Reaper installations after reading this thread:

 

The thread is about song writing and production, my post is about why it's one of the worst DAW's for song writing and production workflow. You took my whole post out of context and read over "It doesn't have the above or has outdated and poor implementations, relies entirely on community scripts or paid add-ons that cost more than Reaper."

And I said the scripting community is cool, there was no disrespect or ungratefulness there. It's the implementation into the DAW which is poor and creates a messy workflow. That's outside of their control. Some devs even acknowledge this, and that their GUI's create project lag. There are also many active and abandoned projects that have bugs or poor code, both documented and undocumented, so again it's fair to say that third party scripts/fx aren't reliable and stable. It is not being disrespectful.

Everything you posted is a poor workaround and has no fluid workflow, which was my general argument as to why it's one of the worst DAWs for this specific task. Clicking in and out of containers, opening windows within windows, slicing things in the track lane and importing them into individual FX containers and then routing all the ins and outs to megababy? Going in and out of different containers to find the one sample you want to tweak or replace? That's my point. I just want to create. It's clunky, slow and outdated workflow, and the end result once you have set it up is still mediocre in comparison to both the workflow and features most other DAW's offer in this area today, and it takes far more time.

As for modulation, I meant parameter modulation. It is very basic, and again, has an incredibly poor workflow. You have to go through multiple windows to open it. You can't link more than 1 mod source to a parameter. You can't link a mod source to the modulators. You can't copy and paste the param settings. You can't link mod sources outside of the track it's contained in.. etc. You can of course create convoluted workarounds to a few of these, but not all.

I brought up livelooping because the thread title says "What do other DAW's have that reaper doesn't"

Context is important.

 

I see that I was not wrong about Reaper being a complete nightmare if you want to do something as simple as modulate a VST parameter. I did try Reaper a few years back and fiddled with this, and yes it was ridiculous. But I could never shake the feeling I had overseen something, could it be THAT bad?? It was (at least that part), yet I see very little complaining about this, but we all use our DAWs differently.. Modulation is a big thing for me so I'm on Bitwig ofc what else xD Bitwig has good workflow imo and it has a few built-in synths which I think is great, they are very capable and can only be found in Bitwig. So I dont need to modulate VSTs anymore but the modulation system is insane and for that + the Grid I will stick with Bitwig.

Edit: For so long I wanted Reason to be the DAW that Reason itself wanted to be since the beginning, super-flexible sound playground slash laboratory. 25 years later and it doesn't even have a dedicated modulation generator/device that is actually good and usable, you have to use stock synth devices as a modulation source for VSTs for instance. The whole thing just took a wrong turn somewhere, oh well...

 

Last edited: Jan 28, 2025

what exactly is nightmare about moving any parameter, then clicking Param -> Show track envelope ???

 

MixFX

 

tzzsmk, that itself doesnt sound like a nightmare at all. So now you have the parameter connected to a capable LFO? Or envelope? Or any combination of these? Because if not, then we're not home yet :p

 

Man, switching DAWs is worse than switching wives. and less useful. Once you're used to one, just stick to it. What matters is what you make with it, not how you make it, eh?

 

Those are so bad they don't even count.

This is way easier and more poweful in Reaper than it was in my previous DAW (Reason). Check it out:

 

Other DAWs have class. Reaper just has a seemingly infinite supply of insecure fanbois.

 

of course, for like 7 years at least, nothing new in Reaper

 

I don't think I've taken you out of context. I have picked up some of your core arguments and responded to them specifically.

