Read Before Posting!Posts should be made to inform or facilitate discussion. Any post with the intent to self-promote, sell products or services, or are appeals for money / funding will most likely be removed.Do not post pictures of text here, they will be removed. This type of content should be posted in.Similarly, office pics are generally considered low-effort fluff, image posts should have some point other than karma and promote discussion Check out our Discord server!Weekly PostsUpcoming AES EventsAES@NAMM Pro Sound Symposium: Live & Studio 2019January 24-27. Anaheim Hilton HotelConcurrent with The 2019 NAMM ShowHands-On Training. Technical PresentationsCareer Development. Expert PresentersLocation: Anaheim, CA USAVenue: Anaheim Hilton HotelMore info at the. Reaper is a fine DAW, and you shouldn't move away from it unless you have a reason.

Use what you like.Most pro studios, or studios/engineers who need to work with pro studios, use Pro Tools because it was the first system to make computer recording and editing professionally feasible. It's much easier to just open a session from the same program than to import everything, so people standardized on the system that worked.

REAPER Default Keyboard Shortcuts Summary: Main Section v 2.42 July 2008 Page 1 To determine generally what is shown on screen and screen appearance. To display the windows for various settings and options. To Navigate and Zoom within a REAPER project (cont).

Nearly everyone around then got it in the early 1990s, and kept upgrading over time. There's more diversity in the modern music studio - plenty of other DAWs may see use.

Many studios stock the software versions of several or even most of the major DAWs, but will only have special hardware and equipment for one - and that one is usually Pro Tools. (With third party hardware processors like UAD, this is becoming less of an issue than it was.)However, if the studio wants to do any film work, the studio will use Pro Tools. The entire film industry runs on Pro Tools, largely for interoperability but also because it handles film timecode relatively elegantly. It was also the first major system that was designed to handle effects playback for movie mixing, so it is again partially a case of being first to market. It makes editing sound effects to picture, recording score, and final mix for picture in multiple surround sound versions very simple, where other DAWs do not (or have only recently added the features).If none of those are issues for you, or if you're satisfied with how Reaper handles the problems, then enjoy using it! If these are issues you've experienced, consider getting a trial of a few other DAWs to see if they're a better fit.

No one is forcing you to use anything else (unless a client or employer insists). Pro tools is terrible for tracking because it regularly gets CPU spikes at really random times. Even Pro tools Expert are quite open about how bad pro tools is for tracking for this reason.As for post production, nothing comes close, it can deal with much higher number of voices (especially with HD and HDX) than most daws can. Plus, it's surround sound metering, and flexible routing, and also it's video playback features make it very good for film/post production. Not many (if any) DAWs out there can seamlessly deal with both audio and video as flexibly as pro tools can.As for electronic music, since 12.3, it's actually become very flexible with virtual instruments. Track commit is much better than track freeze, specifically as you can bounce aux tracks, and freeze batches of tracks, and bounce some processing and not others.

For example, if you just wanted to bounce a plugin that had a lot of latency like waves tune or vocal rider, then you could bounce that and leave other editing free to be done as you wish.Audio editing is also much easier and quicker in pro tools than in daws such as ableton. I can edit something in pro tools is seconds which would have my head banging against a brick wall in ableton. The integration of elastic audio makes it quick for editing parts.You can also run ableton as a virtual instrument within pro tools, so you can get all the benefits of both worlds. If you want to have a clip based sample workflow, then just run both at the same time. Sure, sometime automation can be a little clunky in pro tools, but once you get used to how it works, I often find editing automation in pro tools to be quicker than in ableton because you're not messing about with jumping between session view and clip view.I mean, each to their own and all that, but it works for me.Down votes ahoy, fuck it, I'm still making music.

We wouldn't suggest you do that; there are DAWs more streamlined for that like Live.However, if I can provide an analogy then what you're doing is sitting in your neighborhood saying that airplanes suck compared to cars because you can't use them to drive to the grocery store. That's all good and fine until someone wants to drive significantly further and suddenly the plane is the better mode of transportation because you can get across the country in under a day instead of 57 days.So is Reaper better for people who 'only want to do this one simple thing?' Maybe, but most of the examples where Reaper would be more beneficial than Pro Tools, the only reason is because of pricing. All things being equal, that does not make Reaper any better. Better absolutely depends on the task. For instance; Ableton Live is fantastic for creating synth driven music; the stock feature lineup has significantly better tools like Simpler and Operator and you can easily take clips and mess with them. Reversing clips, transposing them, or whatever odd things you can think of is just a couple clips away and most operations can be done without even stopping the playback, so I've gone maybe half an hour (and people who know Live can go longer) without ever even stopping the playback and continue creating.

There are virtually no features that Pro Tools has that are comparable or better for electronic music production.Now when we start talking about recording and mixing, the layout for Live becomes incredibly clunky. Basic mix functions like volume, pan, and I/O are all significantly more fluid in Pro Tools. The way the layout is set up, using Ableton to create a comp track from several takes is incredibly hard, while Pro Tools playlist functions are simple highlight and send to main. Also, I find that mixing with plugins is very hard with Ableton; you have to click on a track to see the plugins while Pro Tools you can see the plugins on every track from the mix window.So what am I telling you? The only reason why I make most of my music in Pro Tools is because I'm more comfortable with it after ten years of practice. The more I learn Ableton, it starts to become easier to make electronic music and synth driven parts.

I would never use Ableton for recording though. As soon as I want to add real instruments to a track, I'll rewire Ableton into Pro Tools or just use Pro Tools instead.So all that I've just done is illustrate that yes, better absolutely depends on the task when comparing DAWs like Live, Reason, or FL Studio against DAWs like Digital Performer, Studio One, or Pro Tools.One of the other things I was trying to say in my last post is that Reaper has in my limited experience seemed to be much more like the Pro Tools category of DAW instead of the Ableton category of DAW.

Reaper does not have many of the features that make Ableton better at electronic music, and it lacks a lot of features that I find to be key. I'd much rather use Pro Tools for creating electronic music, and not just because I'm more comfortable with it.Reaper is only 'better' than Pro Tools if you're doing simple tasks and don't need the feature lineup that Pro Tools provides; and I would still assert that Pro Tools does these simple tasks better anyway, you just don't want to pay for Pro Tools if all you are doing is simple tasks. Again, this makes the only advantage to Reaper the price point which does not, all things being equal, make the DAW any better. I've been using Ableton Live since 2005, so I'm well aware of the perks. I also disagree that recording is cumbersome in that program, but I don't think it's better than Protools either.

I know of many very successful pop acts in Sweden that are tracking in Ableton exclusively.I/O handling is fantastic in Ableton, in my opinion, and I don't see how volume and pan is hard either. You just need to make sure you don't automate the volume slider on the mixer, that's all.But I think we agree almost completely, which DAW is the best suited depends on the task. I'm going to reply to both of your comments in one go; If you're going to make the claim that this is all highly subjective then discussing DAWs is pointless in general. If you want to discuss this topic with any objectivity then Pro Tools and Ableton are the undisputed kings.Ableton can't do comp tracks. Sure, everything is fine and dandy recording in Ableton until you need to do a comp track and then it's impossible. Harman kardon avr 500 review. As far as the mixing gui.

Look at Ableton and look at Pro Tools. Pro Tools looks like a mixer, and Ableton looks really cumbersome.