Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Leonard]

Hey Doug, how are you? You might like this for $99.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CubaseE9

[Justice C. Bigler]

C'mon Doug, you're a professional. You should be using professional tools. You know which multi track recording software is the right one to choose. It's not that expensive anymore.

[Corey Scogin]

C'mon Doug, you're a professional. You should be using professional tools. You know which multi track recording software is the right one to choose. It's not that expensive anymore.

Ha! It may be the worst option for lightweight live recording.

[Andrew Broughton]

I have no idea why anyone (on purpose) uses anything other than Reaper...

[Justice C. Bigler]

I have no idea why anyone (on purpose) uses anything other than Reaper...

To be quite honest, Reaper is somewhat complicated. The input and output routing isn't real straight forward, and there are a tonne of options that you don't really need access to.


I used it to record our youth opera in June, but only because I was tracking 38 channels and Protools tops out at 32 channels unless you have HD hardware connected. But I can get a session up and running in Protools in like 5 minutes, including naming all the tracks. Reaper took me almost an hour just because the layout was just too wonky. And I still can't figure out how to name the tracks so that the files have the same names on them.


Here next week when I sit down to start going through the youth opera recording, I'm going to have to import everything back into Protools and hope that the naming conventions on the files that Reaper used makes some kind of sense.


Yes, Protools isn't the most stable platform for live recording. But the workflow is about 17 times easier and more straight forward. Plus the GUI doesn't look like you are living in a cave.

[Andrew Broughton]

To be quite honest, Reaper is somewhat complicated.

Funny - I feel the same way about all other DAW software. I guess the UI just makes sense to me, but it may depend on what you're used to or started with...

[Brian_Henry]

To be quite honest, Reaper is somewhat complicated. The input and output routing isn't real straight forward, and there are a tonne of options that you don't really need access to.


I used it to record our youth opera in June, but only because I was tracking 38 channels and Protools tops out at 32 channels unless you have HD hardware connected. But I can get a session up and running in Protools in like 5 minutes, including naming all the tracks. Reaper took me almost an hour just because the layout was just too wonky. And I still can't figure out how to name the tracks so that the files have the same names on them.


Here next week when I sit down to start going through the youth opera recording, I'm going to have to import everything back into Protools and hope that the naming conventions on the files that Reaper used makes some kind of sense.


Yes, Protools isn't the most stable platform for live recording. But the workflow is about 17 times easier and more straight forward. Plus the GUI doesn't look like you are living in a cave.

When did you last use Reaper? To me, the routing matrix couldn't make things simpler. I came from PT and Cubase and was instantly able to set up I/O before anything else.

On the other hand I have a good friend who won't give up Cubase until it's pried from his cold dead hands.

Regarding workflow, this is truly in the eye of the beholder. The best thing the OP can do for himself is spend an hour with everything is his price/requirements range and see which speaks to him. Those few hours are well spent to make the right choice for what works best for him (Unless of course he's only going to use it once, in which case...)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim Weaver]

To be quite honest, Reaper is somewhat complicated. The input and output routing isn't real straight forward, and there are a tonne of options that you don't really need access to.


I used it to record our youth opera in June, but only because I was tracking 38 channels and Protools tops out at 32 channels unless you have HD hardware connected. But I can get a session up and running in Protools in like 5 minutes, including naming all the tracks. Reaper took me almost an hour just because the layout was just too wonky. And I still can't figure out how to name the tracks so that the files have the same names on them.


Here next week when I sit down to start going through the youth opera recording, I'm going to have to import everything back into Protools and hope that the naming conventions on the files that Reaper used makes some kind of sense.


Yes, Protools isn't the most stable platform for live recording. But the workflow is about 17 times easier and more straight forward. Plus the GUI doesn't look like you are living in a cave.

Here's the main thing about Reaper. The UI is extremely simple. The setup and preferences are extremely complex. This has nothing to do with how good or bad reaper is, but simply puts ALL of the control in the hands of the user. To set up Reaper you need to spend plenty of time in the preferences dictating where the files go, what to name those files, how to split those files into different folders or drives, etc, etc. And that's just the file handling part. You have extremely deep control over every part of the program.

Unfortunately the way it is set up "stock" is pretty miserable. Everything dumps into one folder and that's in the documents folder for some inexplicable reason, and there is no file naming structure beyond the basic date and track name.

ALSO, and this is a biggie for people importing into other DAW's for editing, There's a limit to how big a file (track) can be in Reaper. After that limit it breaks the track into two files. Now, Reaper handles this just fine with no interruption in audio, but if you import this into PT you'll have the beginning on one track and the end on another track and reassembling this is a PITA. Fortunately Reaper provides a way to fix this. It's a setting just like everything else. There is no limit afaik about how big the file CAN be, but there is a setting to split the track once it hits a certain size. I think you can record about 45 minutes stock, but I changed mine to handle 4Gb files and have never hit the size limit since (I'm recording 90 minute services). This setting does not hurt performance at all, but now you have Gb's of files to move around instead of xxxMb's. Like I said, it makes no difference to reaper how big the files are.

I would suggest spending lots of time watching the help videos, and surfing the (very active) forum and start setting up Reaper to be how you like it! This is NOT something to be done 10 minutes before a show.

After it's configured, reaper is an absolute joy to work with.

[Riley Casey]

Get a 2" Studer 

Need 8 tracks, with nothing fancy at all.  Going to track it, then hand it off.

I'll ban the first member who says "get a Mac". :-)

(Not really....)

[Tim McCulloch]

Get a 2" Studer 

For only 8 tracks a 1" machine would be fine... Think of the tape savings!!!

I'm betting the old 1" machine we made 8 track loop bin masters with is still here in town somewhere...

[ProSoundWeb Community]