Polarized opinions about Reaper

[Boone777]

Can I see a plugin thumbnail from the browser ? Nope..

https://reaper.hector-corcin.com/app/track-templates

[SJ_Digriz]

That template is like Reaper Themes. As long as you don't try to do anything it looks good. But as soon as you click something you realize it's just lipstick on a pig.

[kokotte]

second, reaper, with a new ui, will be the boss of the town.

What new UI? Is that a rumor or what? Any links or relations?

nothing, i think, it will be a normal evolution

[Zexila]

So not polar opposites after all...

So Reaper has per-note quantize undo too. Guess they're exactly the same DAW now.

So just because they aren't totally the same, they are totally different, makes sense. Is Reaper even a DAW on that polar opposite?

[Romantique Tp]

Different DAWs are good at different things even though most of them share 3/4 of the features. But you're obviously aware of that and just looking to waste someone's time.

[lolilol1975]

I build highly complex instruments in Reaktor so I'm not scared of complexity, however Reaper has a 'screw you if you don't like me' type of arrogance to it, and that is subsequently the impression I get from the developers. It's like 'we made it', 'don't like it'..you fix it approach. Sure Reaper has some nice idea's up it's sleeve, but it's overall package and experience makes that pretty much redundant.

Someone mentioned it was like a Indi program, I think that hit's the nail on the head, nice idea's but really a hollow experience overall.

The native plugin's as few as there are look like they still living in 1998. Developer doesn't care about providing the solid meat and bones other daws have and are. Can I see a plugin thumbnail from the browser ? Nope..

I'll throw one bone it's way though.. it works on Linux where some other mainstream daws will throw a fit

Again, I disagree from top to bottom. Somehow, it crashes on your computer while that's not the experience of most users. Reaper has a reputation of extreme stability, I doubt it comes from the imagination of its users. I am the first to tell if something is unstable and generally it doesn't stay long on my HD. But it's not me, it's an almost universal experience.

As for your opinion that the developers adopt a "screw you attitude", again I disagree. They have their priorities and you have to be patient, but my experience is, they do listen to users.

Three examples:
1) users begged for a notation editor, they made one (not sure how many people really use it).
2) We were many saying the MIDI editor was unusable, they made a big effort on it; and while still not perfect, it's already more usable than on most other DAWs.
3) People were asking for ARA support, and while they said it was a tedious process after taking a first stab at it a long time ago, they have just anounced that they are including it.

All of these are big features. In the meantime, they have also worked on core features like automation items or other major features that few people asked, but many appreciate, like spectral editing and remote control.
Also, contrarily to what you're saying, the developers strike me by their humility. You'll have to explain why there are so many spontaneous "Thank you" threads in the forum, something you will hardly ever see elsewhere. Here are a few of them:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=37155
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=39330
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=62060
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=65411
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=60408
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=73210
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=71713
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=92939
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=93738
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=96679
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=169309
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=172242
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=172983
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=187528
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=185390

That's only a small sample of such threads. I'm sure there is a dozen like that every year. I doubt it would happen if the devs were sitting in their ivory tower.

[Zexila]

Different DAWs are good at different things even though most of them share 3/4 of the features. But you're obviously aware of that and just looking to waste someone's time.

Still not polar opposites, if anything Reaper is closer to Cubase than majority of others. You are obviously aware of how ridiculous your statement is, but you keep defending it nonetheless wasting time and any self respect.

[SJ_Digriz]

Reaper has a reputation of extreme stability, I doubt it comes from the imagination of its users. I am the first to tell if something is unstable and generally it doesn't stay long on my HD.

Reaper has a self feedback loop of you guys telling yourselves how stable it is. You accept your own isolated, untested and anecdotal evidence, while shunning any other.

But it's not me, it's an almost universal experience.

No, it's far from universal.

Cubase is more stable for me than Reaper because of my use case. In general I don't think either is unstable. But, I don't think FLStudio, DP, Pro Tools, Samplitude or Sonar are unstable either.

Reaper has plugin sandboxing, which comes with its own penalty. I prefer just to not use plugins that don't behave, instead of blaming the host for someone else's shity code. This is not restrictive as the VAST majority of plugins behave in most hosts and fix it quickly when things are brought to the attention of the dev.

[ghettosynth]

Reaper has a reputation of extreme stability, I doubt it comes from the imagination of its users. I am the first to tell if something is unstable and generally it doesn't stay long on my HD.

Reaper has a self feedback loop of you guys telling yourselves how stable it is. You accept your own isolated, untested and anecdotal evidence, while shunning any other.

Pot kettle and all that. We are not talking about just our own experiences, but, like you, we have a memory of many experiences over many systems, of the experiences of others, all over many years.

So, yes, we report our own experiences and, among those, there is an almost universal experience of reliability. That is not an overstatement, it is not "fanatical." Your anecdotal experience is not a refutation of those claims.

But it's not me, it's an almost universal experience.

No, it's far from universal.

He said, "almost" universal.

Cubase is more stable for me than Reaper because of my use case. In general I don't think either is unstable. But, I don't think FLStudio, DP, Pro Tools, Samplitude or Sonar are unstable either.

