(tho I sense my Scottish sense of humour may get me into trouble again!)

ORIGINAL: yep

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb.

Digidesign initially released protools HD as a cheaper, easier alternative to expensive tape-based analog recording systems. That's right folks, the widespread use of ProTools is because $20,000 was WAY CHEAPER compared to a high-end mixing desk and tape system.

Your statement is historically totally incorrect. ProTools was developed to meet the need for non-linear editing capabilities. The fact that it was cheaper to produce than a high maintenance multi-track tape recorder was not the major driver at all. In fact, in the early days, ProTools couldn't compete with tape, because hard-drive capacities were still far too small. As a comparison, DVDs are cheaper and higher quality to manufacture and replicate than VHS video tapes. The cheaper part was not the driver for the technology.

Then products like Cubase, Logic and Sonar come along and provide a simple, affordable, recording studio in a box that even hobbyists can afford.

Cakewalk has been doing this digidesign for years, and digitdesign basically drove the tape makers out of business. Complain about computer audio and home recording driving commercial studios out of business left and right or about cheap digital destroying high-quality analog if you will, but to gripe that a $40/$200 DAW is BAD but a $400 one is NOT is ridiculous when 15 years ago a professional recording platform cost hundreds of thousands of dollars...

Products like Cubase and Sonar and not Hardware based. The original ProTools HD systems are expensive because they rely on relatively expensive DSP hardware. Cubase, Sonar, etc is cheaper because it's a host based system. These products are an alternative to ProTools HD and meet the needs of a totally different market segment, they're not a cheaper version. Digi's own ProTools LE product fits in this space also - it's a different market.

Whatever you think of Reaper, the fact that a couple of talented garage-band programmers have in a few short months created a product that is even competitive with the big DAWs, and which is in many respects superior can be nothing but GOOD for customers. It case you never took economics, the whole idea behind a free-market is to make products better, cheaper, and faster for consumers.

I'm not debating the quality of their product. I'm debating the sustainability of the host based DAW market. I think Reaper may turn out to be a wakeup call for the other players our there. But honestly, very few companies could stay in business with such minuscule margins. And in my opinion, that's a bad thing for you and me.

And are you serious about comparing inexpensive shareware to illegal dumping? Do you even know what that means?

I think so. Here where I live, it's when product is put on the market at lower than the cost of development/manufacturing/distribution making it impossible for bona fide companies to compete.

Have you ever used a free plugin, or flash player, or javascript thing? If two guys make a better product in their spare time than a massive conglomorate can make in years of R&D does that mean that the two guys should be FORCED to charge millions of dollars for their hobby, or should be barred from distributing a better, smaller product to protect the corporate interests? If that is your contention then you have a very unique view of antidumping regulations...

Sure I have. Many of the free plugins are sweeteners to get you to buy full product, no problem with that. And, um, flash players are free in order to develop a market for flash authoring products - nobody actually sells flash players.

All power to Reaper for producing a great product. But I still believe the whole industry will be hurt by stupid pricing. Maybe you'll be happy when most of the innovators are bankrupt?

Finally, you may have been unaware of this, but for years, cakewalk has been producing very full-featured sequencer under the name of Music Creator that sells for like $30. Similar offerings are available from the other big developers, and freeware/shareware products such N-tracks and Magix have been around for years.

Everyone sells cheap "lite" versions to hook customers, there's nothing new here.

What has really made Reaper a hot topic in the audio world is not that it's a cheap sequencer (there are tons of those), it's that it is actually a legitimate contender/competitor to the big names, and that it implements a lot of features that many audio professionals have been clamoring for for years (real side-chain ring a bell?). It's smallness and cheapness and indie vibe are just extra fuel for a fire that wouldn't exist if this were not a heavyweight contender. And a small, cheap, heavyweight contender that introduces new functionality and better implementation will force ALL DAW makers to become that much more competitive, which is a good thing for consumers.

Making all DAW makers more competitive would be great. I hope that's what happens. But I think you're living in an idealistic world. In the $40 DAW environment, most of Reapers competitors would have gone broke before they get a chance to compete.

