Studios using alternate DAWs?

[tmvt]

It's more or less 50-50 between Cubase/Nuendo and Pro Tools in my part of the world. Well, maybe more like 45-45 with Logic eating up most of the remaining 10%.

Personally I prefer Cubase. For cheap I think it's hard to beat Reaper but I've never seen it used in a professional studio

Glenn fricker was and I think still is a big time Reaper user.

Hes got a youtube channel here at SpectreSoundStudios

 

[swarfrat]

Not sure who's using it but Harrison Mixbus is also out there.

 

[Deleted member 271037]

Glenn fricker was and I think still is a big time Reaper user.

Hes got a youtube channel here at SpectreSoundStudios

A youtube channel is not a recording studio. I tried googling this "studio" and I couldn't find any sign that it actually exists? If the studio has a website they've cetainly hidden it well. What I did find was his youtube channel, blog, online tutorials and a website where you could buy t-shirts and coffee mugs. It seems to me that he's a "youtube personality" rather than the owner of an actual professional recording studio? At least these days.

Reaper makes sense if want to make money doing online tutorials as lots of beginners use it. Reaper is cheap and unlike Pro Tools, Cubase etc. the cheap version is the FULL version with no limitations.

For an actual full scale professional recording studio Reaper doesn't make as much sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I like Reaper but it's not a viable choice if you want to attract clients to a professional studio. Professional clients will use studios with industry standard DAWs and Reaper is NOT an industry standard DAW. It's a bit like having a U87 vs other mics. The U87 is not necessarily better than other cheaper mics but if you don't have at least one U87 in your studio you WILL lose some clients. And as far as I can tell "Spectre Sound Studio" is not a professional recording studio but a business idea for selling online tutorials and coffee mugs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[And I]

The reason i would prefer pro tools to reaper in a professional setting has nothing to do with expectations or standards. It is pro tools' superior method for comping on tracks with multiple takes. Anyone who has used both for this task knows what I'm talking about. In reaper you essentially have explode all takes to separate tracks or you are locked in to any edits like a splice or moving something forward or back in time being appled to all takes. Working with things on one track and being able to easily build a comp of multiple takes as one can in pro tools is just a much better way to work on this type of task--especially when you're on the clock. comping vocal takes in pro tools vs reaper could save hours of time which could translate to hundreds of dollars in savings for your clients.

 

[Bob_Ross]

I've worked at a number of professional recording studios whose main DAW was Logic or Digital Performer, and at least one whose main DAW was Cubase.

But it's worth noting that all of these facilities also had a working ProTools DAW...perhaps not with extensive dedicated i/o, but at least an up-to-date application and enough proprietary hardware to easily open an existing file and/or port over a project from their DAW-du-jour to PT if necessary.

 

[tmvt]

A youtube channel is not a recording studio. I tried googling this "studio" and I couldn't find any sign that it actually exists? If the studio has a website they've cetainly hidden it well. What I did find was his youtube channel, blog, online tutorials and a website where you could buy t-shirts and coffee mugs. It seems to me that he's a "youtube personality" rather than the owner of an actual professional recording studio? At least these days.

Reaper makes sense if want to make money doing online tutorials as lots of beginners use it. Reaper is cheap and unlike Pro Tools, Cubase etc. the cheap version is the FULL version with no limitations.

For an actual full scale professional recording studio Reaper doesn't make as much sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I like Reaper but it's not a viable choice if you want to attract clients to a professional studio. Professional clients will use studios with industry standard DAWs and Reaper is NOT an industry standard DAW. It's a bit like having a U87 vs other mics. The U87 is not necessarily better than other cheaper mics but if you don't have at least one U87 in your studio you WILL lose some clients. And as far as I can tell "Spectre Sound Studio" is not a professional recording studio but a business idea for selling online tutorials and coffee mugs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No its a studio. The media group is just that, the recording side plus the YouTube side etc. as its a media group not just the studio. Hes been doing it professionally since the early 2000. He still is working in his studio in Windsor CA right across from Detroit and now even has a space in CA he works out of ever so often. YouTube was something he start long after and yes Im sure he doing more of that these days. It doesn't change the fact he was using Reaper for around 20 years and attracted clients and that he still is operating a pro studio.

If you can get the job done on your chosen platform and the results are great most people wont care what you use if the end result is there. Do they all behave differently and are some easier to work with more then others? Yes but that's a choice the person makes related to workflow. You saying it wont attract clients is actually what I mentioned in my earlier post how being a pro tools studio was touted in marketing and perception back in the day for a studio as it was usually the only name people knew regarding recording. A person would think oh Pro Tools Ive heard of that they must do good work. Today it doesn't mean that person using Pro Tools can crank out a project any better then someone not, comes down to workflow and what the person likes.

And any client that needs to see you have a U87 doesn't have a ear or know what they actually need to be looking for and is just shopping for a studio based on how many names said studio can drop that people recognize as far as toys go making them think, this must be a good place. You don't need a U87 today to make a hit record. You can make one in a bedroom with tons of affordable mics. Its more important to be a good engineer and know how to use the tools that will get great results out of really any equipment made today. There is plenty of examples of studio owners that a "secret" or "favorite" mic that's a old beater mic that used to cost nothing that everyone looked down on or doesn't give any notice to today when they are all over the used market for peanuts. But they know how to place it, eq it and process it right to get a result that is great. I also could give a beginner a U87 and results will be garbage. Your kind of stuck in the early 2000's and before mentality for recording.

It seems you did a quick search and then made assumptions because he makes tutorials and has merch. And a google search is not the end all be all. Really makes me question someone's intelligence when they say they googled it so x must be true. Even today reality is not based on what google says or lacks evidence of.

If you search google if comes up with this. To the right is the location of his studio and reviews of which he has a 4.9 rating. You trust google so much you don't have much room to refute those reviews But Im sure you'll say google reviews don't count and that makes it not a real studio, no one google reviews a real studio. But there's the info.

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

The reason i would prefer pro tools to reaper in a professional setting has nothing to do with expectations or standards. It is pro tools' superior method for comping on tracks with multiple takes. Anyone who has used both for this task knows what I'm talking about. In reaper you essentially have explode all takes to separate tracks or you are locked in to any edits like a splice or moving something forward or back in time being appled to all takes. Working with things on one track and being able to easily build a comp of multiple takes as one can in pro tools is just a much better way to work on this type of task--especially when you're on the clock. comping vocal takes in pro tools vs reaper could save hours of time which could translate to hundreds of dollars in savings for your clients.

Studio One also does this. Easy as pie.

 

[rufus.K]

Reaper , pro foo;s killer

I run Reaper. There's cross-functionality with most DAW's, although I can't speak to Mac stuff like Logic.

Glenn fricker was and I think still is a big time Reaper user.

Hes got a youtube channel here at SpectreSoundStudios

Not sure who's using it but Harrison Mixbus is also out there.

The reason i would prefer pro tools to reaper in a professional setting has nothing to do with expectations or standards. It is pro tools' superior method for comping on tracks with multiple takes. Anyone who has used both for this task knows what I'm talking about. In reaper you essentially have explode all takes to separate tracks or you are locked in to any edits like a splice or moving something forward or back in time being appled to all takes. Working with things on one track and being able to easily build a comp of multiple takes as one can in pro tools is just a much better way to work on this type of task--especially when you're on the clock. comping vocal takes in pro tools vs reaper could save hours of time which could translate to hundreds of dollars in savings for your clients.

Reaper is my preference.
ProTools is what I am made to use.
We had a client last year that required nUendo. That was wierd.