going over to Reaper. Definitely for music, at any rate, though I must finish the audio book using FL or I'll have to re-do what I've already done.
Is it possible for one DAW to actually sound better than another? I wouldn't have thought so.
Also, I read somewhere there is as yet no wave editing facility but it is possible to record,
Dr. V
last2first. 'Editing' & editor, loosely refers to 'destructive' editing. Processes by which the data of the wavefile is altered. In Reaper you tend to effect 'real time' processes on the audio as opposed to the data (in a manner of speaking). When you apply a reverb algorithm you change the way the audio is present via playback but have not altered the waveform data at all. It remains intact.
As computers have become more powerful, and applications mature & bloat, the lines between specific types of audio processing software blue. When Reaper first appeared I used it almost exclusively to record. As it matured I gradually began to mix some projects with it. While Audition remains my 'editor' of choice. Different software has strengths in different areas. Audition, still one of the most powerful editors on the market has gradually improved with regard to multitrack recording and mixing but even now that is not its first love.
It is always possible that one software application might sound better then another. I know little or nothing of FL's strengths or limitations so I can't really speak to it. But of the ones with which I do have experience, Cakewalk/Sonar, Cubase/Nuendo, Samplitude, Audition, PT, Vegas/Acid; while they might exhibit some individual quirks (sometimes based on legacy code) with regard to how audio is presented, e.g. how so called pan 'law' is articulated; automatically reducing a mixed/summed audio file by a fixed dB, etc; as far as simply the raw sound of a single recorded track there is little or nothing to distinguish among software choices.
Now once you begin to apply 'processes', Dynamics, EQ, time based, then all bets are off as to whether something sounds subjectively better then something else.
When Acid was first introduced for it do what it claimed, with regard to 'loops' the audio 'data' contained in those loops had to be truncated. The audio differences between an Acidized loop and the audio file of which it was based was detectable. Back in the bad old days, mid 90's PT v3 (or so) my opinion was that, somehow, digidesign got the math, for summing files, wrong. (which in turn led to the spate analog summing boxes that continues today)
So decisions, whether mistakes or not, can influence how audio is presented . . . but as I said in the current market among prosumer competing product there is little or nothing to distinguish the 'sound' of one software recording app from another
my guess is if you actually learn to use Reaper effectively that it will be a far more efficient tool for Audio plays/books, based on some of the issues you faced, documented in other posts. the ability of an individual to modify the UI is a huge tool, in regard to work flow. The support community and developers are remarkably responsive to things that are actually issues (with how the software functions). That in turn encourages (unconsciously perhaps) individuals to question a lot of things about how they do what they do, in ways that are very difficult with software that requires to bend to its UI.
I started using Reaper because it was a cheap & stable way for me to use a laptop to record live shows. I had invested considerable time learning how to manipulate a handful of software apps, didn't need another cluttering things . . . but task by task Reaper continues to insert itself into workflow. it is not now, nor do I expect it to ever be the only app I need, not even in conjunction with an editor like Audition, but in four, now nearly five years I've gone from not advertising it's presence in the studio to prominently displaying it. (interestingly, to me anyway, when I started using it, almost exclusively for live show recording I viewed it as a secret weapon not a marketing tool . . . now I'm not sure that I would not be willing to go head to head with it against PT . . . in attempt to deflate the whole concept of 'industry standards' as anything but marketing hype!)
