If you had to stick to one DAW, which one would it be?

[VitaminD]

These polls are interesting, for looking at market trends, but one website is just a single data point based on the type of users that congregate there.

other polls at other sites have different results:






Comparing them all, it seems Pro Tools is still very popular in commercial production settings..

[BONES]

Which means Reaper users aren't clueless idiots.

Of course they are and they know it. Why else would you still be prattling on about it? You clearly feel insecure in your choice or you'd have been happy to let this go two pages ago. But no, you clearly feel you have to justify your choice. That tells me that, deep down, you know you really just cheaped out and got the one you could afford, not the one you really wanted.

Reaper, like other DAWs gets the job done. Figured out by those who have utilized it.

Like who?

You can select parameters and have them be displayed on a track.

On a track? That's the wrong window, my friend. You mix with the mixer, you don't want to be moving your focus all over the place. And if you have to do something to make it work, then it will interrupt your workflow. It's exactly the kind of thing that puts me off.

Open the project with said track, copy and paste to the other project.

Again, an inelegant solution that takes you away from the project your are working on. All those little bits and pieces add up over the course of a session. I'm sure that if you had nothing better to do with your time, you could f**k around with Reaper until you got a usable set-up but I'm much happier with an out of the box set-up that works without any fuss.

If someone started on Cubase/Logic some 20 years ago or more, just forget about Reaper!

I think Reaper's price makes it a good first step into the world of DAWs, until you get enough experience/confidence to spend some money on a more professional application. It also seems like a decent choice for geeky people who like to noodle about but don't care if they ever get anything done. But yeah, if you have experience with Cubase or Logic, I don't think Reaper is ever going to cut it for you. I'm sure it will get the job done, but it won't be a whole lotta fun.

*PT is hands down the worst. Patchwork coding at best.

It's kinda weird how that seems to work with "industry standard" tools. I spend all day at work using Adobe's "industry standard" tools and they are f**king awful compared to some of the other alternatives out there.

Photoshop, in particular, feels totally kludged together. The workflow is absolutely horrible. Adobe also have After Effects, so they can see how easy it is to implement a non-destructive workflow, yet they persist with terrible solutions like adjustment layers.

And don't get me started on After Effects. They have seen off the competition so they never improve anything any more, unless they have already done the work for Premiere Pro. Where that's the case, they might drop it into AE as well but AE never gets any new features of its own. Actually, that's not quite true, the current beta has some 3D tools in it that have been provided by 3rd party plugin vendors for 20+ years already and that every pro working with After Effects already owns.

However, that seems to be the way it goes with "industry standard" tools - don't piss off your user base by making it better, if making it better involves making any changes, just bolt on a shiny new bauble now and then and hope your rusted-on users don't notice how far behind the competition they are.

Ok so you (and so many here) should put a note on the fridge or bong that says "Hey, read the manual".

Why? Why would I waste time doing that when I can choose an alternative that doesn't require extra, non music-related, effort? You sound like you think everyone should want to use Reaper but the best reason you can come up with for that is one nobody gives a flying f**k about.

Those of us who actually want to get some work done choose tools that allow us to do that with a minimum of distraction. In the five or six years I've been using Studio One, I've probably only had to search for things in the manual two or three times (thank Dog, because it's mostly shit). These days I don't even bother downloading it, even though I probably haven't so much as touched two-thirds of the features in Studio One.

[VOODOO U]

.You can float the GUI, but you have to select it every time you want that?

That's what I do if I want it to float, double click on it. What is it you're looking for, to have a plugin's window float everytime you click on the FX button? I am unsure of how to do that. You'd have to Google it.

The fact that you have to 'just stick to the basics' tells me it's overcomplicated..

Not really in this case. You just have to go to the options menu at the top and select "SHOW FX INSERTS IN TCP" (TCP means Track Control Panel).
It's the 88,000th option about midway through the menu.

It seems to do a lot though if you're a power user.

Those who've said Reaper is modular is a good way to look at it. It's a modular DAW that appears like any other typical DAW and so one expects it to behave a certain standard way. This is where things get annoying and frustrating.

it seems to default the bus output in Parallel which is incorrect behavior.

If by this you mean you don't want to have the sent tracks going to the master out as well, just make sure to go to the routing window (click the routing button) and uncheck "Master send channels from/to" at the top left. Or ALT left-click on the routing button for a shortcut.

With Cubase its just shift clicking the tracks you want (for the bus) then right clicking on an empty space and selecting send to Group. Done. Cubase auto creates the bus track and the correct routing for you.

Yep. I like it. But what if you have a shitload of tracks and you want to group a few tracks set in the middle or very top? Now you have to shift them to the bottom where empty space is exposed.

[VitaminD]

With Cubase its just shift clicking the tracks you want (for the bus) then right clicking on an empty space and selecting send to Group. Done. Cubase auto creates the bus track and the correct routing for you.

