I take your point, but as I’ve been semi-happily producing music on Cubase 6.02 since 2011, I cant say I’m caught up in an upgrade cycle of any sortBecause you can free yourself from Steinberg's slow upgrade cycle, high price tags, usb dongle, and shitty customer service.
That is until you find workflows in other DAWs that are simply not possible in Reaper, workflows which can be approximated but it feels like trying to hammer in a tiny nail with a sledgehammer. One example is transforming CCs or automation in Studio One or Cubase for example.A new Reaper user here except I came over from FL Studio (but I would argue FL Studio's just as good as Cubase for MIDI and not so good for routing so it's probably a similar change in some respects).
At first I had a ton of issues with the MIDI in Reaper but, through changing the editor, I was able to actually get it very similar to FL. I'm sure the same can be done for making Reaper feel like Cubase.
It takes a bit, but I think it's possible to make Reaper into pretty much what you want, which means you can make it more efficient for YOU than any other DAW out there IF you are willing to put in the work. It's about the long term gains and not the short term imo.
I've found there are things I can do in Reaper that I can't do in other DAWs as well though. Personally, I haven't worked a lot with automations in Reaper yet so I don't really know enough to comment on that part.That is until you find workflows in other DAWs that are simply not possible in Reaper, workflows which can be approximated but it feels like trying to hammer in a tiny nail with a sledgehammer. One example is transforming CCs or automation in Studio One or Cubase for example.
Yes, you have juliansader's scripts for that in Reaper. Except they only work on CCs, not on automation. Yes, you can do that with automation, but the workflow is different, and frankly way more difficult. Can I compress automation in Reaper? Yup, but you need to change the automation to an automation item, then go into a menu (or map it to a button), then change the amplitude value with a slider.
That's three steps instead of two by selecting and pressing T (which is how I have set it up in Studio One). Biggie, you'd say, three instead of two. But when that is the number one thing you do almost every time, it becomes worse. Instead of two actions, of which one is a simple keystroke that you have to remember for both automation and CCs, you have to remember three for automation alone. Even worse, I can't have the same workflow with CCs. You have to download all kinds of different scripts for different operations. Have to map them to different keystrokes (I have used five of those scripts, so that's five (!) different buttons for what is one in the other DAWs). I have to remember the difference between automation and CCs. I have to remember that I can't force my mouse outside of the CC lane, because that terminates the script (though he is working on it). I have to remember to update the scripts. I have to remember two completely different workflows for what should've been consistent in between the two.
That's when you start to think, is this DAW helping me, or am I trying to force myself to work against the rules of the DAW? I truly appreciate juliansader's work, but they try to patch something that I believe the DAW should have natively, and implemented consistently.
No DAW is perfect, but that's what stopped me from using Reaper. Not possibilities, but inconsistency. I vowed to only take a look at it again when they implement a similar system the the described above. Consistent across the board. Which is what most DAWs do. For an action so basic and so used, it should be as easy as it can get. Studio One is my benchmark for this, Cubase is second.
As good as these scripts are, and they are pretty awesome, they can do things you won't find in other DAWs, they are still rather fiddly and inconvenient to use compared to the basic features found in Cubase and Studio One.
Thing is, it all comes down to preference. However, I have looked hard at my own workflow. Sure, there are things I can do in Reaper pretty much faster than everywhere else. But for me, I found, that's the wrong way to look at things. My question is, out of all these advanced features, which ones do I ACTUALLY use? I came to the conclusion that I used almost none. My workflow isn't that difficult; instrument track, record, bang in some notes and automation, and voila. Rinse and repeat. Throw a little mixing in along the way as I go. Get a scene, look at said scene, get some instruments, and start playing. Most times unorganized, but that's where my best ideas come from. As I am a pretty good piano player after years of practice, I find I mostly don't even use input quantize because it only destroys the feel I went for (what with sample libraries and instruments having different attack times and such). What does that leave when editing midi? Mostly some transposing stuff to try out different things, and some automation smoothing. That's it.I've found there are things I can do in Reaper that I can't do in other DAWs as well though. Personally, I haven't worked a lot with automations in Reaper yet so I don't really know enough to comment on that part.
