[HN Gopher] Reaper: Digital Audio Workstation
___________________________________________________________________
Reaper: Digital Audio Workstation
Author : Tomte
Score : 29 points
Date : 2021-04-29 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reaper.fm)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reaper.fm)
| rsp1984 wrote:
| It's been ages since I made electronic music on my PC. I always
| liked FL Studio and some friends of mine sweared by Reason but I
| haven't been keeping up with DAWs / sequencers. What are people
| using these days?
| adzm wrote:
| Ableton Live is huge in the electronic music space. It really
| works well for live experimentation and feels a lot more like
| an instrument you can play and experiment with as you go.
| newsclues wrote:
| From WinAmp to Reaper, what an interesting career.
| Minor49er wrote:
| I wasn't sure what you were referring to at first since I
| didn't see a mention of it on the Reaper homepage, but I looked
| it up. One of the Reaper developers, Justin Frankel, also
| created WinAmp
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel
|
| I love both applications, so I think this common thread
| explains a lot
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I wonder what advantages, if any, Reaper has over Ardour.
| zwieback wrote:
| I love Reaper, Avid Pro Tools is too much for my purposes and all
| the other free or low cost DAWs didn't feel right. The $60 non-
| commercial license is a bargain.
| Jakobeha wrote:
| I tried LMMS (an open-source DAW) and it was really hard to use.
| Then I tried Reaper and after bit of a learning curve, it feels
| much very natural. You can do almost anything and (albeit with
| the learning curve) simple actions are still simple - exactly how
| I want a software tool to work.
|
| I wonder how it compares to more expensive software like Abelton
| or Logic Pro. I'm not going to shell out the extra money but is
| there actually a big difference?
| mister_tee wrote:
| Reaper is a great DAW. It had/has features not in other DAWs
| (folder tracks predated Logic is one I use personally). It's
| fast, efficient, and can be installed in a portable manner.
| Agree with simple actions being simple; it's easy to ripple
| edit or crossfade by dragging in from the edge of a clip --
| more UI region based than other DAWs' mode-based flows.
|
| Back when I started using it, when v3 was new, IMO it was held
| back slightly by -- no judgment, we all start somewhere and can
| have fun playing with tools -- one user segment of novices
| using it for free indefinitely against the license since the
| trial is WinRAR-style -- and another user segment that seems to
| be more interested in skinning it than hitting the record
| button. But it's used in professional studios; you can see it
| pop up in youtube music production videos in the background in
| studio tours where they're going over tens of thousands of
| dollars in analog gear.
|
| However - I agree with a sibling post's note that Logic in
| particular comes with a ton of extra content. I never use apple
| loops but they're everywhere. There's pretty decent
| organ/piano/synths included in there. There are products built
| off a Camel Audio acquisition years ago, some of which cost
| more than Logic itself. The modeled compressors due a good job
| at what they do. I don't think you should choose a DAW based on
| value, but I believe dollar for dollar Logic beats out anything
| except where you divide by zero.
|
| Logic has also had seven years of free updates. Reaper gives
| you two major versions then you repurchase. Both of those are
| among the better deals in the industry.
|
| All that said, IMO the best DAW is the one you know or enjoy
| the interface of, and the second best one is the one used by
| people you're collaborating with. Also IMO I see way too often
| the temptation that if you _just_ switched to a new DAW or got
| a new plugin that magically your album would write itself and
| you'd find an audience.
|
| Or to directly answer your question, IMO no there's not a big
| difference. They're both work more than their asking price.
| Realistically computers are so efficient now and all DAW
| software is fairly to very good once you learn the interface.
| It's one of those things that we take for granted these days
| but would be completely amazing to someone 30 years ago. Pro
| Tools' 30th anniversary is coming up and most edits were
| destructive and offline. Now you can run dozens of tracks of
| simulated instruments and recorded audio with studio-grade
| effects processing in realtime with cycles to spare.
| jonpalmisc wrote:
| Reaper is incredibly powerful, no doubt about it. However, as a
| long time Ableton and Logic user, I would say that both of
| those programs have a much better UI/UX than Reaper.
| Personally, I find Ableton more enjoyable to work in, as it has
| a nice UI and stays out of my way while I work. That's just my
| opinion though. In the end of the day, the best DAW is the one
| that works for you.
