Reaper v. Cubase

[Anchoret]

OK, so I got the memo late about Reaper.

For those who have used both, how do these programs compare? I'm not 100% thrilled with Cubase, so if Reaper is more to my needs, I'd switch.

Talk to me!

[Ben Harmless]

I actually like Cubase. I think it's a quality piece of work, and though I don't personally use its MIDI capabilities, I believe they are somewhat more advanced than Reaper (which is Reaper's one serious con).

That being said, I use Cubase at work, and Reaper at home. I find Reaper to be more intuitive to me, and I feel like Cubase is a little more stuck in the traditional audio-editing mindset.

Honestly though, it's a few percentage points of difference in my mind. Cubase is a pro program, and we use it professionally (others more than I). Reaper is no less pro in my mind, we just don't happen to have it on the work machine.

Is there something specific that doesn't thrill you about Cubase? Reaper is free to try - with a fully-functional, unlimited demo. Give it a shot!

[fuzzferatu]

I have actually been enjoying Mixcraft quite a bit more than either program. I'm rather impatient with interfaces, these days, and Mixcraft has that nice combination of "bone easy" and "power under the hood." the MIDI is particularly easy to implement.

[tantamo]

Reaper is wonderful. I haven't used cubase. Reaper is free, so just try it out and see for your self.

[popthree]

i haven't tried cubase, so no opinion there...

the first recording software i ever used was cakewalk..and i never bonded with it.

next up was 'ntrack audio' and it is ...eh.. ok, but not extremely intuitive, or flexible.

a buddy of mine has 'tracktion' and when i saw that i was like... wow, this makes sense ! i love this software.. but it aint cheap.

then i found reaper and it is very very close to tracktion in many ways. i highly recommend PC/Windows users giving it a look.

[pengipete]

Originally Posted by tantamo

Reaper is wonderful. I haven't used cubase. Reaper is free, so just try it out and see for your self.

I need to point out that Reaper is not free. It is a copyrighted program that is available as a full, uncrippled download for a trial period only. If you use it for non-commercial purposes for longer than a month, you are obliged to pay $50 or delete the program from your computer. Commercial licences are also available for a higher but still competative fee.

[Anchoret]

Originally Posted by Ben Harmless

Is there something specific that doesn't thrill you about Cubase? Reaper is free to try - with a fully-functional, unlimited demo. Give it a shot!

Cubase just strikes me as very unintuitive and hard to get going with -- and a steeper and more obstructive learning curve I don't need.

Cubase, while a great program, simply strikes me as hostile. I've never been able to get started with it.

I took a look at Reaper and it seems to my mind more rational with a more accessible user base and support.

We'll see.

[Old Cane]

I like both but bought Cubase since my drummer buddy uses it. I started with LE which came free but when I actually bought v4 I was astounded at how much better it sounded. It works for me just fine but it ain't free. It seems to be more stable but if i didn't have a reason to own Cubase I'd probably give it a try and use it until I hit a ceiling I couldn't get though.

[Anchoret]

Originally Posted by Old Cane

I started with LE which came free but when I actually bought v4 I was astounded at how much better it sounded.

How do you account for this? If you're recording at the same rates with the same hardware, shouldn't the sound quality be identical irrespective of the recording program?

What am I missing?

[Old Cane]

The same thing I am missing.

I'm told the v4 version uses a different audio engine. They must be telling the truth. That's all I can figure. I mean, it's software right? How can one sound better? Well, I do hear all the time that cubase sounds better than pro-tools. I can see with differnt brands but you'd think in the steinberg family they would all be the same. I guess they figure the LE is free so it'll sound good. When you pay a pile of money it's going to sound great.

I work in IT but I'm far from a developer. I just never pay for software so this was a big deal for me. And no I don't steal it. My company is partners with lots of software giants and we have enterprise licenses for most everything. Anything I've used at home is for work. That is until I started recording with my PC. So laying out $400 (that's half price and was a special upgrade from LE) was a real big deal for me. And worth it.

But don't get me wrong. I thought LE sounded real good. I got a Presonus Firebox ($299 normally) for I think $179 as a refurb and it came with LE so I was all set.

[StuH]

Originally Posted by Anchoret

How do you account for this? If you're recording at the same rates with the same hardware, shouldn't the sound quality be identical irrespective of the recording program?

What am I missing?

You would think so but it is not the case. A few articles on this topic suggest it has to do with the programming used to sum the mix. Essentially a digital stream is being processed by computer by way of code. If two diferent plug ins emulating the same hardware can give different sounding results so to can two different daws produce differing sounds.

