![]() ![]() But on the other side of that coin: there are many things about Reaper that Ardour isn't set up to do, or capable of doing (at least yet). Ardour has some things in this regard that some Reaper users have asked for. The only thing I notice about Ardour that's missing in Reaper is about how the effects chain works specifically. Again though, for the basics, it's ready to go with very little to slow you down. If you want to limit the number of dialogs from your specific workflow, chances are there's an easy way of doing it whether you add toolbar buttons, make custom actions, use third-party scripts, assign things to a MIDI controller, or all of those. To use that functionality usually requires some sort of dialog, or at least triggering an action, but that's to be expected of any program. There are so many things about Reaper which allow it to be flexible that I have trouble limiting it to a few examples. It only routs to hardware outputs.) Someone made a tutorial about how to do an entire mix with Reaper using a single track, for instance. (The exception to this is the master track, which can't rout to other tracks. Any Reaper track can have up to 64 audio channels and rout to/from any other track. Of course, Reaper doesn't strictly follow a hardware-based paradigm. If you don't like working with it, you can use any other track as a bus. Like some others here, I started with hardware recording devices (tape) in the 80s and moved on from there.Īs for Reaper's master track: it's the final bus things funnel through before rendering, which when working with a stereo mix is commonly referred to as "the 2-bus" on hardware mixers, so that's also quite representative of a hardware workflow. It was the "most hardware-like" initial experience I've ever had with a DAW. After choosing my audio device, I double-clicked in the track control panel area to add a track (I guessed at that, and I was right), I armed the track and hit record. The basics though, for "just recording", are ready to go. Reaper has some things which seem unusual, as all DAWs do. Which by the way, was very easy for me after having used: Cakewalk, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic for PC, n-Track Studio, Sonar. I doubt you can appreciate Reaper until you've gotten accustomed to the way it works. This is a tall hurdle for people to overcome. Merlyn wrote: ↑ Fri 2:42 pm.but it's not what I'm used to. The more Linux way would be to try Ardour first, then, if the OP experiences as much PEBCAK as skei and bhilmers did, then try Reaper. The best suggestion so far has been to try AVL-MXE so the OP can have a look at both. ![]() For example I use a bus as a send destination partly because it looks different and also it's not a track - I'm never going to record onto a reverb send. I like that there are different kinds of tracks on Ardour. On Ardour it's simply another destination. For example the master bus has a special status as a tick box at the top. It's fine, but it's not what I'm used to. One of the dialog boxes I was referring to in Reaper is the routing dialog. Inside a computer there is really no reason to use a mixing desk as a paradigm. Stereo width kind of addresses this but it's not exactly the same. It's possible to move a stereo source around in the stereo image with more control by bringing the stereo track onto two mono tracks for example. Hardware mixers have mono and stereo tracks because they are different. This is also often framed as 'out-the-box' and 'in-the-box'. Instead of the grenade of a word 'analogue', which conjures up images of glowing valves, I'll use the word 'hardware'. Sysrqer wrote:Why would you need to differentiate between mono and stereo tracks? I always found that such a pain in Ardour and never understood why it was like that. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |