|
|
Post by jmoose on Feb 20, 2023 19:37:22 GMT -6
The biggest hurdle to getting along with Reaper is figuring out how to customize it to YOUR workflow. This can be a giant PITA if you're not familiar with Reaper's architecture, and is probably the main reason why so many people give up on it. Most of the default behaviors in Reaper generally suck, and it takes a while to wrap your head around the fact that you can literally change anything you don't like, including menu items, mouse/scrollwheel behaviors, keyboard shortcuts, editing behavior, etc. Yeah... Maybe. I almost posted something before & deleted it. Personally reaper has never clicked for me. Tried several times, most recently a couple weeks ago and I can't get my skull wrapped around it. Nothing really makes any sort of sense compared to other DAW's. Even just spacebar = play/stop? Not here! Short version is I got a call to record a show... first time out with that since 2019 pre-lockdown stuff and told my guy I sold the old rig but I'd be able to cobble something together. While sorting through various driver issues & troubleshooting I tried Reaper... actually ended up using it for that show but its absolutely one & done here. The best thing I can say is that it did run flawlessly on a nearly 10 year old windows laptop. But at the same time it also reminded me of ALL the reasons why I moved away from windows boxes entirely. Even the way files are handled feels like something out of the stone age caveman days vs OSX. And I'll also be the guy to say I've never seen it used in any professional shop. Not opinion. Fact. The world pretty much runs on PT & Logic... the only people I personally know who run reaper? Hobbyists in home studios, and not to stereotype but probably half of 'em are also gamers. Its not some great conspiracy theory, its simply not really out there. If someone loves it & makes great music that's awesome. But there are good reasons you don't find that software in pro shops. Nobody really wants to learn a new piece of software on the clock & offering services for hire? If you have to explain how things work & reinvent the wheel every time someone new comes through the door..? Why? If you want to make any sort of living you need to be using software that people actually know & can get around on without training wheels. And absolutely yes I've turned DAW control over to artists more times then I can count. Not hearing things the way 'ya want? Wanna do your own edits? Hail Satan! Rad! Gives me a chance to get outta the chair. Very, very common scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 20, 2023 19:45:20 GMT -6
For my fellow Geico Cavemen out there... IMHO easiest DAW's are: GarageBand Bremmer's MultitrackStudio BandLab And (Drumroll please) Audacity!  Might apply to a Recording Musician or two you know. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 20, 2023 19:54:48 GMT -6
The biggest hurdle to getting along with Reaper is figuring out how to customize it to YOUR workflow. This can be a giant PITA if you're not familiar with Reaper's architecture, and is probably the main reason why so many people give up on it. Most of the default behaviors in Reaper generally suck, and it takes a while to wrap your head around the fact that you can literally change anything you don't like, including menu items, mouse/scrollwheel behaviors, keyboard shortcuts, editing behavior, etc. Yeah... Maybe. I almost posted something before & deleted it. Personally reaper has never clicked for me. Tried several times, most recently a couple weeks ago and I can't get my skull wrapped around it. Nothing really makes any sort of sense compared to other DAW's. Even just spacebar = play/stop? Not here! Short version is I got a call to record a show... first time out with that since 2019 pre-lockdown stuff and told my guy I sold the old rig but I'd be able to cobble something together. While sorting through various driver issues & troubleshooting I tried Reaper... actually ended up using it for that show but its absolutely one & done here. The best thing I can say is that it did run flawlessly on a nearly 10 year old windows laptop. But at the same time it also reminded me of ALL the reasons why I moved away from windows boxes entirely. Even the way files are handled feels like something out of the stone age caveman days vs OSX. And I'll also be the guy to say I've never seen it used in any professional shop. Not opinion. Fact. The world pretty much runs on PT & Logic... the only people I personally know who run reaper? Hobbyists in home studios, and not to stereotype but probably half of 'em are also gamers. Its not some great conspiracy theory, its simply not really out there. If someone loves it & makes great music that's awesome. But there are good reasons you don't find that software in pro shops. Nobody really wants to learn a new piece of software on the clock & offering services for hire? If you have to explain how things work & reinvent the wheel every time someone new comes through the door..? Why? If you want to make any sort of living you need to be using software that people actually know & can get around on without training wheels. And absolutely yes I've turned DAW control over to artists more times then I can count. Not hearing things the way 'ya want? Wanna do your own edits? Hail Satan! Rad! Gives me a chance to get outta the chair. Very, very common scenario. Confused on the space bar thing. Definitely the same in Reaper! In fact most basics are the same. I was up and running super fast. Weird thing was the routing at first. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Feb 20, 2023 20:13:54 GMT -6
Spacebar should work?! Ok that's weird...