That being said, what I will say is I don't feel it's about finding the perfect DAW. It's not going to be out there, as it is with software in many different fields and not just with music. I look at what is providing me with the most efficiency rather than the perfect efficiency; therefore, it's okay for some things like automation aren't perfect. If I can set things up so that it's faster than the base model then great. That being said, I didn't use a whole bunch of automation in FL. I used some, but I wasn't crazy like some other people that I've seen. FL is terrible for audio though so Reaper's a welcome change with vocals for me.
So, I think if you're asking the question of "is this DAW helping me" because of one area, which is how I'm interpreting what you are saying at least, I think perhaps it's putting a lot of weight on just one aspect rather than looking at the picture as a whole. At the end of the day to each their own, but I would think, based on your argument, that the flexibility of Reaper would make it king as the other DAWs are going to have more limitations than Reaper altogether. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting though?
I'm pretty sure you can create an action to do all of these things by pressing T in Reaper as well.Yup, but you need to change the automation to an automation item, then go into a menu (or map it to a button), then change the amplitude value with a slider.
Someone needs to define "easy." Because I have no problem using them at all.You have to spend some time getting used to them, but even if you do they are a far cry from being as easy to use.
Workarounds to what? They aren't workarounds, they are simply the way Reaper works. And the price of endless customizability is that you sometimes have to work a little harder to set your DAW up. At least Reaper gives you the ability to do that. But it also works FINE right out of the box. With most other DAWs it's my way or the highway. And I don't think Reaper should be penalized because it doesn't—right out of the box—conform to another DAWs workflow. The fact that it CAN conform at all, with some work, makes it pretty invaluable.When I have to implement workarounds (and not very elegant ones at that) for my most basic of workflows?
Learning to program? Really? All you have to do is learn how to create your own custom macros—something that can be learned in about two minutes flat. That's hardly programming. It's a matter of choosing the actions you want, dragging them over to a custom action screen, saving them to a new action and assigning a key stroke or a toolbar or a menu.before you get persuaded to spend weeks or even months learning the program
While I agree, and I too use Reaper for this reason, that doesn't mean these are issues not worth mentioning. To someone who is spending a lot of time tweaking CC in their DAW, this can actually be a make or break feature.
Rob I find your answer is nitpicky at best. I get your point, but the arguments come across as just taking whatever suits you and turning it to the betterment of your argument. Some things you say just don't fly.I'm pretty sure you can create an action to do all of these things by pressing T in Reaper as well.
Someone needs to define "easy." Because I have no problem using them at all.
Workarounds to what? They aren't workarounds, they are simply the way Reaper works. And the price of endless customizability is that you sometimes have to work a little harder to set your DAW up. At least Reaper gives you the ability to do that. But it also works FINE right out of the box. With most other DAWs it's my way or the highway. And I don't think Reaper should be penalized because it doesn't—right out of the box—conform to another DAWs workflow. The fact that it CAN conform at all, with some work, makes it pretty invaluable.
Learning to program? Really? All you have to do is learn how to create your own custom macros—something that can be learned in about two minutes flat. That's hardly programming. It's a matter of choosing the actions you want, dragging them over to a custom action screen, saving them to a new action and assigning a key stroke or a toolbar or a menu.
I get that people want an easy solution out of the box—and Reaper will give you that—but to complain that Reaper can't give you that Cubase or Studio One experience without having to work a little for it is just silliness. There's the old meme "there's an app for that." With Reaper, if you want something done, "there's a script for that."
