Bussing and auxes maybe not so intuitive but I never even got that far. I find it's metering good, and basic operation easy to jump into- editing, track creation/enabling, mixdown/rendering. I've had good luck with reaper on all sorts of low power windows machines. I have no experience with Mixbus, but know a couple members here like it. Samplitude is in a different league (as it should be when you compare the price brackets), and I won't elaborate further on it here, other than saying that it constantly makes you realise what is missing from the lower-cost DAWs.Īll these DAWs are interface-independent, so other than a quick compatibility and driver check before you finally settle on one, you don't need to factor that into your DAW choice. There is a good on-line support community, although it feels a bit disconnected from the product. Reaper takes a while to get used to - for me, it was not immediately intuitive to get beyond the first steps. ![]() The stock libraries are somewhat disappointing, particularly in the area of dynamics. Things I like about Reaper are its lightness of demand on the CPU, ease of comping tracks and good graphical manipulation on the screen. The stock compressors work acceptably well, but I don't like the stock EQs - they have the feel of being made to be limiting in operation and difficult to operate on a large screen, probably so that users purchase the add-on fully-graphic EQs at a cost more than double that of the whole package. Things I like about Mixbus 4 are its layout, signal flow, emulation of gain staging, operational convenience (knob per function) and, importantly, its sound. I also use Audacity for simple 2-track capture and topping/tailing. ![]() I use both Mixbus 4 and Reaper on a PC, but also Samplitude for more demanding jobs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |