How does REAPER do it?

[captain caveman]

Very convenient get out clause, the ol' "you'll find out when your dead". No chance of any witnesses then.

[skipkent]

Still happy with my T3 on Win XP here but I'm keeping an eye on Reaper mainly because I like its CPU efficiency.

I bought my Reaper license a while back and am getting pretty comfortable with it. Just installed T3 for old time's sake to the new quad and fell in love with it all over again!

I'm using T3 a lot now, but go back to Reaper now and then so I don't forget my chops.

[koolkeys]

Wow, this thread took a maturity dip, eh? Is this even about Reaper any more?

Brent

[audiobot202]

Very convenient get out clause, the ol' "you'll find out when your dead". No chance of any witnesses then.

It's a silly argument. Both areas work with different toolsets and expectations. They may explore similar territory, but they do it in different ways, therefore, both are ultimately limited perceptual experiences of the world.
Science has trouble with the subjective experience and Religion can only use the subjective as an article of fact. They are incompatible methods of viewing the world at this point in time.
Science will certainly change in ways we probably cannot imagine. History certainly proves that any current thinking is subject to change and revolution in any ideology.

[eduardo_b]

Wow, this thread took a maturity dip, eh? Is this even about Reaper any more?

Brent

Only in ways that don't actually matter.

[duncanparsons]

..stuff..

what are you serious?

what about fruity nops and uc2? did they use them too?

Would I lie to you, baby?

I don't have a clue about the other stuff, but conversations with tobybear and CWBudde they hinted that IL was moving to C++ a couple of years ago, and conversations with Gol confirmed it.

Delphi is still a contender, I use it extensively, but the various encumbants of the product line have dragged their feet with getting a Mac version out that I'm looking more at C++ these days alas. MacPhi is coming, but it's not out yet.

[captain caveman]

Science will certainly change in ways we probably cannot imagine. History certainly proves that any current thinking is subject to change and revolution in any ideology.

The very nature of science embraces change and welcomes the disproving of, and the improvement of its fundamentals. What has always been and will always be a constant is the need for weight of evidence and reproducibility. There will never be a point where science changes so much that this basic premise changes if that is what you are alluding to.

The difference is that religion (all several thousand of them, from Mayan sun worship to scientology to christianity) has always been and always will be full of sh!t, but science progressively becomes less full of sh!t.

[LBN]

Still happy with my T3 on Win XP here but I'm keeping an eye on Reaper mainly because I like its CPU efficiency.

I bought my Reaper license a while back and am getting pretty comfortable with it. Just installed T3 for old time's sake to the new quad and fell in love with it all over again!

I'm using T3 a lot now, but go back to Reaper now and then so I don't forget my chops.

When I moved from a P4 to a Core 2 Quad, I installed Tracktion 3 as it was my main DAW but I also installed Reaper because I like the rate of development on it and Tracktion appears to be abandoned. I loaded up small identical projects in both with some very heavy plug-ins and it became quickly apparent that Tracktion 3 was way inefficient compared to Reaper even with all the optimizations. Although I will always love Tracktion's interface and the way it works for me, Reaper appeals to the tweaker in me and I've got it set up perfectly for my workflow. I settled on Limeflavour's Origin Snow skin. I installed Bevosss' freeze macros. Now I have all the functionality of Tracktion and then some with a pretty interface.

[audiobot202]

Science will certainly change in ways we probably cannot imagine. History certainly proves that any current thinking is subject to change and revolution in any ideology.

The very nature of science embraces change and welcomes the disproving of, and the improvement of its fundamentals. What has always been and will always be a constant is the need for weight of evidence and reproducibility. There will never be a point where science changes so much that this basic premise changes if that is what you are alluding to.

The difference is that religion (all several thousand of them, from Mayan sun worship to scientology to christianity) has always been and always will be full of sh!t, but science progressively becomes less full of sh!t.