I grabbed the latest version 6.something about 2-3 weeks ago and it was a stock install. Haven't knowingly changed anything. And while it was a really old laptop it does have a fresh OS install & solid-state drive.
To stop & start I have to mouse to the transport bar. Not actually a bad thing given the nature of that work... figured at least I know nobody can bump things & accidentally knock it out of record.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 20, 2023 20:36:35 GMT -6
Spacebar should work?! Ok that's weird... I grabbed the latest version 6.something about 2-3 weeks ago and it was a stock install. Haven't knowingly changed anything. And while it was a really old laptop it does have a fresh OS install & solid-state drive. To stop & start I have to mouse to the transport bar. Not actually a bad thing given the nature of that work... figured at least I know nobody can bump things & accidentally knock it out of record. That would be so annoying. Yeah, only thing that was super odd to me at first was setting up FX tracks. Your other point is interesting though. As a studio OWNER, yeah no way. Never. Not if I wanted to rent the place out. I guess I forget such places exist because there aren’t very many of them here in Austin and I can’t remember the last time I worked in one. Around here there are two types of studios in the pro world. Smaller ones that are owned by one producer who maybe has an engineer on call for complex projects and the larger ones that have maybe two or three house engineers. Most of the work in the indie scene is done by the former. Everyone from Spoon to Heartless Bastards records that way. Usually a two or three room space in a house or maybe a run down commercial space. But even big places like Arlyn or Congress House, everyone I know uses the house engineers. So my point is that you’re not as bound to the software if you’re not renting your place out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 21:16:01 GMT -6
The biggest hurdle to getting along with Reaper is figuring out how to customize it to YOUR workflow. This can be a giant PITA if you're not familiar with Reaper's architecture, and is probably the main reason why so many people give up on it. Most of the default behaviors in Reaper generally suck, and it takes a while to wrap your head around the fact that you can literally change anything you don't like, including menu items, mouse/scrollwheel behaviors, keyboard shortcuts, editing behavior, etc. Yeah... Maybe. I almost posted something before & deleted it. Personally reaper has never clicked for me. Tried several times, most recently a couple weeks ago and I can't get my skull wrapped around it. Nothing really makes any sort of sense compared to other DAW's. Even just spacebar = play/stop? Not here! Short version is I got a call to record a show... first time out with that since 2019 pre-lockdown stuff and told my guy I sold the old rig but I'd be able to cobble something together. While sorting through various driver issues & troubleshooting I tried Reaper... actually ended up using it for that show but its absolutely one & done here. The best thing I can say is that it did run flawlessly on a nearly 10 year old windows laptop. But at the same time it also reminded me of ALL the reasons why I moved away from windows boxes entirely. Even the way files are handled feels like something out of the stone age caveman days vs OSX. And I'll also be the guy to say I've never seen it used in any professional shop. Not opinion. Fact. The world pretty much runs on PT & Logic... the only people I personally know who run reaper? Hobbyists in home studios, and not to stereotype but probably half of 'em are also gamers. Its not some great conspiracy theory, its simply not really out there. If someone loves it & makes great music that's awesome. But there are good reasons you don't find that software in pro shops. Nobody really wants to learn a new piece of software on the clock & offering services for hire? If you have to explain how things work & reinvent the wheel every time someone new comes through the door..? Why? If you want to make any sort of living you need to be using software that people actually know & can get around on without training wheels. And absolutely yes I've turned DAW control over to artists more times then I can count. Not hearing things the way 'ya want? Wanna do your own edits? Hail Satan! Rad! Gives me a chance to get outta the chair. Very, very common scenario. Reaper used to be less stable pre version 5 point something when a lot was improved. Now it's one of the more stable DAWs, far more than the current Pro Tools. Cubase is up there too now.
Pro Tools is just an older piece of software that is taught in audio schools along with Waves plugins. There's nothing really that makes it any more pro than any other big DAWs other than the DSP offload for hundreds of channels of HDX to keep a low latency where current CPUs might struggle, which has nothing to do with the software program.
