Best DAW for large take numbers/comping etc.

[Jkist]

Hello!

I'm having a disaster (again) with Reaper's messed up take handling.

If you have different start and end points for takes, and you record a large number (40 for example) then Reaper is terrible.

If you ever work in this way (not interested in being told not to work in this way) then I'd be super interested in which DAW you use as I'm done with Reaper when I've finished this record.

Excuse my ignorance,I never bother with takes, I just delete and start again until I get it right,but how do you get "different start and end points for takes"?

I thought with takes you set a loop for how many bars you need, and then play the takes and explode them? How do they end up with "different start and end points"?

Different start and ends because dropping in and out to give different comp options for editing later. Doing everything set to the same loop would be a massive time waster.

...HUH!?!

By definition, a "take" is a looped region of time, over and over. Different take on same constrained region of your timeline. In this case, Reaper works pretty well for this.

True, I think Logic, Studio One, and even Ableton are superior when it comes to ease of comping, but Reaper is more than capable. You say you don't want to be told to work differently, but could you at least justify why you are working this way? All other programs are still designed around having a looped region of time where you record multiple takes, because that is the most logical way to work most of the time, so you still might run into frustrations trying to do things your way, even if you switch.

[jancivil]

LOL, that's not any 'by definition', takes was lingo long, long before computers and loops. there is no requirement a take be done on a loop, that's just one way of doing it, set locators to loop. Stopping the machine and recording again is called doing another take, just as much as the other thing.
In a sentence: "Yeah I always try to get it by the second take as it quickly loses its edge going over and over the thing."
"HUH!?!"
One wonders if you've even heard the terms punching in or punching out.

[arkmabat]

Why don't you use Pro Tools? It's basically a glorified tape recorder so you can make hundreds of takes if that's how you roll.

Yes, Pro Tools Free may even work. Good suggestion.

[planetearth]

Why don't you use Pro Tools? It's basically a glorified tape recorder so you can make hundreds of takes if that's how you roll.

Yes, Pro Tools Free may even work. Good suggestion.

I believe Pro Tools First (the free version) is gone. I read something about that here on KVR a few days ago, and Avid's website no longer has a page for it -- what was there is now "under maintenance", and they suggest you check out their other expensive apps...because that's why you were looking for Pro Tools First in the first place.

Cakewalk by Bandlab is free and has a robust set of options for multiple takes and comping. Not sure if it will do what the OP wants, because the thread is a little difficult to follow.

Steve

[cryophonik]

Have you tried Reaper? Oh wait…

Cakewalk by Bandlab is free and has a robust set of options for multiple takes and comping. Not sure if it will do what the OP wants, because the thread is a little difficult to follow.

Steve

When I used Sonar/cakewalk, I really liked the way it handled multiple takes and comping. It’s free, so you’ve got nothing to lose except a little time to explore it.

[ZargonTheMagnificent]

I've done some more testing with S1 and it seems good! I'll also have a look at Cakewalk, but my eyes aren't amazing and I have always found Sonar to be the hardest DAW to 'read'. Wouldn't be an issue for somebody with better eyes, or if I wore my glasses all the time!

S1 seems like it might well be the answer.

I've enjoyed all the posts telling me I'm doing it all wrong/don't know what a 'take' is etc. You can always count on the internet to provide unhelpful/passive-aggressive/aggressive/unpleasant content!

[dellboy]

I've done some more testing with S1 and it seems good! I'll also have a look at Cakewalk, but my eyes aren't amazing and I have always found Sonar to be the hardest DAW to 'read'. Wouldn't be an issue for somebody with better eyes, or if I wore my glasses all the time!

S1 seems like it might well be the answer.

I've enjoyed all the posts telling me I'm doing it all wrong/don't know what a 'take' is etc. You can always count on the internet to provide unhelpful/passive-aggressive/aggressive/unpleasant content!

Moving to Studio One or Logic is probably the best solution to your problem. I started to wade though the long thread on the Reaper forum and gave up, but the basic answer seems to be that takes on Reaper are in some way flawed for some purposes, and includes your way of working. It might have been easier to just point people to the thread on the Reaper Forum that explains the problem. So here is the link for those who have the time and interest to read it ............

https://forums.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=210747

[v1o]

Does S1 allow you to record multiples takes without using some sort of region or loop system? AFAIK all DAWs require takes to exist within the same region in a track.

[dellboy]

Does S1 allow you to record multiples takes without using some sort of region or loop system? AFAIK all DAWs require takes to exist within the same region in a track.

Its a puzzler what the OP is trying to do based on the idea of "takes", which we tend to now associate with comping. In the old days with "takes" it just meant to keep doing the same part repeatedly and then splicing the tape to get the best "take". The only thing that I can think of is perhaps if you have a four bar part, but you set the loop markers at something greater than four bars. This would allow time to have longer experimental takes of different lengths but still be able to comp as normal.

[ZargonTheMagnificent]

Its a puzzler what the OP is trying to do based on the idea of "takes", which we tend to now associate with comping. In the old days with "takes" it just meant to keep doing the same part repeatedly and then splicing the tape to get the best "take". The only thing that I can think of is perhaps if you have a four bar part, but you set the loop markers at something greater than four bars. This would allow time to have longer experimental takes of different lengths but still be able to comp as normal.

I find it really weird that you can't understand how one might reasonably end up with my situation.

I wonder if it's because most/all of the people here don't use commercial studios?

