Reaper with ReaClassical extensions

[sonics]

Some good thoughts from James there. I would say you need reliability first and foremost, and cross-platform support as well. There are a few tools that would suit and be affordable (I favour Studio One which has been responsive and rock-solid for me for location recording) but I wouldn't use or trust Audacity for the job you're about to do. I think that's what we're all saying.

[tacitus]

I must confess I got as far as downloading Studio One, but by the time it had filled my machine with stuff (which seemed to take longer than loading major business software from floppy disks used to) I was overwhelmed by the first screen it threw up and I haven’t been back to it since, half-promising myself I’d raid my savings and get a hardware recorder.

That said, if there’s a way of simplifying Studio One so I don’t overload my feeble old brain, perhaps I should grit the teeth I have left and go back to it.

If I go for a lesser version after the trial, can I get a nice simple recording screen? I only want to record a few mikes straight to the computer. How hard can it be to make that easy?

[shufflebeat]

Reaper.

You can do a portable install on to a thumb drive which has only basic files and absolutely miniscule size but amazing functionality.

Then you create a track, figure it where you want to save your files, save your file. Drag/drop audio files onto the track and start learning what the tools do.

Finally, render. Choose your file type and where you want your file to be saved - done.

Full install is just as simple.

If you read t'internet you'll see lots of people saying Reaper has a steep learning curve, this is nonsense. It just does a million things and to learn them all takes time but you don't have to go beyond basic editing unless/until you want to.

[Arpangel]

I must confess I got as far as downloading Studio One, but by the time it had filled my machine with stuff (which seemed to take longer than loading major business software from floppy disks used to) I was overwhelmed by the first screen it threw up and I haven’t been back to it since, half-promising myself I’d raid my savings and get a hardware recorder.

That said, if there’s a way of simplifying Studio One so I don’t overload my feeble old brain, perhaps I should grit the teeth I have left and go back to it.

If I go for a lesser version after the trial, can I get a nice simple recording screen? I only want to record a few mikes straight to the computer. How hard can it be to make that easy?

I would never record on location with a computer, it’s just not something I’ve ever done.
I’d have to have two identical systems running, two converters, not practical.
Things do go wrong, and if this is your living, things simply "can’t" go wrong, you have to have a back up, with both running at the same time. In your case it’s a more relaxed situation, I know, so maybe that’s not so important.
A couple of recorders, Sound Devices, or similar, and then, edit back at base.

[Sam Spoons]

... I only want to record a few mikes straight to the computer. How hard can it be to make that easy?

Setting up a simple Reaper template is very easy. When I boot up my studio computer it restarts the last Reaper project I was working on and is ready to go as soon as the computer boots. If I have a specific session coming up I'll load the appropriate template ready in advance. In my case I use my X32 as my interface so I have (more or less) matching templates/scenes on the mixer so reaching a place where the DAW channels and desk channels are correctly routed and labelled is a matter of seconds.

edit :- what arpy says is valid. but I would still use a computer as the main recorder and have a simple stereo recorder as backup, I'd love a Sound Devices (or a Zoom F8) but I can't justify the cost for the occasional location recording I now do.

[tacitus]

I’m pretty sure hardware’s the way to go. The Zoom F6 looks pretty capable; I don’t know about the mic pres but I’m prepared to take Hugh’s word on them being totally good enough.

As you say, Arpangel, I’m not doing this for a living. And the upcoming concert is understood by all to be a trial run, so 100% redundancy is not essential for this one.

Pre-millennium, I was recording stereo to DAT and a little later I ran a back up on an HHB CD recorder as well. Ironically, I have all my DATs but my DAT machine was stolen a couple of years ago. Still plenty of life in it, too; not heavily used.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I don't have any qualms at all about using a computer for recording on location. Assuming you take reasonable precautions reliability is at least as good as any 'conventional' hardware recorder these days. I use a MS Surface 'tablet' recording onto solid-state drives via a USB interface.

But personally, I tend only to use the computer approach for the largest of gigs with a high channel count, or where I really need a live safety backup.

