Still Think Reaper is just a passing Fad?

[jakerock]

What do you guys use a regions list for?

Track grouping in reaper is indicated by Lines, Ribbons, or nothing at all, (user defined)

[@?,*???&?]

Thanks ,Tallisman. I love nice, reasoned replies. I'm sure he'll tell you himself but I think Jeff's gripe with grouping is the lack of obvious visual notification as to what tracks are grouped.
And I (sigh) agree with him again.

For the record I'm not trying to defend Jeff or pee on Reaper. I have had very little use of it so there may be things I'm missing from lack of familiarity. Just kicking the tires.

I'm not peeing on Reaper here. I'm trying to understand it for what it does.

A major concern with the groups is that you need to have the faders all high-lighted to have the group active. If I unhighlight them, then the group is inactive. Moving to another group creates more confusion. Once I create a balance of say, 3 tracks, I don't want to have to keep toggling them on and off to have the grouping apply. There may be some logic to why it behaves this way- or maybe not. Crossing over from SSL automation to Flyer Fader automation was certainly a transition too. I'm willing to spend time learning this.

Thanks on the other posts, I will search for those things. And if the Grouping is now more flexible, I will attempt to learn that. That grid looks good. I do have the latest version downloaded.

Let me add an 8 to my original list:

8. Being unable to a. see plugins instantiated on a given track without clicking on 'fx' is unhelpful b. being unable to drag and drop plugins onto a different channel from a pre-existing channel. Scenario would be something like I get an overhead mic hpf eq dialed in and I'd want to drag that onto the other overhead mic. Right now, it appears there is no way to do this.

Oh yeah, and if you guys missed this the other night, this is worth viewing:

http://www.nhl.tv/team/embed.jsp?catid=2&id=22278

[Tallisman]

Thanks ,Tallisman. I love nice, reasoned replies. I'm sure he'll tell you himself but I think Jeff's gripe with grouping is the lack of obvious visual notification as to what tracks are grouped.
And I (sigh) agree with him again.

For the record I'm not trying to defend Jeff or pee on Reaper. I have had very little use of it so there may be things I'm missing from lack of familiarity. Just kicking the tires.

I love it when my replies are viewed as reasonable. Thanks.

Now in this little image you will see how reaper displays group affiliation.
It may or may not work for you. It works for me in real-life situations where I have tracks assigned to a max of 5 or so groups. It gets fugly mith more than that!



greetings
.t

[Tallisman]

A major concern with the groups is that you need to have the faders all high-lighted to have the group active. If I unhighlight them, then the group is inactive. Moving to another group creates more confusion. Once I create a balance of say, 3 tracks, I don't want to have to keep toggling them on and off to have the grouping apply.

I will have a look at that, as your description is not ringing a bell to me. Here grouping works whether or not all the tracks in a group are selected. During the pre-release time for the groups feature it was tied to and toggled by the item grouping icon in the tool bar - but no more!

8. Being unable to a. see plugins instantiated on a given track without clicking on 'fx' is unhelpful b. being unable to drag and drop plugins onto a different channel from a pre-existing channel. Scenario would be something like I get an overhead mic hpf eq dialed in and I'd want to drag that onto the other overhead mic. Right now, it appears there is no way to do this.

Many folks on the reaper forum have been asking for an inspector for quite some time. I think that my screenset is perhaps one of the reasons we have yet to see a real inspector. I bring this up, because using a little imagination we can do amazing things. Watch, as I believe this addresses 8a, and 8b. And then it goes on...



In anycase, Reaper does have many weakness, but in my experience - based on my workflow, moving and copying FX and FX chains is not one of them.

Here's one: I'd like to have per-track, user definable quick controls that display parameters of any selected FX in the chain (plus a Key Command to toggle through the FX in the chain), for at a glance tweaking and viewing of levels.

greetings
.t

[rwc]

I like reaper.

maybe it's my bad vision, or that image degregation, but that shit looks like a science experiment.

[jakerock]

"@?,*???&?"
A major concern with the groups is that you need to have the faders all high-lighted to have the group active. If I unhighlight them, then the group is inactive. Moving to another group creates more confusion. Once I create a balance of say, 3 tracks, I don't want to have to keep toggling them on and off to have the grouping apply. There may be some logic to why it behaves this way- or maybe not. Crossing over from SSL automation to Flyer Fader automation was certainly a transition too. I'm willing to spend time learning this.

The groups dont need to be highlighted... They are active all the time and individual faders, pan, etc... can be adjusted independently of the grouping by pressing SHIFT while adjusting parameters. The groups have their own routing matrix page (ALT+R, choose routing from the drop down), and can be individually turned on and off as necessary.




