Reaper "Below Industry standard"?

oniman7 · #1 12-13-2012, 12:53 AM

A guy on my local musicians forum on Facebook announced he was in the market to buy recording software. I asked if he had tried any freeware like Reaper (it's not technically Freeware, but roll with me). He responded that you can't really pass along tracks made in Reaper because they're below industry standard.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does the DAW affect the quality of recording at all? Obviously plug ins and converters will, but would a track made in Reaper really be considered inferior? I haven't heard any evidence of this.

lowfreq33 · #2 12-13-2012, 01:45 AM

Reaper is a good program. I'm a Protools guy, but Reaper would be my second choice for a DAW. Certainly more user friendly than Logic or Cubase.

MNAirHead · #3 12-13-2012, 06:57 AM

The guy didn't know what he was talking about - you can render wav files individually

Technique and interface control the sound quality more than software

chatterbox272 · #4 12-13-2012, 07:43 AM

The DAW itself should have no affect on the sound, if there is it would most definitely be minimal. Is it the industry standard? no, that honor goes to pro tools. That doesn't mean it's worse though, just different (and IMO much much better value for money).

nick98338 · #5 12-13-2012, 09:42 AM

Technically inferior? No. Inferior in the over-bearing opinions of some recording snobs? Yep.

T. Alan Smith · #6 12-13-2012, 10:41 AM

The DAW can affect the overall quality in the mixbus. Some just do better. Back when I was keeping up with this stuff, Samplitude was the program that the full time pros raved about that could keep up with the top shelf stuff.

Rickett Customs · #7 12-13-2012, 10:53 AM

Reaper is a decent program and has lately started catching up with protools, cubase and such........However, you will most likely not find it used as much in alot of big "full time" studios (as mentioned below, plugins and other features vary), just the way it is. But yeah, that guy needs to take his head out of his arse, a bit of snobbery to that "below industry standard", unless he's building a 5 million dollar studio.

oniman7 · #8 12-13-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. Alan Smith

The DAW can affect the overall quality in the mixbus. Some just do better. Back when I was keeping up with this stuff, Samplitude was the program that the full time pros raved about that could keep up with the top shelf stuff.

How much would this realistically change the sound of a recording?

dave_p · #9 12-13-2012, 06:00 PM

I would visit the reaper forums. I have cubase and prefer to use reaper. The audio engine in reaper is equal to that of the other big daws. It s explained in detail on their forum.

nick98338 · #10 12-14-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oniman7

How much would this realistically change the sound of a recording?

Since all of the different DAW programs do their work digitally, and can produce recordings in 24 bit quality, the change in sound of a recording, between one program and the other program would be [000000000000000000000000]

The differences in the various recording programs is more about ease of use, or workflow, or peoples' familiarity. The difference is more about how people like it. It's not about quality of the recording.

Now, the plug-ins, and add-ons... that's a whole different thing.

oniman7 · #11 12-14-2012, 11:58 AM

Basically confirming everything I thought

Corey Y · #12 12-14-2012, 02:13 PM

Sort of an ironic statement, given the amount of PT based "engineers" that can't seem to figure out how to bounce their tracks down to mono wav files and organize them properly for a separate mixing engineer. Reaper is just a tool, the only thing that's going to make it more or less "professional" for passing on to other engineers is the competence and work ethic of the person using it. If dumping an entire directory of thousands of spliced takes with a PT project file onto an external hard drive is "industry standard" now...just yikes. What plug-ins are available and how good they are is a separate issue.

Disclaimer: Reaper isn't even my DAW of choice, so it's not a fanboy rant. I've used it before though, works just fine.

Tuned · #13 12-17-2012, 12:54 AM

It's actually easy to export separate mono files from a Protools session, simply consolidate files and save where you want them. Reaper is equally able to do the task, and frankly a Protools fanboi wouldn't know they were exported from Reaper unless you told them.

ArvindJayaram · #14 12-20-2012, 05:12 AM

I think transparency is probably the most essential thing about a DAW, it shouldn't "colour" the recording in any way. I've tried Reaper and it was good, Samplitude SE 8 was probably the best I've used in terms of the sound having this real open character, but now I use Cubase, because it's really functional and easy to work with .

- Jimmy Rage

RDUB · #15 12-20-2012, 08:46 AM

IMHO it's more about how you work and how your DAW works with you. PT, Samplitude, Reaper, and Studio One can all capture the sounds, and if you listened to properly recorded tracks, I don't think you'd hear any difference.

I know PT, and have used it in professional studios and in my home studio. I'm comfortable with it. I've tried Reaper, and I have no real complaints about it. I tried out Studio One, though, and it was like the old worn in slippers! It just really fits my style. I find the workflow just clicks with me, so that's what I use at home now.

I think that's where you'll find the real differences between DAWs.

mpdd · #16 12-20-2012, 09:17 AM

it's ok, i can't really play a lot of industry standards anyway

Stick_Player · #17 12-20-2012, 09:24 AM

It's perception:

Big Time Studio = Pro Tools

Your mom's basement = Reaper

Neither of which dictates a level of creativity and/or a compelling performance.

morgansterne · #18 12-22-2012, 07:55 PM

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/dansmithandthedeepclevel

here's an album that was recorded in a professional studio using Reaper. They had a very well treated room, good mics and preamps.
I brought it home to my basement for editing and mixing in Pro Tools LE. I saved many hundreds of dollars by editing different takes together, rerecording some of my trumpet parts that I didn't play well at the studio, etc. There's nothing I did in pro tools that they couldn't have done in Reaper, or vice versa. I only did it in pro tools because learning a new DAW program takes too long.

So in this case,
reaper = real studio
pro tools = my basement

morgansterne · #19 12-22-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stick_Player

It's perception:

Big Time Studio = Pro Tools

Your mom's basement = Reaper

Neither of which dictates a level of creativity and/or a compelling performance.

hey stickplayer, my apologies -- I didn't realize you were suggesting that people would perceive a studio as being amateur due to using Reaper. You're right about that, I guess. But personally whenever anyone advertises they have a "pro tools studio" I assume it's probably because that's the ONLY thing pro about it!

**bassybill** · #20 12-22-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oniman7

A guy on my local musicians forum on Facebook announced he was in the market to buy recording software. I asked if he had tried any freeware like Reaper (it's not technically Freeware, but roll with me). He responded that you can't really pass along tracks made in Reaper because they're below industry standard.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does the DAW affect the quality of recording at all? Obviously plug ins and converters will, but would a track made in Reaper really be considered inferior? I haven't heard any evidence of this.

I'm not sure exactly what he meant, but if he's saying audio files from one DAW are somehow different in quality from another at a very basic level (all other things being equal), he doesn't really understand what a DAW actually does.