AJ_0000
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 738
- Joined: 2007/05/05 01:32:03
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 22:14:29
(permalink)
Alright, for the sake of informing myself, I downloaded Reaper and I've been trying it out for the past hour or so. I don't want to be any more harsh than necessary, so I'll list the positive first. I used the same gear I use with Sonar (E-Mu 1616m, midi controller, etc)
PROs
- It's (essentially) free.
- It has a very small footprint. That's always good.
- It basically works.
- It attempts to include a number of features you would expect from real DAW software.
CONs
- The performance is surprisingly clunky for something that you would expect to be streamlined. It hangs regularly for a few seconds when you tell it to do something.
- The MIDI implementation is crude and rudimentary, to put it mildly. If Sonar and other real DAW programs are like Photoshop for MIDI, Reaper is the equivalent of MS Paint.
- The audio engine sounds like garbage. The term "tin can" comes to mind.
- The built-in effects and "synths" are "basic"...again...to put it mildly.
- The design of tracks, inputs, FX etc. are definitely simple...so simple that you have no clue what's going on. Whereas one glance in track view gives you every pertinent piece of information about that track in Sonar, in Reaper you have to OPEN the fx bin, OPEN the I/O settings, and so on. It sucks, really, really bad.
- It does not automatically detect your hardware, which means you have to dig through menus and options just to get a sound out of it. It does not automatically detect anything, for that matter. This is a relatively minor issue once you've told it where to find everything and set up your sound card, but it shows how rough the software is at this stage.
BOTTOM LINE
I can definitely see Reaper having a use, for people who are complete novices to recording and want to get their feet wet for free. It could also be useful for people who are doing minor multi-media editing for the web, although it could be too complicated for people who just want to do something simple. It is a LONG, LONG, LONG way from being anything close to a serious alternative to Sonar, Cubase, Logic, etc. Having heard some people's incessant hyping of Reaper, it was hard not to laugh a few times at how extremely basic and amateurish it is. If it is the true intent of the developer(s) to make this a serious DAW program, it's going to take a WHOLE lot of work to get it there. I could see using it as some kind of basic recorder, but laptops are powerful enough now that you can use your real DAW software without much effort, so why bother importing back and forth? Even more to the point, if the audio engine sounds this bad on playback, I'm suspicious that you could get a decent sounding recorded file out of it, even to be able to mix it in another program.
Basically, my response to the people suggesting Reaper is anywhere close to being a serious alternative at this point is: Are you kidding? Seriously...are you kidding?
|
AJ_0000
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 738
- Joined: 2007/05/05 01:32:03
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 22:31:53
(permalink)
A couple of other thoughts: 1) Although there may be some tighter coding in Reaper, the main reason why it has a footprint that's so much lighter than real DAW programs is because it only does a TINY FRACTION of what those programs do. 2) I strongly suspect that the core of Reaper's "support" comes from people who had previously been using PIRATED COPIES of Sonar, Cubase, etc. I have no proof of it, but that's my gut instinct. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
post edited by AJ_0000 - 2008/04/29 22:51:46
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 22:56:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: AJ_0000
2) I strongly suspect that the core of Reaper's "support" comes from people who had previously been using PIRATED COPIES of Sonar, Cubase, etc. I have no proof of it, but that's my gut instinct. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
Arrrr, matey... 'e be tellin' a scurilous lie, I tell 'e....
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:01:32
(permalink)
I've been looking for alternatives also. Sonar has not been solid for since ver 4. Reaper looks interesting.
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:06:40
(permalink)
I can assure no one running a serious studio is serious about reaper.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:33:52
(permalink)
CONs
- The performance is surprisingly clunky for something that you would expect to be streamlined. It hangs regularly for a few seconds when you tell it to do something.