If you're trying to get takes that can be comped into a useable result, and (for whatever reason) you're under the gun, then it makes total sense to drop in and out or repeat smaller or larger parts of a track so that you can comp later (when you're not using a commercial studio). Setting a rigid loop would be totally wasteful time-wise if you don't need to repeat the entire section over and over. bar 6 is a weird one/or there are a few possibilities; let's get 3 takes of that. Now lets get the transition from 8 to 9 a few times. Not lets do a couple of takes of 6 through to 9. etc etc.

There are all takes of different lengths, and some will overlap. Reaper (autoslicing!) makes a mess of this stuff. Then add into it the 'explode to new tracks' bug/issue and you're screwed.

As I think I already said; the situation here is one day of commercial studio use to track a bunch of stuff. Time/money necessitated track now, comp later.

I guess it's hard to understand time/budget constraints if you never use commercial studios, and you don't track anything that isn't DIed...

[imrae]

I do stuff at home and it's entirely familiar that takes would start and end all over the place. I think some people live in loop-mode more than others, as a matter of composition and playing style.

[dellboy]

I find it really weird that you can't understand how one might reasonably end up with my situation.

I wonder if it's because most/all of the people here don't use commercial studios?

If you're trying to get takes that can be comped into a useable result, and (for whatever reason) you're under the gun, then it makes total sense to drop in and out or repeat smaller or larger parts of a track so that you can comp later (when you're not using a commercial studio). Setting a rigid loop would be totally wasteful time-wise if you don't need to repeat the entire section over and over. bar 6 is a weird one/or there are a few possibilities; let's get 3 takes of that. Now lets get the transition from 8 to 9 a few times. Not lets do a couple of takes of 6 through to 9. etc etc.

There are all takes of different lengths, and some will overlap. Reaper (autoslicing!) makes a mess of this stuff. Then add into it the 'explode to new tracks' bug/issue and you're screwed.

As I think I already said; the situation here is one day of commercial studio use to track a bunch of stuff. Time/money necessitated track now, comp later.

I guess it's hard to understand time/budget constraints if you never use commercial studios, and you don't track anything that isn't DIed...

I freely admit that I don't have a clue what you are doing or how you got there. You have explained very little about what you are doing. Most people today now associate the terms "takes" and "comping" with loop markers. I can only guess that you are creating takes by recording along a linear timeline and punching in and out thereby creating takes. Maybe when you have 40 takes of various lengths along a one track timeline you highlight them all and hit Reapers "explode all takes to separate tracks"?

[jancivil]

Its a puzzler what the OP is trying to do based on the idea of "takes", which we tend to now associate with comping. In the old days with "takes" it just meant to keep doing the same part repeatedly and then splicing the tape to get the best "take". The only thing that I can think of is perhaps if you have a four bar part, but you set the loop markers at something greater than four bars. This would allow time to have longer experimental takes of different lengths but still be able to comp as normal.

I find it really weird that you can't understand how one might reasonably end up with my situation.

I wonder if it's because most/all of the people here don't use commercial studios?

If you're trying to get takes that can be comped into a useable result, and (for whatever reason) you're under the gun, then it makes total sense to drop in and out or repeat smaller or larger parts of a track so that you can comp later

That point of contention centers on the premise that recording means loop markers, doesn't it.
In the paradigm of recording essentially live performance to tape takes might have meant different bits of tape and splicing later but takes per se only means you did it again. My experiences in studios were not very lavishly budgeted affairs with tape to spare, so doing another take used the same piece of tape recording over the last (false) take, and this other thing was at one time unheard of. So you punch in and record over. (older days than this you committed to a single contiguous performance direct to the record.)

So I supposed the other one arguing against this doesn't get what punching in is, where you have this one bit that didn't work and you punch in at that juncture and punch out in time.
A whole lof of people opining on these matters at KVR have no idea of the history, or experience with playing music, it's all been constructed in a DAW, everything a 4-bar cookie-cutter, nothing is an actual performance on the spot. So naturally here's a fair bit of "HUH!?!" or 'it's a puzzler'. Even right alongside 'that we associate with comping'.

[astralprojection]

cubase

[ZargonTheMagnificent]

Its a puzzler what the OP is trying to do based on the idea of "takes", which we tend to now associate with comping. In the old days with "takes" it just meant to keep doing the same part repeatedly and then splicing the tape to get the best "take". The only thing that I can think of is perhaps if you have a four bar part, but you set the loop markers at something greater than four bars. This would allow time to have longer experimental takes of different lengths but still be able to comp as normal.

I find it really weird that you can't understand how one might reasonably end up with my situation.

I wonder if it's because most/all of the people here don't use commercial studios?

If you're trying to get takes that can be comped into a useable result, and (for whatever reason) you're under the gun, then it makes total sense to drop in and out or repeat smaller or larger parts of a track so that you can comp later

That point of contention centers on the premise that recording means loop markers, doesn't it.
In the paradigm of recording essentially live performance to tape takes might have meant different bits of tape and splicing later but takes per se only means you did it again. My experiences in studios were not very lavishly budgeted affairs with tape to spare, so doing another take used the same piece of tape recording over the last (false) take, and this other thing was at one time unheard of. So you punch in and record over. (older days than this you committed to a single contiguous performance direct to the record.)

So I supposed the other one arguing against this doesn't get what punching in is, where you have this one bit that didn't work and you punch in at that juncture and punch out in time.
A whole lof of people opining on these matters at KVR have no idea of the history, or experience with playing music, it's all been constructed in a DAW, everything a 4-bar cookie-cutter, nothing is an actual performance on the spot. So naturally here's a fair bit of "HUH!?!" or 'it's a puzzler'. Even right alongside 'that we associate with comping'.

Yes, I would think you must be right. I guess I don't know anything about the modern phenomenon of pure bedroom button-pushers.