ORIGINAL: LionSound

I see a few people remarking about how small Reaper's session files are etc., and how small the program file itself is. Who cares? Does anyone here not have an over abundance of HDD space and a high-speed internet connection?

ORIGINAL: MajorUrsa

ORIGINAL: LionSound

I see a few people remarking about how small Reaper's session files are etc., and how small the program file itself is. Who cares? Does anyone here not have an over abundance of HDD space and a high-speed internet connection?

First of all, if you read correctly you'd see that Reaper's project-file (at least in my example) are about 50% bigger. I didn't expect this, but otoh it is partly explained by the fact that they use ascii (readable) format for the projects.

Second, efficiency, elegance and non-redundancy in both the program-code and data-structures is the best way to avoid bugs and to allow good maintenance and regular updates. Otoh, big footprints, re-appearing or morphing 'solved' bugs are a sign something is rotten. Those are like cancers and best cut out (and rebuilt, if needed).

The fact that ppl like you don't care about this causes companies like Microsoft to don't care either. Hence Vista uses 10 times the diskspace of XP, and uses 500Mb of memory at loadup, which is more tha many pc's even had a few years ago. You dual-core will be running Vista on one of them. The other you can use. For me it is a sign they don't know how to buold good code and thus I don't trust that code.

[/rant]

Ursa..

ORIGINAL: MajorUrsa

ORIGINAL: bermuda

You do not know or understand our app..you claimed it couldn't do something when it could in fact do it quite easily..

You are trying to tell us that an app you allegedly like is better than something you don't even understand. You have destroyed any level of credibility in your arguments. Your persistence in posting here is in fact damaging your touted Reaper product image. If that is your goal, then you are being very successful.

Sorry Bermuda, I see what you mean but is is not completely correct. I was pointed to Reaper (again and again) by others in this forum. I always thought it was a audio-only thing but decided to try it anyway. When I did I discovered it did midi ok and immediately encountered a few things that were possible in Reaper but were not, based on the many requests I read here, not on my own experience, were not available in Sonar. One of them was note-splitting. You kindly gave me a link to a non-included CAL script that did the trick, thanks for that. Others were sidechaining and note-out routing.

I do not claim to have any credibility beyond who and what I am, a relatively n00b DAW user. I like Sonar very much, best of the big 3 (or 4) imo. I repeatedly said this.
I discovered some flaws and short-comings in it, nothing dramatic at all, I just wondered why these flaws were not improved in the many years since the first complaints. I also discoverd a few flaws/bugs that were not there in previous releases, which I find worrying.
Then I play Reaper and see not only that this 'simple' app has all many of the features I missed, but also that it resolves flaws within a few days or hours.

I'm not saying that Sonar sucks or anything like that, I just hope they take a hard look at this development and scratch behind their ears; it is possible to gain marketshare by just providing quality engines and boring functionality, instead of glossy features like X-ray.

That's all. I'm not a preacher for Reaper and I would not recommend professionals to use it. I do stand for the principles it represents, of hardcore programming with no whistles and bells, and functionality, functionality, functionality.

And, maybe I'm alone here, I would like a weekly update-patch cycle for Sonar with bugs removed in new, old and very old features. All software I use is updated weekly, be it my browser, my exchange-trading stuff, of my office-OS (linux).

Ursa..

ORIGINAL: LionSound

OK, I was promising myself not to chime in here, but I just can't help myself ...

I see a few people remarking about how small Reaper's session files are etc., and how small the program file itself is. Who cares? Does anyone here not have an over abundance of HDD space and a high-speed internet connection?

If not, it's 2007. Welcome. The term "kilobyte" practically went out with the floppy drive.

Ok, I'm done.

thanks

ORIGINAL: Cojomo

Look...please...I'm with you guys! Yes, I joined the forums VERY recently, but have been a long time reader. I have never said Reaper was better than Sonar...all I asked about was a drop-out problem I was having with the demo. I KNOW and stated previously that Reaper can't do what Sonar can...of course it can't! The only reason it came up was that I tried it and it seemed to run smoother than the DEMO version of Sonar I was running. I'm truly sorry if anyone took this differently than it was intended...if you wish, my participation in the forum AND in Sonar purchases can be erased very quickly.

ORIGINAL: xackley

I guess you city people think cable and dsl are available everywhere, even so, were you here a couple weeks ago when the 6.2 patch was anounced. I wonder if it was 5% of the size, the servers might have been able to handle it.