| gooseyard wrote:
| The people I know who love working with Reaper the most are
| audio professionals who have days jobs kinda like mine as a
| programmer. They have a ton of repetitive tasks which can be
| automated to a great extent but which still require some human
| cognitive input. Reaper stands out in the same way as vim or
| emacs, in that things are customizable and scriptable in a
| manner that is accessible to people who aren't programming
| wizards. I think maybe Reaper is the Lotus/Excel of the audio
| world, where instead of crunching numbers, the user is doing
| things like spotting and removing all the instances of "umm"
| and "uhh" in an hour long podcast. Machines can do a pretty
| good job of removing mouth clicks and noises, but today some
| human editing still works pretty well, and a tool like Reaper
| in the hands of a good operator takes a lot of agony out of
| that process.
| neves wrote:
| Can you reference an efficient process to remove"umm"s and
| "uhh" of audio? I just edited a video and this audio
| microediting was really laborious.
| agallant wrote:
| As with much expensive software, the biggest difference isn't
| what it does but who uses it. You didn't mention it, but Pro
| Tools is the dominant (and truly pricey) DAW in professional
| studios, and so a big reason for using it is if you want to
| work with those folks and share projects back and forth.
|
| Logic Pro is actually pretty darn affordable as DAWs go ($199,
| which is more than base Reaper but actually less than Reaper
| commercial license), and it's essentially an upsell of Garage
| Band and almost a loss leader for Apple to keep a "creative"
| tinge (except I'm sure they make money on it, just less than
| they could if they pushed it - it was more expensive before
| Apple bought it). It's well worth trying if you have a Mac,
| comes with lots of virtual instruments that are arguably worth
| the price alone - but it is opinionated about AU format whereas
| Reaper is nice and compatible with other things, programmable,
| etc.
|
| Ableton is a different and interesting beast, a DAW but also
| oriented towards live performance, electro-DJ-loop stuff, etc.
| If that's your bag then definitely give it a go (the full
| version is expensive but you can get Ableton Lite for free or
| close to it via special offers and hardware bonuses), but if
| you're working with more sequential music then a traditional
| DAW is probably more natural. (See also in this space, Bitwig
| and FL Studio.)
|
| At the end of the day, all modern DAWs can do all the same
| common/core tasks. It's just a matter of community and
| workflow/UX - different tools are optimized for different
| things and entrenched with different users. And Reaper is
| almost a meta-tool that you can optimize yourself, if you take
| the time to do it.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| In my experience, Reaper seems to be a favorite of a lot of
| mastering engineers these days. I don't know any
| producers/mixers who use it to craft songs. I haven't looked
| deep enough to say why that is. As I understand it, Reaper is
| generally full featured and competent with no loss of any
| fidelity. I think it's flexibility of audio routing and
| excellent conversion algorithms may be a reason so many
| mastering engineers turn to it.
|
| Where it's going to differ (and you could say lack) is in the
| support, integration with other technologies, and unique design
| features that certain DAWs have chosen to specialize in. Reaper
| seems to be right down the middle and not specialize in any
| notable way or offer something that other DAWs do not.
|
| For example, Ableton Live (a full-featured DAW that you can do
| every part of the production process in) has been designed from
| the ground up to primarily be a performance tool. It's features
| prioritize stability of audio, flow, ease of use, speed, and
| the ability to do powerful gestures with a minimal effort, all
| without stopping playback of the audio at any point. It's
| favored by musicians who want to improvise or get an idea as
| fast as possible and with minimal fuss.
|
| In contrast, A DAW like Pro Tools is rich with features that
| allow for ultra-detailed tracking, editing, and mixing. It's
| very powerful in these areas, but lacking when it comes to
| sequencing or doing anything that favors electronic music.
|
| Logic, on the other hand, is a jack-of-all DAW that sits right
| in the middle. It also comes with an exceptional array of
| plugins and instruments and a sizeable sample and loop library
| to get people started who don't already own a large collection
| of third-party tools. A great beginners DAW that you would
| never have to feel like you're missing out on by using.
|
| Each of these DAWs have their niche uses. Reaper seems bland or
| undefined in this sense.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-29 23:01 UTC)