UI Criticism:
Reaper consciously relies on OS-based UI elements instead of rendering a completely custom UI like many other DAWs do. This is a design decision with clear technical reasons:
OS rendering is more resource-efficient. It saves RAM and CPU load. Other DAWs load dedicated graphics libraries, which creates a higher load and bloats the binary. The downside is the dependency on the OS UI. If the OS design is inconsistent or outdated (Microsoft Windows), this is reflected in Reaper. The inconsistency is therefore primarily a problem of the OS, not Reaper. Complaints about the inconsistent dark mode under Windows are essentially complaints about Microsoft's UI design policy. By the way, the same applies to load processing. Although this was not part of your criticism, for the sake of completeness, I will include it anyway. Reaper leaves the optimal load distribution (threading) to the OS instead of implementing its own, less efficient threading models like most other DAWs do. The OS is usually better at managing hardware resources. These design decisions are responsible for Reaper running so efficiently and being usable on older OSs. If Reaper loaded dedicated graphics libraries, they might be incompatible with older OSs.
As for the menu structure: Reaper's menu structure has grown organically, typical for software with agile development and a small team. Feature enhancements take precedence over UI refactoring. A cleaner menu would be desirable, but it is not a primary technical deficit.

Missing/Outdated Features:
Claims that Reaper lacks a sampler (RS5K), slicer (Dynamic Split), step sequencer (Megababy), or parameter modulation are factually incorrect. They are present and functional. You can criticize the implementation (workflow, usability). This is a valid point of criticism, but a matter of preference. "Outdated" is a subjective value judgment, not an objective description. Furthermore, while I see your point of criticism, I don't see the problem: Nowadays, there is an abundance of high-quality, free plugins for samplers, slicers, sequencers, etc. So, availability is definitely given.
And as for cross-track parameter modulation:
This is precisely what the VCA-JSFX is for. You modulate the parameter slider and then use the audio output of the VCA as a modulation source for any parameters on other tracks. And if that's still not enough, you can have custom modulation tools and GUIs developed that exactly meet your workflow needs – including complex spline-curve-based LFO sequencers or whatever you can imagine. And if you find the audio routing too clumsy, you can use a slot-based system via gmem. In this system, spline curves from one instance can be accessed by another instance on a different track. The leader instance can even show you which tracks are using that specific LFO curve, allowing you to route it flexibly from one central point in your project. It's not as if experienced JSFX developers in the Reaper-Community don't like to take on such projects if they see potential in them. Flexibility and customizability are core elements of Reaper. You just have to know how to use them.

Cumbersome Workflow:
Your assertion that the workflow is "cumbersome" is very general. Workflow efficiency is highly workflow-specific and user-dependent. What may be cumbersome for you may not be for other users. Drum Rack example: The claim that a Drum Rack plugin with pad-based access is more efficient than RS5K in an FX chain is questionable. Drum Rack plugins can be inefficient due to: Tab-based parameter navigation, integrated mixers/effects that unnecessarily complicate the workflow. RS5K in FX chains offers direct access to parameters and flexible routing options. It is no different from clicking on a sample pad in a drum rack UI to get to the sample parameter interface.
Another, somewhat more illustrative, example:
Some people prefer effect-racks and swiss-army-knive plugins because they have direct access to all parameters on a track.
Other people prefer a dedicated plugin for each individual task, and even go so far as to separate dynamic eq from conventional eq because it gives them a better project overview.
Both have their right to exist. Both are equally valid. It's purely personal preference.

Your Main Statement - Worst DAW for Songwriting/Production:
Your statement is a subjective perception, not an objective evaluation. You provide no substantial evidence for an objective inferiority of Reaper compared to other DAWs. The implicit comparison with Live/Bitwig is a category error. Reaper is a general-purpose DAW for all audio tasks (recording, production, post-production, live sound, podcasting, mastering, etc.), except for sample editing. Live and Bitwig are specialized DAWs with a focus on loop-based, live performance-oriented workflows. Live/Bitwig are specialized in their core areas but often reach their limits in other areas (e.g., complex mixing, post-production). They were built specifically for modern electronic music production. Good luck producing a rock album. Not impossible, but much more complicated than in Reaper. This may all change over time, but at this point in time Reaper offers a broader feature set for a wider range of applications. So no, it's not the worst DAW for music production and songwriting. There are just some DAWs out there that are more specialized for certain genres of music. The "apples and oranges" comparison would be appropriate here.

