Reaper - Why NOT?
- Thread starter sentinel72
- Start date
Not an issue here
And furthermore, you can save your keyboard shortcuts as a proprietary file that you could import on someone else's setup, and bring a flash drive with a project template (just like I imagine people do with Cubase, or really any program that isn't PT)
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Not an issue here
Still, gotta find someone that actually works with that DAW... I honestly can't take an engineer who uses Reaper as a main DAW that seriously. If I was set to record with a guy and he was running Reaper, I'd probably reschedule somewhere else.
And no, you don't bring flashdrives with templates and shortcuts around... you learn the standards and abide by them, because they're set up that way for a reason: compatability.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
That's the sad part... like I've said - there's no concrete reason aside from what I've mentioned as to why I dislike it, but I cannot take it seriously. Does nobody else see the 'fisher price' type of thing I see about it?
ParsonsMatt
Alas, Tyranny
If I was going to record with a guy, I'd probably a) like his work and b) like his prices. If I go in and see that he uses methodology I don't personally like, who gives a shit? I may prefer ENGL amps, but if someone gets awesome tone that I want with a 5150 or Mesa, I'm not going to turn my nose up at it.
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Is it the price, it's too 'cheap' for some people, like if it cost five times as much it'd be acceptable.
I'll agree that the silly name doesn't sound too professional either, but as far as sequencers go, whilst I'll agree with most that say Pro Tools leads the pack, Reaper is about on Cubase level imho.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Using Reaper suggests to me some other deficiency in his workflow/process... Come to think of it, the only dude who even REMOTELY impresses me that uses Reaper is Ryan Havey (Catharsis), and I do almost all of his drum editing.
Öwen;8786422 said:
Not a chance in hell. PT, Logic, Cubendo, in that order. I'm willing to bet more studios are using Sonar or Cakewalk than Reaper. But no way in hell are anywhere near as many people using Reaper as Cubase.
Like you mention, it could be the price. As with most things, we tend to not even consider the super cheap alternative. With something as integral to my workflow as the DAW itself, I can't afford to skimp like that. That said, I think I'd be even less inclined to accept Reaper as a suitable option if they charged much more, because of all the features it lacks and the stupidity of the enviornment in a lot of ways. Reminds me of SAWstudio, in that regard!
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Yeah most definitely, but Reaper is still the new(er) product in that regard and my argument wasn't that of a popularity contest anyway.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I've stated three times now that I'm not basing it off much; of course it's going to be vague generalizations.
The layout is convoluted and unorganized to me, the menus have ridiculously stupid and complex wordings, keycommands seem to be user-generated only, editing features are crippled as Adam pointed out, and... (this will get me a ton of flack I'm sure; think of it as the same reason for a lot of us hating on hardcore/metalcore/crabcore/etccore bands because of the retarded fanbase)
...the user base is basically a ton of amateur dudes in their bedrooms attempting to create half decent recordings and failing miserably. I'm no pro by any means, but seriously... Ryan's the only one putting out anything good, and he doesn't do most of his own editing.
The layout is convoluted and unorganized to me, the menus have ridiculously stupid and complex wordings, keycommands seem to be user-generated only, editing features are crippled as Adam pointed out, and... (this will get me a ton of flack I'm sure; think of it as the same reason for a lot of us hating on hardcore/metalcore/crabcore/etccore bands because of the retarded fanbase)
...the user base is basically a ton of amateur dudes in their bedrooms attempting to create half decent recordings and failing miserably. I'm no pro by any means, but seriously... Ryan's the only one putting out anything good, and he doesn't do most of his own editing.
TheDriller
Member
I do.
and its not down to one specific things, its culmination of little annoyances.
nor is it a matter of price (that its "too cheap"), the program just feels kinda cheap and tacky to me, mostly because of the layout and the dodgy menus.
also, it seems to take twice or even 3 times as many clicks to get to where you want to be.
EDIT: i'm actually in agreement with you Jeff, on most of the points you have raised in the past few posts.
so,
while Owen brought up the issue of price, i may ask a question of all the Reaper fans...
if Reaper wasn't so affordable, like maybe it was priced at around $500 for a license like most other DAWs seem to be, would there be anywhere near as many users?
i always see ReaEvangelists going on about how it would be a bargain even at a higher price, i'd love to call the bluff on that one and see just how appealing it would be at a higher price point.
i suppose what i'm getting at is, is the low price the most significant selling point?
again, no offence intended to anyone who uses Reaper as their main DAW, i still keep up to date with it and am quite fond of the little DAW despite its flaws
PhilR
Studio Scapegoat
Pro Tools was first seen in 1984
The first recognizable version of Cubase was released in 1989
The first application known as Logic came out in 1993
Reaper was released for the first time in December 2005
Have a little perspective guys.
The first recognizable version of Cubase was released in 1989
The first application known as Logic came out in 1993
Reaper was released for the first time in December 2005
Have a little perspective guys.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Why doesn't everyone just get on with using their DAW of choice as opposed to arguing about it? This forum is full of talking and not enough doing! (i'm greatly guilty of this myself)
The only thing that's truly certain is that pro tools is industry standard so it's a totally worthwhile investment to get it and learn it at an early point in your career.
The only thing that's truly certain is that pro tools is industry standard so it's a totally worthwhile investment to get it and learn it at an early point in your career.
TheDriller
Member
Maybe because the thread starter was asking for this kind of discussion?
i don't care what anyone uses, but if i'm asked for my opinion i'll give it
Jind
Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)
- Mar 7, 2009
- 2,542
- 0
- 36
But you see - thats not really an argument to be made here in regards to the perspective of whats newer and whats not. While it may be newer, being older does not really equate to being more developed or well thought out, more mature.
As an example - Presonus Studio One (I'm not a user, but I have read lots of the reviews for it) is receiving reviews in which it is described as well thought out, elegant, intuitive, fast on screen work flow, ... This is a brand new DAW that has just been released, but it seems to have been very well planned with much thought put into the design from the get go - they seem to know what they want it to be and what they don't. does it still miss the mark on a few items, sure - but that can be attributed to it being a version 1.01 - but the basic design seems to be a good one, a well thought out one.
My main complaint with Reaper is the scatter-shot development - it's almost like cow shit in a pasture; it's all over the place it seems. It's already at 3.161 and while they have added a bunch of stuff, I think it still suffers from a lack of direction, a lack of a well thought out implementation path.
Once again - just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
No, but it does seem to ease the passage of acceptance from notoriously scrupulous audio engineers. I doubt the Presonus sequencer will be accepted as a 'serious' alternative either for a good few years.
I'm sure the other DAWs have their share of these guys too.
$449 for an MBox2 with Pro Tools isn't gonna keep the 'tards away.
Hell, I bought one for less than that.
Compatibility? Lots of you guys pros forced to move from studio to studio for scheduling or touring reasons?
Maybe some day when I hit it big and have to do that I'll understand. But until that day comes, the "I need to be compatible!" thing doesn't make sense to me.
I'll try anything. I don't care what its called, who else uses it, what it costs, whether or not its the "in" thing or the "industry standard". Its about results. And so far my results aren't that good. I'm a noob. So I get noob results. And I'd get them in any DAW I imagine.
But it is good to know what specific things are driving people from or to particular DAWs.
Seeing as how I trust you wouldn't be stupid enough to think the program itself is to blame for this, this statement seems completely irrelevant and unnecessary, not to mention massively dickish
Of course I started using Reaper because of its cost, I'm the first to admit that, and the cost is pretty fucking good IMO - however, I'd still gladly use it over Cubase, regardless of price!
Similar threads