I much prefer to use a portable hardware recorder for the convenience and focus — in my case a Nagra VI — and it's rare that I need more than 6 or 8 channels with most of the things I do these days.

I was so impressed with the Zoom F6. It's phenomenal for the money, and its compact size is astonishing. Six channels is enough for a lot of gigs, and 32-bit floating-point recording removes most concerns about headroom in unpredictable situations.

I think the preamps on my Nagra are marginally better, but no one would notice the difference in causal listening and the Zoom's performance is far better than we had access to just a couple of decades ago! I regret not buying the model I reviewed and it's on my wish-list to serve as an emergency backup for the Nagra.

[Arpangel]

These folks are doing the F6 for a good price.

https://proav.co.uk/audio/zoom-f6-mult ... d-recorder

[Hugh Robjohns]

Remarkably good... but it's not in stock! In fact, it doesn't seem to be in stock anywhere right now!

And don't forget you need to budget for some Sony L-batteries and a decent charger to make the unit practical in a location recording sense.

[Arpangel]

Remarkably good... but it's not in stock! In fact, it doesn't seem to be in stock anywhere right now!

And don't forget you need to budget for some Sony L-batteries and a decent charger to make the unit practical in a location recording sense.

I can’t be bothered with that then.

[tacitus]

I’ve put “hardware recorder” on my Christmas list though TBH I expect better results from the “peace and goodwill to all” entry.

Meanwhile, after yet more Reaper recommendations I found a YouTube showing a pretty clear screen being set up, armed and set off in understandable actions, so I’m trying that this afternoon. The download of Reaper itself was quick and simple. If I can get my dbx386 into the back of either a Scarlett 6i6 (2nd Gen) or my newer Audient ID14ii (with RCA-Toslink conversion) and 4 mikes running, I’m good!

This might turn out to be a good day. I could progress my recording skills, and I’ve already successfully downloaded a new pipe organ sample file to replace the corrupted one in my Nord C2D. Little victories …

[Aled Hughes]

Similar to Hugh, I often use a computer (also Microsoft Surface - Pro 6 in my case) on location with no issues, with RME interfaces, Soundcraft UI24, or Dante DVS.
Usually using Reaper as I'm used to it and it can easily be customised to suit different recording requirements, but I've used Pyramix and ProTools with no issues too. As long as you take care of your computer it should be fine!

If you're one of these people that need to turn on the computer before you go and make your coffee and breakfast just so that it's booted up by the time you need to start working, then it might not be such a good idea

For lower channel counts we have a Sound Devices MixPre10, which is a joy.

[Aled Hughes]

We use only Reaper for classical and we do this for money!

Are you using either of these Source/Destination editing add-ons or are you using Reaper as it comes?

Straight out of the box - no magic extensions.

There is no such thing as classical music being different to record and edit, compared to any other type of music - music is music. Whether five or fifty people are playing, the process is pretty much the same for each type of recording - classical is acoustic, i.e. no MIDI and no synths, etc. But recording acoustic rock or folk or Abyssinian nose-flute playing - the processes are the same!

Recording classical music - Artist(s) come(s) to the studio and plays a section until he/she/it/they are totally happy with a passage and then crack on to the next bit - until we get to the end. I then FTP the audio to them and they piece together the bits they like by copying all those bits to a separate track. They send me the bare Reaper project file without the audio encapsulated. I stich it together and send it as an MP3 for approval. Improvements are made and a final WAV/88.2 version is sent to the label for mastering (or I get to use my own ears for mastering, or it is sent to a third-party mastering house).

As for any extensions - I have yet to find an extension to any DAW that didn't involve a great deal of fannying about for little or no benefit.

Yes it does take some work to get it set-up, but once it's done it's done.

But of course, the way you describe it above, you're not actually doing the editing yourself, so it stands to reason source/destination wouldn't be of much use to you!

But when you're doing the cuts yourself from numerous takes that don't have a timing reference (not just classical - I use it a lot for folk music, as well as pop/rock that's not recorded to click, and also some dialogue editing), source/destination editing is a very fast and powerful tool - there's a reason why it's a big selling point for the more classical-orientated DAWs (Pyramix, Sequioia, SADiE etc), and once I started using it I couldn't imagine being without it.