Yep. I like it. But what if you have a shitload of tracks and you want to group a few tracks set in the middle or very top? Now you have to shift them to the bottom where empty space is exposed.

You don't have to shift anything; Keep your tracks in place and control click on each.

After that you can either scroll down to a blank area to get to the context menu or you can set up a key command if scrolling is too much of a bother. There is an option for that in the Mixer settings of the key commands "Add tracks to selected: Group channel"

But in 13 years of Cubase usage, I've never had to do that. The middle mouse button is up/down scroll by default, so its really really quick to flick the middle mouse wheel down.

[Logickin]

I think I have an unpopular opinion here after I have a discussion in a FL studio forum post.

If nothing can last forever, and I have to pick one daw for life, since I know how to code, I think I should build my own daw since:

- It has no limitations where I want to compile my daw in a certain platforms
- I could in theory write any feature I need if I have researched the technology aspect of the features.
- I can define any form of ui with any gui library of my choice
- Instead of submitting a ticket about a bug, I can just go into the codebase and fix the bug.
- I can avoid cmake on the existing daw projects and use zig.
- the end of service is determined by me, but just in case if that happens, I can release my source code for one who interested.

It sounds unrealistic, but the scenario of the poll is also unrealistic since we will circling around a few daws in our lifetime, so why stick to a single daw made by others if I can just write my own? It doesn’t need to be the next ableton, but as long as it fits my use case, it is perfect.

[VOODOO U]

Of course they are and they know it. Why else would you still be prattling on about it?

Because it's fun annoying you with my Reaper fanaticism.

You clearly feel insecure in your choice or you'd have been happy to let this go two pages ago.

There is no perfect DAW so nothing to feel insecure about. Especially since I get work done and that's without any A.I. assistance.

But no, you clearly feel you have to justify your choice.

Wasn't it you who started an A.I. thread? How many threads have you gone in to justify the use of A.I.?

That tells me that, deep down, you know you really just cheaped out and got the one you could afford, not the one you really wanted.

Oh ok. So tell me, which is the DAW i really want?

Like who?

By those who've utilized it.

On a track? That's the wrong window, my friend.

No the wrong window is the A.I. prompt screen.

You mix with the mixer,

I mix with my ears. I coukd care less if it's a standard mixer view or not.

And if you have to do something to make it work, then it will interrupt your workflow. It's exactly the kind of thing that puts me off

There are scenarios where you may have to do something to get things to work but as long as it's a one-shot deal I'm cool with it.

I'm much happier with an out of the box set-up that works without any fuss.

You keep saying this over and over and over. You know what this tells me? You're insecure in the choice you made. You bought a DAW that fit your intelligence level but deep inside you want to have the ability to go modular.

[VOODOO U]

With Cubase its just shift clicking the tracks you want (for the bus) then right clicking on an empty space and selecting send to Group. Done. Cubase auto creates the bus track and the correct routing for you.

Yep. I like it. But what if you have a shitload of tracks and you want to group a few tracks set in the middle or very top? Now you have to shift them to the bottom where empty space is exposed.

You don't have to shift anything; Keep your tracks in place and control click on each.

After that you can either scroll down to a blank area to get to the context menu or you can set up a key command if scrolling is too much of a bother. There is an option for that in the Mixer settings of the key commands "Add tracks to selected: Group channel"

But in 13 years of Cubase usage, I've never had to do that. The middle mouse button is up/down scroll by default, so its really really quick to flick the middle mouse wheel down.

Yeah either way works. It can be done quickly in both apps in their own way. It's just a workflow preference.

[BONES]

It would be just nice, if there wouldn´t come so many "Reaperneers" out of their corners always wanting to lecture the rest of the world what a genius piece of software it would be...

As I said, you have to think this shows how insecure they are about their choice. They constantly have to prove to themselves that it was the right one by coming to Reaper's defence every time there is the slightest critical comment about it. It might be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.

My REAPER DAW is f*ckin beautiful.

Then why didn't you show us a screenshot of it instead of that hideous dog's breakfast? The contrast colours are way over-saturated and that floating window looks like it's a different application window altogether. There's no width in the arrangement window, which makes no sense at all. I don't know how I'd get anything done if that's what I had to stare at all day.

EVERY plugin I use (maybe 500) is just TWO mouse clicks away (ie 0.5 seconds) from being inserted onto a track.

I think that's probably the same for most of us. Sometimes it might be three for me but the thing is, it is something I might only do half-a-dozen times in the 100+ hours I spend on a song. Saving three seconds in 100 hours hardly seems relevant, does it?

You guys don't know what you're waffling about. Gotta laugh at all these ignorant chumps who've hardly used it saying how crap it is.

As opposed to you, with three songs on your Bandcamp page, all from 2021, recorded live. That's hardly a great advertisement for Reaper, is it? Your stuff reminds me a bit of Rema-Rema, mixed with some late '70s WIre B-sde experimentation. At least those guys had the excuse of recording their material 45+ years ago. Can I assume you are a fan of early Wolfgang Press? If not, I think you'd like them.

