How does REAPER do it?

[Kmeister]

REAPER got those unwanted nicotine stains out of my teef

[kbaccki]

at some point surely someone one at Steinberg, Cakewalk or whereever will have to admit that there nothing left to add. Audio production software can't indefinitely be improved can it? In the end it's just chucking unnecessary stuff in there (a new synth, effect etc)

I actually think this is what determines the product cycles -- coming up with ideas "big" enough to use in marketing for another round of upgrades. Packing DAWs with instruments, samples and other paraphernalia, plus adding "features" that not even 5 percent of customers will use or care about, is what happens when products mature and the revenue streams begins to cool.

I can only speak from the SONAR perspective. I like it alot and it has improved tremendously since I jumped onto that train 6 years ago. BUT it could definately use workflow enhancements, and I wouldn't mind improved (but not necessarily high-end) notation, etc.

On the Steinberg side you now have VST Expression... that is a pretty innovative feature.

There are lots of good enhancement ideas floating around on the SONAR forum and on other DAW forums, and I think it goes to show that there are always new ways to make an old dog do new tricks (and no, I was not going to write "DAWg").

But yeah these high powered, extensible DAWs that can stream a hundred tracks virtually in realtime, coupled with low-cost but high-end extensions (i.e., plugins) add up to an embarassment of riches from a sound engineering perspective.

[koolkeys]

Just now getting back to this thread. I have only read up to this post I'm replying to so far.

Well like with nearly everything there is a subjective element. If I say "this curry is hot" there's bound to be someone who says it's too mild for them. It's a relative concept but to infer from that the concept has no utility seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well, of course. And this is part of why I started the discussion. Some people talk with such definitive terms sometimes, and I wonder how those statements can be made.

I think most people would agree that apps like Reaper or eXt are less bloated than apps like Sonar that come on dualsided DVD's these days and install lots of extras on top of the core app, which itself is not a mere 4MB and which adds stuff to various system directories, the registry etc instead of tidy enough to be capable of being run from a USB stick . That doesn't mean everyone has to agree Sonar is "bloated" - some are comfortable with that or even welcome that just as some are comfortable with the hot curry.

I'm not sure that most people would agree or not. If you are talking about extra content like loops and such, is that really bloat? You don't HAVE to install it. And some people actually want that stuff.

But also, I think people often only use the tangible factors when they say "bloat". They use memory footprints and how many disks are in the box, etc. But what about an interface? Can't clutter be bloat? Bad interface design? Options out the wazoo? I use the example of Reaper again since this thread started out about that. But I know that many people LOVE the amount of options that Reaper provides, and many love the interface as well. But there are just as many out there who think the interface is not clean enough, even with the best themes. Or the options menus are way too "bloated".

So that goes back to the problem; what is bloat? To me, it's just a personal preference based on what my needs are and how I prefer to work. Which is why I'm not sure that most would agree about Reaper and EXT being less bloated. It just depends on the perspective.

And even the times where we are talking about memory footprints, there may be reasons for it. Different hosts load different features. Reaper doesn't have a notation view, for instance. Cubase does(sticking to my same examples from before). Surely this means that Cubase will take more memory just for that feature alone, not to mention others. Will Reaper take just as much memory when it gets notation and other features that it's missing? I don't know. But it would make sense.

As for features - yes it is also a matter of preference but on the whole if an app concentrates on certain core features but allows people to pick and choose what additional features it can have (via extensions and plugins) then one could say that app was less bloated than one that installed everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to please everyone or even simply justify a higher price.

Well, they COULD. But not everyone wants to do that. Some people want to buy an app that does everything they need, and start working. Different approaches = different definitions of bloat.

Brent

[hibidy]

It's also a matter of money. Just as someone may say "reaper is great and it costs so much less" someone like me would say about cubase "I spent a fortune on this crap and I'll stick with kthanks" Not that either side is right or wrong

[NAS]

I use the example of Reaper again since this thread started out about that. But I know that many people LOVE the amount of options that Reaper provides, and many love the interface as well. But there are just as many out there who think the interface is not clean enough, even with the best themes. Or the options menus are way too "bloated".
Brent

To me personally the thing i like about Reaper (And yes out of the box it is very menu bloated and the GUI is butt fugly) is that i can customise the menus entirely, I can create macros for the toolbar that allows me to have the views i want and so on.

So yes Reaper can be very bloated out the box but the options are there to make it as minimal as you want, Which to me (Again personally) is exactly what i want.

NAS

[xx JPRacer xx]

Should make the difference between UI bloat and code bloat. I think out of the box Reaper have UI bloat but its code is really well optimize.

[glokraw]

Should make the difference between UI bloat and code bloat. I think out of the box Reaper have UI bloat but its code is really well optimize.

I keep waiting for the download to balloon above 5 megabytes
When it does, Ill be one of the first to
Probably in 2015, at this rate

[koolkeys]

So yes Reaper can be very bloated out the box but the options are there to make it as minimal as you want, Which to me (Again personally) is exactly what i want.

NAS

Well, minimal to a certain extent. You can't customize which buttons appear on tracks, for instance. But this goes to prove my point in just how personal these things can be. It won't seem bloated to everyone, but it won't be perfect to everyone either. Which is why one host will never fit all obviously.

I don't necessarily think of Reaper as bloated. Unrefined would be the word I'm probably going to use most of the time(and I do). I think the interface(purely down to personal opinion) is cluttered in some parts. Could that be considered bloat? Possibly.

This discussion has really proven just how widely varied the term "bloat" can be though. Is any one host without a doubt bloated more than another?

I just don't think that can be said definitively outside of personal preference. Not that anyone is arguing against that, but it's pretty clear.

Brent

[NAS]

Well, minimal to a certain extent. You can't customize which buttons appear on tracks, for instance.
Brent

Is there a DAW around that allows such possibilities ?
I mean in terms of customising then Reaper is by far and away the most advanced right ?
I mean i don't really get the point your making whatsoever to be honest
You stated that the menus where bloated so i pointed out that they are now customisable
Then you move onto the track layout

It's a never ending circle of pettiness isn't it ?

NAS

[Sascha Franck]

Example:

Empty REAPER instance in Windows TaskManager: 19MB
Empty Reason instance in Windows TaskManager: 24MB
Empty Live instance in Windows TaskManager: 142MB

There! Good example of what bloatware is! Now don't tell me that all these 142MB RAM would be required for an empty host. As Reaper shows ... obviously not.

This doesn't necessarily say much. For instance, Logic 9 has a massive memory footprint, even when you only open an empty project. But apparently this is just "reserved" RAM that it can access very quickly, so it's defenitely not lost.

Regarding "bloat" in general, I agree that it'd perhaps be the best idea to keep a program modular - but this never exactly worked too fine in the past. Earlier Atari versions of Cubase needed a few things (such as the score editor) to be loaded separately, and that only caused nothing else but troubles. Sure, that way you could still run Cubase on a 1MB/RAM machine (1MB!!! Those were the days...) and only open the required things once you a) had 2MB and b) needed them. But I guess that from a developers POV, integrating things such as score editors is an easier thing than keeping them modular.

Also, personally, I *do* want a "full" host. I love it having a score editor straight inside my main working environment. I don't need the extra features Sibelius, Finale and the likes add, and I certainly don't like it having no interaction between my arrange and my score page (exporting MIDI file isn't much joy, either).
I also like having a certain "content" in case it's adding simplicity, options and efficiency (such as Logics Space Designer, the EXS and what not).

- Sascha

[Pat2070]

People refer to these hosts as bloatware, and I'm genuinely interested in why this is.

Feel free to use something in a host I use as an example. Not to argue that any host is better or not, but it's easier for me to discuss a feature I am familiar with.

I used to use Cubase a lot for tracking vocals, laying down backing tracks and mixing. Cubase has several very 'bloated' UI design elements in my opinion.

Firstly, Why does one need to create a rack to load VSTi's? Why not just create a track (a la Reaper) and fire up your plugin of choice directly onto that track? For me, this is unneccessary bloat to the workflow.

Keeping on a related topic here, why does Cubase insist on the creation of multiple track types to get anything done? The way Reaper allows any track to function as needed makes Cubase look antiquated. I like the fact I can drag and drop audio, midi or video files into Reaper and it just handles it with no fuss!