[sonics]

WRT location recording, my computer is reserved for such tasks. It's an older HP running Windows 7 and upgraded with SSDs. That's all it does, and it's never let me down. It still has Firewire in case I want to use my older interfaces for a 24-track gig.

I do record a backup to camera or portable recorder. (The Zoom F6 is a nice device for the money!).

I looked at Reaper a few years ago and it felt then like Linux did vs MacOS or Windows; just too "geeky". I don't want to have to set lots of things up if another product doesn't require me to. I appreciate the flexibility, but just need to get on with the work. I assume it's much better now, too. There is also the issue of cost. It was actually more expensive than the full Studio One Pro when I made my purchase. I also use some of the sound content, and Notion.

Studio One 6 (announced yesterday) allows for custom layouts. The Artist version would be all that was required.

[Aled Hughes]

WRT location recording, my computer is reserved for such tasks. It's an older HP running Windows 7 and upgraded with SSDs. That's all it does, and it's never let me down. It still has Firewire in case I want to use my older interfaces for a 24-track gig.

I do record a backup to camera or portable recorder. (The Zoom F6 is a nice device for the money!).

I looked at Reaper a few years ago and it felt then like Linux did vs MacOS or Windows; just too "geeky". I don't want to have to set lots of things up if another product doesn't require me to. I appreciate the flexibility, but just need to get on with the work. I assume it's much better now, too. There is also the issue of cost. It was actually more expensive than the full Studio One Pro when I made my purchase. I also use some of the sound content, and Notion.

Studio One 6 (announced yesterday) allows for custom layouts. The Artist version would be all that was required.

Reaper is perfectly functional 'as is', but it's true that really does pay to delve in and change a few things to change your way of working. I'm left scratching my head a bit when faced with working on a fresh install I must admit!
It's the price of flexibility, and I agree that if that doesn't appeal then another solution with a well-defined workflow can be better.
I think Sam Inglis wrote something a few years ago about the benefit of something like ProTools with an established and defined workflow and shortcuts etc. that just works the same way on every system. I do get his point.
I use ProTools fairly often (not by choice, really) and Pyramix - what I tend to do is take what I like from those programs and try and find a way of replicating it in Reaper (eg. the source/destination editing discussed in this thread, and object/item selection in ProTools). It works well for me, but does require investing time in setting it all up, as mentioned.

Regarding cost, I think it's £60-ish for a non-commercial/small business license, and around £200 for a professional license.

Aled

[sonics]

Reaper is perfectly functional 'as is', but it's true that really does pay to delve in and change a few things to change your way of working.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm glad that my impression of Reaper seems to be correct. We spend enough time these days on computers, setup, plugin installation etc. that I wanted a DAW that doesn't require much setup input, yet is flexible enough when required. I had decided to move away from Cubase and Pro Tools. There are many other reasons why SO looked like the best tool for me, and it cost me (IIRC) just $99 as an upgrade from the Artist version which came free with some hardware!

Reaper gets recommended a lot for non-professionals, but it seems to be exactly the worst choice for many of those people, IMO. (I've been teaching music tech for over thirty years, off and on.) Cubase Artist or Studio One Artist, for example, always seem like better options for beginners.

...and now AVID have announced Pro Tools Intro!

[Sam Spoons]

I have only used Reaper since returning 'into the box' so maybe my familiarity is leading me astray, but I didn't, and still don't find Reaper 'geeky' in the way that Linux is (sorry foldy ), for me it just worked straight out of the box*. I use Reaper for stereo editing as well as multitracking and much prefer it to Wavelab (which I was using before). Any DAW has a learning curve, it made sense to me to decide I was going to use Reaper and get on with it so I don't understand your assertion that Reaper is the worst possible choice for some beginners**? IMHO any DAW is going to give them trouble until they learn the basics and if my luddite drummer mate can learn to record and export drum tracks in Reaper anybody can

BTW I'm interested to know a bit more about 'source/destination' editing?

