|
|
|
02-26-2011, 10:53 AM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Reaper in editor mode? For v4?
Not sure this is possible, but wouldn't it be cool if reaper had a dedicated editor mode so you can edit destructively or maybe non destructively and overwrite the file.
Just like wavelab and Soundforge you can edit the 2 track master press save and it overwrites the file directly without glue ing or re rendering etc
Also the editing mode could include more cd burning options like wavelab and peak?
Does this make sense?
|
|
|
02-26-2011, 01:19 PM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
|
it makes perfect sense and has been asked for already in various FRs
as far as I know, there's been no mention of them being added anytime soon
|
|
|
02-26-2011, 01:26 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Would be a great alternative to Soundforge and on the mac too
Would be a great editor for us mac communitiy!
|
|
|
02-26-2011, 04:31 PM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,720
|
I have Wavosaur set up as an external editor, but I must admit that I never find a reason to use it (I just work in Reaper).
What is it I'm missing out on? Or is it something that's especially useful for specific genres? I see it asked for quite often, but have never been sure as to why.
|
|
|
02-26-2011, 06:00 PM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
|
Personally, I think destructive editing is overrated. Just as Alistair I have Waveosaur set up as external editor, but never use it. What Reaper has works well enough and I really don't see why destructive editing would be any better than what we already have...
Trim files and save back over the original...? You can do just that using Waveosaur, but why would you need to... I don't see the point.
But then, as Ollie so eloquently put it "I'm not the European User Experience Standards Commission"
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 01:18 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Just a multi track version of Soundforge for mac would be great
Saving over the file would eliminate the hundreds of files that keep saving along with your project which bugs me. But as mentioned I suppose creating a folder fir each project and "clean current project" would clear up any glued and rendered files??
It's just coming from sound forge, you can edit quickly the main 2 track master say like reversing a bar, press save, and it's applied to the master directly.
In a multi track environment it always feels messy to cut the new file, reverse, re glue and so on- maybe I should get used to working that way? Especially if glue is a definitive way to save a new updated file.
Secondly I like to use an editor to add fx directly to a sound file, like area selection over a chord and add a phaser to the waveform, then a reverb with tail
It seems from another of my posts that reaper can't do thus even using the loop selection on a file. Which is a shame as I don't want to really use a windows editor on a PC, and go totally mac with reaper as my editor, and mastering of my final 2 track before going to cd.
Maybe I should dive in and try it?
My bugbear is the hidden files and deleting them all as I go. After using sound forge for 12 years it's a bit of a jump! But now I'm Mac only, reaper is the closest to what I've been looking for all these years and hope v4 makes editing even better with area selection and sound forge style features.
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 01:53 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
|
The best method of audio editing I have used (and I stress taht I have used) was protools.
Open up audio file as big or as little as you like, select and move little bits of audio with clinical precision and it all welds back together seamlessly AND it works in a logical orderly way.
I have yet to really try anything like this in Reaper but it does seem that the methods for doing very low level audio edits are not immediately self evident.
The sort of thing I am thinking of is as follows.
I did a series of very quick and dirty sessions replacing all the bass parts on an album.
Time was of the essence, so on tracks where what I had played was 99% there, we went in and corrected small but noticeable errors (pretty much all fluffs or timing rather than note pitch)by either picking up the offending bit and moving it for the timing errors, or finding the same note played spot on and destructively copy/pasting it.
To emphasise, the timing errors were literally a few ticks for the most part, but spoilt the feel, which was what I was supposedly fixing.
There is probably a perfectly acceptable way of doing this in Reaper already but I have not reached that page in the manual yet....
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 01:53 AM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow
I have a feature request in for this but I doubt it will be implemented as few seemed interested. For audio have you tried Audition for Mac yet?
|
Thanks but if I go for it, I don't want to use or learn another program so hoping I could do Reaper all the way!
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 02:28 AM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc
The best method of audio editing I have used (and I stress taht I have used) was protools.