The wealth of manipulation options may be desirable and even necessary for some types of projects, but otherwise they are simply baggage. This is where so-called lite versions of DAWs can be a better choice for those who want the workflow but recognize how many features of the "full" version are not needed or wanted in building a DAW from the ground up.

'Lite' versions of software I believe to be more an excersise in marketing than a reflecion of the features actually deemed useful to non professionals.

Finally, not responding to user feature requests is a sure fire way to lose custom.

I have boycotted Propellerhead for this very reason (no pun intended). Instead of focussing on their core products and developping them further (Recycle, Reason), they have followed their greed for $$$ and thrown out an awful recording program. (imo etc etc)

[fandango]

Firstly, Why does one need to create a rack to load VSTi's? Why not just create a track (a la Reaper) and fire up your plugin of choice directly onto that track? For me, this is unneccessary bloat to the workflow.

This is what Instrument Tracks in Cubase do now. The paradigm being extended to multi-out VSTi at some point, apparently.

Keeping on a related topic here, why does Cubase insist on the creation of multiple track types to get anything done? The way Reaper allows any track to function as needed makes Cubase look antiquated. I like the fact I can drag and drop audio, midi or video files into Reaper and it just handles it with no fuss!

Definately back to the realms of apples and oranges here. I like the way I have MIDI tracks and Audio tracks in most hosts. I like the distinction, I see instantly at a glance what is what. Whereas in Reaper, if I've set up, say Kontakt and depending on whether I've tried to mix MIDI and Audio routing in the same track or seperated everything in to a folder with Audio Outs and MIDI controller tracks, I still have to do color coding and perhaps occasionally click I/O or look at the routing matrix to see what is exactly going to what, even for such simple tasks as trying to find out what MIDI channel a track is outputting to. Apples, oranges, and lemons, oh my!

[LawrenceF]

Well, minimal to a certain extent. You can't customize which buttons appear on tracks, for instance.
Brent

Is there a DAW around that allows such possibilities ?NAS

Yes.

[ericj23]

Well, minimal to a certain extent. You can't customize which buttons appear on tracks, for instance.
Brent

Is there a DAW around that allows such possibilities ?
I mean in terms of customising then Reaper is by far and away the most advanced right ?
I mean i don't really get the point your making whatsoever to be honest
You stated that the menus where bloated so i pointed out that they are now customisable
Then you move onto the track layout

It's a never ending circle of pettiness isn't it ?

NAS

???

by the way cubendo and sonar both offer user configured buttons - pretty sure logic does too
nuendo offers fully hideable menu items too

maybe these features are why the exe is so big? I dunno

[koolkeys]

Well, minimal to a certain extent. You can't customize which buttons appear on tracks, for instance.
Brent

Is there a DAW around that allows such possibilities ?

Yes. Cubase and Sonar are two of the best for this. Sonar lets you decide which buttons appear on various types of tracks, and you can then save presets to switch between(recording, mixing, editing, etc.) using tabs.

Cubase lets you do it that way as well, but goes further by letting you do it on a per track basis. Very cool.

I mean in terms of customising then Reaper is by far and away the most advanced right ?

Possibly, I don't know. To be honest, I'm very happy with how Cubase and Pro Tools look and work. I think both are laid out extremely well, and I'm fine with their hotkeys. Others may not work the same as I do though. When you include all the scripting and such, Reaper may be the most customizable. But to be honest, I don't know what is the most.

I mean i don't really get the point your making whatsoever to be honest
You stated that the menus where bloated so i pointed out that they are now customisable
Then you move onto the track layout

It's a never ending circle of pettiness isn't it ?

NAS

No, I've always said that the layout is not the greatest. But in terms of my point, I'm not really trying to be picky. I'm just making the point that there are different areas of an application that people may consider "bloated" while others may not.

I don't think I ever said that the menus were the only problem, so I don't know what the problem is with me mentioning the interface. Just making discussion, that's all. It's a general point that one person may see bloat while another doesn't care, and everyone looks at different factors to determine bloat.

Brent