|
Post by hio on Mar 18, 2019 22:58:48 GMT -6
Yes, my comments had really nothing to do with each other, I was just stating some observations some of which is subjective but totally true. š ?? Subjective definition: Influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts. Thanks for the dictionary but I have the internet and my statement stands and I have a good vocabulary. The fact of the matter is I've been building DAWs for 24 years and Reaper is in my humble opinion the best coded DAW out there now and I can do things that you cannot do with other DAWs period both with performance and customization. I have also been noticing as of late a lot of mastering engineers use Reaper now and I assume for stability and customization. For example, I am on an ear break and was just in the studio playing live and monitoring *through* Reaper with 24 UAD plugins, 2 native plugins, and a virtual instrument with 7 tracks. If I want to record them I hit record and the latency is insignificant at 64 samples. I never have crashed in Reaper or even got hung up. My RME HDSP 9652 is another reason for me being able to do this as they are great coders as well. My two i7 DAWs in the studio were built by moi in 2010 with the finest parts at the time and I dual boot and prefer Windows 7 by a mile over Windows 10. Cubase has been a leader in the field with audio technologies and make a good product IMHO as well but Reaper is as *stable* as Mount Rushmore and the current US president will never be up there. Please let me tell you how I really feel. Kidding, regarding letting me tell you how I really feel; words could never describe how I feel but I have considered moving abroad again across the pond somewhere and over the rainbow. š Kidding: noun 1. playfulness or teasing. "they could be insufferable when the kidding began" adjective 1. playfully or teasingly deceptive. "he chided her in a kidding way" This forum post was dictated using my Tablet so if you have a problem with it blame it on my Tab A.
|
|
|
Post by hio on Mar 18, 2019 23:18:08 GMT -6
The Reaper hype continues...11 MB. Not much of a program if that's the case. Bloatware = Higher Latencies, and this thread was about what? Rhetorical question and no need to respond but hype on this a bit, I mean byte. Bloatware: bloatĀ·ware /ĖblÅtĖwer/Submit nounINFORMALā¢COMPUTING software whose usefulness is reduced because of the excessive disk space and memory it requires. "a nasty piece of cross-platform bloatware that's in serious need of a total overhaul"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 23:23:02 GMT -6
I think hio likes Reaper, could be wrong though. When you say building, as in developing (coding) DAW's? It's not exactly a taxing effort to click next a few times and open your fully functioning DAW. Can't disagree on W10 though, hey I'm just messing about.! If you've found something that works for you I am of course glad, there's enough issues trying to create music / art without any outside influences. As for mastering engineers, well as CD's have gone the way of the dodo it wouldn't surprise me although I can't say I know many who use Reaper as from my experience it's usually Nuendo / Samplitude or something with the right toolset. Then again you can get all in one mastering bundles nowadays (like the one from IK)..
|
|
|
Post by hio on Mar 18, 2019 23:59:29 GMT -6
The last three or four mastering engineers on the podcast "Working Class Audio" interviewed that I have listened to were using Reaper (Rapid Environment for Audio Production, Engineering, and Recording) which I found interesting and I then started researching it a bit and yes it has indeed become very popular. It is as deep as you can get in a DAW and customizable as all get out.
Low latency is my whole thing though.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 19, 2019 8:01:54 GMT -6
Low latency is my whole thing though. Is it? So you've tested the "under finger" latency (amp sims/VIs) of Cubendo with Reaper and found Reaper less latent? I can hate on Steinberg for a lot things. That's not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 19, 2019 10:36:29 GMT -6
Protools is needed because the other systems donāt scale up like it can. I mean, with Protools you can say āI donāt care how much it costs, I need āāāā and they can deliver. It might mean $20k or over $120k, but they can make it happen. This is where the other DAWs arenāt close, if you have $100k and need some specific solution, they are here for us. When the artist gets big and wants to take the mix on stadium tours, each musician with their own 100 channel IEM mix, itās doable(probably). Reaper is awesome, I use it ... but itās probably not going to beat an older PTHD for a full outboard mixing setup. One issue I canāt get any traction on even complaining for years..., Reaper will play audio even when the audio is compromised: This is a āfeatureā, instead of dropping out.. it skips, stutters in processing heavy parts, and the transport blinks red. No biggie, because itās Not an issue AT ALL for ITB rendering (offline), which is what Iām sure most Reaper users do. I like to use outboard, so that playback needs to actually sound right! Now sometimes the transport blinks red and I donāt hear any skipping/glitches. But thereās no way for me to know if there was a glitch or not. I cant just hit record, listen in background while the mix prints. I HAVE to listen close from start to finish, focused on every transient, watching the transport. It gets exhausting. My current setup seems to be better ( no red blinking) but thatās because Iām not pushing it like I used to. Thereās no Reaper HD to turn to and trust exactly how things will work, itās kinda.. hope for the best.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Mar 19, 2019 16:04:17 GMT -6
Hey, guys!
