With project and track templates, as well as FX chains you can easily reuse a setup with the plugins of your choice.Īnd one guy(CJ) at Cakewalk forum even regretted going for Sonar Producer because he lost the previously used built in EQ's and thinking going back to Sonar Studio not having to be cluttered with ProChannel. What happend to Cakewalk Sonar X1 as I tested it was that interface is cluttered with stuff you might not want - you prefer Waves SSL channelstrips or whatever. ![]() Ps let us all be glad that Reaper offers the flexibility to support that much differen scenarios. Of course this is my personal opinion, and I dont expect it to be shared by all Reaper users, as Reaper can be used in many ways, and for some of these usages the importance of VST3 support is higher the the mixer related features. The added value of VST3, sidechaining and cpu-load optimization will add less value for a certain group of users than incorporatin enhanced mixing / monitoring and mastering capabilities. ![]() I still see VST3 not as a widely accepted standard, but as a mostly Steinberg specific proprietary implementation. I am not convinced that focussing on VST3 will enhance the capabilities of reaper in the same way. So I do not see it as "fanboyish" to ask why these capabilities cannot be linked together. Mixbus contains a well designed and supporting and great sounding Mixing Console (Mixer) but is lacking the stable platform. Reaper is currently positioned as a plain recording platform, features that are required to run the whole process in a studio (recording, monitoring, premastering) are possible in Reaper, but a fluid,smooth workflow for all the studio (and live / FOH) processes is not the main strength of Reaper.īut - for sure - the engine itself is the most stable and performant platform I know. There is in fact some features I would like to see integrated into Reaper. Put work and effort on VST 3 instead - if anything. I don't get this Mixbus thing developers has released something that is not close to stable and we go: One side or the other would have to make their source code available to the other, and we couldn't find a way to do this without raising complicated intellectual Property questions."įrom a Reaper perspective: I do not see too many issues to integrate a DSP-Code into reaper, even on a closed-source base,and to customize the Reaper-UI.īut what is the "official" Reaper opinion on that ? "We spoke with the Reaper developers, but we were unable to find a way to customize Reaper to the extent that we needed to customize Ardour. Of course I informed Harrison about these issues and also raised the question that it had made more sense to build Mixbus on the base of Reaper than of Ardour. ![]() (crash within less than 60 seconds, both on Mac and PC) It is based on Ardour and commercially available from The release was discussed in the german forum, and I did some testing on the demo version, which resulted in a double dead-on-arrival As it was announced some months ago, an new DWA, Harrison Mixbus was released.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |