Reaper 5?

[do_androids_dream]

It not only fails to inspire creativity out of the box, it absolutely kills it!

Is it a DAW's job to inspire? Did 4 track tape recorders inspire? Again (in similar fashion to aciddose's post) the rest of your post is a little odd to me because you're criticising it for something that was clearly never part of it's make-up - being easy to use out the box. It is a highly customisable DAW primarily and that is always going to come with a degree of complexity. Like walking into a disorganised tool shed with stuff everywhere and having to root around for the tool you want. Reaper is like that tool shed - there's no getting around that - until the user turns it into an organised and efficient, personalised set-up after getting to know what it is they want and moving it to wherever they want it.

[duncanm]

I bought it on a whim way back at version 3. I guess I could just download the trial for 5 but how is it with MIDI? it was bloody terrible with 3. If quantising ever worked it was because of random chance rather than anything close to what, say, Ableton offers.

[SirKen]

The thing that bothers me most about Reaper is it doesn't have real-time (monitoring) latency compensation. Instead the latency compensation is a manual setting you need to adjust for offset of audio tracks after they're recorded. This makes it very difficult to use Reaper in real-time where you have a combination of live monitored inputs and plugins controlled by sequence.

Are you having issues when recording external hardware? I thought there was a setting for auto adjustment.

[No_Use]

The thing that bothers me most about Reaper is it doesn't have real-time (monitoring) latency compensation. Instead the latency compensation is a manual setting you need to adjust for offset of audio tracks after they're recorded. This makes it very difficult to use Reaper in real-time where you have a combination of live monitored inputs and plugins controlled by sequence.

(if I understood correctly)

@ SirKen: You're probably referring to this setting ?

[Tonberry]

the rest of your post is a little odd to me because you're criticising it for something that was clearly never part of it's make-up - being easy to use out the box.

It's always in the developer's best interest to make the software approachable. It doesn't mean it must be a beauty contest but some wizard to set some basic things up for new users in the beginning would be huge. Tutorial videos like Kraznet's Samplitude videos (I don't think he's involved with Magix directly but just an example), basic stuff like grouping action commands to be organized into folders instead of having to always rely on Actions window keyword search guessing games or plain setting up things counter-intuitively (like default timebase settings being a constant source of confusion). Just because Reaper is the Linux among DAWs so to speak doesn't mean it must make things harder than it should be for its users whenever possible. And sometimes it's obvious that not even minimal thought has been put into things.

That being said, Reaper is the DAW I use and with all the issues that it has, I wouldn't change it for anything else even if it would cost as much as the most expensive DAWs out there. The workflow with it is so fast for me that I wouldn't be able to replicate it with similar efficiency anywhere else. And since there's gazillion other actions that can be potentially useful to me at some point, bright perspectives make it even better catch. But the counter-intuitiveness and user-unfriendliness is one of this program's main characteristics and I don't think many people would argue.

I'm not saying it as the reason for this program being sub-par or anything. Every software has its own set of problems, this is Reapers. It comes from what Reaper is, like you say, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't dedicate some half-major update or two to sort few things out.

I looked at your website, U-ziq, The Future Sound Of London and Plaid all lovely credentials!

[do_androids_dream]

the rest of your post is a little odd to me because you're criticising it for something that was clearly never part of it's make-up - being easy to use out the box.

It's always in the developer's best interest to make the software approachable. It doesn't mean it must be a beauty contest but some wizard to set some basic things up for new users in the beginning would be huge. Tutorial videos like Kraznet's Samplitude videos (I don't think he's involved with Magix directly but just an example), basic stuff like grouping action commands to be organized into folders instead of having to always rely on Actions window keyword search guessing games or plain setting up things counter-intuitively (like default timebase settings being a constant source of confusion). Just because Reaper is the Linux among DAWs so to speak doesn't mean it must make things harder than it should be for its users whenever possible. And sometimes it's obvious that not even minimal thought has been put into things.