But now I have a button on the top toolbar (the blue star) which when pressed opens up a massive toolbar with all my most-used plugins listed in grid fashion. Click on one of them and they're immediately inserted into the selected track. So 2 clicks, that's it...

What a hideous, undifferentiated mess that is. Couldn't you at least colour code the buttons or something so you can find things? Even if you've organised them n some way that makes sense for you, it's still going to be a royal PITA to find what you're looking for in a hurry. Studio One provides multiple ways of organising things in the browser that makes it easy to find what you're looking for. That thing of yours looks like a nightmare.

The thing is it takes a bit of time setting up

I bet it does, time you could have been spending on actual music production.

but once you're done there's no looking back. And selecting which plugins to put in there helps wheedle out all those in your FX Browser that are no longer of much use to you.

In Studio One you can favourite things you use all the time, that show in a separate list, you get a list of recently used effects and you can hide things you never use any more, but need to keep around for old projects.

That said, it's never been so much of an issue that I've bothered with any of it, I can find whatever I need in a couple of seconds anyway. But there are also several sort options available in the browser. I use "vendor" sorting, which puts all the plugins from each vendor into virtual folders, which stay open. It speeds up finding things more than enough for me. But if I wanted to take it to another level, I'd sort my plugins into folders on my SSD and use "folder" sorting in the browser to find things.

[VOODOO U]

Reaper.

[BONES]

If you don't understand Reaper, this video might help.

Nice one!

You sound like the kind of guy who's got 3 flying ducks on his bathroom wall... (and thinks it's art.)

Classic!

That's what I do if I want it to float, double click on it.

Floating windows is the mind killer. You should be able to see every relevant thing in a single view. Obviously you do sometimes need to float an instrument or effect GUI but if you look at my screenshot from a few pages ago, you'll see how I leave a nice, big space so that my floating windows aren't obscuring anything else. That way, which ever track/channel I am working on automagically displays the instrument/effects for that track but I can still access the mixer and arrangement without having to move or close anything. It's perfect for tweaking things as you refine your mix (which is probably 90% or more of my production process).

Yep. I like it. But what if you have a shitload of tracks and you want to group a few tracks set in the middle or very top? Now you have to shift them to the bottom where empty space is exposed.

... and then spend another two seconds dragging them to where you want them. Hardly the end of the world.

[jens]

Studio One provides multiple ways of organising things in the browser that makes it easy to find what you're looking for.

[...]
In Studio One you can favourite things you use all the time, that show in a separate list, you get a list of recently used effects and you can hide things you never use any more, but need to keep around for old projects.

It's basically the same in Reaper.

[BONES]

Yeah, I figured. It's basically all the same in every DAW these days. They copy one another until there is nothing left to differentiate one from another, other than the way they look, which makes picking the prettiest looking one about the only choice left.

[machinesworking]

Yeah, I figured. It's basically all the same in every DAW these days. They copy one another until there is nothing left to differentiate one from another, other than the way they look, which makes picking the prettiest looking one about the only choice left.

It's mostly about how you work at this point. Some people only draw in notes in a MIDI editor, some play then quantize. Different DAWs have different strengths. A friend of mine is a huge fan of Melodyne, not at all just for vocal tuning, so a DAW with ARA is almost a must for him.

I get what you're saying though, I think Reaper is a super solid DAW, but even with the best skins I can find, some of it is still just Win 98 looking. To be fair to Reaper a buddy of mine loves both Studio One and Reaper, and uses Reaper most of the time because for things like film scoring Studio One can get wonky.

[jens]

For me there is so much difference between all the DAWs on the market feature-wise, that still none of them does everything I want even though my needs are relatively basic and I (almost) don't even use MIDI. And then there are the special unique features that some of them have such as Reason's Blocks and Studio One's Scratch Pad to differentiate them even further.

For me every single DAW is a bloody compromise full of shortcomings, so I totally don't get why a lot of folks would claim that there was basically feature-parity between DAWs these days.

[BONES]

You're talking about inconsequential things. Honestly, the Scratch Pad looks like a good idea and I gave it a red-hot go when I first started using Studio One but it was just complicating my workflow, whilst offering no actual benefit, so I stopped using it 3 or 4 years ago. I'd call it a gimmick, not a feature. Blocks in Reason is exactly the same as the Arranger Track in Studio One, which goes to my point.

To be fair to Reaper a buddy of mine loves both Studio One and Reaper, and uses Reaper most of the time because for things like film scoring Studio One can get wonky.

I don't get that at all. If you're flicking between different DAWs, you're never going to be fluent with any of them. I think you need to pick and stick and get as good as you can get with one application. Any perceived strengths and weaknesses are going to be subtle, at best, and being a guru with the one you choose is going to be far more beneficial overall. If I encountered unworkable issues with Studio One, I'd be looking for something else to use permanently, not just for the things Studio One gave me problems with (and I definitely wouldn't be looking at Reaper).