It is always good to go look at forums to see the kinds of annoyances and problems users face.

I find it frustrating ion Reaper to not be able to move certain mixer elements in the GUI into the order I want (although I could order them in the track control panel left of the timeline).

Many of the problems discussed are over my head, so I may not understand the problem, but may understand what the problem is ABOUT.
Kind of like how I do not understand the problems SpaceX deals with, but I still know those problems are about space travel.

And some of those problems have opened my eyes to capabilities and ways of doing things I didn't realize existed or hadn't considered.
Same is true for other DAWs. It's good to at least get familiar / try them.

 

The limitations of each daw is where you learn workarounds and problem-solving.

Calling Reaper “the Linux of DAWs” makes sense in context:

Extension possibility: Users can write scripts and plug-ins.
Community code contributions: scripts and extensions are shared publicly via ReaPack package manager. Like Linux distro repositories.
Open-ended customization: Just like Linux, you can tweak almost anything if you know how.
Compared to other DAWs: Most DAWs (Logic, Ableton, Cubase, Pro Tools) are almost entirely closed-source. You can use plug-ins, scripting and the environment in Logic, for example. but you can’t really modify the DAW itself.

That comparison is not only pretty accurate, it's almost obvious. And powered by: free labor.

 

Thats the thing with Reaper it can do ANYTHING and behave like EVERY OTHER DAW there is
But you have to set it up first and that takes some time and you really have to dig deep in macros and scripts.
But when thats done you have a DAW that behave almost exactly like your expensive p.o.s and if you like it can also behave like all other expensive p.o.s DAW on the market.
And all that for 60$ for a two version period with FREE updates
Or if you like even totally free if you can look at a nag screen for 3 seconds and then hit the still evaluating button

 

I know, that's why I can do it

 

I wouldn't have called Jack the Ripper democratic....

 

Thats not like you want to present it here, scripts and add-ons are only an additional part of Reaper, not the main one, and it is self-sufficient without any "free labor" or codding, this is a finished commercial product but with an open API, which is quite fashionable now. That's why Reaper is head and shoulders above the rest.
It's like any modern browser with add-ons or Photoshop, but the code is as user-friendly and open as possible.
You can't modify the DAW in a linux way rewriting the kernel or the core for example you can only expand and bring functionality that Reaper already provides closer to the user. hope my explanation makes sense

Your attempt to present Reaper as Linux in your interpretation looks like it's just a scare for the DAW average user as if he should have a scientific degree to use it and put in a lot of own work for free, it's just a modern kind of product with API of which the ordinary user doesn't even suspect.

 

Last edited: Aug 29, 2025 at 12:50 PM

Usually about 6 years!

 

Somehow this thread reminds me of threads dealing with: what is the best compressor, what is the best EQ, what is the best "....."
In my opinion there is no #1 tool or program for everybody. There is however a best tool for each and everyone personally. It's about to find which it is. Which tool fits best to your needs for making music. And there it all comes down to what you actually need for making music: inspiration and creativity. I haven't been creative for more than a year, even although I have all #1 compressors, #1 EQ's and whatever other #1's VST's and VSTi's.

Sometimes Reaper fits your needs best. Sometimes Ableton fits better. Sometimes FL fits better or whatever DAW.

 

Right. Talent, if it exists, will manifest itself with any instrument and tool

 

Indeed!! I once had saved enough money to buy a new Yamaha DX7-II in 1986 or so. I was very proud to finally have an instrument that would enable me to express my creativity. Then I was one time in the Vondelpark in Amsterdam. I saw a young man playing a Yamaha DX100. Look it up on youtube. It is a DX9, but then with 49 small keys. For me this DX100 was sort of a childish toy. Far beneath my capabilities of course. But he played f-a-n-t-a-s-t-i-c!!! It sounded fabulous!!! And I got depressed for several days because I then knew I did not have enough talent to use my DX7-II even close to what this guy was doing with his DX100. Ahhhh....if only I would have had a tiny little bit of this guy's talent.....

 

Alright, this is where it gets interesting. I know a little bit about UI and UX design. And yes, Hick's Law states that the time it takes to make a decision increases with the number and complexity of choices. That's an important point from UX design, but I believe the perspective shifts when we move from general consumer software to specialized tools like REAPER. You're applying the rule absolutely correctly... but to the wrong category of software. It’s like accusing a Formula 1 mechanic of having a cluttered toolbox and suggesting he should just use a single multi-tool instead. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the context, the target audience, and the purpose of the tool.