You're not talking about the audio engine itself are you? Reaper is surprisingly efficient. In fact someone recently made the point that Reaper utilizes multiple cores much better than Sonar. So what exactly is taking so long? - The MIDI implementation is crude and rudimentary, to put it mildly. If Sonar and other real DAW programs are like Photoshop for MIDI, Reaper is the equivalent of MS Paint. Agreed, without question. This KILLS me about Reaper. - The audio engine sounds like garbage. The term "tin can" comes to mind.. Does Sonar's math sounds better than Reaper's math? What you think you're hearing isn't there: it's a placebo. What you're saying about Reaper's audio engine sounding tinny is absurd, as is the notion of better sounding math. Different default pan settings making mixes sound different? Sure! Reaper lets you set the pan laws for individual tracks. I'll bet though that Reaper's audio files null with Sonar's when phase reversed. - The built-in effects and "synths" are "basic"...again...to put it mildly. The Reaplugs are fantastic sounding freeware plugs, and I use the VST versions of ReaComp and ReaXcomp in Sonar frequently. I'll take Reaplugs over Sonitus personally, but that's just a matter of taste. On synths, there's no competition, Sonar PE wins hands down. - The design of tracks, inputs, FX etc. are definitely simple...so simple that you have no clue what's going on. Whereas one glance in track view gives you every pertinent piece of information about that track in Sonar, in Reaper you have to OPEN the fx bin, OPEN the I/O settings, and so on. It sucks, really, really bad. This is the one that made me post this reply: Reaper kicks ass in how the tracks are designed. Tracks can be routed to other tracks, treated as busses, have their inputs split out to several tracks, easily be fed into the sidechains of other tracks/effects, feedback loops can be easily created, etc. In fact, one of the big feature requests for Sonar 8 thus far has been tracks that function like Reaper's tracks. It's not Sonar, and may take some time to get used to, but the way Reaper's tracks work is phenomonal. Additional Pro's in the Audio engine: Group Editing (another S8 feature request) Elastique V.2 time/pitch stretching (sounds better than Radius IMO) Varispeed playback/recording I'm pretty sure it'll also do the tape-style monitoring that's been asked for around here. - It does not automatically detect your hardware, which means you have to dig through menus and options just to get a sound out of it. It does not automatically detect anything, for that matter. This is a relatively minor issue once you've told it where to find everything and set up your sound card, but it shows how rough the software is at this stage. Fair enough. Basically, my response to the people suggesting Reaper is anywhere close to being a serious alternative at this point is: Are you kidding? Seriously...are you kidding? I'm surprised you didn't mention the lack of tools as a complaint as well. As I've already stated, that particular aspect of Reaper is the other big killer for me. Aside from that, people who don't do a lot of MIDI work and like using keyboard shortcuts might actually love how audio-centric Reaper is. Anyway, I think you have a lot of fair points (except the audio engine sounding tinny one, that's either pilot error or a placebo), after all, I'm still a Sonar guy. But while Reaper doesn't suit everyone, it definately has a lot of strong aspects that might appeal to a lot of different people. Let me also add that Reaper is constantly in development, Justin does a great job on releases and is only expanding Reaper (a mac version is on the way), and the user base is very active and friendly (they're not a bunch blind followers as they're often portrayed in other forums and actually discuss Reaper's shortcomings often). The stuff in this thread where people are saying things, "oh I bet that guy's not doing it by himself" is a little conspiratorial and silly though.
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:38:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
I can assure no one running a serious studio is serious about reaper.
Are you new to DAWs? Do you not remember the, "no one running a serious studio uses a PC" crap that used to go around? Or how about the, "no one running a serious studio uses anything but Pro-Tools," junk we were bombarded with for years. Or "Samplitude and Digital Performer are the only Pro-Tools alternative because they at least don't sound as bad as Cubase and Cakewalk." Or the, "my DAW's summing engine sounds way better than your DAW's summing engine" nonsense that went around? Or even the, "Sonar is not a serious DAW" talk that I've been hearing for years. I've been watching DAWs develop throughout the years and that kind of talk has always been crap, and still is. Yet you still hear it. Trust me, I bet if we hop on over to the Digi forums someone will have effectively said the same thing about Sonar within the last couple of weeks. Blanket statements like that when it comes to audio don't ever seem to hold as true as the people who post them may think.
post edited by Funkybot - 2008/04/30 00:02:13
|
OldGeezer
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 686
- Joined: 2005/07/17 11:51:44
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:38:58
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: AJ_0000
Alright, for the sake of informing myself, I downloaded Reaper and I've been trying it out for the past hour or so. I don't want to be any more harsh than necessary, so I'll list the positive first. I used the same gear I use with Sonar (E-Mu 1616m, midi controller, etc)
PROs
- It's (essentially) free.