Another Reaper weirdo here.
Not here to praise the program (though I like it more than I liked PT). More just curious about what exactly you're testing.
I was hoping to contribute to the conversation with some measurements using Reaper but I wanted to make sure I was testing the same thing as some of you other cats.
Is it loopback through the analog loop? Loopback through the digital loop (out a "Virtual" UAD channel and back in to an armed track recording that same Virtual Channel)? Analog loop with UAD Compensation on? Digital loop with the UAD compensation?
Let me know, yo!
|
|
|
Post by hio on Mar 19, 2019 16:40:26 GMT -6
Low latency is my whole thing though. Is it? So you've tested the "under finger" latency (amp sims/VIs) of Cubendo with Reaper and found Reaper less latent? I can hate on Steinberg for a lot things. That's not one of them. I have 12 audio scientologists working shifts in my lab comparing all modern DAWs 24/7 with every possible plugin and virtual amp assignments that only computer algorithms could think of.
|
|
|
Post by hio on Mar 19, 2019 16:47:31 GMT -6
Protools is needed because the other systems donāt scale up like it can. I mean, with Protools you can say āI donāt care how much it costs, I need āāāā and they can deliver. It might mean $20k or over $120k, but they can make it happen. This is where the other DAWs arenāt close, if you have $100k and need some specific solution, they are here for us. When the artist gets big and wants to take the mix on stadium tours, each musician with their own 100 channel IEM mix, itās doable(probably). Reaper is awesome, I use it ... but itās probably not going to beat an older PTHD for a full outboard mixing setup. One issue I canāt get any traction on even complaining for years..., Reaper will play audio even when the audio is compromised: This is a āfeatureā, instead of dropping out.. it skips, stutters in processing heavy parts, and the transport blinks red. No biggie, because itās Not an issue AT ALL for ITB rendering (offline), which is what Iām sure most Reaper users do. I like to use outboard, so that playback needs to actually sound right! Now sometimes the transport blinks red and I donāt hear any skipping/glitches. But thereās no way for me to know if there was a glitch or not. I cant just hit record, listen in background while the mix prints. I HAVE to listen close from start to finish, focused on every transient, watching the transport. It gets exhausting. My current setup seems to be better ( no red blinking) but thatās because Iām not pushing it like I used to. Thereās no Reaper HD to turn to and trust exactly how things will work, itās kinda.. hope for the best. Hypotheticals aside Reaper is what it is and does what it does very well, incontrovertibly so. Regarding the outboarding of gear if it sounds good it is good. Pro tools HD? You are now comparing Reaper to that? Cool! Very large format digital mixers is what I want for large live shows of which you are alluding to. Small shows I just bring an Apollo with an 8 channel pre feeding it via light pipe and I can record it in Reaper if I wanted to on one of my laptops. Speaking of which I have Mackie 450 speakers *(version 1)*. I was just mentioning a different version 1 on another thread the other day. They don't make them like they used to folks and it is like night and day. They were made in Italy back then and now in..... you guessed it.
|
|
|
Post by hio on Mar 19, 2019 16:52:09 GMT -6
Hey, guys! Another Reaper weirdo here. Not here to praise the program (though I like it more than I liked PT). More just curious about what exactly you're testing. I was hoping to contribute to the conversation with some measurements using Reaper but I wanted to make sure I was testing the same thing as some of you other cats. Is it loopback through the analog loop? Loopback through the digital loop (out a "Virtual" UAD channel and back in to an armed track recording that same Virtual Channel)? Analog loop with UAD Compensation on? Digital loop with the UAD compensation? Let me know, yo! Speak for yourself. I would love it if you would do some tests; my lab coats are busy! Nerdo here.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 19, 2019 17:29:47 GMT -6
Yes, the test is analog loop. There is no other test for compensation. In a fresh project is functionally useless. Take a finshed mix, do a save as....and run somethingsharply percussive in IT out and back in. Deactivate nothing. Thats the real test. Then yu can do the loop while playing a really tough streaming sampler hard....your latency is fine to overdub that percussive piano with the full mix going? Cool.
