Reaper vs Audacity
- Thread starter ColinW
- Start date
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Yes, actually. I find that for most mixing purposes, I like Reaper much better.
Reaper is better for monitoring your levels; there are a lot more level gauges, so you can tell exactly where things are clipping.
Reaper edits non-destructively. When I did a CD in Audacity, there were at least two occasions where Audacity delted all my data files for no apparent reason. Reaper only deletes all my data when I explicitly tell it to.
Reaper has better plugins and effects. There are a lot more, they're usually better made, and there seems to be much more community support for them. Plus, Reaper comes with the JesuSonic plugin programming language, which is pretty sweet. (I've automated some of my favorite Audacity tasks into a single effect I can turn on with one click.)
That being said, I still use Audacity for some tasks.
After I finish a track in Reaper, I'll run it through Audacity's volume effect since that's a much quicker and easier way to turn the whole track's volume up to just below clipping.
When I need to do quick, simple changes to an audio file (adding one effect that both systems have, deleting some dead air, etc.) I'll often use Audacity since it's a little faster for those kinds of tasks.
All in all, I highly recommend upgrading to Reaper. Audacity has its uses, but Reaper is usually better.
Reaper is better for monitoring your levels; there are a lot more level gauges, so you can tell exactly where things are clipping.
Reaper edits non-destructively. When I did a CD in Audacity, there were at least two occasions where Audacity delted all my data files for no apparent reason. Reaper only deletes all my data when I explicitly tell it to.
Reaper has better plugins and effects. There are a lot more, they're usually better made, and there seems to be much more community support for them. Plus, Reaper comes with the JesuSonic plugin programming language, which is pretty sweet. (I've automated some of my favorite Audacity tasks into a single effect I can turn on with one click.)
That being said, I still use Audacity for some tasks.
After I finish a track in Reaper, I'll run it through Audacity's volume effect since that's a much quicker and easier way to turn the whole track's volume up to just below clipping.
When I need to do quick, simple changes to an audio file (adding one effect that both systems have, deleting some dead air, etc.) I'll often use Audacity since it's a little faster for those kinds of tasks.
All in all, I highly recommend upgrading to Reaper. Audacity has its uses, but Reaper is usually better.
Thanks for the input. Some of the things you mention do sound like an improvement. I think I will download it and give it a try.
WRT to brain and work flow, I have Ableton Live which came with a piece of gear I bought. Ableton is the antithesis of what fits my brain and work flow!
WRT to brain and work flow, I have Ableton Live which came with a piece of gear I bought. Ableton is the antithesis of what fits my brain and work flow!
dodgeaspen
New member
I downloaded Reaper a few days ago to see if the analog conversion to digital sounds better then Audacity. So far I like Reaper better as far as the conversion factor is concerned. I think I will buy the full version when I can and do away with Audacity once and for all. I do all my work in analog and dump it to digital to put on cd. So far so good.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
stick audacity in REAPER's right click menu as one of the external editors, then you will have the audacity pencil tools and stuff you are already familiar with and the learning curve wont hamper you from getting work done
dodgeaspen
New member
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Another advantage of Reaper is that you get to pick this guys brain sometimes!