Unreliability of Community Scripts:
Scripts in EEL, Lua, or Python are technically limited in performance and stability compared to C++ native code. Community code can have varying code quality and maintenance. This is not surprising.
The question is: Is this problem fundamentally different in other DAWs? Do Live, Bitwig, Reason, etc., offer more reliable community extensions? Or is the nature of community content always associated with certain uncertainties?
If you find community scripts unreliable and inefficient, don't use them. Reaper is a fully functional DAW even without scripts. The option exists, but it is not mandatory.

Your criticism of certain aspects of Reaper workflows is understandable and partially justified. However, your generalization that Reaper is "one of the worst DAWs for songwriting and production" and your argumentation are based on subjective personal preferences, false assumptions about the technical basis of Reaper, and a flawed comparison with specialized DAWs. Perhaps Reaper is simply not the right DAW for your specific workflow. But that doesn't mean it's a bad DAW for music production or songwriting.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2025

@Sinus Well: I could not have said it better. Worse, yes. But better? Definitely no!

 

I don't know why you're arguing, or what point you're trying to prove. The thread is about "What do other DAWs have that Reaper doesn't? for song writing, composition, and music production" I laid out what it doesn't have and what it does poorly at compared to other DAWs.

Coding languages, Microsoft blaming, OS optimization, hiring devs? How are they relevant to the thread topic?

You continue to get hung up on darkmode, live looping, UI/scripts, and work arounds for tools that don't exist natively in Reaper, or have extremely convoluted setups and workflow. You're agreeing with everything I laid out, whilst trying to argue that I'm wrong.

Well, you're not the one arguing. The algorithm you used to hide your AI generated response through humanization is outdated too. At least check on an up to date independent detector before taking credit for this obvious garbage that missed the title of the thread, the context of my post, and continues to prove my point that everything I mentioned doesn't exist natively or requires a convoluted workaround. Protip, most of those services that can't detect the use of an AI-humanized text generator are the same ones that offer AI humanization services under a different company name. ;)

A challenge for anyone:

Using Reapers native tools, post a short clip slicing a breakbeat onto a simple 8 pad drumloop and routing it through megababy. Truncate a few of the oneshots in the sampler, pitch a few of them up a semitone or 2 without altering the length of the sample. Now apply more than 1 mod source to a single parameter.

You won't, because you can't.

PS, I love Reaper, I want it to improve. I use it every day for my modular rig, my live setup, and mixing. I don't hate it like you think I do. But for ITB production for uninterrupted workflow and creativity? Lol. You are deeply living in denial or are just unaware of what other DAWs offer today. Most are far ahead in terms of tools and features for ITB production, and have hyper optimized workflows for staying locked into a creative flowstate. Many are just as flexible in terms of routing, and just as well optimized - but reaper is only marginally ahead here, Cubase14 might have edged it out on some CPUs.

Anyway people like you, who fight to the death over any criticism, and shun those who dare to speak poorly of any features, are the ones helping hold Reaper back from further expanding on those features to bring them back up to par with modern DAW standards.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2025

I admit I'm not doing electronic music, but if you make an illustrative video (in whatever DAW you use), I'd gladly join the challenge!

 

for the rec , there is a clip launcher extension/module/jsfx or what ever for live/bitwig shizzle in reaper...dont ask names .

why ?

 

I did not know that, but you use 14 inserts on a single track???? No buses?? Why if so???

 

Sorry I fucked my instructions, I'm high.

Create a short video:
1) Slicing a drum loop into 8 parts
2) Creating a drum rack with 8 pads with the sliced parts on each one
3) Route it to mega baby and out to individual tracks
4) Pitch shift samples without altering the sample speed
5) Apply 2 LFO's to one parameter

Don't waste your time.