Tell them only by exposing the flaws van they get the aliens out of their brains.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 19, 2019 20:53:43 GMT -6
Low latency is my whole thing though. Is it? So you've tested the "under finger" latency (amp sims/VIs) of Cubendo with Reaper and found Reaper less latent? I can hate on Steinberg for a lot things. That's not one of them. Quoting myself to say I might be wrong. Reaper must have issues with modern CPU power management. Once I unhid the "ultimate performance" power scheme...seems like I can pretty well sit the project at 24/96 at 64 samples and play Keyscape and Amplitube. Keyscape being my "whole subsystems most intensive" VI...and Amplitube being well--the only amp sim I don't think is a huge piece of unusable turd. ...which also seems to love to eat CPU for breakfast in HD. Fact remains that the dual buffer of Cubase will allow more mix DSP to happen WHILE the input is lower latency-thus kind of parking the system at one buffer end to end...but, still, this is impressive. I turned on the predictive processing. FWIW. That alone didn't do it...it doesn't like whatever core parking is happening with a modern i7 that the hidden power scheme disables. Maybe I'll become a Reaper convert. I've always loved the ability to simply play a virtual instrument and record live as audio...
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Mar 20, 2019 20:08:31 GMT -6
JohnkennYou can input your insert delay compensation, and this fixes the loop back test. For me on my 16a at 24/96k it was .04ms I think, not in front of my rig now. A more telling test is to record a click through your mic while it "wears" headphones. This will provide a true recording loop test. I determined that the delays we're so small that it was pointless to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Mar 21, 2019 7:51:50 GMT -6
Johnkenn You can input your insert delay compensation, and this fixes the loop back test. For me on my 16a at 24/96k it was .04ms I think, not in front of my rig now. A more telling test is to record a click through your mic while it "wears" headphones. This will provide a true recording loop test. I determined that the delays we're so small that it was pointless to worry about. Ooh, that's a good idea. I think when using PT insert, it compensates correctly. But if I run a channel analog out, then back in on a separate track, I get the 50 sample delay, at 96k. In your opinion, is this a big enough delay to worry about?
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 21, 2019 10:11:22 GMT -6
I wouldn't record with a system constantly knowingly off (miscompenating) by 50 samples. As a matter of principle respect for the artist being recorded. That said....50 samples at 96khz, is fairly trivial in musical time. It's less than a single millisecond. I feel like I'm a snowflake, and no I don't think I'd notice that. When Logic was off throwing a groove-causing me to stop the session and seek a replacement DAW, it was 6ms off in it's (mis)compensation. FWIW. All but about 16 samples of that was their weird bus compensation that I could negate. I never noticed the (variable but near) 16 samples at 88.2 that came from Apple's USB stack.
I would be beyond pissed out of principle that they offer no way to put in a manual offset. Literally--I've never used a DAW that didn't. It's really a kind of "engineering cleanliness"/best practice kind of thing more than musically relevant necessity....but, that a VERY simple implementation....to not have it means they WANT this to be off so they can say "if you monitor via HDX it won't be".
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Mar 21, 2019 11:58:00 GMT -6
I wouldn't record with a system constantly knowingly off (miscompenating) by 50 samples. As a matter of principle respect for the artist being recorded. That said....50 samples at 96khz, is fairly trivial in musical time. It's less than a single millisecond. I feel like I'm a snowflake, and no I don't think I'd notice that. When Logic was off throwing a groove-causing me to stop the session and seek a replacement DAW, it was 6ms off in it's (mis)compensation. FWIW. All but about 16 samples of that was their weird bus compensation that I could negate. I never noticed the (variable but near) 16 samples at 88.2 that came from Apple's USB stack. I would be beyond pissed out of principle that they offer no way to put in a manual offset. Literally--I've never used a DAW that didn't. It's really a kind of "engineering cleanliness"/best practice kind of thing more than musically relevant necessity....but, that a VERY simple implementation....to not have it means they WANT this to be off so they can say "if you monitor via HDX it won't be". Totally agree and Iāve decided Iām ultimately going to Cubase. I just want to finish this project in PT before learning a new DAW. If 50 samples is not going to completely screw me, then I can live with it. Hey, Iāve lived with it this far...