I think a lot of its users are just excited, and want to spread the "good news" if you will. ;-)

Believe it or not, one of Reaper's own devotees got a bit of a lashing recently on the Reaper forum for engaging in just such a behavior elsewhere. It's a matter of respect and civility. But it really should not be a factor in not checking it out; that's like hating a great song, just because it gets overplayed. It's not the song's fault...

I did check out the Reaper site when it first made a blip on the radar. That's when I saw discussions concerning how to get the word out by posting on other forums. Posts somewhat bragging about posting in private commercial newsgroups like this one. To be fair, I also saw posts concerned that this tactic would result in negative feelings. I posted what I did to support this view because it has caused me to have a negative feeling about it. And yes, it is a factor about whether I will check it out. If I see a bunch of people behaving in a way I don't like and they all have Fruit Loops boxes in their hands, guess what I don't want for breakfast.

I'm glad to see that this practice has resulted in a bit of discipline being applied. I'd hate to open my door some Saturday morning and have two little ladies shove a copy of Reaper and a pamphlet in my hand.

If the creator of that software wants to spread the word about his product, then let him establish an advertising budget and compete like the rest of the business world. Let him also incur the overhead that comes along with it.

All I'm saying is let's be fair about this.

ORIGINAL: billruys

ORIGINAL: yep
...Digidesign initially released protools HD as a cheaper, easier alternative ..

Your statement is historically totally incorrect. ProTools was developed to meet the need for non-linear editing capabilities...

Sorry, you're right. I should have said that the major factor in driving ProTools' market dominance was its affordability, which is different from the design intent.

...But honestly, very few companies could stay in business with such minuscule margins. And in my opinion, that's a bad thing for you and me... (illegal dumping is) when product is put on the market at lower than the cost of development/manufacturing/distribution making it impossible for bona fide companies to compete.

As near as I can tell, the company that makes reaper is two people named Justin and Christophe. Reaper has existed as a commercial product for a little under six months. If they have sold 1,000 non-commercial and 200 commercial licences (which I don't think is grossly unrealisitic estimate) then that is enough to pay each employee $80,000 annualized. If they ever sell enough licenses to seriously threaten cakewalk, then they would probably be making much more than the average software developer even if they hire a secretary and someone to write a manual. I don't think you can really make a case that they are selling below cost, even if the rest of the case held water, which it doesn't.

The thing that defines illegal dumping is the intent to be anticompetitive-- i.e. I go and sell to your customers at a loss (to me) so that you will be driven out of business, or to prop up my country's industry, or what have you. Every time ANYONE sells software, the first unit(s) is/are sold at a loss, unless they are only seeling a single copy-- after all, the first copy is the only one that costs anything to produce. A business model that has to sell in volume to be profitable is not the same thing as dumping. If it were, then the first unit of Sonar 7 would have to be sold for the entire cost of all the salaries and expenses that went into producing it.

Sure I have. Many of the free plugins are sweeteners to get you to buy full product, no problem with that.

Okay... but many of them are not. And what if the company doesn't sell enough of the non-free ones? Is that illegal dumping?

And, um, flash players are free in order to develop a market for flash authoring products - nobody actually sells flash players.

exactly-- there are lots of perfectly legitimate business models that involve giving away products for free (which Reaper isn't doing, it is intended to make money according to Justin Frankel).

...Maybe you'll be happy when most of the innovators are bankrupt?

Far as I can see, the innovators over at Cockos have a very bright future. I sincerely hope that my other favorite software company here in Boston remains just as innovative and uses their greater size and resources to continue to provide features and qualities that spur on greater competition.

What I don't want is for the INNOVATORS to get stifled so that the STAGNATORS can stay in business by simply selling expensive annual bug fixes with a new plugin attached.

...Everyone sells cheap "lite" versions to hook customers, there's nothing new here...

Yeah, and Reaper's cheap version actually costs more than cakewalk's. Their professional version is still a bargain, though.

Making all DAW makers more competitive would be great. I hope that's what happens. But I think you're living in an idealistic world. In the $40 DAW environment, most of Reapers competitors would have gone broke before they get a chance to compete.