Let me add an 8 to my original list:

8. Being unable to a. see plugins instantiated on a given track without clicking on 'fx' is unhelpful b. being unable to drag and drop plugins onto a different channel from a pre-existing channel. Scenario would be something like I get an overhead mic hpf eq dialed in and I'd want to drag that onto the other overhead mic. Right now, it appears there is no way to do this.

The mixer can be configured in alot of different ways (rt click on a blank spotin the mixer), including having the inserts and sends show, inserts can be dragged / copied / etc to other channel's inserts, and sends can be set up by dragging an empty slot on the sending channel to an empty slot on the receiving channel.

[Tallisman]

I like reaper.

maybe it's my bad vision, or that image degregation, but that shit looks like a science experiment.

definitely a science experiment!


367k.


.t

[@?,*???&?]

"@?,*???&?"
A major concern with the groups is that you need to have the faders all high-lighted to have the group active. If I unhighlight them, then the group is inactive. Moving to another group creates more confusion. Once I create a balance of say, 3 tracks, I don't want to have to keep toggling them on and off to have the grouping apply. There may be some logic to why it behaves this way- or maybe not. Crossing over from SSL automation to Flyer Fader automation was certainly a transition too. I'm willing to spend time learning this.

The groups dont need to be highlighted... They are active all the time and individual faders, pan, etc... can be adjusted independently of the grouping by pressing SHIFT while adjusting parameters. The groups have their own routing matrix page (ALT+R, choose routing from the drop down), and can be individually turned on and off as necessary.




Let me add an 8 to my original list:

8. Being unable to a. see plugins instantiated on a given track without clicking on 'fx' is unhelpful b. being unable to drag and drop plugins onto a different channel from a pre-existing channel. Scenario would be something like I get an overhead mic hpf eq dialed in and I'd want to drag that onto the other overhead mic. Right now, it appears there is no way to do this.

The mixer can be configured in alot of different ways (rt click on a blank spotin the mixer), including having the inserts and sends show, inserts can be dragged / copied / etc to other channel's inserts, and sends can be set up by dragging an empty slot on the sending channel to an empty slot on the receiving channel.

Which brings up another point..."Can I have just two screens?"

I hate the concept of overlaying a mixer onto the edit window and having different controls available on the edit window mixer.

Let me add a 9 to my list:

9. Can I automate faders in a vertical fashion instead of a horizontal fashion- or rubber-band mode?

[Jay Reynolds]

Thanks for all the great info! I'm sure if I'd just read the manual, I would have found this stuff. So I really appreciate you taking time out to show me how to address my issues.

Which brings up another point..."Can I have just two screens?"

I hate the concept of overlaying a mixer onto the edit window and having different controls available on the edit window mixer.

Let me add a 9 to my list:

9. Can I automate faders in a vertical fashion instead of a horizontal fashion- or rubber-band mode?

Fixed your post.

[Tallisman]

Which brings up another point..."Can I have just two screens?"

Sure. you can hvae one with the mixer docked if you like, I prefer the pseudo inspector as it takes less screen real estate and lets me see what I need. I can navigate/select tracks without the mouse and at a glance see all I need to.

9. Can I automate faders in a vertical fashion instead of a horizontal fashion- or rubber-band mode?

yes

and

hmmm.

if by rubber band mode you mean that the fader returns to the level it started at once you let go, then yes...

.t

[rwc]

Thanks for all the great info! I'm sure if I'd just read the manual, I would have found this stuff. So I really appreciate you taking time out to show me how to address my issues.

Which brings up another point..."Can I have just two screens?"

I hate the concept of overlaying a mixer onto the edit window and having different controls available on the edit window mixer.

Let me add a 9 to my list:

9. Can I automate faders in a vertical fashion instead of a horizontal fashion- or rubber-band mode?

Fixed your post.

as much as it grates my teeth to disagree with someone disagreeing with jeff,

sometimes I have to work in pro tools. Sometimes in logic. sometimes nuendo 3, sometimes cubase 4, sometimes reaper.

Sometimes with little notice and usually with no CHOICE.

what I value is a work environment where things are intuitive and simple to the point where I don't have to read the manual for the more basic shit - where, just because I've been putting together computers for the past 13 years, I can figure it out just by fucking around.

I really value that in software. Even if it is LESS flexible. Having to point to the manual for simple tasks speaks of failure to make it intuitive to me, and these apps really need to be intuitive if they're going to break through.

I'd be the first to get on the jeff bashing train if I didn't think he were right.

if this stuff had truly been intuitive, one would find it before posting on a forum.

this isn't a defense for throwing away manuals. It's a plea to get the viewpoint that the EXPECTATION is that these programs be so intuitive with basic functions that one doesn't NEED a manual.