Change is embraced only at an ideal level in science. The reality is that change is not always permitted, especially when it interferes with Grant applications, the dearly held views of eminent scientists (in this respect, they are as human as the rest of us in not embracing change) or public interest. The LHC is a good example. There are scientists on both sides of the fence with a lot to gain or lose when it comes to the provability of the Higgs/Boson theory of mass. And if/when the LHC proves or disproves the Higgs Field, there will be lots of scrambling by those that have a lot to gain/lose in order to protect their egos/research funding/reputation. Change is rarely embraced in any field of human endeavour !
There is also a reasonable Quantum theory that scientists will continue to find smaller and smaller particles simply because they expect to and not necessarily because they exist at any objective level of experience.
There are actually plenty of examples throughout scientific history where revolutionary change did happen at fundamental levels of thinking and the agents of this change were still imprisoned/killed/tortured for their views before anything became mainstream fact.
Religion is far from perfect and I never pretend that it holds all the answers. It is as subject to human corruption as anything else in life. I myself am not religious, but nor do I think that science is the key to life either. Science itself lacks all the tools necessary for total explanation and I highly doubt it will ever develop them without revolutionary changes in approach.

[eduardo_b]

Change is embraced only at an ideal level in science. The reality is that change is not always permitted, especially when it interferes with Grant applications, the dearly held views of eminent scientists (in this respect, they are as human as the rest of us in not embracing change) or public interest.

Which is ironic given that change is inexorable and occurs regardless of how we feel about it. Self-interest, pride and other human foibles guarantee resistance to anything that might be considered negative (real or imagined) regarding these.

I see this with DAW threads all the time. Discussion devolves into defense of one's choices -- as if this is any less subjective -- and becomes both personal and pointless.

[audiobot202]

Change is embraced only at an ideal level in science. The reality is that change is not always permitted, especially when it interferes with Grant applications, the dearly held views of eminent scientists (in this respect, they are as human as the rest of us in not embracing change) or public interest.

Which is ironic given that change is inexorable and occurs regardless of how we feel about it. Self-interest, pride and other human foibles guarantee resistance to anything that might be considered negative (real or imagined) regarding these.

I see this with DAW threads all the time. Discussion devolves into defense of one's choices -- as if this is any less subjective -- and becomes both personal and pointless.

Exactly.
There is no objectivity. We're all subjective creatures.
Ergo: not much point in attacking religion, science or DAWs, apart from being able to extract a very thin perverse pleasure from the exercise which in itself, is a wholly subjective experience, meaningless in the scheme of things.

[eduardo_b]

Change is embraced only at an ideal level in science. The reality is that change is not always permitted, especially when it interferes with Grant applications, the dearly held views of eminent scientists (in this respect, they are as human as the rest of us in not embracing change) or public interest.

Which is ironic given that change is inexorable and occurs regardless of how we feel about it. Self-interest, pride and other human foibles guarantee resistance to anything that might be considered negative (real or imagined) regarding these.

I see this with DAW threads all the time. Discussion devolves into defense of one's choices -- as if this is any less subjective -- and becomes both personal and pointless.

Exactly.
There is no objectivity. We're all subjective creatures.
Ergo: not much point in attacking religion, science or DAWs, apart from being able to extract a very thin perverse pleasure from the exercise which in itself, is a wholly subjective experience, meaningless in the scheme of things.

Hence enlightenment (awareness). Seeing things for what they are. Not easily done, but worth the effort -- although it does make one somewhat cynical about human nature sometimes.

[koolkeys]

So wait, let me get this right. People are forgoing the opportunity to say Reaper kills all others or that Reaper sucks...............to argue religion?

The things that happen when I'm not hear to keep the Reaper discussion nice and heated about Reaper, eh?

Brent

[LawrenceF]

If he who knows all and sees all ... no, not Dick Cheney the other guy, used a DAW it would certainly be Reaper.

Laying down some horn tracks with the angels...

[deraudrl]

There are actually plenty of examples throughout scientific history where revolutionary change did happen at fundamental levels of thinking and the agents of this change were still imprisoned/killed/tortured for their views before anything became mainstream fact.

Note that those doing the imprisoning/killing/torturing were not members of the scientific community, they were members of the religious community*. One might use this fact to draw some conclusion as to the relative receptivity for change in the two communities. Or not.

(*While I agree that competition for grant money has grown rather more cutthroat in recent times, I would have thought that mobs of MIT faculty storming Princeton with torches and pitchforks would have made the news. I must have been watching 'American Idol' that night.)