- It has a very small footprint. That's always good.
- It basically works.
- It attempts to include a number of features you would expect from real DAW software.
CONs
- The performance is surprisingly clunky for something that you would expect to be streamlined. It hangs regularly for a few seconds when you tell it to do something.
- The MIDI implementation is crude and rudimentary, to put it mildly. If Sonar and other real DAW programs are like Photoshop for MIDI, Reaper is the equivalent of MS Paint.
- The audio engine sounds like garbage. The term "tin can" comes to mind.
- The built-in effects and "synths" are "basic"...again...to put it mildly.
- The design of tracks, inputs, FX etc. are definitely simple...so simple that you have no clue what's going on. Whereas one glance in track view gives you every pertinent piece of information about that track in Sonar, in Reaper you have to OPEN the fx bin, OPEN the I/O settings, and so on. It sucks, really, really bad.
- It does not automatically detect your hardware, which means you have to dig through menus and options just to get a sound out of it. It does not automatically detect anything, for that matter. This is a relatively minor issue once you've told it where to find everything and set up your sound card, but it shows how rough the software is at this stage.
BOTTOM LINE
I can definitely see Reaper having a use, for people who are complete novices to recording and want to get their feet wet for free. It could also be useful for people who are doing minor multi-media editing for the web, although it could be too complicated for people who just want to do something simple. It is a LONG, LONG, LONG way from being anything close to a serious alternative to Sonar, Cubase, Logic, etc. Having heard some people's incessant hyping of Reaper, it was hard not to laugh a few times at how extremely basic and amateurish it is. If it is the true intent of the developer(s) to make this a serious DAW program, it's going to take a WHOLE lot of work to get it there. I could see using it as some kind of basic recorder, but laptops are powerful enough now that you can use your real DAW software without much effort, so why bother importing back and forth? Even more to the point, if the audio engine sounds this bad on playback, I'm suspicious that you could get a decent sounding recorded file out of it, even to be able to mix it in another program.
Basically, my response to the people suggesting Reaper is anywhere close to being a serious alternative at this point is: Are you kidding? Seriously...are you kidding?
Wow, well, if someone who spent a whole hour with it thinks it sucks, it must really suck! Thanks for sharing your vast experience with us. You must have computer issues, coz Reaper running the same loadout as Sonar does so at less than half the CPU usage over here (as it does with many other users). I won't even address your other "points" seeing as you've spent so much time with Reaper that I must just be missing something. Meh, what else can one expect in the Sonar forum.
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:43:11
(permalink)
|
Rbh
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2349
- Joined: 2007/09/05 22:33:44
- Location: Indiana
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/29 23:51:24
(permalink)
My take on it ( Reaper ) is that it is a work in progress and a work of passion... Much like Mr. Hendershot early on with 12 tone. More power to him, better mouse trap and all that. I'll stick with Cakewalk because I've used it since Roger powell ( texture) decided to ease out of midi sequencing as gracefully as he did. It's really the only music software I've gotten deep into, and I don't have a need for a whole lot more or different.
|
HotCoollMusicGirl
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 991
- Joined: 2004/10/02 20:23:31
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:10:48
(permalink)
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:11:48
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Funkybot
ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
I can assure no one running a serious studio is serious about reaper.
