Is REAPER the current worst long term choice?

[lfm]

I have to say I have been down the Reaper rabbit hole, given up due to exhaustion from customising, then gone back to it and repeated the cycle a number of times.

Even the v7 theme, when properly customised, is actually excellent.

I did an attempt with v7, as I did with v6 and v5, to get a "no effort" reading of mixer section.
- have v4 license

What did you do with theme?
Would you have a screen shot, please?

I enclose my attempt below, not all done, with mixer section which bother me with this dark on darker, kind of thing.
- my attempt to the left compared to default
- at least no effort for eyes to find what is there in plugins and sends
- default to me is just a big black blob and a little text possibly to show where plugins are

Some 3rd party ProTools-inspired themes look alright IMO, but faders take up 2/3 of screen height. You loose scaling faders down to useful height.

Also enclose a dump of Sonar with excellent readability everywhere.
- here my 2015 version with no theme options
- new Sonar does have mulitple themes so you can get the dark dungeon look that some like

Thanks.

[DorianBloom]

Have you tried using the theme adjuster with the V7 stock theme? It is amazing what you can do with it. You can change the sizes of everything on the TCP.
Then if you right click on a channel and select "Show FX inserts in TCP (when size permits)" your FX will show up as they did in the other theme
I currently have bitwig open but I will take a screenshot in the morning.
Shouldn't be too hard to get that fixed for you.

[Kalamata Kid]

I am on Studio One 7 and trying my luck on Realer 7.
I had no problem adding audio fx Reaper but had some difficulty adding an instrument a track.
Maybe I'll stick with S1.

I wonder if a Studio One skin, if there is such a thing would help me.

One very important feature on Reaper is the available scripts.

[VOODOO U]

So now, I use Bitwig for writing / programming and then Reaper for tracking vocals and mixing.

Good combo. And it would be perfect if Bitwig were VST/CLAP so it could be loaded in Reaper.

Is Reaper NOT good for writing / programming?
( Reaper-curious )

Of course Reaper is good for writing. It's all workflow preference (Bitwig does the job too). For programming depends what you want to do. My wish is to use the modular capabilities of Bitwig (The Grid) as a "synth" within Reaper (Reaper has standard sequencing found in pretty much most pro DAWs). Basically if you do standard programming Reaper is perfect (regardless of workflow preferences).

[JasonSpatola]

I am on Studio One 7 and trying my luck on Realer 7.
I had no problem adding audio fx Reaper but had some difficulty adding an instrument a track.
Maybe I'll stick with S1.

I wonder if a Studio One skin, if there is such a thing would help me.

One very important feature on Reaper is the available scripts.

Interesting - as a user of both, I *hate* the process of adding, deleting, and (gulp) layering instruments in Studio One.

To be fair, managing articulations in REAPER is a real pain in comparison to Studio One.

Everything in life sucks.

[DorianBloom]

I am on Studio One 7 and trying my luck on Realer 7.
I had no problem adding audio fx Reaper but had some difficulty adding an instrument a track.
Maybe I'll stick with S1.

I wonder if a Studio One skin, if there is such a thing would help me.

One very important feature on Reaper is the available scripts.

One thing you have to remember in Reaper is that a track is just a track. There is no distinction between an instrument track and an audio track,
Just double click in the blank area on the track control panel and a new track will appear - then hit command+f and the fx window will pop up, then add an instrument track.

Same with VCA tracks - to make any track a via master you just enter track grouping and set it up to be a via master. It is so insanely flexible when it comes to tracks. Easily one of the best paspects of reaper.


As for Bitwig, now that version 6 is (almost) here, I think it is truly the best for programming. It is absolutely incredible what one can achieve in bitwig now. It easily has the best MPE implementation. But honestly, for programming in general (and anything to do with synthesis, for that matter, Bitwig is now awe inspiring.

[jancivil]

If there's no diff between a MIDI track (volume going to) and its subsequent instrument channel (volume coming back), ie., one "track" this is less flexible. It's reason #1 I never adopted Logic for vi work.

I never got into this as it happens, but per "if you are so against the technical side don't use DAWs"
I said I wouldn't think a lot about wanting an application that omitted something I need to include the thing I need but I need to add that bit from outside, via a 'script'.

However there's something I don't have to try hard to come up with that Cubase developers left off. It's not like they can't do it, because they partially do. Nested tuplets. IE: we have some triplets; subdivide that by two or factors of is all we have. Subdivide by 3, ok fine, here's 9-lets.
If we want five in the time of part of the triplet, nesting say five in the time of 2 of the 3 in a triplet, you're told it doesn't do nested tuplets. But in the quantize panel you can select triplet as grid and now go for 5-lets. Ultimately a little more limited but it's not they hadn't already coded it.

If I got stuck somehow I suppose I'd be willing to slap a script on it. It's not a problem I've been stuck with, I may have to do some arithmetic and specify durational values per PPQN.

I'd be reasonably sure my music requires more technique than you have, toiboi.

[BBFG#]

Don't forget Lesson 25s.

[Kalamata Kid]

Thanks to all above ^^^
For your input.
Decided to keep using Studio One.
But!
One day I may again try to use Reaper.

[twal]

Thanks to all above ^^^
For your input.
Decided to keep using Studio One.
But!
One day I may again try to use Reaper.