Yes, a wizard may well be a good idea but its absence is only going to be a problem for a pretty small minority of users. A few well worded questions on the forum usually gets inexperienced folks well on their way anyway. I think, like a lot of more complex software, the thing with Reaper is that it does assume a good grasp of DAW's in general from the average user. I think the reason there hasn't been a concerted effort from the devs to make it particularly 'approachable' (or perhaps 'beginner friendly') is because the evidence is that it doesn't make up much of the user base. Most people seem to get on just fine with it how it is. It seems that the relationship between the devs and the users is that they provide the tools and the users either A: organise them in more user friendly ways and present their config files to the others or B: integrate them into their workflow using their own custom methods.

That being said, Reaper is the DAW I use and with all the issues that it has, I wouldn't change it for anything else even if it would cost as much as the most expensive DAWs out there. The workflow with it is so fast for me that I wouldn't be able to replicate it with similar efficiency anywhere else. And since there's gazillion other actions that can be potentially useful to me at some point, bright perspectives make it even better catch.

The speed at which I can accomplish certain things is the reason I continue to use it - it's customisability is key to that. I also love the fact that you can open it up (very quickly) and start messing around with something without having to go through a wizard to create a new project. Half the time I just want to throw a mixdown in there to check levels or peaks before deciding which software to use for a master - things like that.

But the counter-intuitiveness and user-unfriendliness is one of this program's main characteristics and I don't think many people would argue.

The problem with 'intuitive' is that it's a flawed concept anyway. Something being intuitive is very much dependent on prior knowledge. I would argue that simple familiarity is more important.

I looked at your website, U-ziq, The Future Sound Of London and Plaid all lovely credentials!

Thanks! Getting to work on some of my heroes music is certainly a dream come true

[aciddose]

The thing that bothers me most about Reaper is it doesn't have real-time (monitoring) latency compensation. Instead the latency compensation is a manual setting you need to adjust for offset of audio tracks after they're recorded. This makes it very difficult to use Reaper in real-time where you have a combination of live monitored inputs and plugins controlled by sequence.

(if I understood correctly)

@ SirKen: You're probably referring to this setting ?

No, this doesn't do what I'm talking about.

Say you have some plugins (drums, etc) on one track and on another you have your input with monitoring and additional effects processing plugins.

Reaper does not compensate the latency of these tracks to ensure the output is in sync, so no matter what you do you'll always have them out of sync. One will be delayed against another, which makes it near impossible to work live.

(Reaper needs to delay the tracks by the input latency of the monitored track plus any latency difference due to plugins. For example your drums may have a limiter with 100 samples latency, the input may have 64 samples latency. The input track must be delayed by 36 samples to sync them.)

For example you're playing back a sequence to an external synthesizer while also playing back other tracks you've already recorded. There is no way I'm aware of to ensure the monitored input is in sync with the other tracks.

This means it is impossible to listen live while setting up before you record. Instead, I'm forced to use external monitoring equipment with a delay on the external synthesizer to make up for the audio latency from the DAW, or I'm forced to manually insert delay plugins and adjust the latency myself.

Now this is what is important: Reaper could insert these delays itself but doesn't!

Cubase has since Cubase SX, 2002.

Forum goons answer with "well just record the input track and set up the latency correction, then play it back."

This is the dumbest answer possible. Forum goons appear to have their minds clouded thinking that adjusting the position of the track after recording was ever a solution to this problem. This adjustment should be automatic, perhaps with options to adjust it (disable, add/subtract to totals) and should apply to all inputs and all outputs to ensure everything is always in sync.

[trimph1]

It not only fails to inspire creativity out of the box, it absolutely kills it!

Is it a DAW's job to inspire? Did 4 track tape recorders inspire? Again (in similar fashion to aciddose's post) the rest of your post is a little odd to me because you're criticising it for something that was clearly never part of it's make-up - being easy to use out the box. It is a highly customisable DAW primarily and that is always going to come with a degree of complexity. Like walking into a disorganised tool shed with stuff everywhere and having to root around for the tool you want. Reaper is like that tool shed - there's no getting around that - until the user turns it into an organised and efficient, personalised set-up after getting to know what it is they want and moving it to wherever they want it.

It can do that for some people. IIRC an article about how GUI's influence how people work with things had a few interesting examples of this..

[kbaccki]

(Reaper needs to delay the tracks by the input latency of the monitored track plus any latency difference due to plugins. For example your drums may have a limiter with 100 samples latency, the input may have 64 samples latency. The input track must be delayed by 36 samples to sync them.)

My understanding is that reaper PDC operates on multiples of the reported hardware buffer size. So a track with max 100 sample latency, will be synched at 2x64 = 128 samples.

Also, if the hardware buffer is actually 64, then roundtrip latency (live monitor through reaper) is 64 in + 64 out = 128.

The exact hardware latency is dependent on a measured loopback test, not necessarily what the hardware reports and/or the buffer size you set on the hardware. For example the RME Fireface has a 32 or some such sample "safety buffer", so if I set the buffer at 64, the actual hardware latency is 96, so roundtrip latency is 192, not 128.

After that Reaper is dependent on the hardware reporting the real latency, and I believe not all hardware does that. To check the hardware latency you can do a loopback test, subtract the input from the output, etc.

Now once you have an accurate hardware latency sussed you can tell reaper to "use hardware latency" in either the Recording or Playback preference tab, can't remember. In addition you can manually adjust the input and output forward or backward by ms or samples.

Not saying there is a solution to your live monitoring synch issue with PDC, but I am wondering if some combination of those input/output offsets gets you closer...

[aciddose]

Yes well whatever Reaper does, I can run Cubase and have it work perfectly out of the box, so obviously it isn't an issue with the hardware.

I appreciate your comments but these are along the same lines as typical Reaper forum goons.

"Blame the user."

As far as I'm aware it isn't even possible in Reaper to eliminate the sync issues I mention. It isn't a configuration issue, it's a feature Reaper simply doesn't have. It's also a feature which is absolutely critical in live performance and less so although nearly as much for multi-tracking, which Reaper is supposedly specifically designed for.

[The Dissonance]

I think one of the reasons I have had such success with reaper is because it works with my workflow. nothing out of sync, very stable, excellent performance, great customization. it's not for everyone!

[aciddose]

"It isn't for everyone."

This is also a forum goon response you see very frequently on the Reaper forums.

Unfortunately while that is most certainly true, if you dismiss every complaint or bug report with this attitude Reaper will remain unsuitable for a great many users.

This is not much different from simply flipping off the person making the complaint.



Translation might be: "We don't care. ****-off!"

This attitude actually puts Reaper in the same class as FL Studio. A product designed to satisfy an amateur niche which doesn't take complaints or bug reports seriously if they don't fit within that niche.

"Reaper doesn't save the configuration correctly if your username on Windows contains non-ASCII characters? Then don't do that. Use a different user-name when you want to use Reaper. Use Reaper on OSX instead then."



The world doesn't revolve around Reaper for people who aren't Reaper forum goons or otherwise worship Reaper. The software is supposed to be designed to accomplish a task. My world revolves around the task I want to accomplish and I try to pick a tool that will allow me to accomplish this task.

I made a mistake. Reaper doesn't help me, it hinders me. So rather than complain you just want me to suck it up and keep quiet? <-- This is the reason I recommend against anyone attempting to participate at the Reaper forums and why I won't bother to attempt to report these issues. I'll simply allow my license to lapse and stop using Reaper if the problems aren't fixed.

Try not to make the same mistake I made.

[trimph1]

I've run into some of those issues AD had as well. But I'll keep the license up....so this way it will....eventually(?)...be dealt with.

[Hank the Knife]

"well just record the input track and set up the latency correction, then play it back."
You deserve a *totally missing the point award* here.
Congrats!

[aciddose]

I think you're quoting the example quote I gave. This isn't a direct quote, just an example of some of the sort of things I've seen people say when I mention this issue.

I think they do miss the point. I think they don't even understand the issue because they've never used Reaper as a multi-tracker before and don't actually own any hardware or try to work live, so could never experience the issue for themselves.