Are you new to DAWs? Do you not remember the, "no one running a serious studio uses a PC" crap that used to go around? Or how about the, "no one running a serious studio uses anything but Pro-Tools," junk we were bombarded with for years. Or "Samplitude and Digital Performer are the only Pro-Tools alternative because they at least don't sound as bad as Cubase and Cakewalk." Or the, "my DAW's summing engine sounds way better than your DAW's summing engine" nonsense that went around? Or even the, "Sonar is not a serious DAW" talk that I've been hearing for years.
I've been watching DAWs develop throughout the years and that kind of talk has always been crap, and still is. Yet you still hear it. Trust me, I bet if we hop on over to the Digi forums someone will have effectively said the same thing about Sonar within the last couple of weeks. Blanket statements like that when it comes to audio don't ever seem to hold as true as the people who post them may think.
No I am not new to DAWS or studios and frankly Cakewalk was not a serious studio DAW until Sonar and I stand by my original statement. Dude you can't even import OMF in Reaper, its so friggin light in midi and it will remain that way. reaper CANNOT seriously compete without major coin and a bigger development team. Tell ya what, get rid of Sonar and open a studio with just reaper...let me know how that works out for ya.
post edited by Psychobillybob - 2008/04/30 00:32:24
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
T.S.
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 654
- Joined: 2005/08/11 17:29:16
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:14:42
(permalink)
Alright, for the sake of informing myself, I downloaded Reaper and I've been trying it out for the past hour or so. I don't want to be any more harsh than necessary, so I'll list the positive first. I used the same gear I use with Sonar (E-Mu 1616m, midi controller, etc) I'm sorry AJ, I mean no disrespect what so ever, but for you to download and try out a piece of software for and hour or so and then make such difinitive statements, it at least borders on the absurd. I personly don't know much of anything about Reaper but based on the many posts in this forum I feel pretty confident it's not the piece of crap you try to make it out to be. The neat thing I see with Reaper is that it's a work in progress that's not upgradeing every year and can only get better. Whether it ever rivals Sonar or any other main stream software out there I don't know. But I do applaude the effort. T.S.
|
AJ_0000
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 738
- Joined: 2007/05/05 01:32:03
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:37:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Funkybot
CONs
- The performance is surprisingly clunky for something that you would expect to be streamlined. It hangs regularly for a few seconds when you tell it to do something.
You're not talking about the audio engine itself are you? Reaper is surprisingly efficient. In fact someone recently made the point that Reaper utilizes multiple cores much better than Sonar. So what exactly is taking so long? I'm talking about the program itself, actually. For example, clicking on "fx" or "I/O" on one of the tracks...it hangs for a second before the window opens. Why? I don't know. Doesn't happen with Sonar. - The audio engine sounds like garbage. The term "tin can" comes to mind..
Does Sonar's math sounds better than Reaper's math? What you think you're hearing isn't there: it's a placebo. What you're saying about Reaper's audio engine sounding tinny is absurd, as is the notion of better sounding math. Different default pan settings making mixes sound different? Sure! Reaper lets you set the pan laws for individual tracks. I'll bet though that Reaper's audio files null with Sonar's when phase reversed.
To be honest, I have no idea how these programs go about dealing with audio. All I know is that audio tracks and VSTis sound distinctly different in Reaper, and not better. Tinny is the best word I can come up with, but it may not be the perfect description. - The built-in effects and "synths" are "basic"...again...to put it mildly.
The Reaplugs are fantastic sounding freeware plugs, and I use the VST versions of ReaComp and ReaXcomp in Sonar frequently. I'll take Reaplugs over Sonitus personally, but that's just a matter of taste. On synths, there's no competition, Sonar PE wins hands down.
The Sonitus plugs are dependable. You didn't say you'd take it over VC64 or the LP64 Multiband. I thought the included plugs with Reaper ranged from underwhelming to laughable. My favorite was the "synth" that only has a setting for attack and release...no decay or sustain. Really useful. - The design of tracks, inputs, FX etc. are definitely simple...so simple that you have no clue what's going on. Whereas one glance in track view gives you every pertinent piece of information about that track in Sonar, in Reaper you have to OPEN the fx bin, OPEN the I/O settings, and so on. It sucks, really, really bad.