You are having a problem loading synth or effects you were saying? That might not be what the issue was but I'll say this- with a press of a button (literally, you can create buttons) I can load anything I want. For instance, I created a custom action where I click a button that creates a track, adds Icarus, adds eq, and pan/volume fx, closes said fx, changes the track to a random color, then allows me to change its name. I can also right click and empty space and add any track(s) I want as a track template; and this allows me to load any amount of tracks with any amount of fx as I wish. For example I have a drum machine template that loads with separate tracks each with separate samplers with their respective drum instruments. I also can load Halion with several instruments in mind by having their midi and track outputs all ready to go in a template. If you want to use Reaper, you have to spend the time to learn this stuff, and then you essentially can have all of your tracks' modularity ready for you to implement. Sounds like you really are interested in Reaper but then back out, I believe you have been doing that for awhile- and that's ok. It's intimidating. It's bad-mouthed. It's customizable. With all of that in mind, it can't just be whipped up in a second and that's good because it takes time to navigate the ways to set it up from basically a blank slate. Out of the box it is fine the way it is. In time, if you get the patience to sit with it it may be exciting enough to continue; but you can't get off put. You have to treat it like a learning investment. If you sit with Kenny's videos you may be dragged in. And it's bs when people say it takes so much time you can't make music, because if you are serious about music you will make the music too, just like producer/engineers, good luck...

[twal]

If there's no diff between a MIDI track (volume going to) and its subsequent instrument channel (volume coming back), ie., one "track" this is less flexible.

Not sure what you are trying to achieve but you can turn on and off any audio/midi input and output in a track in Reaper. You can also route any track to another track and build out the receiving track out as a "channel" if you wish. In Reaper tracks are the channels just a different view, but you can set it up however you like. You can create any chain of tracks and load it all up at the same time however you want. For instance, I can create a track template with one track routed to another with midi turned off but keep the audio signal going in from one audio channel to the other to, say, side-chain the signal for compression or audio trigger via parameter modulation. And then save that in a way the channel strip is viewed in a project template. Just pointing out for anyone, we like doing things in different ways, but maybe you were referring to something else...

[Kai Enaki]

Thanks to all above ^^^
For your input.
Decided to keep using Studio One.
But!
One day I may again try to use Reaper.

You are having a problem loading synth or effects you were saying? That might not be what the issue was but I'll say this- with a press of a button (literally, you can create buttons) I can load anything I want. For instance, I created a custom action where I click a button that creates a track, adds Icarus, adds eq, and pan/volume fx, closes said fx, changes the track to a random color, then allows me to change its name. I can also right click and empty space and add any track(s) I want as a track template; and this allows me to load any amount of tracks with any amount of fx as I wish. For example I have a drum machine template that loads with separate tracks each with separate samplers with their respective drum instruments. I also can load Halion with several instruments in mind by having their midi and track outputs all ready to go in a template. If you want to use Reaper, you have to spend the time to learn this stuff, and then you essentially can have all of your tracks' modularity ready for you to implement. Sounds like you really are interested in Reaper but then back out, I believe you have been doing that for awhile- and that's ok. It's intimidating. It's bad-mouthed. It's customizable. With all of that in mind, it can't just be whipped up in a second and that's good because it takes time to navigate the ways to set it up from basically a blank slate. Out of the box it is fine the way it is. In time, if you get the patience to sit with it it may be exciting enough to continue; but you can't get off put. You have to treat it like a learning investment. If you sit with Kenny's videos you may be dragged in. And it's bs when people say it takes so much time you can't make music, because if you are serious about music you will make the music too, just like producer/engineers, good luck...

I think this is Reaper's problem. Some things are convoluted while others makes no sense. There shouldn't be any questions about how to perform the most menial tasks. Reaper is probably the only DAW for which an aspiring producer need a manual or Youtube video to insert a midi track and access the piano roll. Does this make Reaper a bad DAW? No, not for me personally. But this whole Linux-like elitism about people not learning things being the problem is a bit much. Especially when other DAWs seem to get the onboarding and other things right.

[Michael L]

I think this is Reaper's problem.... this whole Linux-like elitism about people not learning things being the problem is a bit much.

Finally, someone says it:
The Emperor has no clothes!

[twal]

Ha, elitism. Elitism about daws is something, something to be taken seriously. It can be found throughout the internet in forums and places like youtube when you least expect. Come on, but seriously, if someone is having trouble inserting a track and accessing the piano roll they surely haven't tried or are too lazy to find out. Such "menial tasks" can require a manual in any daw by this logic, and in practice are the norm to be frank. And if this is an exaggeration to make a point, that's the price one pays to use a daw for more customizability; because that's basically why the learning curve can be high. People think learning FL Studio or Studio One are a walk in the park? Learning a daw takes some time. If people need more time to do so with Reaper, and I point that out I don't believe I am exhibiting elitism behavior. And so what if there is elitistism in the daw world? Who cares, it's so trivial. FL users act like this too. And to think I am being that way just from what was read, and to read into it seems like I'm guilty by association (guilty for being in a forum and talking about it like other "elitists"). If going into forums and complaining about linux elitists is a thing, that's something non-linux users need to suck up and move on and view the bigger picture. I merely was recommending to Kalamata Kid to stick with Reaper some more, or eventually go back to try it again at some point after I am seeing this individual show interest for what seems now like over a year for it- sorry sticking up for myself and Reaper "elitists"...

[Kalamata Kid]

The FX button I wrongly assumed was for audio fx and I wanted an instrument. So now I know fx in Reaper means fx and/or instrument. Why not name that button "Plugins". This would have saved me hours. I am an impatient person so this was very challenging to me.

The other issue is I am no longer a kid. IIRC my memory is not what it once was and now find learning to be more difficult so this elevates Studio One to the most likely to be selected.

Wow! gotta say I got the royal treatment here. I got really good advice. I will now rethink the Studio One vs Reaper one more time.

BTW I actually spent $ and bought a printed copy of the manual. This is how serious I was.