In my "idealistic" world (which I always thought was actually rather ruthlessly capitalistic), companies that cannot produce a competitive product at an attractive price are, by definition, "not competitive." It is in the nature of things that products get better, cheaper, faster then they used to be, and that organizations that can no longer produce to the new standards of price/performance cease to exist when the market moves on, and that new, more innovative, more competitive products made by leaner, more efficient, more responsive producers take the place until something better comes along. This is generally regarded as a good thing.

I jumped ship from analog tape when cheap digital multitracking became available, and switched to ProTools because it was better, cheaper, faster, then switched to Nuendo because it was better than ProTools, and more recently switched to Sonar. In each case I jettisoned a more expensive platform for a better one. In each case I'd have stuck with the more expensive one if it had better suited my purposes. Is REAPER the next killer app? It's sure making a big push in that direction. And frankly, if it IS better than Sonar as of any particular date, and is improving much more rapidly to boot, then what do I care if Sonar ceases to exist? There will always be some kid in India or wherever waiting to make a better, cheaper, more capable app...

Cheers.

the reply guy was right:

PT was the ADAT of the late 90's

Studios had plenty of professional options for non linear editing like the AMS Audiofile and NED

PT was for home and semipro deals to continue "the project studio" paradigm. They got lucky when they got the Conservatory to become their marketing arm

ORIGINAL: yep

Your statement is historically totally incorrect. ProTools was developed to meet the need for non-linear editing capabilities...

Sorry, you're right. I should have said that the major factor in driving ProTools' market dominance was its affordability, which is different from the design intent.

Very true. And I don't disagree that the resulting drop in price of recording technology hasn't been great for the likes of me

As near as I can tell, the company that makes reaper is two people named Justin and Christophe. Reaper has existed as a commercial product for a little under six months. If they have sold 1,000 non-commercial and 200 commercial licences (which I don't think is grossly unrealisitic estimate) then that is enough to pay each employee $80,000 annualized. If they ever sell enough licenses to seriously threaten cakewalk, then they would probably be making much more than the average software developer even if they hire a secretary and someone to write a manual. I don't think you can really make a case that they are selling below cost, even if the rest of the case held water, which it doesn't.

OK, fair enough comment. Cakewalk started out as one guy (Gregg Hendershott). He wrote the app and did everything himself too. But his costs must be huge now. The question is, will Reapers current business model still work for them as they grow?

The thing that defines illegal dumping is the intent to be anticompetitive-- i.e. I go and sell to your customers at a loss (to me) so that you will be driven out of business, or to prop up my country's industry, or what have you. Every time ANYONE sells software, the first unit(s) is/are sold at a loss, unless they are only seeling a single copy-- after all, the first copy is the only one that costs anything to produce. A business model that has to sell in volume to be profitable is not the same thing as dumping. If it were, then the first unit of Sonar 7 would have to be sold for the entire cost of all the salaries and expenses that went into producing it.

There will always be volume vs niche markets. I just hope the volume model benefits us all in the final analysis. It's a little too soon to know.

exactly-- there are lots of perfectly legitimate business models that involve giving away products for free (which Reaper isn't doing, it is intended to make money according to Justin Frankel).

Yeah, but you missed my point. Giving away free flash players doesn't hurt anyones business, because nobody sells them.

What I don't want is for the INNOVATORS to get stifled so that the STAGNATORS can stay in business by simply selling expensive annual bug fixes with a new plugin attached.

What I'm trying to point out here is that if you drive all the profit out of the market, there will be less net investment in the technology we are all currently enjoying. If Reaper has a better product for a good price, they deserve to win clients. But as with most technology, this is an incremental process. Everyone builds on the achievements of everyone else. Once Reaper has all the features of it competitors, lets see how fast they truly innovate with brand new ideas. From what I've seen of it, Reaper is modelled on it's competitors current technology.

In my "idealistic" world (which I always thought was actually rather ruthlessly capitalistic), companies that cannot produce a competitive product at an attractive price are, by definition, "not competitive." It is in the nature of things that products get better, cheaper, faster then they used to be, and that organizations that can no longer produce to the new standards of price/performance cease to exist when the market moves on, and that new, more innovative, more competitive products made by leaner, more efficient, more responsive producers take the place until something better comes along. This is generally regarded as a good thing.