This is the one that made me post this reply: Reaper kicks ass in how the tracks are designed. Tracks can be routed to other tracks, treated as busses, have their inputs split out to several tracks, easily be fed into the sidechains of other tracks/effects, feedback loops can be easily created, etc. In fact, one of the big feature requests for Sonar 8 thus far has been tracks that function like Reaper's tracks. It's not Sonar, and may take some time to get used to, but the way Reaper's tracks work is phenomonal.
I disagree. I find the basic "all-in-one" track design to be cumbersome and counter-productive rather than "streamlined". Additional Pro's in the Audio engine:
Group Editing (another S8 feature request)
Elastique V.2 time/pitch stretching (sounds better than Radius IMO)
Varispeed playback/recording
I'm pretty sure it'll also do the tape-style monitoring that's been asked for around here. I'll certainly agree that there could be a few aspects of it that are good ideas. That doesn't mean the whole package is anywhere near being ready for prime time. Basically, my response to the people suggesting Reaper is anywhere close to being a serious alternative at this point is: Are you kidding? Seriously...are you kidding?
I'm surprised you didn't mention the lack of tools as a complaint as well. As I've already stated, that particular aspect of Reaper is the other big killer for me. Aside from that, people who don't do a lot of MIDI work and like using keyboard shortcuts might actually love how audio-centric Reaper is.
Anyway, I think you have a lot of fair points (except the audio engine sounding tinny one, that's either pilot error or a placebo), after all, I'm still a Sonar guy. But while Reaper doesn't suit everyone, it definately has a lot of strong aspects that might appeal to a lot of different people. Let me also add that Reaper is constantly in development, Justin does a great job on releases and is only expanding Reaper (a mac version is on the way), and the user base is very active and friendly (they're not a bunch blind followers as they're often portrayed in other forums and actually discuss Reaper's shortcomings often). The stuff in this thread where people are saying things, "oh I bet that guy's not doing it by himself" is a little conspiratorial and silly though.
I read an SOS review of it from last summer that said there were multiple people working on it, from various software companies. I'd be interested to know if any of them have any professional recording experience. I strongly suspect they don't. It seems like what it is--some programmer's hobby project. Like I said, I can see people who are primarily focused in other areas using it as a very minor hobby program, but to even compare it to the real thing at this point is crazy. It's strictly bare bones.
post edited by AJ_0000 - 2008/04/30 01:00:47
|
HotCoollMusicGirl
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 991
- Joined: 2004/10/02 20:23:31
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:38:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: T.S.
Alright, for the sake of informing myself, I downloaded Reaper and I've been trying it out for the past hour or so. I don't want to be any more harsh than necessary, so I'll list the positive first. I used the same gear I use with Sonar (E-Mu 1616m, midi controller, etc)
I'm sorry AJ, I mean no disrespect what so ever, but for you to download and try out a piece of software for and hour or so and then make such difinitive statements, it at least borders on the absurd.
Not only is it absurd, but "reviews" like that probably encourage more people to check out Reaper than not, since the unnecessarily defensive tone indicates that there's something probably something there worth checking out.
|
AJ_0000
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 738
- Joined: 2007/05/05 01:32:03
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:46:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: HotCoollMusicGirl
ORIGINAL: T.S.
Alright, for the sake of informing myself, I downloaded Reaper and I've been trying it out for the past hour or so. I don't want to be any more harsh than necessary, so I'll list the positive first. I used the same gear I use with Sonar (E-Mu 1616m, midi controller, etc)
I'm sorry AJ, I mean no disrespect what so ever, but for you to download and try out a piece of software for and hour or so and then make such difinitive statements, it at least borders on the absurd.
Not only is it absurd, but "reviews" like that probably encourage more people to check out Reaper than not, since the unnecessarily defensive tone indicates that there's something probably something there worth checking out.