Reaper and Logic are versioned like normal computer programs while the less said about Steinberg and AVID, the better.
A lot of mastering work is being done in Reaper now because of the extreme cleanliness, flexibility, and failure of the "premium" DAWs marketed toward classical music, mastering, and post.
Reaper is for people who want to control everything. The SWS extension is essential and then you have a very powerful DAW that doesn't do things you don't want behind the scenes like Window and Mac OS do.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 21, 2023 0:14:17 GMT -6
[/quote] Reaper is for people who want to control everything...
[/quote] Umm… geez, no wonder I’m enjoying it. I’m just glad none of my bandmates are on this forum. They’d be like “no shit, you don’t say.” |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Feb 21, 2023 1:35:35 GMT -6
Yeah... Maybe. I almost posted something before & deleted it. I can see why you dislike it. It's not my favorite piece of software, but I use it. It gets the job done. To be honest, I've kind of stopped thinking about DAWs for the most part. I know my way around Reaper and Pro Tools, and I can make music with either. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 21, 2023 7:02:02 GMT -6
Spacebar should work?! Ok that's weird... I grabbed the latest version 6.something about 2-3 weeks ago and it was a stock install. Haven't knowingly changed anything. And while it was a really old laptop it does have a fresh OS install & solid-state drive. To stop & start I have to mouse to the transport bar. Not actually a bad thing given the nature of that work... figured at least I know nobody can bump things & accidentally knock it out of record. Yes, start/stop is spacebar. And in fact, you can change the shortcuts to anything you want or make your own shortcuts or macros for anything. You can reskin it like PT, including the shortcuts. And I'm also old enough to remember when PT was considered the only professional DAW.. now logic is considered too, mostly from folks fed up with PT.. and one day reaper will be in that list as long as people who don't give it a fair shake because "is not in professional studios" end up giving it a real try. And it doesn't handle files well? It puts them in the folder you tell it to. How is that not good? Anytime I create a session, I put it in it's own folder and then all the files are there. What's weird about that? Everything you've said reads like the same story I've read from others. You "tried" it but you immediately threw up your hands and proclaimed it "amateur" but it also seems like you didn't read anything about using it, and perhaps complained the whole time that it wasn't like PT.. I had a guy in the studio this past weekend who was tracking parts for another artist and we were arranging the song as we went. I was cutting/pasting/looping various drum parts to build the bones of the song so that we didn't have to get the drummer to do certain pieces over. The guy asked me what program and I told him it was Reaper. He had never heard of it before. He had only used PT before and didn't even know that there were a ton of other DAWs out there. He also remarked at how fast I was able to edit everything right then and there. Told me that other studios took forever to comp together pieces like I did in a few minutes. That right there is why PT is the "professional" DAW, because many folks were taught that PT was the ONLY solution and they never knew to look elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 21, 2023 9:28:29 GMT -6
IMO, PT is the "professional DAW" because it's set up (more of less) like a professional studio was in the 80's / 90's. That and they were way out ahead of most of the competition. The workflow, the look, etc.. It just makes sense to traditional engineers. It made the transition easier for the professionals that had been rocking tape machines and consoles their whole careers. They have also made updates pretty seamless over the years. If you can operate PT v.5.x, you can operate the latest / greatest. It will all be familiar. Some of the DAWs which will remain nameless love to recreate the wheel every few years, and leave users scratching their heads for days after installing the latest version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Feb 21, 2023 9:35:20 GMT -6
Reaper is fantastic. I've used it almost exclusively for 10 years and there's never been another DAW I've gotten along as well with. Plus 1 and well-said, even tho I'm not quite at the 10-year mark as yet. -09 |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 21, 2023 10:02:30 GMT -6
IMO, PT is the "professional DAW" because it's set up (more of less) like a professional studio was in the 80's / 90's. That and they were way out ahead of most of the competition. The workflow, the look, etc.. It just makes sense to traditional engineers. It made the transition easier for the professionals that had been rocking tape machines and consoles their whole careers. They have also made updates pretty seamless over the years. If you can operate PT v.5.x, you can operate the latest / greatest. It will all be familiar. Some of the DAWs which will remain nameless love to recreate the wheel every few years, and leave users scratching their heads for days after installing the latest version. Hmm. Every daw has: Tracks. A mixer bar, faders, master channel, sends/inserts. A transport. Routing. Meters for each track. So what am I missing that PT has that makes it like a studio that other DAWs don't have? Oh and Reaper updates? You download the new one and install it. Done. Don't like the update? Reinstall the old version. Done. Every update keeps your preferences so you never have to re-setup anything. Ever. The file is usually about 200MB so it takes about 2 minutes to download, install and reload your last project. By far the easiest DAW ever to update. But I still use Reaper skin 1.0 because it's stupid clean. Some call it ugly, but I'll never have to worry about aesthetics changing or anyone "reinventing the wheel". |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 21, 2023 10:21:38 GMT -6
For anyone Reaper-curious... this (long) YouTube video is a great walkthrough of some basic default settings to change in order to make Reaper operate a little more predictably for those coming from other systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 21, 2023 10:41:41 GMT -6
Reaper deep dive continues (sorry guys, this is how my mind works... once I latch on I latch on).
