Reaper with ReaClassical extensions

[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.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

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!

They're all as difficult/ easy to learn as each other, at this stage. Reaper has a lot going for it educationally. The free Kenny Gioia tutorials are exemplary for the techniques of teaching via "offline" video (i.e. teacher not present). You won't find better for any other DAW, IME. Except maybe Kenny's Pro Tools ones

BTW Reaper has Ripple edit. It's much like Premier Pro's editing experience, which was nice for my students, but now they're all moving to DaVinci Resolve. But again, that's not much different, for a beginner, than anything else (except Avid Media Composer which is tough to get into IME).

[James Perrett]

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.

I think most DAWs do this in some fashion but so-called audio editors like Audacity don't - that's why (as I mentioned in a previous post) you shouldn't use an audio editor program for audio editing (although they are very useful for other things).

[Aled Hughes]

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

Comping usually relies on all the takes already being musically in the correct place, and you simply choose the best one.

Source/destination is more useful when you have, for example, two takes of a choir singing, and you want to use one as the master take, but maybe take the first verse from the other take.
It's highly unlikely that both first verses would be exactly the same length, so simply replacing one with the other is not going to work. You'd need to cut the unwanted first verse, replace it with the wanted one, and then work on the end of the cut to make sure that it transitions back to the main take in an appropriate place.
With source/destination, you simply mark your 'source' (wanted audio) and mark your 'destination, hit the button, then the offending verse is replaced, and the following audio automatically shuffled to be in time with the edit - if you get your in/out points right to begin with, you're pretty much done.

I use a method utilizing the ripple feature in Studio One.

Ripple editing works great in Reaper (and is part of what allows the Source/destination scripts to work). It's also neat that you have the option for Ripple to affect either one track or all tracks.

But on its own, it doesn't quite do what what S/D does so efficiently, although it's possible to work very fast with ripple editing too (eg it's quite easy to cut the unwanted audio, and then insert the wanted audio with a ripple edit, biut it's still one extra step on top of S/D, which adds up if you're doing hundreds of such edits on a project.

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.

Yes, S/D isn't muich use for that kind of editing - it's only really useful when you need to replace entire sections within a master take, and those sections don't line up exactly in time. It's not of much use to me when editing individual tracks within a multitrack project, for example.

I have two S/D scripts in Reaper - one is really simple and works within the original project - it uses markers 1+2 to define the source, and 3+4 for the destination. Hit a button an the edit is done. It's useful for a few quick edits in a small project, but it requires leaving those markers free for the task.

The other one is neater - it creates a duplicate 'source' project tab, and you use the time selection to define the edit areas in both tabs. Really useful if you have a project with many takes - they stay in the 'source' project and you get a neat, clean project tab with your edits done.

So, bottom line... it's useful if you need it! Any edit is possible with other means, but S/D if often quicker.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Thanks Aled, that makes it very clear. Bottom line- Reaper is cool!

[Sam Spoons]

Thanks Aled, I hadn't quite understood how that worked (despite Hugh's excellent post). It now makes sense.

[sonics]

BTW Reaper has Ripple edit. It's much like Premier Pro's editing experience, which was nice for my students, but now they're all moving to DaVinci Resolve. But again, that's not much different, for a beginner, than anything else (except Avid Media Composer which is tough to get into IME).

If someone wants to edit audio (and not make music) with the possibility of needing to edit video too, Resolve is very hard not to recommend at the price! The audio facilities have improved vastly in the last few versions.

[shufflebeat]

So, bottom line... it's useful if you need it! Any edit is possible with other means, but S/D if often quicker.

Very helpful. Thanks Hugh and Aled.

[tacitus]

I have to say it’s most enlightening to hear all these comments, and I hope others can learn from it as I have.

My own adventures with recording, then editing, started in the late 90s, producing tapes for my then wife’s dressage to music. As I recall (allow me some lapses and sugar-coating here, please) I was assembling tapes with nothing more than the deck’s pause control, and when I couldn’t get sufficiently good results with that I took a version of Cool Edit from the cover disk of a computer mag. That led to Cool Edit Pro and CE 2000, whichever way round they came, and ultimately Audition on PC, and eventually on Mac. At some stage I used Bias Peak, though I suspect I was using it as closely to Cool Edit as I could achieve.

At the stage I was about to move to multichannel recording, I started doing PA for band and orchestra outdoor gigs and dropped recording as I am primarily a performer/conductor. Just not the time available.

Fast forward about 12 years and I’m doing virtually no conducting and not huge amounts of playing. The recording itch returns, and I’m without a multitrack capable solution for recording, editing and possibly distributing music. Hence all the questions here: I’m just not up to date with the possibilities. The advice here has been awesome, even allowing for the plethora of suggestions.

Not having put my cash down yet on any software, I’ve not really invested more than time and effort so far, having so much hardware to hand. The race is on to get this sorted before my hearing and/or mind deteriorate beyond help!

So far, it’s looking like Reaper could romp home an easy winner if it doesn’t collapse in the final straight like an overstretched racehorse. After all the comments about extensions, I’m keeping it pure - I can’t see myself having enough editable material to make them worthwhile or enough time to get fully to grips with all the “faff”.

As always, it’s nice to hear further comments and enlightening for us all. Can’t remember ever starting a thread that’s run to 5 pages before …

[Sam Spoons]

I don't think anybody has mentioned but the Reaper demo is a free, un-crippled full version of the software and is not time limited beyond a brief nag screen and your own conscience.

[James Perrett]

That led to Cool Edit Pro and CE 2000, whichever way round they came, and ultimately Audition on PC, and eventually on Mac. At some stage I used Bias Peak, though I suspect I was using it as closely to Cool Edit as I could achieve.

If you've ever used Audition in Multitrack view then you'll find Reaper a doddle. The layout is very similar although not completely identical and right drag also works differently. I made the switch from Audition to Reaper around 15 years ago although I still have Audition set up as one of the audio editor options in Reaper as I find it good for removing the odd click and pop.