I don't have any reason to be defensive...but I will to admit to being annoyed. My instincts about Reaper were basically correct. It's sure nice that some guy decided to try to make a program for fun, but it is not anywhere near being on the same level as any of the commercial programs. Not remotely. And the only way they'll get it there is to start a full-fledged company, charge what the others charge, and greatly expand the footprint of the software. So the people who go around promoting it like cult members get a little irritating after a while. Sorry. And I agree...if you use Sonar and you're curious, you should try it. Then you can see for yourself how completely detached from reality the hype is. To be honest, I think what annoys me the most about it is that the people who come on here shoving this thing down everybody's throat are clearly people for whom music is only a secondary consideration. If you would choose a completely amateurish, half-constructed program (which Reaper is) over something like Sonar (provided you have a legitimate Sonar license), you clearly have other priorities or motives.
post edited by AJ_0000 - 2008/04/30 01:10:28
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:57:26
(permalink)
AJ its a bit like trying to explain that the emperor has no cloths on. Those that don't understand what you are saying will never understand. Reaper is a fine program as far as it goes.
|
HotCoollMusicGirl
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 991
- Joined: 2004/10/02 20:23:31
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 00:58:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: AJ_0000
For example, clicking on "fx" or "I/O" on one of the tracks...it hangs for a second before the window opens. Why? I don't know. Doesn't happen with Sonar.
Hangs for a second? Maybe it takes a second or so to open the first time (it does seem to scan the fx.) But it's actually opening a much more user friendly interface for populating what in Sonar corresponds to the fx bin, which in Reaper is a savable fx chain, and one that doesn't take up a fixed amount of realestate when the bin is empty, or not needed for immediate access. In Sonar, you have to crawl through a menu system that closes after each selection, or, if you happen to move your mouse too quickly, before you get a chance to make a selection. Plus, if a Sonar newbie came here and cited "cons" like in your review -- which is a common thing -- within minutes there'd be a dozen posts telling her to adjust this and adjust that and how to tweak some obscure setting so that it world work and asking for the entire specs of her computer to make sure it's compatible, or that she really should read the manual and do some more studying because you can't really expect to get a DAW working just like THAT. And if she said, But Fruity Loops or Cubase or Whatever worked just fine on her computer, then she'd be told that all DAWs are different, if she wasn't first accused of being a troll come to bash Sonar. So... like... you know?
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:02:40
(permalink)
Sonar's FX bin can be a drop down menu type if you wish to have it small. You also have the option not to show it at all.
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:03:33
(permalink)
Psychobillybob, You still didn't seriously address any of my points. I've heard that crap about every DAW out there and if you've been around enough, then you've heard them too. How can you justify using Sonar over Reaper when what you've said about Reaper you surely must have also heard about Sonar. The "no real studio would..." arguments were unjustified nonsense when being made about Sonar, and now you're repeating it about Reaper (which you never said you even tried). The simple fact of the matter is this: what works for you, works for you and what doesn't, doesn't. Don't speak for anyone else. ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
No I am not new to DAWS or studios and frankly Cakewalk was not a serious studio DAW until Sonar and I stand by my original statement.
Dude you can't even import OMF in Reaper, its so friggin light in midi and it will remain that way.
Yet, I've been to plenty of NYC studios that have recorded some amazing sounding major label albums that weren't able to even export .OMF. I'm sorry, but .OMF isn't the be all end all that will make or break a DAW for commercial use. In use, .OMF is only slightly more convenient than batch export/import. At the same time, Reaper is about just as (if not more so) fully featured as Pro-Tools (minus the super high-end TDM systems). Sonar even more so than Pro-Tools, yet Pro-Tools is the "name" people look for regardless of the feature set. ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
reaper CANNOT seriously compete without major coin and a bigger development team. By all accounts, Justin is a multi-millionaire many times over (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel#Sale_of_Nullsoft_to_AOL). That's not major coin? Also, Apple has a huge development team but that didn't stop them from blowing the latest Leopard release's Pro-Tools compatibility, AND Logic 8.01. So neither one of your points really stand on their own as anything other than logical falicies. ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
Tell ya what, get rid of Sonar and open a studio with just reaper...let me know how that works out for ya. I also hate to be the one to tell you this, but the artists (not engineers, not producers, I'm talking specifically about bands/artists) that are basing their decisions as to where they record their next project on what DAW that studio works around, are going to be looking for Pro-Tools way more often than not. These tend to be kids who care more about music than how it's made per se, but know that they've heard the word "Pro-Tools" a lot in relation to how records are made. They use the word "Pro-Tools" as if it's interchangable with "DAWs," and generally have no idea what you're talking about when you say "DAW." What I'm getting at here, is that if you're talking about the commercial success of a studio based on a DAW, Pro-Tools will draw more clients (i.e. money) than even the more fully featured Sonar.
post edited by Funkybot - 2008/04/30 01:22:59
|
AJ_0000
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 738
- Joined: 2007/05/05 01:32:03
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:13:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: HotCoollMusicGirl
ORIGINAL: AJ_0000
For example, clicking on "fx" or "I/O" on one of the tracks...it hangs for a second before the window opens. Why? I don't know. Doesn't happen with Sonar.
Hangs for a second? Maybe it takes a second or so to open the first time (it does seem to scan the fx.) But it's actually opening a much more user friendly interface for populating what in Sonar corresponds to the fx bin, which in Reaper is a savable fx chain, and one that doesn't take up a fixed amount of realestate when the bin is empty, or not needed for immediate access. In Sonar, you have to crawl through a menu system that closes after each selection, or, if you happen to move your mouse too quickly, before you get a chance to make a selection.
Plus, if a Sonar newbie came here and cited "cons" like in your review -- which is a common thing -- within minutes there'd be a dozen posts telling her to adjust this and adjust that and how to tweak some obscure setting so that it world work and asking for the entire specs of her computer to make sure it's compatible, or that she really should read the manual and do some more studying because you can't really expect to get a DAW working just like THAT. And if she said, But Fruity Loops or Cubase or Whatever worked just fine on her computer, then she'd be told that all DAWs are different, if she wasn't first accused of being a troll come to bash Sonar.
So... like... you know?
Yep...Sonar is a fully featured, professional quality (as someone said, it wasn't always) DAW program. It therefore has a huge amount of options. If what you're saying is that you want something simpler that does a whole lot less, well then you've made a valid argument. Arguing that the two programs are comparable is not valid. There are a number of relatively inexpensive entry-level programs out there (Cakewalk makes some also) that have far better quality than Reaper, at a cost not that much more than the suggested license for Reaper.
|
vicsant
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1378
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:44:33
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:14:32
(permalink)
I hate to say this but Reaper is looking better and better everyday ....wish Justin would greatly improve Reaper's midi features  Yes, midi works presently on Reaper, but it's still very much behind Sonar's midi features... ....and still no Staff/Notation view in Reaper 
|
vicsant
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1378
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:44:33
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:17:09
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
ORIGINAL: Fog
I'm actually surprised none of the DAW companies have approached him to work for them.
I know, right? But maybe they have, who knows.
Well, he's got millions in the bank....so he doesn't need the job....and if he continues to improve on Reaper, all sales revenue goes to him 
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:21:51
(permalink)
How do I justify using Sonar? I can import/export sessions from other studios, can't do that in reaper, besides a ton of other things I can't do in reaper. So if you want lite weight audio proggys there's a ton, Audacity, Kristal, Anvil Studio , heck even Pro Tools Free... Reaper is just one of many.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
Resonant Order
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 647
- Joined: 2003/12/02 13:45:33
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 01:24:30
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: AJ_0000
A couple of other thoughts:
1) Although there may be some tighter coding in Reaper, the main reason why it has a footprint that's so much lighter than real DAW programs is because it only does a TINY FRACTION of what those programs do.
