General questions on Reaper
- KVRian
- 642 posts since 22 Jun, 2018
Those numbers taste like pie to me.
I'll show myself out.
I'll show myself out.
-
- KVRAF
- 15517 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
There's something missing though, I can't quite put my finger on it.Delta Sign wrote:Those numbers taste like pie to me.
- KVRAF
- 3059 posts since 10 Nov, 2013 from Germany
The Reaper Blog is very good also:digitalboytn wrote:Like someone else said,check out Kenny Gioia's videos...
https://www.youtube.com/user/audiogeekzine/videos
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Why are synths considered FX?
-
- KVRAF
- 2587 posts since 19 Mar, 2008 from germany
Haayeah, that might be confusing.fluffy_little_something wrote:Why are synths considered FX?
Reaper is the DAW of abstraction. Because in Reaper
every term gets "abstracted".
So a track is always both: An audio-track and a midi-track.
An item can be both: An audio-Item and a midi-Item.
The same with FX: Everything that can be inserted in
a track or into an item is just "FX".
So "FX" can be VST, VSTi (which are synthesizers or
samplers), JS, DX, ...
So also synthesizer are summed up to the generalized
term "FX". "FX" doesn't mean only "effect". Instead it
is an abstract name for anything that can be inserted.
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs + weird stuff: enroe.de
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Weird, well, I will get used to it
-
- KVRAF
- 35434 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.enroe wrote:Haayeah, that might be confusing.fluffy_little_something wrote:Why are synths considered FX?
Reaper is the DAW of abstraction. Because in Reaper
every term gets "abstracted".
So a track is always both: An audio-track and a midi-track.
An item can be both: An audio-Item and a midi-Item.
The same with FX: Everything that can be inserted in
a track or into an item is just "FX".
So "FX" can be VST, VSTi (which are synthesizers or
samplers), JS, DX, ...
So also synthesizer are summed up to the generalized
term "FX". "FX" doesn't mean only "effect". Instead it
is an abstract name for anything that can be inserted.
-
- KVRist
- 381 posts since 12 Jul, 2006
It's really not that complicated...chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- Banned
- 1583 posts since 19 Aug, 2011
Yeah. But no one uses that menu, unless you’re a noob.swatwork wrote:It's really not that complicated...chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.
Everything else is referred to as «fx».
Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function | http://soundcloud.com/bmoorebeats
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Actually, I do use that menu in order to add new tracks.
- KVRist
- 485 posts since 13 Aug, 2017
The best thing of Reaper is its customization.. It makes me want to build my 'own' daw. I even started to think what if I learn about software development. But it's all too late anyway
- KVRist
- 415 posts since 3 Jun, 2017
It's the thing I love most about Reaper. I don't have to get lost in specifics. I need a new track, I add a new track. Who cares what it's for. I can use it to record audio and copy the recorded audio items to other tracks, I can use it to do the same with MIDI, I can use it to store text items... call my workflow messy if you must, but I'd rather have one track that does it all, instead of 25 tracks that all do something super specific. And if I want to use the track for something else for a few minutes, I don't have to replace it or add new tracks temporarily. Instrument hosting track, MIDI track, AUX track, folder track, send track, return track, automation track, who the hell has time to think about all those things when you're in a creative mood. Just add a darn track and be done with it. I truly have a hard time understanding why just about any other DAW software would insist on such unnecessary overcomplication. Or why any user would want to distract their creativity with track type handling.chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.
Confucamus.
- KVRist
- 415 posts since 3 Jun, 2017
Add new empty track: double-click the empty area in the arranger track list. (The dark part on the left, under "2. here" in the screenshot)fluffy_little_something wrote:Actually, I do use that menu in order to add new tracks.
Add a new track with an instrument, MIDI routing and recording automatically enabled:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Confucamus.
-
AdvancedFollower AdvancedFollower https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418780
- KVRian
- 1234 posts since 8 May, 2018 from Sweden
Actually this complicates it further, because in one place (this menu), a VST instrument is referred to as a "virtual instrument", but everywhere else it's still called "FX". So now there's a lack of consistency, in addition to the "abstraction" For consistency, this menu item should be called "Insert FX on new track", but that would be even more confusing...swatwork wrote:It's really not that complicated...chk071 wrote:I really don't want to rant about Reaper, but... this is rather typical. Instead of going with well defined terms, Reaper is "abstracting". Makes switching to, or migrating from the DAW really difficult. Developers should really consider that, when changing, or mish-mash-ing terms, which have a specific meaning.
-
- KVRist
- 381 posts since 12 Jul, 2006
It's not inconsistent at all - this menu option does exactly what it says, insert a virtual instrument. It's specifically dealing with the instrument subset of the available 'FX'.AdvancedFollower wrote:Actually this complicates it further, because in one place (this menu), a VST instrument is referred to as a "virtual instrument", but everywhere else it's still called "FX". So now there's a lack of consistency, in addition to the "abstraction" For consistency, this menu item should be called "Insert FX on new track", but that would be even more confusing...
I guess I don't find this 'FX' thing confusing because I just think 'plugin' when I see it. It might be a little odd at first but I don't think it takes too long to get used to.