ORIGINAL: Cojomo

As the O.P. of this thread, I am amazed how it has turned out. Lots of really interesting points of view on different parts of some new debate about disk space and the like. I realise I'm as welcome here now as a holoaust denier, but come on...aren't you even a little interested in the competition? In fact I'm congratulating you for the fact that Steinberg is not the competition any more. As the premium DAW for PC use, you now stand alone. Congratulations all round...but don't be surprised to see a young upstart biting at your heels..it has always been the way of things and it's the only thing which keeps everybody striving to make a better product.....sorrry I don't see it as negative in any way.

ORIGINAL: p8ddy

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

Hmmmm??? I remember reading thru a thread at the Reaper forum, which had a link posted to this thread. I don't recall myself ever bosting about annoying people in this forum or even replying to that post. Maybe you can refer me to a link, where I specifically was doing this?? So at this point...yes, I can deny that. Maybe, I said something in the past that slipped my mind???

I can't post a link any more, because you deleted your input to that thread. It doesn't change the material fact that I viewed said thread and your comments. In a way I find that action even more amusing than having to post a link.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

Yep, might have had 10 updates in the last week. I'm not sure they where all bug fixes. Maybe you're missing the fact that Reaper has a faster development cycle than any other audio software out there, since features are added daily and sometimes hourly. I suppose you could view that as a negative, but I'll take that when you're able to have an actual discussion with the developer about a desired feature and he delivers it to you within a week and it exceeds your expectations. Tell me when Cakewalk has been able to deliver anything like that for you. Oh yeah, people have only been in this forum screaming for midi input quantize since when???? Oh, and you're gonna say Cakewalk listens when they FINALLY put it in a v6.2 update? LOL!!! That is laughable and I'm sure everyone else in this forum that has been asking for that particular feature would be laughing at it also.

There is no might about it. However, as your unsure of whether there were any bug fixes, here are a small selection.

REAPER v1.803 - February 14 2007. -
# vis plugin config fixes

REAPER v1.802 - February 13 2007 -
# fixed updating of track routing windows on play/stop
# fixed ctrl+drag in midi editor

REAPER v1.801 - February 12 2007 -
# fixed load template browse dialog title
# fixed deleting of tracks that are routed to causing crashing on some SMP systems

REAPER v1.800 - February 11 2007 -
# fixed ReaMote FX selection box during dialog resizing
# update 8pm PDT: fixed a new pre-fx send bug

REAPER v1.79 - February 7 2007
# autosplit: fixed bug when using track fx (VST track fx that want midi events)

REAPER v1.78 - February 6 2007
# update 5pm PDT: fixed rendering
# better thread locking code, rme fixes

REAPER v1.77 - February 4 2007
# big clock: fix for completely offscreen on startup

BTW - you must spend more time updating and reinstalling the software than actually working on tunes! I couldn't keep up with that particular release cycle. Nor would I want too.

For the record, this isn't a Reaper Vs Sonar debate as you seem to be trying to lead it down. I like Sonar, it's my prefered tool. I have nothing against the Reaper software or its developers. I do however have a problem with an intemperate, agressive and arrogant ignoramus who insults people on other forums.

When invited into other peoples houses, do you wipe your shoes on their couch whilst proclaims "Jeez man, you're fat!" - Because it's tantamount to what you are doing.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

FYI, I wasn't referring to Twelve tones anywhere. I was referring to "Cakewalk"...or are you gonna tell me that the Cakewalk v5.0 I purchased is not a version of Sonar?....where's my "Cakewalk v10.0 pro Audio then???? Oh...changing an apps user interface and name constitutes as new app now??? You are brilliant.......It's pretty difficult to put anything past you isn't it? A marketing move constitutes a new app developed from the ground up....LOL!!!! You're pathetic.

Have you access to the code? Have you an inside track into the development? Because if not you are speculating wildly. You are inventing a scenario and assuming it's correct simply because you are confident you can't be proven wrong.

For the record, Cakewalk V5.0 isn't a version of Sonar. It's a legacy product from the company Cakewalk. It's not rocket science (luckilly for you). Next you'll be telling me that a Ford model T is in fact a Mustang. After all, they are both cars, and both from Ford. They must be the same right? They use metal and rubber don't they? Damn that pesky marketing blurb for trying to fool me!

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

Oh good one, so now you're gonna go after grammatical and spelling errors. You better go back and do a little more proof reading of your own posts.