Open up audio file as big or as little as you like, select and move little bits of audio with clinical precision and it all welds back together seamlessly AND it works in a logical way
|
Looked in to Protools a little, so please let me know how you do your edits and weld them back cleanly into one file without loads of hidden backup files etc?
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 06:47 AM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
|
I'd love Reaper to become a one-stop editor with the area selection and more imprtantly the action
Item Processing > Process FX on selection
To apply fx directly to the waveform like standard editors do, with area shading/selection would be even better like Protools
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 07:45 AM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,203
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian
Personally, I think destructive editing is overrated. Just as Alistair I have Waveosaur set up as external editor, but never use it. What Reaper has works well enough and I really don't see why destructive editing would be any better than what we already have...
Trim files and save back over the original...? You can do just that using Waveosaur, but why would you need to... I don't see the point.
|
+1
Just set Reaper up to use per project folders and it takes just a few seconds to clear out unused files with the "Clean current project directory" function.
Not knocking people who find value in destructive editing, but personally don't see the point.
DB
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 08:29 AM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMusic
+1
Not knocking people who find value in destructive editing, but personally don't see the point.
|
I still miss it, but because of the nature of double clicking on the file allowing me to instantly zoom to a dedicated window for that file, where I can tweak on a sample level.
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 08:42 AM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 673
|
You can already do destructive editing with Reaper if you want to - just edit the item (cut, trim, transpose, timestretch, add item effects etc. - all of which you can do directly in the arrange page) and then just hit "glue", which will create a new file with all the edits, item effects etc. burnt-in (i.e. "destructively")! If you want track settings and fx included, then hit "render" to new file.
Of course, your original files remain available in the project folder too (unless you delete them).
So you see, for me personally, there is no need for a separate audio editor. In fact I think the current way is preferable - I'd much rather edit direct in the arrange page rather than have to open a separate audio editing window in order to do that (as in Cubase, for example). In any case, if you want to, you can assign an external editor which will open on ctrl + shift + double left mouse click.
The only thing missing (as far as I can see) is being able to directly draw on to the waveform (with a pencil tool or similar).
Last edited by Xasman; 02-27-2011 at 09:16 AM.
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 09:21 AM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Looked in to Protools a little, so please let me know how you do your edits and weld them back cleanly into one file without loads of hidden backup files etc?
|
Since I am looking for a clean user experience, who cares about hidden files?
It is the user experience and the workflow I am concerned with here.
The reality is that I watched the studio engineer select an area of audio in the usual lasso manner (one beat) and then line it up perfectly with the kick drum which was parallelled up in the same window.
End of.
THAT is how it should be done, regardless of what is going on behind the scenes. Mind you a non-destructive vs destructive button WOULD be nice whilst we are in "if only" land.
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 10:48 AM
|
#15
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 72
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow
I've been looking at pro tools lately but lack of vst support kills it,
|
http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=15
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 11:45 AM
|
#16
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
|
fxpansions vst support in PT is great... it IS the way to go.
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 12:06 PM
|
#17
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New York City
Posts: 78
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc
we went in and corrected small but noticeable errors (pretty much all fluffs or timing rather than note pitch)by either picking up the offending bit and moving it for the timing errors, or finding the same note played spot on and destructively copy/pasting it.
To emphasise, the timing errors were literally a few ticks for the most part, but spoilt the feel, which was what I was supposedly fixing.
There is probably a perfectly acceptable way of doing this in Reaper already but I have not reached that page in the manual yet....
|
Its pretty easy actually but not immediately obvious for someone who learned on protools like myself. Its a couple extra steps but there are other things that make up for it in my opinion.
1. Select the file and place the cursor cursor at beginning of section you would like to either copy to another part or nudge for time issues.
2. Press S to split the file at that point and do the same with the cursor at the end of the selection. You now have a separate portion you can move or copy somewhere else.
3. Press N to nudge, or standard copy/paste, or control + click and drag to drag a copy and leave original portion in place just like PT.
When finished select the whole track and glue item under the Edit menu. I mapped a command control + shift + G for this feature. You now have a consolidated version of the track in the session without having to open up an external editor.
To address what I feel makes up for any extra steps in this process compared to PT.
The glue in Reaper function works faster than consolidate in PT in my experience, especially after mapping the key command.
Fades are automatically in place at the end of all files in reaper and automatically put in place at every split point. This function saves a step compared to PT.
I'm finding less and less of a need to use any external editors and I'm at the point where I never do. However I do agree that the ability to apply FX directly to the wave form would be a very useful feature add-on. And if I was in a full on drum editing project I would definitely want to be in PT but luckily I haven't been doing that for a while now.
I'm very new to Reaper but I dove in head first in the last couple weeks to mix a friends project and have learned a lot. Having the manual always handy and searching keywords in the PDF when I was stumped usually worked to learn how to do what I was trying to do. Or a quick search on this very helpful forum.
I've still only scratched the surface but the more I learn my way around it the more I'm really excited and happy with Reaper.
|
|
|
02-27-2011, 03:48 PM
|
#18
|
Mortal
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,654
|
Turn on "ripple editing" in Reaper (I'd recommend using the "all tracks ripple editing" even if using a single track as any markers then move as they should as you edit) and you've got the equivalent, in most respects, to a normal audio editor.
In my experience, using a destructive editor destructively is reckoned to be a very bad idea unless you really don't mind destroying the original material. Using "save as..." in a destructive editor is usually felt to be the prudent method, unless you've created a copy of the original file first.
Used as a stereo editor with ripple on, I call Reaper a "constructive editor" as the original material is preserved, and you can see and adjust all the edit points any time later (eg in the context of radio, you submit your edited interview to the program producer and she says "I need you to put back a couple of words at 1'35" " - easy if you've used Reaper but much more tricky if you used (say) Audition, as you can't simply drag the end of a clip to fix the problem).
The only thing that Reaper doesn't do compared to a typical stereo editing program is sample editing, which isn't required for a great number of editing tasks.
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 04:02 AM
|
#19
|
Mortal
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,654
|
That's not editing, that's sound restoration!
(Actually, I would concede that these days 'editing' is used to mean a much wider range of functions than just, well, editing - same way that 'mastering' is now used in a much looser way than it was in the days of vinyl).
And yes, Audition is very good at that sort of thing. Certainly at one time I got the impression that quite a number of Audition users were using the Reaper multitrack, and vice versa. They do make a great combination.
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 05:11 AM
|
#20
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 600
|
I was gonna holler about Audition at the start of the thread....glad to see others did it for me, haha
Its very much the way to go. Im pretty sure "destructive" editing only matters to people who arent savvy enough to save off a copy and who might be magically prone to hit the "Save" option instead of "Save As" for some very strange reason ~ err, which, is hopefully not many people.
Indeed, Audition is a perfect match for Reaper.
Another reason Audition kicks literal ass when paired with Reaper, not only can you clean up ANY and I mean ANY audio anomaly with Audition, but once youre done with main mix from Reaper, open it in Audition, send the track over to the "CD" mode, type in all your CD Data (album name, artist name, song name) and ISRC codes, and burn a completely perfect CD ready for duplication.
Talk about a slam dunk.
Reaper has an extreme amount of work to do if it wants to be like Audition - as much as I love Audi, I dont want Cockos to do that nor feel the need to try and urge them in that direction. Audition is very much in the top echelon of "Audio Editing" software. Its freaking excellent for tracking as well. All in all, Audi 3 is one of the best DAW's available, for tracking and editing. But its not a MIDI intensive DAW, but then again, neither is Reaper.
Thats what Cubase, Sonar, and Logic are for = MIDI work. Yes, youre correct: One of the best uses for Sonar is using the box it came in as a doorstop....but alas, thats a different topic.
