Do You Need Audio Editing Software In Addition to Reaper?

[Armistice]

Yeah, it's a useful question because of gecko's answer. I just don't like people thinking that we're all gormless rubes who can't see what they're doing..

 

[JimmyS1969]

Yeah, it's a useful question because of gecko's answer. I just don't like people thinking that we're all gormless rubes who can't see what they're doing..

I had to Goog 'gormless'. Does that make me smarter now that I know what it means? lol!

 

[Telegram Sam]

I'm glad the question was asked. I have just started to use Reaper. In one of the demo videos I found the guy recorded with Reaper but then used Audacity to edit tracks. I was wondering if that was necessary.

I missed the good post, but I have an answer for the question.

I was missing something with ProTools until I acquired Sound Forge to use as a compliment,
now the two work for me hand in hand rather exquisitely.

It has an easy to use Mastering Suite, which is what I am sure the others are referring to using for editing
(I hear audacity does the same things).

Process goes like this:

Record your music tracks in Reaper, create a stereo mix, then bounce it to Sound Forge, where you can assemble the tracks
into proper order, put spaces between them, trim ends, apply fades, apply global effects (compression, limiter, parametric eq, etc.),
label tracks, make red book compliant (whatever that is), and burn cd's.

I had several two track mixes from my old studio, and I have been using sound forge to make them more presentable,
it is a great way to go for the final editing for presentation.

I have also collected several tapes of radio shows from KXLU in the 80's, and hundreds of record albums and I use SF
to split the transferred tracks on the cassettes into separate tracks, and to remove cracks, pops etc, from vinyl recording transfers.

I have found it to be much easier to use for these post-production type tasks compared to trying to accomplish them in my DAW.

Anybody want toast?

 

[oretez]

I do use, have used Reaper for a lot of years. It is not the only software suite I use, but I do tend to use it primarily for tracking.

There are some projects for which Reaper is sufficient. On most projects I will use a variety of different software depending on project and client goals. The tools I used evolved over a fairly (now) long time based on strengths each type of software possessed at a time when many of them had unique strengths. Things, generally, have improved significantly over the last 15-20 yr, with regard to what any software package can accomplish. I remain a big fan of Reaper for a lot of reasons but there are some things, based as much on the way I work as anything, that I find easier or quicker to accomplish in other software. So there are times I'll 'shell out' to an explicit 'editor' like Audition (ver 1.5 or 3.1, doubt I'll every upgrade agains). There are some specialty MIDI sequencers I prefer to almost any Audio Software if I'm working with MIDI. There are things Melodyne does well that are difficult to accomplish in other software. And there are some things I find easier to execute in an Izotope front end rather then merely accessing the tools as plugs in other software.

I do not find Reaper to be particularly tuned to editing audio for video. But, again, this primarily based on processes of 'how' I work that evolve slowly over time & typically I use software tools I can adapt to how I work rather then obsessing about learning to adapt how I work to software (which is why even though I've used Audition and it's direct antecedent since 1996 it's doubtful I'll upgrade to any new versions).

But as a rule I'd tend to advise as one is starting spending time to dig deep into an audio suite with which one is aesthetically comfortable rather then jumping around among a variety of front ends to find an easier way to do a task. Not suggesting one not audition a variety of software, merely that when you find one that seems to facilitate they way you work spend time learning it thoroughly. Audition was always a great 'editor' (a function I still view as distinct from 'mixing') but weak with regard to tracking and automated mixing. This made Reaper (even in its early incarnations) both a natural and great partner. With all the tools Reaper offers it is possible one will never need another piece of software (other then specific plug ins)

 

[soundchaser59]

Also something about destructive vs non-destructive editing.

That's basically what they are referring to. As mentioned above, in Reaper you simply zoom in on the audio track so you can see the precise points where you need to change something......take out a pop, cut some hiss or cut out the singer talking before his cue, etc. There are several ways you can deal with that stuff in Reaper. Highlight the section and mute it, cut it and delete it, you can move the remaining pieces together if the timing is off, change the volume or automate the volume or automate the panning, etc...... then when you get it sounding just right, you can - if you want to - "render" it to its own track so that it plays as if you recorded it perfectly in the first place.

And it does all that without actually changing your original take at all. That's the "non-destructive editing" part........edit your audio track to clean it and get it the way you want it to play without destroying your original recording. You can undo all of your changes and your original take will still be there, warts and all.

No, you don't need any additional audio editing or mixing program to supplement Reaper.

Instead of editing one take, I record several takes because I know there is a 99% chance I will not make the same mistake in the same place each time. Then I audition the takes, make a note of which sections of each take are the best, "split" all the takes at points where I want to use some of the takes and mute some of the takes, then I can use the best parts from each take to make one "composite" take. For example, I have a 30 second take and I play it 10 times (I record 10 takes of the same 30 second section). Then I can use the first 5 seconds from take 2, the second 5 seconds from take 8, 10 seconds from take 4, and 10 seconds from take 10, and mute all the other pieces I am not going to use. Then when it plays back it will play my selections as if it was one continuous take. I can render that to its own track if I want, and mute the original takes or leave them there in case I want to undo everything and start over. This method is great for getting a good "composite" vocal track, and if I screw up the "edits" I dont have to re-record anything because I never destroyed my original take by editing.

 

[TimOBrien]

You don't NEED anything else, but:

If you want an external audio editor that'll use your vst effects, Audacity is free and runs on all platforms.

If you want music notation for midi, Musescore is free and runs on all platforms.

Both can be added to the 'external editor' functions in Preferences so you can double-click on a part and open it up in the appropriate editor.