I'm sorry, again, I'm not sure why Reaper gets penalized because it doesn't work like Studio One or Cubase. It works like Reaper. It can be as simple or as complicated as you want to make it. The fact that the community provides scripts to do just about anything you want, isn't a deficit but an asset. And if there's something you can't find in the scripts, a simple request on the forum will likely get someone to create it for you. I'm not sure Studio One or Cubase have that kind of user base.1) If I have to download an app called ReaPack, written by someone else, in order to find in there a script, written by someone else, that resembles what I have in mind, and I have to access the forums because things are generally pretty unclear as to how they exactly work, and I have to dive into the code to get mousewheel speed to my liking, saving it, hoping it works, hopping on the forum again because it didn't, and I have to map these scripts to different keystrokes, and have to find they only work on CCs, and not automation, and find they are finicky because they terminate automatically outside the CC lane bounds, and hope they will work in the next iteration of Reaper because the user actually updates them accordingly (which, in this case, thank god Julian Sader seems adamant about) instead of selecting both CCs or automation and pressing T and dragging some points, then yes, I call that a giant workaround. Make it rosy all you want, but elegant it ain't, and there are far better solutions to this. Problem is, it's the only way I know of to approximate that workflow, there is no alternative coming close. So, I have to do it with that, or not at all. I am completely at the mercy of another user who may or may not continue to support these scripts at all. You can say it's the way Reaper works. I can say it's a great example of where Reaper doesn't work, and relies on others to plug a giant hole in it's feature set, at least for me.
And once again, WHY does Reaper need to conform to other DAWs at all? I think that's the problem with your entire argument. Reaper isn't other DAWs. That said, it adheres to most DAW standards. The biggest confusion for most people is the routing, and once they wrap their head around it, they discover that its routing capabilities are AMAZING.2) I didn't say programming. I said learning the program. The software, the app, take your pick. I can tell you it took me quite some time to get to grips with all of the above, because it isn't exactly a showcase of intuitivity. Reaper was created by coders, and it shows. Nothing wrong with that, but some things are just less intuitive with Reaper. It's part of it's very nature of development. Yes, there is a basic workflow, but it doesn't just not conform to other DAWs, it doesn't even conform to things that other DAWs do that are kind of seen as standards out of the box. Some of these things became standards because hey, they work, and generally people like it that way. Yes, it can all be changed within Reaper to conform to your own workflow. I have students that have asked me about Reaper, and I have told them that if they want to actually make music and are looking for a first DAW, to stay as far away from it as they can. Maybe come back later, when they know what they are missing from the program they use at that time. Reaper is great, but I'm pretty sure a lot of these students would've thrown their hands in the air and said ''ff this I just wanna play'' if Reaper would've been their first DAW.
There is not a single DAW that works that easily. For the new student, even Garage Band has a learning curve.For a new student:
One button. One dropdown. Select and go. Simple and intuitive. There's a reason why most programs work this way.
Never said I penalize Reaper for that. I said I penalize Reaper for missing basic functionality which I have come to expect from DAWs of a certain complexity, not because they aren't THAT DAW.I'm sorry, again, I'm not sure why Reaper gets penalized because it doesn't work like Studio One or Cubase.
Never said that was a bad thing, it is an asset. However, I find it a bad thing that it's up to the community to provide functionality that, again, in my opinion, should be standard. You NEED scripts to transform CCs. It can't do this out of the box. Which I feel, given it's complexity and advanced functionality, is a strange oversight and completely unforgivable oversight, given the pedigree it receives.The fact that the community provides scripts to do just about anything you want, isn't a deficit but an asset.
I wasn't. Are we actually gonna discuss anything or will you keep tossing and turning everything everyone says into your own viewpoint?Also, you seem to be criticizing Reaper because it's constantly updated. I also consider that a good thing as opposed to the occasional fixes and updates we get for other DAWs.
I was talking about the speed with which the mousewheel moves the curve in some of Julian Sader's scripts. You have to change that in his scripts. He details it in the instructions.As to your mouse speed, isn't that controlled by your computer's OS? I adjust my mouse via the preferences on my Mac.
Yet there is no simple way to easily transform it without redrawing. It involves a lot more steps than other DAWs. Can be changed to be made easily, yes, but requires a lot more learning than with others. Also, all this is easy to do in many other DAWs, including Studio One. This functionality isn't new.As for automation, you need to look more carefully at it. There are some amazing things you can do with automation, including saving and loading repetitive tasks. For example, I have a library that uses the pitch wheel to create portamentos and I don't have enough hands to control it, plus the mod wheel, plus the keyboard. So I've saved automation information for the pitch wheel, added it to a menu and simply right click to add the portamento where needed after the fact. Works like a charm. Those same automation parameters can be copied and dragged to any point in the track I need them to be by simply using Command+left mouse. But, hey, if I don't want it to be Command+left mouse, I can easily change it to some other combination.
