![]() That may speak more to what you're doing with it. If REAPER has a learning curve, it is merely the process of learning how to record in a multitrack studio workflow. Which is why I say it's a tool for engineers who want to work with a traditional recording studio environment. I went to school for audio recording, and have worked off and on professionally as an engineer, so I suppose that may have shortened the learning process. I mean, I literally don't remember a period of "learning to use REAPER", I only remember starting to use it, and having it Just Work. And, I didn't find the learning curve steep at all it was almost instant. The GUI is clear and simple and well-documented. You don't need to customize it, but it's very customizable.īut, it isn't obscure. You don't need to know the hotkeys, but if you do, you'll work faster. It's extremely easy to use, if you've worked in a physical recording studio, or if you've used Pro Tools (or any other traditional multitrack recording DAWs). I disagree with that assessment, as well. REAPER just happens to be so good at such a low price that it stands out as exceptional and worth praise, IMHO. Both are high quality tools doing a very good job in their niche. But, musicians who grew up on synths, sequencers and beat machines with sequencers (like 303, 808, etc.), may find the Ableton approach more intuitive. The same can not be said of Ableton Live (or FL Studio, etc.). ![]() Traditional recording engineers, who learned in a studio with tape and hardware mixers and patch bays, will be quickly comfortable with REAPER. REAPER may be stronger for mastering, as well, depending on how you like to work. Live can plug into REAPER, so you can sync up your Live performance with your REAPER tracks, and produce a hybrid work. There can be some useful interoperation between them, as well. But, if you're recording live musicians, REAPER is amazing. If you're composing and performing predominantly electronic music in-the-box, then Ableton or others might be a better choice. And, REAPER can be used for electronic productions and loop-based composition and live performance (and there's even a UI for REAPER that makes it act more like Ableton), but it's not its raison d'être. Ableton can be used for multitrack recording of live musicians, but I don't know of any studios that use it for that, unless their focus is on electronic production with some live music added on top. REAPER is a Pro Tools competitor (and a good one). The term "DAW" has too many uses, and it can be confusing. I use FL Studio or Renoise for the stuff that people use Ableton for but, REAPER blows them all away for recording live musicians and then mixing the resulting tracks. But, as a competitor to Pro Tools, it's hard for me to think of anything even in the same ball park as REAPER (and REAPER costs a fraction of what Pro Tools costs, as well). I wouldn't really consider it a competitor to Ableton Live, though there's some overlap.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |