DAW with a nearly great piano roll like fl studio?

[VariKusBrainZ]

I haven't played much with FL Studio's piano roll but it looks much more intuitive and powerful than Reaper's.

Your a brave man to declare such opinion.

Lock your doors tonight.

The Reaper girls will be coming for you.

[Danilo Villanova]

I haven't played much with FL Studio's piano roll but it looks much more intuitive and powerful than Reaper's.

Your a brave man to declare such opinion.

Lock your doors tonight.

The Reaper girls will be coming for you.

IKR Well, I'm not afraid! I've broken free from the cult of Reaper!

Seriously, Reaper is a great DAW, I just think is more fon engineers than musicians. At least that's how it feels to me. I'm learning Cakewalk now and I'm really liking it, so I guess I should beware of the Reaper girls AND the Cakewalk haters!

[InLight-Tone]

Reaper is like the Frankenstein of DAW's. Powerful yes, in some respects, but a mind f**k of patched scripts that ends up feeling cheap like a home made go-kart, rather than a well engineered car proper...

[JoseC.]

Reaper is like the Frankenstein of DAW's. Powerful yes, in some respects, but a mind f**k of patched scripts that ends up feeling cheap like a home made go-kart, rather than a well engineered car proper...

More like if the Frankenstein monster was sold as a kit by Ikea.

[re23071998]

I'm super fine with live & bitwig piano roll

[lessera]

Nonsense...

A DAW is only as stable and as efficient as the person that knows or doesn't know how to use it.

This time you've outdone yourself.

I dunno... I think he does make a good point about efficiency of a DAW (it wasn't specifically stated whether 'efficient' refers to Reaper's coding, or workflow).

I 'know' Cubase inside-and-out (18 years of use will do that to a person). As such, I get a project done in half the amount of time it would take me in Reaper (which I am still relatively unfamiliar with). That, for me anyway, makes Cubase the more efficient DAW.

Regarding coding efficiency... I've no idea. I am no programmer. But, I don't see any radical difference in CPU use when I load up 5 instances of Serum in either DAW.

As for the Piano Roll discussion... that's a tough one. I will miss Cubase's 'right-click-toolbox' approach to piano roll editing if I ever move on to something else.

[chk071]

I haven't played much with FL Studio's piano roll but it looks much more intuitive and powerful than Reaper's.

Your a brave man to declare such opinion.

Lock your doors tonight.

The Reaper girls will be coming for you.

[Trancit]

I dunno... I think he does make a good point about efficiency of a DAW (it wasn't specifically stated whether 'efficient' refers to Reaper's coding, or workflow).

I 'know' Cubase inside-and-out (18 years of use will do that to a person). As such, I get a project done in half the amount of time it would take me in Reaper (which I am still relatively unfamiliar with). That, for me anyway, makes Cubase the more efficient DAW.

Regarding coding efficiency... I've no idea. I am no programmer. But, I don't see any radical difference in CPU use when I load up 5 instances of Serum in either DAW.

As for the Piano Roll discussion... that's a tough one. I will miss Cubase's 'right-click-toolbox' approach to piano roll editing if I ever move on to something else.

The original question was about stability and CPU efficency not workflow efficency...
And beside of plugins used... there is nothing a more advanced user can do different than a newbie...
And for this reason his post was nonsense

[lessera]

You're right. It was CPU efficiency that was in question. So yeah... I agree. I am not sure how the user has any bearing on that.