Reaper vs. Audition Vs. Nuendo


New member
Here's my situation... I have been using audacity, very happily I might add, since I discovered it in 2008. I record my drums with 2 overhead mxl mics (990's and 991's), and a nady dm90 (I know, not a great mic) in the kick. Basic "recorderman" positioning. I have the mics run through my old tascam 4 track as a mixer, and into the audio in on my computer. For guitar and bass, I play a strat style esp through a digitech whammy 2 and a zoom gx1 pedal, and into the audio in. For a long time, I felt I hadn't reached the ceiling of what audacity had to offer. My stuff sounds very good for the equipment I use, very clean and tight... What I lack as anything other than a drummer, I can make up for, using cut and paste, and I find audacity so simple to use, with no loss of sound quality that I'm aware of. But the whole "real time effect editing" thing is starting to become a lot more appealing to me, and of course audacity doesn't offer that. So, I have reaper, audition, and nuendo on my computer, and just downloaded multi hundred page tutorials on each, but I'm looking for a little human opinion. I'm assuming nuendo is the most advanced or professional, and also perhaps the most difficult to learn. Any opinions on which program would be easiest to get down, or the most flexible, or the most capable?
I'd say spend a day or so with each program and see which one suits your workflow. All LAW's will achieve the main goals of recording what you play. It's really a case of what you find works best for you. Other DAY's have demo versions so don't rule any out. Try them all and see what you think.

All the opinions on here won't make your opinion fit the software. Trying them out will root out what you feel more comfortable with.

:thumbs up:
Well, I'm a long-term Audition user so can give a few thoughts on that one.

Audition is a thoroughly professional piece of software but it's aimed more at the broadcast market than the "music maker" market. It's used in hundreds (or even thousands) of radio stations--the BBC alone have thousands of licences. It's good for tracking and mixing, excellent for editing and excellent for restorative processing like noise reduction, getting rid of unwanted clicks, bumps etc. and so on. I personally find the interface easy and intuitive--but I've been using it since it was Cool Edit 96 and a lot simpler.

The downside, though, is that Audition has no MIDI or Rewire implementation and can't run VSTi's (VST plug ins fine though). If you think you'll ever need MIDI, then Audition probably isn't for you.

As for the others, I have to say that Nuendo rarely comes up in a professional sound forum I visit--besides the dreaded ProTools, Logic and Cubase seem to come up the most--with a lot of people there saying good things about Reaper despite the low price. I've had a play with Reaper and was impressed but wasn't willing to go through the learning curve to get really good with it--I've got about 16 years on Audition!

Thanks for the input... I can't see requiring midi anytime soon, so perhaps it's time to give audition a try. Really, the main thing I'm interested in at this point, is real time effect editing ability. That's the first quality that I've found audacity to lack, that is keeping me from mixing properly and doing my demos justice. I just need to bite the bullet and spend some time with the manuals, play around a bit and see which feels best. I don't know what vsti is, but I have a bunch of plug ins, vst and otherwise, that I'd like to be able to use, so if audition can handle them, that's definitely a plus for me.
So, let me get this straight.... You have Adobe Audition which might be a free download if it's an old version. Then Reaper which is $40 or so. Then Nuendo which is $1700!!! :eek: And you want to ask which is better?? :confused:
Nuendo is in an entirely different class to the other two from a price point of view. IOW, it's VASTLY MORE EXPENSIVE.

Cubase shares the same audio engine as Nuendo and it's been difficult to tell the two apart for the last several years. The crux of the matter is that Nuendo is aimed at the post production market so it has better surround support and a few more options most people in music production will never use. Although, it can do anything Cubase can do. Cubase is aimed at the music market.

Audition, as Bobbsy said, is good but lacks features for music creation which is why it's popular in the radio market.

Reaper is getting more and more support because it is cheap and full of features. It is a very powerful, professional grade DAW that can accomplish almost anything that the other competitors can. You can also change the entire GUI skin, which is pretty cool. I personally prefer the White Tie skin. Sexiest DAW GUI ever!

Anyway,...choosing a DAW should be based on what you intend to do with it. If I were you I would go with Reaper or Cubase if you're recording music.

Cheers :)
I have used Reaper and I'm patiently waiting on Reaper v4. I like Reaper because it does a lot of things good like changing tempo on polyphonic audio. I use FL and Reaper a lot but for its price range Reaper is pretty good. What I like the most about Reaper is the fact that you have many config options. I can customize it to behave the way I want it. I probably looked at the tutorials for Reaper for a few hours before I started using it. I will go with Reaper since it is so easy to learn to use than Audition and Nuendo.
nuendo is extremely powerful.

a good choice for someone serious about recording.

a more professional product, not necessary for doing home demos.
Yeah, I'm going to give reaper a try. I've been jamming with a guy who ran a studio in nyc for like, 15 years, and he has a plethora of mics, equipment, and he hooked me up with nuendo and a ridiculous number of plugins. He actually offered cubase, but said nuendo would be less frustrating for me. But I get the feeling that most of the functions that make it better than audition or reaper, wouldn't necessarily matter in my pursuits.

I am interested in making my music sound as good as it possibly can, given the level of my mics and other equipment. If I am already getting production value that in my opinion is better than professional recordings from the mid to late 80's, using audacity and at best very average mics and recording gear...obviously I am willing to suffer the consequences of using the equipment I have or can afford. Indeed, I am repeatedly impressed with the consequences.

I did play around with reaper for a bit last night...imported some tracks I recorded on audacity and started to get a feel for the various means of manipulating them. I can already tell that just being able to eq my tracks as I listen to them will make a huge difference.
Sounds like you have a bunch of illegal stuff that you have no clue how to use. Step back a bit, and learn the basics first. It will help you in the long run. Don't rely on the plugins to get things sounding good. Focus on performance, micing techniques, and learning the software.