The routing capabilities are second to none, yes. But as for the other point, it doesn't have to conform to other DAWs, it has to conform to me. That's what it advertises, that's it's whole schtick. My problem is with saying Reaper can be anything you want it to. Well I tried, and came across the fact that it can conform to me only up to a certain point, and some of these gaps baffle me. There are advanced tools you can find nowhere else, and there are gaps in basic functionality that make me question wether they just develop the program completely randomly.And once again, WHY does Reaper need to conform to other DAWs at all? I think that's the problem with your entire argument. Reaper isn't other DAWs. That said, it adheres to most DAW standards. The biggest confusion for most people is the routing, and once they wrap their head around it, they discover that its routing capabilities are AMAZING.
Dangerous assumption here. Yes, learning your first DAW is always pretty though, but some are a bit more forthcoming with the learning curve than others. And if it wasn't for Kenny, I'd bet there would be a LOT less Reaper users out there.But, honestly, anyone who approaches ANY DAW for the first time will quickly discover that learning it is not even remotely intuitive. It took me awhile to learn Sonar. Then it took me a while to learn Nuendo. Then it took me a while to learn Logic. And again, with Studio One. Yes, each became easier than the last because of what I already knew, but each DAW has a fairly steep learning curve when it gets down to the nitty gritty of workflow. Reaper is no different. It works just fine out of the box if you don't have preconceived expectations from it. And when I came to Reaper from Studio One, it took only a half dozen or so short FREE tutorials from Kenny Gioia (which are available on the Reaper website) to get up to speed fairly quickly. There is not a single DAW that works that easily. For the new student, even Garage Band has a learning curve.
Yeah, me too, I don't want to take the time to explain all the things that I can do with Reaper, but ED explains it in a nutshell.
And this is what every one should be doing, once you can find the record button well said @DS_JoostI came to the conclusion that I used almost none. My workflow isn't that difficult; instrument track, record, bang in some notes and automation, and voila. Rinse and repeat. Throw a little mixing in along the way as I go. Get a scene, look at said scene, get some instruments, and start playing. Most times unorganized, but that's where my best ideas come from.
Indeed. I like the ideas that some people come up with here, but sometimes people seem to find the most needlessly complicated solutions to problems that weren't there in the first place. TouchOSC, or Lemur or what have you come to mind. Pretty cool that you can have updated pages of controls, but how long does it take to hook a controller and midi learning CC1, 11, 2 and 7? And how much control do you need? Do I need all the controls for reducing slur times, rebowing up or down, changing fingering positions, automating the bridge position, etc?And this is what every one should be doing, once you can find the record button well said @DS_Joost
It really makes me wonder when people say they can do so much more with Reaper you would think they are building a rocket for space entry when its really all about your music and that record button and your ideas.
I have Reaper and keep it updated must say it does get updated a lot, I think its a great DAW and have nothing against it but I prefer Cubase and I never felt the need to go past Cubase 6.
For great work flow and connection, and feel you really should be using a controller mixer to control your DAW and plugins and all you favourite go to tools you need to be moving faders, pressing buttons turning scroll wheels, cc this and cc that, assign this and that call up this and call up that all with your controller the idea is to use your mouse as least as possible or never at all.
once you boot your project up weather you using Reaper, Cubase, Logic, Pro tools it should all be about you and your controller and your music if your not doing this then you have lost the plot.
Your mouse should be in a mouse trap not Cubase or Reaper just learn to hit the record button and your 99% there
You're almost saying it yourself here: it is not an inherent problem of Reaper. It IS quite simple out of the box, and then also gives you all the tools to tinker with if you want. Fine if you need constraints to stay focused but don't blame a product's flexibility for you inability do so.I found that, in Reaper, I was more spending much more time thinking about how I could make music in it than ACTUALLY making music in it. I was so caught up in making my workflow more efficient that I forgot to actually make the music itself. Too much engineering, too little musical experimentation.