Interview with the founder. Interesting to put a face on the product. And their business model totally makes sense now. Dude sold WinAmp for $80m and then used that money to build his passion product. If Reaper is break even financially, this guy is fine. To me he reads like a lot of the people on this forum.
If I didn't need money I would happily build the world's greatest studio and record bands for the rest of my life for free. The only reason I want to get paid (including for my day job) is because I don't have $80m in the bank. I would produce records for free if I could. Happily.
Seems like this dude is the same way with creating cool software.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevenlmorgan on Feb 21, 2023 10:54:03 GMT -6
Around 8 years ago now, when I wanted to start recording, I did a few months of research and reading on DAWs. I read of a LOT of frustration with PT, and read of a LOT of great experiences with Reaper.
I am an Enterprise software guy by trade (have worked for SAP since 2001), don’t tolerate software that isn’t well engineered or well supported. I was fully satisfied with Reaper from the start, could always figure out what I needed to do or, there were videos and how-to answers online.
I have experimented with other DAWs out of curiosity, did not like them nearly as much as Reaper.
Reaper is great DAW software.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 21, 2023 11:07:53 GMT -6
IMO, PT is the "professional DAW" because it's set up (more of less) like a professional studio was in the 80's / 90's. But is what was considered to be a "pro" studio setup in 1990 still considered to be (or what should be) a "pro" studio setup today? Serious question. I try to mostly stay DAW agnostic, but I do like Luna a lot for introducing some new concepts (not that other DAWs haven't also introduced new concepts of their own), and because I like the Luna workflow. I also get along with Reaper okay, but the routing thing still makes me scratch my head sometimes, and the "you can literally do almost anything" approach causes me option paralysis sometimes (maybe I don't need 10 different way to do the same thing). The flexibility is cool though, provided you have the time and desire to dig into it (I mostly don't). Reaper can be daunting like that sometimes, which is why I'm enjoying the more old school type workflow approach in Luna. As for PT, well I've owned it and used it before. It's fine. I don't have strong feelings about the software itself, one way or the other. It was always Avid's policies that turned me off. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 21, 2023 11:12:03 GMT -6
If I didn't need money I would happily build the world's greatest studio and record bands for the rest of my life for free. The only reason I want to get paid (including for my day job) is because I don't have $80m in the bank. I would produce records for free if I could. Happily. Same here. Problem is, I like food. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 21, 2023 11:19:09 GMT -6
IMO, PT is the "professional DAW" because it's set up (more of less) like a professional studio was in the 80's / 90's. But is what was considered to be a "pro" studio setup in 1990 still what is considered to be "pro" studio setup today? Serious question. I try to mostly stay DAW agnostic, but I do like Luna a lot for introducing some new concepts (not that other DAWs haven't also introduced new concepts of their own), and because I like the Luna workflow. I also get along with Reaper okay, but the routing thing still makes me scratch my head sometimes, and the "you can literally do almost anything" approach causes me option paralysis sometimes (maybe I don't need 10 different way to do the same thing). Reaper can be daunting like that sometimes, which I why I'm enjoying the more old school type workflow approach in Luna. As for PT, well I've owned it and used it before. It's fine. I don't have strong feelings about the software itself, one way or the other. It was always Avid's policies that turned me off. My fluency in Pro Tools is not the only reason, but one important part of why I’ve been able to walk into Hyde Street, Skywalker Ranch, Sharkbite, and Panoramic House and just start working away. None of those places were going to fire up Logic or another DAW for me, it’s probably different if you’re a name AE booking an expanse of time. You can potentially just bring your own computer, but that’s a whole other conversation. Conversely a lot of the ad/podcast stuff I got hired to do was all on my own rig/time and it didn’t matter. And for A1 gigs it’s always a portable recorder and never a DAW. So I guess my point is that for paid work Pro Tools is still pretty relevant but it all depends on the scenario. I don’t even consider switching, I’m not an Avid fan but PT is like an extra appendage after 24 years. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 21, 2023 11:21:28 GMT -6