That would be great if it always worked. But if you want to take that all the way to it's final conclusion, the American software industry should do what the American manufacturing industry has done and fire all of it's software engineers and train up a bunch of indian and/or chinese programmers to do the job at half the cost. I have to keep using the word "sustainability". You see in the capitalist system, manufacturers that can't turn a profit just simply get out of the biz. And, contrary to what you might believe, sometimes companies that make fantastic products for a fair price hit the wall. Opcode Studio Vision would be one of those products. Way ahead of anything Steinberg, Cakewalk, or even Digi was producing. I'm still scratching my head about that one.

I jumped ship from analog tape when cheap digital multitracking became available, and switched to ProTools because it was better, cheaper, faster, then switched to Nuendo because it was better than ProTools, and more recently switched to Sonar. In each case I jettisoned a more expensive platform for a better one. In each case I'd have stuck with the more expensive one if it had better suited my purposes. Is REAPER the next killer app? It's sure making a big push in that direction. And frankly, if it IS better than Sonar as of any particular date, and is improving much more rapidly to boot, then what do I care if Sonar ceases to exist? There will always be some kid in India or wherever waiting to make a better, cheaper, more capable app...

I guess that's what we call evolution.

Bill.

ORIGINAL: Mod Bod

I'm glad to see that this practice has resulted in a bit of discipline being applied. I'd hate to open my door some Saturday morning and have two little ladies shove a copy of Reaper and a pamphlet in my hand.

ORIGINAL: Howdy

Maybe we're reaching the end of the VST plug-in/host-relationship era. Business cycles tend to go through such innovation and stagnation periods.

I hope not. That would be unfortunate. IMO, plug-ins are just starting to actually get good. Perhaps as a format, VST leaves a lot to be desired, but I actually like the plug-in/host model. My UADs, Duende, URS and PSP plugs sound fantastic and allow a level of flexibility, expansion, creativity and quality I never had with hardware. I never had the budget necessary to do with hardware anything even in the same zip code as what I've been able to do with plugs. I think I have ~$4000.00 tied up in plug-ins (including my DSP powered stuff). In my hardware-only days, that could barely buy me 2 channels of decent processing

Maybe I misread the intention of your post. If so, please rephrase (if you feel like it) so I can understand what you were driving at...

Hmm...

Original: Howdy
So much R & D man hours have been wasted trying to get (plugins) to work right in the respective hosts that innovation has had to take a back seat for five years. Reaper can step in after the bloodbath and cherrypick successes and failures from them all.

Something that I think HAS to be a handicap to a company like cakewalk is the fear of alienating existing customers... Any proposed change is met with howls of outrage on these forums, and any innovation has to exist alongside the old functionality, and the interface becomes more and more cluttered, and the functionality gets more complex instead of more streamlined.

Reaper, meanwhile, has a totally different business model, and zero long-term customer loyalty, and the developers quite glibly field suggestions for massive changes and pick whatever seems best. If it doesn't work out, they change it. I don't want to be shilling Reaper on cakewalk's forums, and I say this not as a plug for reaper but just as part of the discussion: it's pretty commonplace that feature requests made on the reaper forum are implemented a few days or a week later. Bug reports made wednesday are usually fixed by the weekend. This is a whole different world from any kind of commercial software I've ever encountered, recording or otherwise.

By the same token, certain features or functions are just sort of abandonded, maybe left as optional, hlaf-implemented add-ons to the main installation once the developer(s) realize it's more trouble than it's worth. Similarly, REAPER comes with zero documentation-- I don't mean no printed manual, I mean not even a PDF. The closest thing is a list of keyboard shortcuts, and a user-generated wiki. Users essentially must figure out the application by simply clicking around and seeing what happens.

Right now, from a business model POV, Reaper is not so much competing with complete, mature products like Sonar as it is experimenting to see what can be done. For many people, the Reaper "experiment" is already a resounding success that allows them to make absolutely first-rate recordings in a professional, commercial recording environment. For others, Reaper is an encouraging signpost on the road to mroe flexible, agile, and responsive software development. For some, Reaper is a confusing cult-like apparatus with no GUI or instructions. And that's fine.

