less overhead than Reaper.

[spacedad]

can u elaborate?

I edited the post.

However, i think you are familiar with this situation:
One sets the loop marker, set the transport in cycle mode, hit record and then watch the wave straying away from the loop markers, defeating its purpose.

It doesn't have to be a sophisticated system but at least having a way to choose between takes (Loop layers) would increase XT value exponentially. All the rest and then some it's already there.

maybe there's a switch to make it record over,ask in the ext forum.
but it makes sense to me cos you can just select the best take and cut it.
you know what i mean?
play along with the loop recording all,then cut the best bits?

[Dewaine]

low overhead? maybe if you're not using vsti's. for me it seems to hog system resources and crashes a lot when using plugins but hey maybe others have better luck

I use only vstis and eXT has even less overhead than Reaper.

XT does not even have dual core support. It would be fine for an older computer, but if you have a modern DAW it is very inefficient. Reaper is one of the best as far as cpu efficiency, so to compare them is absurd. XT may take up less ram, but you can run way more VSTi's and effects on tracks in Reaper. Nothing wrong with XT, but it is not a modern sequencer as far as efficiency. If the developer would bring XT into the modern era by giving it multi-core support, it would perhaps be a contender.

[robenestobenz]

can u elaborate?

I edited the post.

However, i think you are familiar with this situation:
One sets the loop marker, set the transport in cycle mode, hit record and then watch the wave straying away from the loop markers, defeating its purpose.

It doesn't have to be a sophisticated system but at least having a way to choose between takes (Loop layers) would increase XT value exponentially. All the rest and then some it's already there.

maybe there's a switch to make it record over,ask in the ext forum.
but it makes sense to me cos you can just select the best take and cut it.
you know what i mean?
play along with the loop recording all,then cut the best bits?

This is not there, sadly. For my workflow, this is one of the biggest steps backwards from XT1 still remaining .