I love tracking in Reaper and Mastering/Finalizing in Audition. I know Audition 3.0 is totally cheap these days and I strongly urge any Reaper user to demo it to see what highly-useful features that Audition has that Reaper does not - Spectral editing, pro waveform editing, CD burning with text, etc. ~ Bottom line, to properly prepare audio for duplication or replication, a program like Audition is basically a requirement.
I wouldnt be in business (Small Axe Studios: audio restoration, mastering, duplication preparation, mixing, etc) without Audition 3.0. To say that Audition lets me offer a much more professional level of services for peoples audio needs than just using Reaper alone, would be putting it VERY lightly.
"The only thing that Reaper doesn't do compared to a typical stereo editing program is sample editing, which isn't required for a great number of editing tasks." Theres a few things I listed just above that Reaper does not do. Spectral editing is huge and is a monumental leap for audio editing. You need a plug-in like Izotope RX to do it properly in Reaper.
"For example in Audition I've been able to remove the sound of people in the audience talking (and dogs barking) during the recording without any particularly bad artefacts."
~ Ive had experience doing this as well. For me, chair squeaks during a recording - gone, easily. Spectral editing rules.
I think, in the end, its a good thing to have a foot in two DAW's, so to speak. Which is why Id actually prefer that Reaper and Audition stay like cousins and not twins.
Last edited by cricket; 03-02-2011 at 05:18 AM.
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 05:29 AM
|
#21
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 600
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow
I've been looking at pro tools lately but lack of vst support kills it, Samplitude seems the most complete - to be honest I've pretty much given up on Reaper. I'll see how v4 goes, but the Reaper development process doesn't seem to show any coherent vision of what constitutes musical practice via a DAW. I've been with Reaper since v0.5 or so, and it just seems to get more features rather than more usable.
|
I wouldnt mind hearing about the things you're trying to do with Reaper that you cannot do. In a helpful way, for sure. If theres intensive MIDI work you're trying to get done, Reaper is indeed a more painstaking way to go as far as a DAW. Maybe thats it.
"coherent vision of what constitutes musical practice via a DAW." ~ What would be an example of this?
Just saying, if I knew the things you are trying to do that Reaper is stopping you, I could possibly help you, or others here certainly could, find a DAW that is more suited to your needs.
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 05:55 AM
|
#22
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Thanks Cricket for a comprehnsive answer.
I must check out Audition 3, as looking at some tutorial views, it does indeed allow all the things im currently wishing Reaper did!
Area Selection, Destructive fx on the waveform, Editor mode,
I still think Reaper could go down this route, as I know cockos would probably do it better! but for now, I think I may have to take a look at Audition 3
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 08:42 AM
|
#23
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 40
|
External or Internal Sound Editor?
There is definitely a need for dedicated sound editors -- and destructive editing, too. Among the most valuable uses relates to spectral editing, which is the process of editing or adjusting some aspect of a sonic spectrum in an extremely precise and detailed manner. This includes formant modification, isolated click/pop/squeak/clank removal, exact overtone alteration, spectral composition, and numerous other things that simply cannot be done with any degree of accuracy in a typical DAW. Among the best programs that I know of for spectral editing are Adobe Audition and Izotope RX Advanced (stand alone). Sound Forge is quite weak in this regard. Another feature of dedicated sound editors involves a much more precise waveform view/editor, which allows you to pinpoint areas of interest and alter them with a high degree of accuracy (Sound Forge is quite good for this, as are Audition and RX).
Now, the question is, should Reaper -- or any other DAW -- do these things? I don't know. It's easy enough to open an external editor and take care of business. However, it seems to me that at least a basic waveform editor is needed for quick and seamless cutting and gluing, etc. It's true that you can take care of most waveform edits (not spectral edits) with any given DAW, but in those special cases where super-accuracy is concerned, you need some sort of dedicated editor.