This is a very different type of application in the DAW world, with a different focus and a different approach. It is an idiosyncratic piece of software with an open-ended design philosophy and a weirdly diverse and devout user base. It has no official documentation and doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at a straight feature list. The developer lists things such as "feature implementation that doesn't suck" as overarching design goals.

I think for now, companies like cakewalk have little to fear. Reaper's distinctive "shortcomings" (which to its rabid fan base are no such thing) are enough to keep it from being adopted wholesale by large-scale commercial/educational/coporate operations anytime soon. But Reaper is doing a lot in terms of demonstrating what a really lean, responsive, user-experience-focused DAW can do. In that sense, it's helping to make the world a better place for all of us.

Cheers.

Good points. I've wanted to comment on the following point, as I've seen it a number of times in reference to Reaper:

ORIGINAL: yep
I don't want to be shilling Reaper on cakewalk's forums, and I say this not as a plug for reaper but just as part of the discussion: it's pretty commonplace that feature requests made on the reaper forum are implemented a few days or a week later. Bug reports made wednesday are usually fixed by the weekend. This is a whole different world from any kind of commercial software I've ever encountered, recording or otherwise.

I doubt this is unusual with beta testing software. Reaper is just having a public beta, so everyone gets to see it.

ORIGINAL: dontletmedrown


Check it out Cake! Better start crackin on Version 7. How long before Reaper has its own beat detective. You'd be a fool to think the author isn't workin on it.

Actually it has for a long time. I think Sonar's is better at this point though

One funny thing: I HIGHLY doubt there ever would have been a REAPER if Sonar had just gotten mousewheel zoom. All of us leaving Vegas were begging for it!

Now that the Sonar guys left for REAPER, Sonar adds the mouse wheel zoom :(

My 2 cents on this.

Reaper is a nice program but it is not competing with Sonar or any other high end Daw.
It is in fact a good work in progress that is a good competition for the entry level DAWs.
These would include apps such as Music Studio or CW’s own Home Studio.

From my view, those that are running to Reaper never needed the things that Sonar offers in the first place. Among these is a track record, not to mention a large industry involvement and hookup with a lot of hardware and software movers an shakers. There is no need to compare features but let it be said that Reaper can not be a replacement for Sonar on a feature basis at all. So I contend that what Sonar offers to those that need it can not be easily replace by a new low priced program that is good only from a new user view. One in which Reaper meets all their needs and thus made Sonar way more then was needed. If so, then Sonar was a bad choice for them to begin with.

Therefore trying to say Sonar is as good or that Reaper is just as good as... is saying in fact Sonar was way too much DAW for them and now they have found the one that suits them best.

I don’t see Roland writing software for it any time soon. I don’t see Microsoft having meetings with the developers of Reaper to listen to their input on all things audio either.

But mainly I see no reason for me or anyone else that has invested in a serious DAW to jump on a very precarious and brand new limited program when Sonar is strong and viable.

We choose our DAW software for very different reasons then simply the cost of it. We want a long time player that has things to offer us in ways that we don’t see on an every day basis, but are important to us none the less.

This is not just a Sonar thing but Cubase too as well as others. Going for the big names in a field is not just as some think snob appeal but dealing with real issues that only the leaders in the field can address.

I wish Reaper well. I hope it turns into a great DAW. That doesn’t mean I need to give up Sonar because it is no longer the newest thing to come down the pike.
Nor am I going to forfeit all the stuff I have learned using Sonar. I don’t need to learn another DAW I already know one that will do everything I need and do it well.

Best
John

It ain't worth much.

I hope you see why.

Best
John

ORIGINAL:
From my view, those that are running to Reaper never needed the things that Sonar offers in the first place. Among these is a track record,

First thing I reach for, before we tune the drums, beat the drummer, roll out mic lines, is the track record.... MAN how could I do an album without a track record???

a what?

not to mention a large industry involvement

Industry WHAT?

You mean like the "industry standard app" that unlike Sonar or REAPER doesnt even let you see the contents of events as you move them?