|
|
|
Post by dankin on Mar 21, 2019 15:25:54 GMT -6
How is Cubase on a mac these days? It was always more CPU intensive in the past for me, but I haven't upgraded/used it since I think 6. I'll have to look at my Steinberg act. I use Logic for midi stuff, but I don't enjoy tracking/editing audio in it. Ultimately, for mixing, my list of gripes with PT is much shorter than my list of gripes with other DAWs I own (Logic, Studio One, Cubase) And the automation in HD/Ultimate is my favorite.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 21, 2019 16:38:57 GMT -6
Works well for me, but Iām not trying to track a band with it.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Mar 21, 2019 19:22:17 GMT -6
Johnkenn You can input your insert delay compensation, and this fixes the loop back test. For me on my 16a at 24/96k it was .04ms I think, not in front of my rig now. A more telling test is to record a click through your mic while it "wears" headphones. This will provide a true recording loop test. I determined that the delays we're so small that it was pointless to worry about. Ooh, that's a good idea. I think when using PT insert, it compensates correctly. But if I run a channel analog out, then back in on a separate track, I get the 50 sample delay, at 96k. In your opinion, is this a big enough delay to worry about? Why would you want to? When I did my record test with the delay comp set correctly. It was sample accurate. Not sure exactly what the issue in your case is? You set an insert up on the track you want to record the hardware to then buss it to a record track. Records perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Mar 22, 2019 4:43:53 GMT -6
Ooh, that's a good idea. I think when using PT insert, it compensates correctly. But if I run a channel analog out, then back in on a separate track, I get the 50 sample delay, at 96k. In your opinion, is this a big enough delay to worry about? Why would you want to? When I did my record test with the delay comp set correctly. It was sample accurate. Not sure exactly what the issue in your case is? You set an insert up on the track you want to record the hardware to then buss it to a record track. Records perfectly. Yep, Iām with you. I think the issue I was testing was recording new tracks that were being recorded late. I did a loop back test (sending a recorded click to analog output 1 and routing it back to analog input 2 on a new track, measuring a 50 sample delay). So any new tracking I do looks to be written to disc late by 50 samples against already recorded tracks Iām playing to.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 22, 2019 11:51:21 GMT -6
Correct. It IS weird as shit that a hardware insert comes back sample accurrately, which means they KNOW how muchthey need to compensateāand theyre just NOT doing it for recording.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 22, 2019 14:25:20 GMT -6
Am I understanding this correctly? You go out to hardware and come back in and there is no latency? I've actually had that happen in Pro Tools Native too. I expected delay when mixing through a comp and coming back in - usually have to scoot it over...but I've had it where there was no delay.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Mar 22, 2019 18:10:46 GMT -6
Am I understanding this correctly? You go out to hardware and come back in and there is no latency? I've actually had that happen in Pro Tools Native too. I expected delay when mixing through a comp and coming back in - usually have to scoot it over...but I've had it where there was no delay. Correct... In ProTools, if you route correctly it will keep all the delay compensation calculations correct. There are a few routing options when using HW that will cause the delay that it cannot calculate. Once I had my HW insert delay numbers inputted correctly, and everything was acting correctly I did my above mentioned headphone test. Place headphones on your mic and send a click out and record the click back in through the mic channel, I was at 30 samples delay at 96k. You will never have or need sample accurate monitor to record channel delay compensation. It's to big a moving Target. Just using different headphones could change the delay. Unless you are recording all analog, delay is there somewhere. Just depends on where and if the machine is trying to fake it by moving everything else around to match.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 22, 2019 20:08:50 GMT -6
Iād prefer it to fucking work like every other DAW available.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Mar 22, 2019 20:31:53 GMT -6
Iād prefer it to fucking work like every other DAW available. My statement is that no DAW can align to a human variable. You saw the problem in UAD that something was off and investigated it. That lead to a discussion about input latency and record off set while over dubbing. I think that PT and UAD should work. And there is no reason for them not to. I would like to know what happens with my little test using Cubase compared to PT on your machine.
|
|