MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Pro-tools vs. Reaper
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Software  
Author Pro-tools vs. Reaper
Dave Kendall
I've used pro-tools for many years and know it well enough for what I do, but am thinking of moving to Reaper, at least in part because I don't like AVID's predatory business model.

Reaper seems a pretty good alternative if you don't need to import PT files, which I don't really anymore.

Any wigglers got experience with both PT and Reaper ?
How do multiple simultaneous audio recordings (16 + tracks of 24bit 48K) and MIDI capability compare on the two DAWs in the real world ?

(the search function seems broken, so I couldn't look for previous threads)
rovadams
I'm working with a friend who has taught a class on Protools for years, and he is totally disgusted with it and is switching to Reaper. I'm just starting to learn Reaper, seems very capable but also complex as a result.
Hi5
Haven't had to do 16+ channels at once but Reaper has been super efficient for me. I tend to track about 12 ch at a time on a very old PC with no hiccups. Obviously loading a ton of VST would change that but overall I've found Reaper to be ideal
DickMarker
Don't know diddly about Pro Tools but Reaper is great - usually keep my track count as low as possible but I recently had a piece running at 18 tracks with no issues whatsoever.
criticalmonkey
i'd say about 50% of the folks i know have switched to reaper in part or fully from protools - some gaming people seem to love it, seems to be economics for most, though a few prefer it for scripting abilities

for music industry - protools still seems to have a hold at larger studios, logic seems to rum second or first in personal studios

I haven't walked into a commercial studio yet that said "we have reaper" as part of their sales pitch - which actually surprises me for things like dialogue recording where scripting has so many benefits

only negative i have heard is about using video in reaper - not dependable for post work and such gripes as slow
i don't know if any of it is meaningful - been meaning to run some tests but haven't had the time - working against video is a huge part of my work so that will be defining for me ( protools has left the door open here, it hasn't been rock solid either lately for us)

last time i listened to repear - a long while ago - i was disappointed at the sound - kinda harsh digital - people tell me it sounds better since some update a while ago

everything is getting closer to the same so ....
chvad
My 9-5 has been teaching PT at a grad school for the past 12 years. Everything I do creatively has been on Reaper for... I'm guessing... at least 6 or 7 years. Commercially I use whatever the gig demands. It's usually PT. If you ever wanna chat about the pros/cons and such I'd love to chat about but I'm not overly keen on typing a ton... it's just laborious to write that much. PM me and I'm happy to set up a call or skype or facetime or whatever and yammer about it all day. Just lemme know!

"How do multiple simultaneous audio recordings (16 + tracks of 24bit 48K) and MIDI capability compare on the two DAWs in the real world ? "

I've run a session with around 98 tracks on Reaper with a number of effects with no worries. Long-ish arrangement that came in at around 23 minutes.
Neoconkers
chvad wrote:
PM me and I'm happy to set up a call or skype or facetime or whatever and yammer about it all day. Just lemme know!


Would be great if you could post a recording of this (if you're both willing).It would be interesting to get a comparison from a long time user of both Pt and Reaper.
sleepgardens
I do audio post production for TV, Movies, Spots, Podcasts, etc...

I moved my whole workflow to Reaper last year and I couldn't be happier. Fuck Avid and their predatory business model. I still own a PT license because sometimes it is required to me to deliver a PT session, but I'm using Reaper for everything I finalyze myself, expecially since Vordio came out. Vordio is a software that converts XML files from NLE (Premiere, Final Cut, DaVinci, etc) to Reaper sessions, skipping the OMF/AAF problem and also allowing you to reconform (something that PT peolpe use EdiLoad for, another 600 euros just for that).

Personally I see only two reason to keep using PT over Reaper:

1) You are part of a production chain where everything is done in PT and you are asked to deliver a PT session. There is still no error-proof way to convert PT sessions in Reaper sessions (though AATranslator works reallly well).

2) You have a business from which A LOT of money depends. Let's say you are mixing hollywood-budget movies, producing grammy-level records or something similar. If something screws up software-wise and you are losing a lot of money by not being able to work you can literally threaten Avid of legal action and they will fix the problem for you directly, we are talking about a big corporation (Avid) against two people (Cockos), of course the level of customer service will be different.

Apart from these two, that have to do with the fact that PT is the industry standard, I don't see anything function-wise that makes me prefer PT over Reaper.

Reaper is very powerful, completely customizable and incredibly stable and lightweight (installer weights less then 20mb).
chvad
sleepgardens wrote:
I do audio post production for TV, Movies, Spots, Podcasts, etc...

I moved my whole workflow to Reaper last year and I couldn't be happier. Fuck Avid and their predatory business model. I still own a PT license because sometimes it is required to me to deliver a PT session, but I'm using Reaper for everything I finalyze myself, expecially since Vordio came out. Vordio is a software that converts XML files from NLE (Premiere, Final Cut, DaVinci, etc) to Reaper sessions, skipping the OMF/AAF problem and also allowing you to reconform (something that PT peolpe use EdiLoad for, another 600 euros just for that).

Personally I see only two reason to keep using PT over Reaper:

1) You are part of a production chain where everything is done in PT and you are asked to deliver a PT session. There is still no error-proof way to convert PT sessions in Reaper sessions (though AATranslator works reallly well).

2) You have a business from which A LOT of money depends. Let's say you are mixing hollywood-budget movies, producing grammy-level records or something similar. If something screws up software-wise and you are losing a lot of money by not being able to work you can literally threaten Avid of legal action and they will fix the problem for you directly, we are talking about a big corporation (Avid) against two people (Cockos), of course the level of customer service will be different.

Apart from these two, that have to do with the fact that PT is the industry standard, I don't see anything function-wise that makes me prefer PT over Reaper.

Reaper is very powerful, completely customizable and incredibly stable and lightweight (installer weights less then 20mb).


I agree on all points... BUT IMO the fact that Reaper IS "completely customizable"... I think that might be it's Achilles Heel. PT inflexibility make its super easy to walk into a new studio and get work done asap. My setup of Reaper is so bonkers different from the install I think it'd give another user a heart attack. You can always import export user settings but it's still another step I'd rather not take on a 9-5 work day basis. Aside from that... reaper4life lol
sleepgardens
chvad wrote:

I agree on all points... BUT IMO the fact that Reaper IS "completely customizable"... I think that might be it's Achilles Heel. PT inflexibility make its super easy to walk into a new studio and get work done asap. My setup of Reaper is so bonkers different from the install I think it'd give another user a heart attack. You can always import export user settings but it's still another step I'd rather not take on a 9-5 work day basis. Aside from that... reaper4life lol


Well I refer to PT vs Reaper in a similar way as the Mac/PC vs Linux thing. In PT (and Mac /Windows) there is ONE way of working, the one dicided for you by the developer, little to none customization. It's the developer telling you "work in this specific way and you will work fast and realiably". There is nothing wrong with that and I understand the reasons behind the choice (I'm a Mac user lol), but you have to bend to the developer will. Instead in Reaper (or Linux) is the user who shapes the software. That's a great pro for me, I've always been a huge customization fan.
Dave Kendall
Thanks to all for the informative replies.

Interestingly, here and elsewhere, the PT=MAC, Reaper=Linux thing comes up often - there does seem to be a pattern there.

For the time being, for learning curve/complexity reasons alone, I'll probably have to stick to PT for the next few months - there's a couple of albums to re-mix, and several other projects in the pipeline, so I simply won't have the time to do more than dip my toes in the water with Reaper.
It does look very promising though. The fact it now has a native Linux beta build is interesting too . . .

chvad - many thanks for the offer - I'd love to take you up on that sometime and chat - probably best after I've got the trial version of reaper installed, and am a bit more up to speed on it.

Thanks again to all for your thoughts and time. smile

cheers,
Dave
CosmicFlight
I heard somewhere Reaper use a special algo to play all track "in phase"
In a way it could sound better than any other DAW..
May someone could confirm this ?
motanero
I switched from PT to Reaper a couple of years ago and I am super happy with it. The flexibility in routing is amazing. The custom actions together with the SWS / S&M Extension allows wonderful workflows. Also love the Spectral peaks.
peripatitis
I've been using reaper lately instead of Samplitude which used to be my sequencer of choice, mostly for how it handles multichannel audio and routing ( the free ambisonic tool kit of course) and also because it seems a lot lighter in resources and less crash prone.
I really like love the media browser and I am also having fun with the subprojects.
But I wouldn't use it for composing, perhaps I still need to find my way around it but there is so much clatter, menus after menus (something Samplitude suffers from).
Sometimes being able to work in a million ways gets in the way.
joeTron
Pro tools is the dominant software in film and television production. That's why they're taking advantage. BIG TIP: If you're using pro tools and NOT syncing sound to picture then you are paying for a capability you don't need.
Yes maybe other software may sync sound to picture but if you're in the broadcast world pro tools is going to be the most efficient. But don't pay for it if you don't need it !
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Software  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group