Here's a neat post on the reaper forums http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=25390

[Anchoret]

Originally Posted by StuH

You would think so but it is not the case. A few articles on this topic suggest it has to do with the programming used to sum the mix. Essentially a digital stream is being processed by computer by way of code. If two diferent plug ins emulating the same hardware can give different sounding results so to can two different daws produce differing sounds.

So...Steinberg degraded the LE demo? Odd they would do that. Cripple every feature, maybe, but wouldn't they want the basic audio quality to be as good as possible?

Anyway, I'll check that link.

To cut to the chase, has there been any serious comparison in that regard of Reaper to Cubase or anything else?

[StuH]

Cubase 4 and Cubase LE 4 are fairly new releases and have the same audio engine. Most of the Cubase LE software packaged with audio interfaces over the past 3 years have been based on the Cubase 2 audio engine. Whether one sounds better is probably subjective.

I'm using Sonar and have versions 4, 6 and 7. Each sound different to me but I couldn't say one sound better than the other.

[KCKC]

I tried Reaper and Kristal and opted for Kristal. Very intuitive, easy to get up and running. It's free and has a great support forum. You're limited to 16 tracks but for me that's plenty!

kc

[Old Cane]

Originally Posted by StuH

Cubase 4 and Cubase LE 4 are fairly new releases and have the same audio engine. Most of the Cubase LE software packaged with audio interfaces over the past 3 years have been based on the Cubase 2 audio engine. Whether one sounds better is probably subjective.

That explains it. And while yes I guess it is subjective if you heard them in an A/B I think it would be pretty easy.

[DonnyO]

I own both Reaper and Cubase 4. I have been using Reaper for a little over a year and have been using Cubase since about '99-2000.
IMO it depends on your goals and the feature set you need. Both are very capable applications and either one is able to cut a record (or I guess a cd).

Cubase of course is a matured app and has a very deep feature set. The work flow (for me anyway) is incredibly intuitive. On the midi side of things Cubase is much deeper. So if you are planning on alot of midi instruments (drums, keys, etc..) it may be worth it to invest the extra bucks.

Reaper is a very powerful app as well. The midi side is slightly weaker, although still useable. Reapers real strength lie in its mixing capabilities as well as the small size of the application. You can run reaper on a much lesser pc system and still be able to acheive a decent sized mix (while cubase can be a little more of a resource hog). Reaper's greatest strength is the dudes that write the software. The app is moving forward at an amazing speed and the feature set grows sometimes daily.

So my advice FWIW... if cash ain't an issue and you need a solid midi app, and cubase's feature set appeals to you. Go for it! Otherwise, $50 for a non commercial license for Reaper will still serve you well, and get the job done effectively.

Good Luck,
Don

[tantamo]

Originally Posted by pengipete

I need to point out that Reaper is not free. It is a copyrighted program that is available as a full, uncrippled download for a trial period only. If you use it for non-commercial purposes for longer than a month, you are obliged to pay $50 or delete the program from your computer. Commercial licences are also available for a higher but still competative fee.

Well, I've been using it for more than a year and I never paid for it. Sounds free to me!

[StuH]

Originally Posted by tantamo

Well, I've been using it for more than a year and I never paid for it. Sounds free to me!

I guess it is free if you are still evaluating it and not using it for commercial use.

That non-expiring, fully functional license for evaluation has been a real good marketing tool for this guy. Everyone is getting hooked on Reaper. It is so popular now I bet the next versions will be expiring demos only. This guy is going to make a fortune if he keeps his prices competive. Even his current commercial rate is a deal IMO.

"REAPER is available for download without technological limitations for evaluation purposes. Once you have evaluated REAPER, you should purchase a license.
The normal price for REAPER is $225.00 USD, however for users who wish to use REAPER only for non-commercial use we offer reduced price licensing for $50.00 USD. Upgrades from non-commercial licenses to full (commercial) licenses are available."

For more information on the terms of licensing, see the Licensing Terms below."

quoted from http://www.cockos.com/reaper/purchase.php?l=1#terms

[tantamo]

Yeah, knowing what I now know I would probably pay 225 if I had to. But thankfully I don't.

However the guy is a 100 millionaire and he doesn't seem to be driven especially by money. I doubt it will become an expiring demo anytime soon, especially since previous versions of the 2-3 mb program can just be emailed to someone anyway.

[StuH]

Originally Posted by tantamo

I doubt it will become an expiring demo anytime soon, especially since previous versions of the 2-3 mb program can just be emailed to someone anyway.

I guess I mean future releases. I just have a feeling it is going to happen. The guy is really investing alot of time in it. Patches, new versions appearing almost daily. I really think the guys plan was to mass distribute the software for nothing and let word of mouth do the advertising for him in order to break into the market but at the same time you look at something like Audacity which has been widely used as a wave edit for quite some time and is still free.

Maybe you are right.