To keep in with the pedantry - "hoist by your own petard" is correct. Quantise is English (UK) spelling, not the bastardized Americanisation. Soooooo....proof reading 101. And remember the "smart ass" advice. "most bestest" was a quote from a comedy show, although frankly it was less funny than your good self.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

Well, it seems that you need to read the topic of this thread. With all those prolific reading and spelling skills of yours, you somehow missed the entire subject of the original post and what this thread was about. Oh yeah...that's right you where too busy trying to attack me that you missed the entire point of this thread. Nice.....try to stay on topic next time and you might actually show some credibility.

I didn't take issue with the original thread. If I had I would have addressed Cojomo directly. I took issue with your ill informed and rude tirades. Which is what I've taken you to task on. At no point have I turned this into a Sonar vs Reaper debate. I've simply challenged your assertions. You use incredible double standards and I'm going to point out each and every one. more to the point, if I have to continue this debate till I'm 744, bleieve me I will. Your continued abuse and narrowing of the scope of the discussion matters not a jot.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

Yeah, you're right Reaper must not have a clean codebase, seeing it's only a 2mB download, it should be more like Sonar now...where's its size at 60, 70, 80, 90mB??? Updates come in the 20mB size??? I guess there's a lot of code functions in there for all those bug fixes huh? That seems like a much cleaner codebase than I'm sure Reaper ever has and Reaper already has most of the functions that Sonar has. Or does that track freeze feature take a lot of code that I don't know about? FYI, Reaper has had a Track consolidate feature since it's first week of being available that can work in the same manor as a track Freeze function. I guess, you need a track freeze function in Sonar since it doesn't run very effeciently like Reaper which in most cases plays back large projects with only a 2% CPU load. I'm sure that might have something to do with the original post which mentioned that Sonar burps and studders. It's ok...PC's keep getting faster and faster, so there's no need for Sonar to be a more code effecient program, they call just update their minimum system requirements for you and tell you to purchase a new PC....or you need to follow the replies in this thread, where the advice is that you really need to "tweak" your system for Sonar to run smoothly. Oh, that's definately a sure sign of a clean codebase and effecient program huh?....<cough..cough> Bloat!!!

What does size have to do with clean code? 10k, 10Mb, 1Tb, it makes no odds. The complexity of the program might increase, as might the abilty to quickly debug, but clean code does not equal small file size. As I said before, clearly you know nothing about software development. Please cease to comment on matters you are so ignorant on.

I'll give you an example of obfuscated code -

"#include <stdio.h>
main(t,_,a)char *a;{return!0<t?t<3?main(-79,-13,a+main(-87,1-_,
main(-86,0,a+1)+a)):1,t<_?main(t+1,_,a):3,main(-94,-27+t,a)&&t==2?_<13?
main(2,_+1,"%s %d %d\n"):9:16:t<0?t<-72?main(_,t,
"@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr/+,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w#q#n+,/#{l,+,/n{n+,/+#n+,/#\
;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l \
q#'+d'K#!/+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){)#}w'){){nl]'/+#n';d}rw' i;# \
){nl]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#n'wk nw' \
iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i; :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c \
;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;#'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')# \
}'+}##(!!/")
:t<-50?_==*a?putchar(31[a]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a=='/')+t,_,a+1)
:0<t?main(2,2,"%s"):*a=='/'||main(0,main(-61,*a,
"!ek;dc i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:\nuwloca-O;m .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);}"

It's a few Kb in size, but hardly clean. Try maintaining that. And that is the key, code maintenance. When there is a release every day, it doesn't appear to me like there is a proper unit testing regimen, a proper user testing regimen or indeed beta testing. in effect - you are the guinea pig. The reason Reaper is shareware is because it doesn't have to conform to professional coding standards. Like I say, you are the guinea pig. The tester. It's not meant or intended to be robust enough to meet industry expectations. It's meant for home project studios where a bug or two make no odds. That's not a criticism of the product. $40 for a DAW is great value, and the software seems useable with a few features that are very cool - but lets be realistic here. Lets call a spade a spade.

Hint : <Rednroll to insert some gratuitous insult here>

"Yeah, well dude......Preacher...I mean Reaper kicks ass. And you're ugly man!" There you go, just delete the quotes, I did the hard work for you. I could code an insult generator for you if you like, you're getting that predictable.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll
yes, you can. He's laughing at you pontifying how Sonar is so solid and runs smoothly and is stable with a clean codebase, while stating Reaper is the opposite, while the original message in this thread was how Reaper ran smoothly yet Sonar didn't on the same system. You definately know how to back up your points with facts.....Sorry, I just can't keep up with those facts you keep posting.

"Pontifying"? What does that mean? Is Reaper so good that you have the power the invent new words to throw at me? I'll give you this though, when you finally post

"ping, iffle krurp eep smigle brurkakzazl" and the like I will be beaten. I can't compete with made up words. It's an interesting way to win an argument, and a very silly one - but if that's what you are intent on doing?

As I qualified earlier - Sonar has always been rock solid stable for me. Are you saying that I'm lying? What would be the point of that? Why would I lie? more to the point, why would I use software that was unstable? Why would I defend buggy rubbish software? It's like saying I would defend George Bush or Tony Blair! And please quote where exactly I said that Reaper was unstable? Please in fact quote anywhere that I've said anything negative about Reaper? My issue is with your evangelizing, your rudeness and your ignorance.

Note : Cojomo also posting about "spreading the Reaper word" on the Preacher/Reaper forum in regard to this thread. Something that other Reaper users chastized him for. So, did Cojomo really have issues? Or was it too lucky that his problems coincided with his wish to evangelize?

I'm software neutral. I'll use anything that works for me. I work in the industry and I know that blind loyalty to one product is pointless. It just cuts off opportunity to creativity. Why would I do that? I use a whole host of software.

Why do I like Sonar so much? The product is, and has been for year, rock solid stable. It's never once cost me a days work. The company are cool. They listen to users, accomodate us and price the software fairly. That's not to say however I'll pledge undying allegiance to it, or refuse to look at other software. I positively love finding new software.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

Oh....my mistake...

Is that your way of making an apology? Are you admitting you got it wrong and jumped to the wrong conclusion to try and fit something to your own argument? Yes or no.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

I guess you're too ignorant like I originally stated about a large chunk of Sonar users. Because, the same point I was making still applies in that you said Sonar must be doing the right thing because of it's market share....which btw is still well below Pro Tools. Well, IE still has the market share for explorers also, so the same point still implies, that your statement is ignorantly ironic.

I qualified my statement. Please read it again. Specifically the bot about MS using illegal tactics to grab market share. It's not the same point. No matter how many times to try and obfuscate the point. unless your IQ is in single digits you'll already know that.

(as can be easy seen by the success of the "new wave" of browsers like Firefox which sees IE losing users at a spectacular rate)

ORIGINAL: Rednroll
Again another ironic statement, since a large chunk of Sonar users are now Reaper users and have stated many times in the Reaper forums how great they feel Reaper is compared to Sonar and how it runs much smoother on their system. I can post you a few links if you would like to read some of the statements from Sonar users and potential Sonar users who tried out both Sonar and Reaper before deciding on Reaper. So, I bet I'll expect to see you more over in the Reaper forums in the future once all the rest of the Sonar users migrate over. I expect that the ignorant strong headed bunch over here to be the last ones to finally wake up. So, we can continue this interesting discussion in the near future. Make sure you remind me at that time of who you are again, since you'll probably be changing your username again or just be lurking in the shadows right?

What constitutes "a large chunk"? 10, 20, 7893? Come on, you must have access to fugures to make a statement like, so out with it! HOW MANY USERS HAVE SWITCHED? NUMBERS PLEASE!!! Please no more speculation, no more lies and obscure comments. Back your argument up with facts and figures. Or shut up.

You make the most insane leaps of logic based on nothing other than blind faith and zealotry. In fact, you're an idiot. I can't believe I'm wasting time on such a lame argument. What do you work as? Because it's not as a software developer or lawyer thats for sure! It's a miracle you can type and breathe at the same time! Really! did you get your mom to type this, and did she translate it from you writing in your own dribble? Sweet jesus - If you are representatlve of Preacher...sorry Reaper users, it must be a pretty simple program.

What are the instructions for recording with Preacher? "Mash the keyboard with your boxing glove to start recording"?

There is an old saying that given an infinite amount of time a room full of monkeys will write the entire works of William Shakespeare. On the other hand, your posts? 2 monkeys, 4 minutes.

I'm sorry for reducing this to argumentum ad hominem, but really your last post is beyond reason.

I'd also like to apologise to the other users of this forum for participating in (what I hope is at least a humerous) descent into some name calling, but I'm sure you can see the root of my frustration.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll
Peace out, talk to ya soon

Without a doubt my friend.

/p