There is a crucial dividing line between software for the general consumer and tools for the specialist. And, of course, the transition is always fluid.

If you, as a consumer, want to read or create a PDF, a simple PDF reader or word processor with a few display or export options is sufficient. But as a publisher, you need full control over the document. Acrobat Pro gives you that control, and its options window doesn't look all that different from REAPER's... dozens of tabs with hundreds of options.

We can apply the same logic to pretty much every software category:

• Image Editing: Pinta vs. Photoshop
• Game Engine: GDevelop vs. Unreal Engine
• Word Processors: Notepad/TextEdit vs. Microsoft Word
• DAW: GarageBand vs. Logic
• etc., etc.

Good UX design is not always synonymous with simplicity. Good UX design means giving the target audience the best possible tools to achieve their goals efficiently. And powerful software only becomes powerful by giving the expert the freedom and control they need to do their job efficiently.

In the context of your refresh rate example in REAPER, this means the following for your suggestions:

• Proposal 1: What is 'Fast'? What is 'Slow'? You have to explain to the user what that means in practical terms. And 'Custom' is exactly what REAPER already offers. So, you've merely added two redundant options.
• Proposal 2: Limiting the choices to three options: 30Hz/60Hz/120Hz. This doubles or halves the load for the entire dynamically rendered GUI. This also affects things like embedded FX, for instance. That means for a user who uses embedded FX, 30Hz is far too low, but 60Hz might be wasted processing power, if they are working on a 50Hz monitor, for example. For a user with a Raspberry Pi, doubling the refresh rate is a fundamental issue, and 30Hz could already bring the system to its knees, while 15Hz might be useless for that user's purpose.

Of course, you're right that entering 99999Hz is pointless. Better input validation that sets a technically sensible upper limit would certainly be a good idea. But that doesn't change the necessity of being able to choose a precise value within a sensible range, instead of being limited to 2-3 presets, right?

This Linux comparison comes up time and again, but frankly, I don't see any meaningful similarity at all. I assume you're referring to software that's aimed more at power users than beginners and requires a certain learning curve. You certainly can't deny that about REAPER. But that's pretty much where the similarities end.

Let's actually break down this comparison, because technically and philosophically, they are worlds apart:

So, what exactly is supposed to be Linux-like about REAPER?

• Because it's Open Source? Absolutely not. REAPER is proprietary, closed-source software. One company, one product. That's the complete opposite of Linux's collaborative development model.
• Because of its extensibility through scripts and add-ons? That's not a "Linux thing", that's the absolute standard for pretty much every piece of professional creative software out there. Game engines, graphics programs, writing pragrams, video editing software... they all offer these kinds of API's for pros. No one would ever think of comparing Photoshop to Linux for that reason.
• Because of its visual customizability? Nope, not a unique feature either. Countless proprietary programs offer this in one form or another.
• Because they take user feedback seriously and provide fast updates? That's simply the difference between an agile, customer-focused development team and a huge, insulated corporation.

And that brings me to the most important point, why the comparison isn't just flawed... it turns reality completely on its head.

I'll take a dev team that delivers a fix for a critical bug in no time, a thousand times over a pricey support contract where I have to argue for days with clueless call center agents until my problem maybe, eventually, gets escalated to a technician.

I'd rather pay a fair price for software without artificial limits than spend hundreds of bucks on a major update that finally implements a 10-year-old standard feature or removes a nonsensical artificial limitation.

REAPER doesn't offload its development onto users as free labor, either. They deliver an extremely stable core product and give pros the tools to extend it for their own niche requirements. That's just a damn good and fair business model. Because let me tell you, I know of companies that exploit this very problem of special use cases and charge a 6-figure sum to make specific software customizations for enterprise clients, instead of simply providing an API and giving the customer the option to do it themselves for far cheaper.

 

Last edited: Aug 29, 2025 at 3:29 PM

Optimal UX/UI in isolation is meaningless. Optimal experience, of which UX/UI is just one small part of, leads to optimal efficiency.

Not everyone is the same. Not every software's UI needs to be reduced until some illusive "every remaining button is used by at least 94% of users" telemetry goal is reached. For many people, complex UX/UI that enables exploration / experiences that go beyond the software / beyond the task at hand is the most efficient way of working. For them, reductive UX/UI and functionality makes for bleaker software that lead to less overall output and worse output.

Virtually all DAWs are perfectly capable of speedily and comfortably working with music - irrespective of their "oh so difficult and cumbersome" UX/UI.

Use whatever makes you the best at what you want to get done - even if that isn't always or necessarily "audio-things".