* Whatever system you use there is, inevitably, a certain amount of setting up, labelling and assigning channels and such like but if I'd used any other DAW I don't imagine it would have been any more 'user friendly' to achieve those tasks.

** I'm a bit of a geek TBF but I came from tape to Cubase, then to hardware digital and finally back to a Mac Pro based Reaper system and I didn't find Cubase 'intuitive' until I had invested some time learning it all those years ago.

[Hugh Robjohns]

BTW I'm interested to know a bit more about 'source/destination' editing?

It's no more complex than the term describes.

You have two time-lines or playlists or EDLs — whatever the DAW calls them — in the same project. The original audio is loaded into the Source playlist, and the wanted parts are then basically cut and pasted into the Destination playlist to build up the wanted final track.

Typically, you'd start with the best master take, and then maybe you'd want to replace one or more short sections within that master.

To do that you'd identify the start and end of the section to be replaced in the Destination, and the start and end of the required retake in the Source — hence 'four point editing — and then activate the replacement edit insert.

A benefit of the four-point editing is that if the retake is slightly shorter or longer than the section being replaced, the remaining material in the Source playlist slides up or down as necessary so you have seamless edits. No overlaps and no gaps.

It's also usually possible to do three point edits where one of the four edit marks is intentionally omitted.

For example, when depositing the initial master track into the Destination you might have start and end points in the Source material but only a start point in the Destination.

Hope that gives you an overview.

[shufflebeat]

I may be missing something but that sounds an awful lot like comp'ing in Reaper.

[Arpangel]

I took to Reaper straight away, after using Sequoia it was a walk in the park.
All of a sudden things became obvious, plus, I could "also" go in and customise, heavily.
Things like Logic, seem to be a bit like Garage Band, you feel there’s someone making a lot of the decisions for you, in an attempt to make it feel very "friendly" in typical Apple world fashion, but the last thing I found about it was that it was far from logical, and I’m a Mac owner.

[tacitus]

So I did actually download Reaper today, and had multiple mikes recording very quickly. Would have been quicker still if I’d checked my mac’s sound settings first, but I’ll take that on the chin.

Yes, I can see there’s lots in it, but it didn’t get in the way.

I even managed to get the SPDIF co-ax output from the dbx386 into the ID14’s Toslink SPDIF input with zero drama beyond a moment or three’s panic when I couldn’t find the converter I just bought. Silly me, I should have looked on the floor first.

[sonics]

BTW I'm interested to know a bit more about 'source/destination' editing?

Hope that gives you an overview.

Thanks for that.

I use a method utilizing the ripple feature in Studio One. AFAICS I might use a mouse click or two more, but I don't think it's that different. Does anyone know if there anything about a system dedicated to S/D editing that might be better? I know it would be more expensive!

This article from SOS in 2018 describes this feature, which was one of those that encouraged me to start using Studio One as my DAW for everything.

[Arpangel]

So I did actually download Reaper today, and had multiple mikes recording very quickly. Would have been quicker still if I’d checked my mac’s sound settings first, but I’ll take that on the chin.

Yes, I can see there’s lots in it, but it didn’t get in the way.

I even managed to get the SPDIF co-ax output from the dbx386 into the ID14’s Toslink SPDIF input with zero drama beyond a moment or three’s panic when I couldn’t find the converter I just bought. Silly me, I should have looked on the floor first.

You’re right, nothing gets in the way, you can set up a basic template and save that, and then go as deep as you want, but all the most useful stuff that you use all the time, is just right there.
I take my hat off to Reaper, it’s amazing those guys can offer it like they do, just beyond.

[Sam Spoons]

Hope that gives you an overview.

Thanks Hugh, I do more or less that when editing in Reaper by splitting the source track and dragging and dropping (or copying) the wanted audio into a new track. Reaper has a feature that I find very useful in that if you drag the ends of a cut section it expands to include the audio that came before and/or after the section you'd copied so you don't have to redo a cut that was slightly out of place. I'm guessing that other DAWs have similar but, as I said above, I haven't used any other than Reaper for a very long time.