THAT sort of involvment?

no thank you

and hookup with a lot of hardware and software movers an shakers

Good one there, it sucks seeing just how little of a crap many of these companies care about their customers. REAPER has had to deal with the same crap from UA and RME as, er.....Sonar has, wait who are we comparing?

Mackie was kinder to cake than REAPER, but reaper has ONE HELL of a coder who worked out the MCU himself, sans SDK. Similar things happened with Propellerhead and a few others. Frontier and Presonus have been cool as hell though

After Justin coded his own version of rewire, Propellerheads came thru so we got both.

It comes, it goes, it ebbs and it flows...todays enemies will likely be tomorrow's friends

There is no need to compare features but let it be said that Reaper can not be a replacement for Sonar on a feature basis at all.

Depends on your needs. If they are audio and not MIDI, your in for a shock. REAPER was made by audio engineers, not marketing engineers. Justin listens to his customers, and his non customers as well. Cakewalk had 10 years I think to get that damn mousewheel zoom in there and would have cleaned up...

On the other hand, Justin fixed, in weeks, major flaws and workflow problems of other apps

So I contend that what Sonar offers to those that need it can not be easily replace by a new low priced program that is good only from a new user view.

And as a registered Sonar user, actually since cake 6, I can tell you you are in for a RUDE awakening if you and the facts happen to bump uglies. REAPER has a LOT of "if an actual audio engineer had to use one of these damn apps in front of paying customers it would do THIS" in there.

Therefore trying to say Sonar is as good or that Reaper is just as good as... is saying in fact Sonar was way too much DAW for them and now they have found the one that suits them best.

too much daw? could be right on this one. I dont just mean REAPER's 2 meg installer either

I don’t see Roland writing software for it any time soon.

Oh no! The sky is falling!!! Whatever shall we do if Roland doesnt write for reaper? Oh the humanity!

I don’t see Microsoft having meetings with the developers of Reaper to listen to their input on all things audio either.

This is where I actually barf in my mouth a little

TEN YEARS!!!

TEN YEARS guy

ALL that damn time, no reasonable input monitoring

The FIRST damn thing any halfwit with audio would have made DAMN sure was working before any of his customers saw him toss his tape machine

HOLY CRAP!!!! You want to PRAISE what cake and others have done with MS?

You gotta be smokin something

I DAMN them for it

Going for the big names in a field is not just as some think snob appeal but dealing with real issues that only the leaders in the field can address.

(sales) Leaders in the field have predictably and consistently dropped the ball for more than a decade

They give you a steaming pile of poo and say "NOW you work OUR way, HUSH!!! I dont give a rats petoootie what you want, THIS is how things will be done"

I dont mean to disparage Sonar which has become QUITE useable since Reaper has been out, just giving a little perspective in reality

ORIGINAL: John

From my view, those that are running to Reaper never needed the things that Sonar offers in the first place. Among these is a track record, not to mention a large industry involvement and hookup with a lot of hardware and software movers an shakers. There is no need to compare features but let it be said that Reaper can not be a replacement for Sonar on a feature basis at all. So I contend that what Sonar offers to those that need it can not be easily replace by a new low priced program that is good only from a new user view. One in which Reaper meets all their needs and thus made Sonar way more then was needed. If so, then Sonar was a bad choice for them to begin with.

Hi John, you make a good point here. Maybe Sonar is too big for me. And I will yet not move from Sonar to Reaper, but I will definitely pay the license for it, even if I would not use it at all. This is extremely good stuff. I had a project running within a few minutes, with 2 audio tracks and two PSYN II's using a staggering 2% CPU!!!
And, although the midi-editor looks simple it actually has more functions than Sonar, like splitting notes and stuff. Entering envelopes is a blast. And did someone mention sidechaining effects!? All there.

So I currently only see things I miss in Sonar, not the other way around. I didn't see trackfreeze of bounce to track, but maybe at this CPU loading that isn't even needed.

What I most like about it? No features. clean and simple as any real good machine is. No built-in EQ on the mixers, not X-ray, simple small buttons and functionalilty. And the feeling that the internal code is clean and solid.
There is still hope,

Ursa..