If I didn't need money I would happily build the world's greatest studio and record bands for the rest of my life for free. The only reason I want to get paid (including for my day job) is because I don't have $80m in the bank. I would produce records for free if I could. Happily. Same here. Problem is, I like food. Plus my kids are always asking for stuff. "We're thirsty, we need water." Or things like "It's cold, we need clothes." Stuff like that. So annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 21, 2023 11:25:01 GMT -6
But is what was considered to be a "pro" studio setup in 1990 still what is considered to be "pro" studio setup today? Serious question. I try to mostly stay DAW agnostic, but I do like Luna a lot for introducing some new concepts (not that other DAWs haven't also introduced new concepts of their own), and because I like the Luna workflow. I also get along with Reaper okay, but the routing thing still makes me scratch my head sometimes, and the "you can literally do almost anything" approach causes me option paralysis sometimes (maybe I don't need 10 different way to do the same thing). Reaper can be daunting like that sometimes, which I why I'm enjoying the more old school type workflow approach in Luna. As for PT, well I've owned it and used it before. It's fine. I don't have strong feelings about the software itself, one way or the other. It was always Avid's policies that turned me off. My fluency in Pro Tools is not the only reason, but one important part of why I’ve been able to walk into Hyde Street, Skywalker Ranch, Sharkbite, and Panoramic House and just start working away. None of those places were going to fire up Logic or another DAW for me, it’s probably different if you’re a name AE booking an expanse of time. You can potentially just bring your own computer, but that’s a whole other conversation. Conversely a lot of the ad/podcast stuff I got hired to do was all on my own rig/time and it didn’t matter. And for A1 gigs it’s always a portable recorder and never a DAW. So I guess my point is that for paid work Pro Tools is still pretty relevant but it all depends on the scenario. I don’t even consider switching, I’m not an Avid fan but PT is like an extra appendage after 24 years. Everyone should know how to use ProTools. You don't need to be a power user, but you should be able to do what you need to do for tracking at a minimum. Totally agree. If you have a client renting out space to track something that you can't do in your space, you better be able to use PT. Good thing is that, for this type of stuff (getting sounds to "tape"), ProTools is pretty easy. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 21, 2023 11:32:22 GMT -6
Again, my thoughts were just an observation on why I think PT ended up where it is/was - not why it's "better" or "worse". 1.) They were way out front of everyone, and 2.) they "recreated" an analog studio style workflow in a DAW. Contrary to what some have mentioned, MANY DAW's seemed to be programmed by people who have never set foot in a traditional studio. (Not referring to Reaper which I have never tried.). Don't like it - don't use it. Can't afford it - don't use it. Don't like the AVID BS - don't use it. All the professional "for hire" studio's that are geared towards outside clients that I have ever used have it, and use it as their primary DAW. I would suspect they have other DAWs on their computers, but I have never seen them on a session. Also, the DSP based environment makes tracking ROCK solid when you have 50-80 players on the floor and are recording 100+ tracks, with 100 tracks of pre-lays playing back. That's another reason it's still at (or near) the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 21, 2023 11:53:09 GMT -6
Again, my thoughts were just an observation on why I think PT ended up where it is/was - not why it's "better" or "worse". 1.) They were way out front of everyone, and 2.) they "recreated" an analog studio style workflow in a DAW. Contrary to what some have mentioned, MANY DAW's seemed to be programmed by people who have never set foot in a traditional studio. (Not referring to Reaper which I have never tried.). Don't like it - don't use it. Can't afford it - don't use it. Don't like the AVID BS - don't use it. All the professional "for hire" studio's that are geared towards outside clients that I have ever used have it, and use it as their primary DAW. I would suspect they have other DAWs on their computers, but I have never seen them on a session. Also, the DSP based environment makes tracking ROCK solid when you have 50-80 players on the floor and are recording 100+ tracks, with 100 tracks of pre-lays playing back. That's another reason it's still at (or near) the top. I completely understand why people say these things about PT. I get it and don't necessarily disagree, as to why you see PT everywhere. However, that sort of "it's what we all know" approach is also why the US is one of only three (?) countries in the world that still don't use the metric system. Now to be fair, I'm not trying to say that other DAWs are objectively better than PT in the way that the metric system IS objectively better than the imperial system, and the metric system is, in some ways, a "standard" in its own right, similar to how PT is a standard. However, PT has become a "standard", not