5 ms·

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 a

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?

jonpalmisc 5y ago
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.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  I have never hated any program more than I hated Ableton. It's very good for doing 4/4 dance music - simply terrible for anything else. For example, for well over ten years, when you stretched a MIDI track, it would stretch _just the notes_ and leave all the other MIDI information where it was. Which means if you played a performance on any MIDI instrument that has any controllers at all, it's now broken. I reported it to them and I was told that was how it was supposed to work. I asked them for some scenario where this wouldn't break your track, and instead they asked me why wanted to do this. I explained that sometimes I'm a little slow or fast in a track and want to tweak it; but more, I compose by playing freely with the metronome turned off, and then editing the result to match bar lines. They were like, "That's your problem, then, you must always have the metronome on when recording." I said, "But I don't want a metronome. Often I don't even know what tempo I am going to end up in." They said, "You're just trying to be difficult." And I ran into this over and over again. For example, they hyped Max For Live for years, and when it finally came out, it didn't handle system exclusives AND it didn't handle more than one MIDI channel(!) Hundreds of people complained about this, but it still wasn't fixed over five years later. Here's an article I wrote about ten years ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sh7fG1cVtjVb5Ml5nYXeew9ckZYqRXApdLqSoU8oaSw/edit#heading=h.24cqokc9u9kp https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sh7fG1cVtjVb5Ml5nYXeew9c...
gooseyard 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - ioseph 5y ago
    Not a reaper user but I imagine you'd need to run it through a text to speech plugin then mark times with either those words or a duration without dictionary words.
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    why are you editing them out? they're natural things, people don't really hear them unless they're trying to.
    - mkaic 5y ago
      They waste time and lower information density, and also, for the few people who do notice them, they get very irritating. Getting rid of filler words where natural is pretty standard practice for longer-form videos.
      - 5y ago
agallant 5y ago
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.
- gtvwill 5y ago
  Geez Bitwig if your a fan of Ableton. Some of abletons OG dev team left and made it a few years back. Also if you want some Ableton training geez https://www.youtube.com/c/TomCosmNZ/featured https://www.youtube.com/c/TomCosmNZ/featured I've been watching him play sets for > a decade. Blokes a wizard with Ableton.
- reom_tobit 5y ago
  I moved to Reaper after Logic X was released. I know it’s a dead meme to decry the X version of an Apple software product (looking at you Final Cut), but in their desire to reduce complexity in the UI, they made what were previously common tasks for advanced user, incredibly difficult to perform. Since moving to Reaper I’ve feel like I’ve been in a dream land. Things work in their own way, and I can customise it to my hearts content. Programmable too! Very happy camper over here.
Slow_Hand 5y ago
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.
- l8rlump 5y ago
  Perhaps Reaper's hackability/flexibility (e.g.scripting/API/js DSP programming language) is its "thing"?
mister_tee 5y ago
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 seemed to be more interested in customizing the interface and trying different skins than hitting the record button (maybe appropriate given its winamp heritage!). 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/eqs are sleepers since many people start buying third-party equivalents. 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 worth 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 back in the first version most processing was 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.
- tomc1985 5y ago

jonpalmisc 5y ago

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.

TomSwirly 5y ago
I have never hated any program more than I hated Ableton. It's very good for doing 4/4 dance music - simply terrible for anything else. For example, for well over ten years, when you stretched a MIDI track, it would stretch _just the notes_ and leave all the other MIDI information where it was. Which means if you played a performance on any MIDI instrument that has any controllers at all, it's now broken. I reported it to them and I was told that was how it was supposed to work. I asked them for some scenario where this wouldn't break your track, and instead they asked me why wanted to do this. I explained that sometimes I'm a little slow or fast in a track and want to tweak it; but more, I compose by playing freely with the metronome turned off, and then editing the result to match bar lines. They were like, "That's your problem, then, you must always have the metronome on when recording." I said, "But I don't want a metronome. Often I don't even know what tempo I am going to end up in." They said, "You're just trying to be difficult." And I ran into this over and over again. For example, they hyped Max For Live for years, and when it finally came out, it didn't handle system exclusives AND it didn't handle more than one MIDI channel(!) Hundreds of people complained about this, but it still wasn't fixed over five years later. Here's an article I wrote about ten years ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sh7fG1cVtjVb5Ml5nYXeew9ckZYqRXApdLqSoU8oaSw/edit#heading=h.24cqokc9u9kp https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sh7fG1cVtjVb5Ml5nYXeew9c...

gooseyard 5y ago

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 5y ago
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.
- ioseph 5y ago
  Not a reaper user but I imagine you'd need to run it through a text to speech plugin then mark times with either those words or a duration without dictionary words.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  why are you editing them out? they're natural things, people don't really hear them unless they're trying to.
  - mkaic 5y ago
    They waste time and lower information density, and also, for the few people who do notice them, they get very irritating. Getting rid of filler words where natural is pretty standard practice for longer-form videos.
    - 5y ago

agallant 5y ago

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.

gtvwill 5y ago
Geez Bitwig if your a fan of Ableton. Some of abletons OG dev team left and made it a few years back. Also if you want some Ableton training geez https://www.youtube.com/c/TomCosmNZ/featured https://www.youtube.com/c/TomCosmNZ/featured I've been watching him play sets for > a decade. Blokes a wizard with Ableton.
reom_tobit 5y ago
I moved to Reaper after Logic X was released. I know it’s a dead meme to decry the X version of an Apple software product (looking at you Final Cut), but in their desire to reduce complexity in the UI, they made what were previously common tasks for advanced user, incredibly difficult to perform. Since moving to Reaper I’ve feel like I’ve been in a dream land. Things work in their own way, and I can customise it to my hearts content. Programmable too! Very happy camper over here.

Slow_Hand 5y ago

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.

l8rlump 5y ago
Perhaps Reaper's hackability/flexibility (e.g.scripting/API/js DSP programming language) is its "thing"?

mister_tee 5y ago

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 seemed to be more interested in customizing the interface and trying different skins than hitting the record button (maybe appropriate given its winamp heritage!). 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/eqs are sleepers since many people start buying third-party equivalents. 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 worth 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 back in the first version most processing was 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.

tomc1985 5y ago