I don't think that other hosts are "unstable" either, you are painting a false dichotomy. The claim is that many aspects of how Reaper is developed lead it being more consistently stable across more users and more systems than many other hosts. In my experience and in my perception of the experiences of others, this is true. I think that this is part and parcel with what people don't like about Reaper. It's ugly dialog boxes, for example, don't have the custom appeal of those of other hosts, but they then aren't responsible for the strange graphics bugs, e.g., like Steinberg's (now fixed) long standing bug with their patch browser and DPI scaling.

No, this is not "science", but neither is your singular anecdotal rebuttal.

Reaper has plugin sandboxing, which comes with its own penalty. I prefer just to not use plugins that don't behave, instead of blaming the host for someone else's shity code. This is not restrictive as the VAST majority of plugins behave in most hosts and fix it quickly when things are brought to the attention of the dev.

That's wishful thinking. Cubase 5.x was unstable and a buggy cesspool for years. It was THE reason that I switched to other DAWs in the first place.

However, you can't on the one hand claim that you've experienced instability with particular plugins and then on the other hand say that the product is stable when you don't actually know why the plugin was unstable in the first place. It's your untested and unvalidated opinion that the plugin was "shitty." Just because you don't like sandboxing doesn't mean that it doesn't make for a more stable experience. You are all but admitting that in your response.

I also don't think that people can on the one hand say that "Reaper appeals to techies and engineers" and then so easily dismiss the opinions regarding stability of that type of user? Which is it? Are we technical types who understand computers and things like stability and buggy software, or is that characterization only convenient when it suits the argument dujour?

[SJ_Digriz]

That's wishful thinking. Cubase 5.x was unstable and a buggy cesspool for years. It was THE reason that I switched to other DAWs in the first place.

Oh yes, Reaper has never had a release where a line of code was not perfection. Got it .. sure, yep. Unicorns and all that.

[ghettosynth]

That's wishful thinking. Cubase 5.x was unstable and a buggy cesspool for years. It was THE reason that I switched to other DAWs in the first place.

Oh yes, Reaper has never had a release where a line of code was not perfection. Got it .. sure, yep. Unicorns and all that.

That's a strawman. Read the thread, I have reported Reaper specific issues in this thread. However, Reaper has not had that kind of stability inconsistency at any time in my memory which goes back to the earliest releases of version 3.x. Cubase did not really reached a usable level of stability for me until version 9.x. Even 8.x had the crash on exit bug and the DPI bug that I mentioned above.

So over time, Cubase has absolutely been less stable than Reaper across all versions of the product released during the same window. All else being equal we would expect Reaper to be less stable because it has not been developed for as long as Cubase. So there is no excuse for Cubase 5.x here and your observation does not refute the argument nor does it support your case. If Steinberg was as consistent as Cockos in creating stable software, 5.x should have been more stable than Reaper 3.x, but it wasn't.

BTW: that is the timeline. Reaper 3.x was out at about the same time as Cubase 5.x because that's when I started using it to make sure that the problems that I was experiencing across MULTIPLE computers and MULTIPLE plugins and MULTIPLE operating systems were actually with Cubase and not with my hardware or other plugins.

The same argument can be made for Live 8 which was also a crashfest across multiple operating systems. Reason was super stable at the time but it did not host VSTs. Now that it does, it also has stability issues and some of those are with plugins that have been consistently stable on other hosts for years.

Nobody is saying that Reaper is bug free or that other hosts are consistently crashfests. People are reporting their cumulative experience over about a decade, give or take. Over that time, Reaper has consistently been more stable than virtually every other DAW that many of us have used on similar systems with similar plugins and similar use cases. Of course, I haven't used ALL DAWs and I doubt that many other users have either.

[chk071]

I think it's pretty safe to say that Reaper didn't had so many big changes under the hood as Cubase though, which kind of voids the whole "more stable" point. It isn't long ago that Steinberg rewrote their ASIO engine, for example, and, there have been numerous reworks of the GUI, and implementation of major new features. Reaper's development is rather snail speed compared. Of course, stability should always be the main consideration, but, i think you can hardly compare Reaper's development to Cubase's.

[ghettosynth]

I think it's pretty safe to say that Reaper didn't had so many big changes under the hood as Cubase though, which kind of voids the whole "more stable" point.

Yep, but NO, it doesn't refute the argument. In fact,I've made that very argument myself. That is one of the reasons WHY Reaper is more stable. Stable is as stable does.

It isn't long ago that Steinberg rewrote their ASIO engine, for example, and, there have been numerous reworks of the GUI, and implementation of major new features.

Yep, all of which lead to instability. Why did Steinberg need to rewrite that ASIO engine in the first place? Could it be that the old code wasn't very maintainable and so they had to start from scratch? Why is that? Do you think that it's possible that, as a team, they aren't as competent as Justin Frankel's team? Or perhaps it's just that their business model drives development decisions that demand pushing out new features?

Nobody is arguing that you can't separate Justin Frankel's personal situation and Reaper's development. The choices that he makes for Reaper may not be possible for other devs. That doesn't invalidate the associated observations, however, that those same choices lead to a more stable product.

Reaper's development is rather snail speed compared. Of course, stability should always be the main consideration, but, i think you can hardly compare Reaper's development to Cubase's.

Whether stability should be the main consideration or not is neither here nor there. That beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What people are saying, and now you clearly agree, is that the Reaper's development model leads to software that is consistently more stable for more users over time.

[chk071]

Hey, Windows XP was also very stable, and look where we are now.

[elassi]

Eye to eye - the washkitchen battle.

Which one will prevail at the end of the wash cycle?