because everyone has put their heads together and made a conscious decision to use it because it is objectively the best, but because economic forces such as audio engineering schools teaching it, or PT being packaged with DSP hardware (which was much more necessary in the past), made it that way, irrespective of whether the PT software itself truly is the "best". The problem with a relative monopoly, like PT has enjoyed for a long time, is that it doesn't drive Avid to innovate or be competitive on pricing. Thankfully there is more pressure on Avid now, from other DAWs and market forces, than there ever has been, and they do seem to be "thawing" a little on that front. It's one of the reasons I've been cheering on UA with Luna. Now there is more than one DSP option out there. I don't want to get into all of the pros and cons of Luna vs PT. I known that PT has been around longer and is more fully featured, etc. (Though Luna does have some distinct advantages over PT too, so it's not all one sided). I'm just glad that someone else is offering a DSP solution. Not everyone is doing post production or needs 192 channels of I/O. The competition is good for everyone, and I think it's pretty apparent at this point that now having two players in the DSP arena is forcing both Avid AND UA to innovate in competition with one another. I'm all for it. More broadly, I think a lot of DAWs, including Reaper, should get a seat at the table. Avid's been the big dog for too long. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 21, 2023 12:03:21 GMT -6
My fluency in Pro Tools is not the only reason, but one important part of why I’ve been able to walk into Hyde Street, Skywalker Ranch, Sharkbite, and Panoramic House and just start working away. None of those places were going to fire up Logic or another DAW for me, it’s probably different if you’re a name AE booking an expanse of time. You can potentially just bring your own computer, but that’s a whole other conversation. Conversely a lot of the ad/podcast stuff I got hired to do was all on my own rig/time and it didn’t matter. And for A1 gigs it’s always a portable recorder and never a DAW. So I guess my point is that for paid work Pro Tools is still pretty relevant but it all depends on the scenario. I don’t even consider switching, I’m not an Avid fan but PT is like an extra appendage after 24 years. Everyone should know how to use ProTools. You don't need to be a power user, but you should be able to do what you need to do for tracking at a minimum. Totally agree. If you have a client renting out space to track something that you can't do in your space, you better be able to use PT. Good thing is that, for this type of stuff (getting sounds to "tape"), ProTools is pretty easy. Yep, you need to look sharp in front of paid clients, regardless of the tools. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 21, 2023 12:56:49 GMT -6
Again, my thoughts were just an observation on why I think PT ended up where it is/was - not why it's "better" or "worse". 1.) They were way out front of everyone, and 2.) they "recreated" an analog studio style workflow in a DAW. Contrary to what some have mentioned, MANY DAW's seemed to be programmed by people who have never set foot in a traditional studio. (Not referring to Reaper which I have never tried.). Don't like it - don't use it. Can't afford it - don't use it. Don't like the AVID BS - don't use it. All the professional "for hire" studio's that are geared towards outside clients that I have ever used have it, and use it as their primary DAW. I would suspect they have other DAWs on their computers, but I have never seen them on a session. Also, the DSP based environment makes tracking ROCK solid when you have 50-80 players on the floor and are recording 100+ tracks, with 100 tracks of pre-lays playing back. That's another reason it's still at (or near) the top. I completely understand why people say these things about PT. I get it and don't necessarily disagree, as to why you see PT everywhere. However, that sort of "it's what we all know" approach is also why the US is one of only three (?) countries in the world that still don't use the metric system. Now to be fair, I'm not trying to say that other DAWs are objectively better than PT in the way that the metric system IS objectively better than the imperial system, and the metric system is, in some ways, a "standard" in its own right, similar to how PT is a standard. However, PT has become a "standard", not because everyone has put their heads together and made a conscious decision to use it because it is objectively the best, but because economic forces such as audio engineering schools teaching it, or PT being packaged with DSP hardware (which was much more necessary in the past), made it that way, irrespective of whether the PT software itself truly is the "best". The problem with a relative monopoly, like PT has enjoyed for a long time, is that it doesn't drive Avid to innovate or be competitive on pricing. Thankfully there is more pressure on Avid now, from other DAWs and market forces, than there ever has been, and they do seem to be "thawing" a