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 09:56 AM
|
#24
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Tried demo of Mac version of Adobe Audition 3, and i love the 'multi-track' / Editing' windows and how you can switch between them, the fades also seem very snappy..
I think Reaper could do this and maybe better.. I did find the program a little clunky in places and not as slick as Reaper.
I know the old argument that you can do this with Reaper and an ext editor, which is fine for the windows users. On the Mac its a different story, as there's little good editors on OS X
For many users like me, I grew up on PC and something like Sound Forge, and then went over to the Mac.
Adobe Audition seems the closest to the editing view for surgical editing, and applying fx to the waveform, and then flipping to the multi-track view to see it in context.
This seems and looks a lot 'slicker' all in the one program.. and Reaper isn't that far off getting to this stage which would incorporate all the FR's of editing, area selection etc etc etc
This would make Reaper a killer for me and other editors, sound designers, instead of using PT.
Also I personally know alot of ex-sound forge users that come to the Mac, who would use Reaper for the 2-track editing alone, (like in Audition) and then move onto the multi-track view
Please look into this Cockos! ;o)
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 01:07 PM
|
#25
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
|
OK so I currently have Waveosaur, Audity, plus Sound Forge 2.1.
None of them seem able to import and work on a 24bit file or for that matter anything other than 16 bit.
Now again I maY BE MISSING SOMETHING, BUT JUST BEING ABLE TO USE AN EXTERNAL EDITOR IN 24 BIT WOULD HELP ME TREMENDOUSLY.
damn arthritis!
Sorry....
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 01:10 PM
|
#26
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 600
|
And much to my seemingly never-ending wait and dismay thereof, here's a link where you can get a nice Audition 4 Beta version for your Mac, you lucky Mac person you. From the Wiki page:
Version 4
Adobe Audition 4 has not been released yet. Adobe Audition for Mac beta can be downloaded here with a valid Adobe account; http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitle...=labs_audition
Enjoy! (ya lucky %&$@*#!) :P
|
|
|
03-02-2011, 05:28 PM
|
#27
|
Mortal
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,654
|
Note that Audition 4 is a total re-write of the Audition (in order to make it Mac compatible for the first time) and they've said there will be some features dropped - chiefly midi support (limited in Audition 3) and CD burning. So if those things are important to you, and you are not using a Mac, then grab version 3 now.
|
|
|
03-06-2011, 01:56 PM
|
#28
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
|
Just tried Audition 4 (beta for Mac) and Presonus Studio and both have area selection!
Audition turns from Multitrack to editor which is great, and lets you work on small edits with a static editor type file ie: like Sound Forge/Wavelab and add fx to the selection.
Once finished, it reverts back to the multi-track file in the session which was nice.
Thing is, I think Reaper could do this much better and slicker. With the option of editing finely in the multi-view like PT or on a seperate window.
Audition was a bit clunky and slow for me, so was soon glad to be back with Reaper, but i think for me (with the advent of other DAW's editing and area selection) like Sonar, Cubase, PT, Studio one, and Audition, it seems a big omission that Reaper currently doesnt do this??
i have tried to work around with the loop selection, and edit but its not the same, and glue-ing fx to a selection doesn't add the fx tails either? (when adding fx to items)
Now i know that the big argument is 'well use an ext editor!" but i think this would be so slick and quick to have it all in the same one window and done by Cockos would be a bonus!!
|
|
|
03-06-2011, 04:08 PM
|
#29
|
Mortal
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,654
|
You can set Reaper to be its own editor if you want.
|
|
|
03-07-2011, 01:36 AM
|
#30
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Evans
You can set Reaper to be its own editor if you want.
|
Yes thats great, but its still not area selection etc, which is what im hoping is the next logical step in v4
|
|
|
04-09-2011, 08:46 AM
|
#31
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,850
|
Just bumping this for any editing 'love' for v4???
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 AM.
|