2) I strongly suspect that the core of Reaper's "support" comes from people who had previously been using PIRATED COPIES of Sonar, Cubase, etc. I have no proof of it, but that's my gut instinct. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
I've found the same to be true. Justin Frankel also has a history connected to warez. Winamp became so popular because he always handed it out for free to the warez sites. I have also read that he actually PAID warez sites to feature the program, and thus built up the reputation simply because so many people were downloading it. The guy also developed Gnutella, which was the default warez transfer program for a few years. He also has a history of developing good products, selling out to the highest bidder, then filling it with so much bloatware and bugs that it's unusable. The progs he developed that are still in use were taken over by others. He doesn't have a history of continuing what he starts, but leaving it for others to finish after he gets what he wants which is money. The guy isn't a rebel, he's a corporate whore. I've seen this all before a few years back when everyone was ga-ga over Tracktion. Now that program has ended up abandoned by its creator, and it's just a buggy piece of unfinished crap that I continually read people ****ing about on just about every forum I visit. I tried Reaper for a week, and I came to same conclusions as you. If you need a glorified digital four-track, and your not using midi, then by all means go to Reaper. Maybe we could get rid of all the people who constantly complain about the GUI being too complicated (Even though you can edit the hell out of it), and can't seem to get Sonar to run correctly. I use Sonar everyday, doing all kinds of tasks- that I make money at -and have yet to run into any real problem. Then again, I usually only jump ship when it's the 'final' update for that version. If you do need a professional tool that can do just about anything in regard to audio and midi, then stick with Sonar. And yeah, all the fan-boi BS is getting thick.
|
T.S.
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 654
- Joined: 2005/08/11 17:29:16
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 02:34:37
(permalink)
Justin Frankel also has a history connected to warez. Wow Resonant, that's a pretty incredible statement. I don't know if you feel a need to defend Sonar here or just why you would say something like this. It's pretty derogatory. Like I've said, I don't know much if anything about Reaper and I definitely don't know anything about this Justin. However, even if what you say is true (and I highly doubt it), I can say that I definitely appreciate someone who has the desire, creativeness, intelligence, patience, and ability to do what Justin (if that's his name) has done. Does Reaper compare to Sonar? Probably not even close, but hey, when it comes to DAWs, there is no single tree standing in the forest. At this point it's a matter of "time will tell".  T.S.
post edited by T.S. - 2008/04/30 02:56:49
|
HotCoollMusicGirl
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 991
- Joined: 2004/10/02 20:23:31
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 02:46:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: T.S.
Justin Frankel also has a history connected to warez.
Wow Resonant, that's a pretty incredible statement. I don't know if you feel a need to defend Sonar here or just why you would say something like this. It's pretty derogatory.
It's incredible because it bears only a tenuous relationship to the facts. But unraveling it would take more effort than I care to put in -- especially since my only reward will be getting called a fan-boi. hehehehe ORIGINAL: Resonant Order
after he gets what he wants which is money. The guy isn't a rebel, he's a corporate whore.
Hey! Watch it! Some of my best friends are corporate whores!
|
DaneStewart
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 717
- Joined: 2008/02/18 13:48:58
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 03:05:01
(permalink)
To anyone who thinks ONE person couldn't see a way to totally rewrite and scale down the complexity of bloated code....
I have only one word.....WOZNIAK.
He did with a handful of logic gates what IBM couldn't do with huge money and an army of people.
(It does happen once in a while.)
To thine own self be true. ~TheDane
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 03:34:31
(permalink)
|
ChristopherM
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1921
- Joined: 2006/08/18 14:31:42
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Match that, Cakewalk!
2008/04/30 05:17:21
(permalink)
His name is Justin Frankel. I know - I was quoting Greg Hendershott, who famously mistook an innocent poster on this forum for said Justin infiltrating his secret lair here on Cakewalk Island ... well, when I say quoting, I really mean taking poetic licence with what Mr. Hendershott did say - although I have not changed the sense of what he said. And what is RFT? Right First Time - the doctrine of Zero Defects.
|