[@?,*???&?]

Thanks for all the great info! I'm sure if I'd just read the manual, I would have found this stuff. So I really appreciate you taking time out to show me how to address my issues.

Which brings up another point..."Can I have just two screens?"

I hate the concept of overlaying a mixer onto the edit window and having different controls available on the edit window mixer.

Let me add a 9 to my list:

9. Can I automate faders in a vertical fashion instead of a horizontal fashion- or rubber-band mode?

Fixed your post.

as much as it grates my teeth to disagree with someone disagreeing with jeff,

sometimes I have to work in pro tools. Sometimes in logic. sometimes nuendo 3, sometimes cubase 4, sometimes reaper.

Sometimes with little notice and usually with no CHOICE.

what I value is a work environment where things are intuitive and simple to the point where I don't have to read the manual for the more basic shit - where, just because I've been putting together computers for the past 13 years, I can figure it out just by fucking around.

I really value that in software. Even if it is LESS flexible. Having to point to the manual for simple tasks speaks of failure to make it intuitive to me, and these apps really need to be intuitive if they're going to break through.

I'd be the first to get on the jeff bashing train if I didn't think he were right.

if this stuff had truly been intuitive, one would find it before posting on a forum.

this isn't a defense for throwing away manuals. It's a plea to get the viewpoint that the EXPECTATION is that these programs be so intuitive with basic functions that one doesn't NEED a manual.

Thanks.

btw, the intuitive thing is VERY important. Pro Tools (Nuendo I'm guessing) should be the jumping off point FOR ALL OTHER software writers. It shows lack of knowledge of the competition for a software program to come in from left field and expect to take over the industry (I'm guessing Reaper would love to do that). There are many ways to a program more elegant and still have it relate to work-flow and known methodology.

As for the manual and documentation of Reaper- IT BLOWS. Very incomplete. I perused it looking for answers to questions I had and somehow it reads like a 'lite' edition .doc. If the program is really changing as quickly as I gather it is, then I can see why that would be the case.

[Jay Reynolds]

I'm not claiming to have never posted a question in a forum.
I'm just sayin it wouldn't kill Jeff to say thank you. Its not like he's getting terse, one-word answers back. He's getting some pretty good support. Lord knows I'd be tempted to stop responding to a guy who, instead of showing gratitude, keeps coming up with objections.

[jakerock]

btw, the intuitive thing is VERY important. Pro Tools (Nuendo I'm guessing) should be the jumping off point FOR ALL OTHER software writers. It shows lack of knowledge of the competition for a software program to come in from left field and expect to take over the industry (I'm guessing Reaper would love to do that). There are many ways to a program more elegant and still have it relate to work-flow and known methodology.


Well... Maybe, its apples and oranges really... After much hemming and hawing, I came to like Reapers tools and flow alot better than PT / Nuendo. In MANY ways, IMHO they have transcended limitations, and the biggest hurdle for me was to begin to realized that I could and should think outside the box that other DAW's put me in... Routing, track "types", sample rates, highly adaptable preferences, my own mixer layouts, CPU saving track rendering options, being able to simply copy my reaper folder to another computers hard drive and have it be the same as at my studio...
Theres a long list. But it did take some dedication to a new platform, and I have loved every minute of it!


As for the manual and documentation of Reaper- IT BLOWS. Very incomplete. I perused it looking for answers to questions I had and somehow it reads like a 'lite' edition .doc. If the program is really changing as quickly as I gather it is, then I can see why that would be the case.

Well, actually there is no official documentation for Reaper, the PDF manual is an ongoing labor of love by reaper user Nicholas... and yes it is incomplete. I believe it is actually called the "Getting Started Guide"

Writing and updating an official manual right along with the code would help everybody, especially curiosity seekers and advanced users. To really keep up with the development and see creative acrobatics with reapers powerful action list and macro functions requires a fairly dedicated observance of goings on at the Reaper forums and IRC channel.

It is really a disservice to the power of the program to require so much digging and dedication from its users, but... Honestly I think it is fun to keep up, and dont really mind in the end because audio is my passion in life and having a "living tool" to work with is an absolute joy!

[Tallisman]

Hey I don't mind any attitudes. And, no thanks needed. It is odd but I get so inspired that it becomes my pleasure to... help?

I am not trying to convince anyone that Reaper destroys all other DAWs. Or that folks should convert.

this is no gospel. Simply an attempt to point out what may have been overlooked or confusing.

allah'u'aqDAW!
got more questions? got milk?


.t


sorry if that was in bad taste.