little on that front. It's one of the reasons I've been cheering on UA with Luna. Now there is more than one DSP option out there. I don't want to get into all of the pros and cons of Luna vs PT. I known that PT has been around longer and is more fully featured, etc. (Though Luna does have some distinct advantages over PT too, so it's not all one sided). I'm just glad that someone else is offering a DSP solution. Not everyone is doing post production or needs 192 channels of I/O. The competition is good for everyone, and I think it's pretty apparent at this point that now having two players in the DSP arena is forcing both Avid AND UA to innovate in competition with one another. I'm all for it. More broadly, I think a lot of DAWs, including Reaper, should get a seat at the table. Avid's been the big dog for too long. Does Luna use the DSP for mixer and application computing - or just for plugins? Cause if for plugins only (that was my assumption) then the two are very different. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 21, 2023 13:38:22 GMT -6
I completely understand why people say these things about PT. I get it and don't necessarily disagree, as to why you see PT everywhere. However, that sort of "it's what we all know" approach is also why the US is one of only three (?) countries in the world that still don't use the metric system. Now to be fair, I'm not trying to say that other DAWs are objectively better than PT in the way that the metric system IS objectively better than the imperial system, and the metric system is, in some ways, a "standard" in its own right, similar to how PT is a standard. However, PT has become a "standard", not because everyone has put their heads together and made a conscious decision to use it because it is objectively the best, but because economic forces such as audio engineering schools teaching it, or PT being packaged with DSP hardware (which was much more necessary in the past), made it that way, irrespective of whether the PT software itself truly is the "best". The problem with a relative monopoly, like PT has enjoyed for a long time, is that it doesn't drive Avid to innovate or be competitive on pricing. Thankfully there is more pressure on Avid now, from other DAWs and market forces, than there ever has been, and they do seem to be "thawing" a little on that front. It's one of the reasons I've been cheering on UA with Luna. Now there is more than one DSP option out there. I don't want to get into all of the pros and cons of Luna vs PT. I known that PT has been around longer and is more fully featured, etc. (Though Luna does have some distinct advantages over PT too, so it's not all one sided). I'm just glad that someone else is offering a DSP solution. Not everyone is doing post production or needs 192 channels of I/O. The competition is good for everyone, and I think it's pretty apparent at this point that now having two players in the DSP arena is forcing both Avid AND UA to innovate in competition with one another. I'm all for it. More broadly, I think a lot of DAWs, including Reaper, should get a seat at the table. Avid's been the big dog for too long. Does Luna use the DSP for mixer and application computing - or just for plugins? Cause if for plugins only (that was my assumption) then the two are very different. The two are different, if we're talking about HDX (which does nearly all of its work, including mixing, in the DSP domain), which I sort of obliquely made reference to in my previous post (though I didn't go into explicit detail). Luna does some of it's mixing and routing in the native domain, but does some of it's mixing and all of its routing for cues and shuffling back and forth between DSP and native plugins (plus the DSP plugins themselves, of course) all in the DSP domain. The DSP is not just for the plugins. So where latency and dependability most matter, Luna is doing that in the DSP domain. It's basically the same thing as the hybrid engine that Avid has for Carbon, which definitely is in direct competition with the Apollo. My main point in my previous post was not to say that PT/HDX and Luna/Apollo were exactly on the same page, though the lines are blurring between the two. They are not, for the purposes of this discussion, exactly the same. However Luna/Apollo is on the same page as Carbon and, more importantly, at least to me, with Luna, you can track while enjoying the same low latency, dependable/deterministic behavior as HDX, all while using UAD plugins too (which are overall better than the AAX DSP plugins Avid has to offer, IMO), and for cheaper than HDX too. Maybe not with as high of a track count as HDX, but I don't work in post production and don't need that many channels. 32 and certainly 64 channels of I/O are enough for rock music. I appreciate that the lines are blurring and that someone else offers DSP for tracking. Like I said, I wasn't necessarily looking to go into a deep dive on all of the pros and cons between the two. I was just pointing out that PT isn't the only game in town anymore when it comes to offering PT-style DSP for tracking, all controlled from directly within the DAW. |
|
