Reaper 5 - Missing the most asked features?

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Banned

And Parameter Modulation isn't possible, either.

Thanks, I had indeed already corrected this post ...

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by nicholas

Sorry, I was confused :

Item FX parameters can indeed be assigned to MIDI Learn, but not have track controls added to the TCP. Thanks for pointing it out.

ah all good

was worried I was missing out on being invited to the "cool kids" party!

[ivansc]

Originally Posted by Banned

Also, why qualify this to question to a "DAW", rather than a "MIDI sequencer"?

Because I already know of sequencers (albeit most of them either defunct or nearly so) that allow this, whereas I am not aware of a full blown DAW that does.

Back in the dark ages I was running two fostex hard disk recorders synched via MTC but wanting to control them via either MMC, MTC or SMPTE from my computer AND vice versa.
Not immediately evident even with extra bits of hardware to take care of the SMPTE aspects.
And to the best of my recollection I never DID get the transport in the sequencer synched up with the machine code coming out of my automated A&H desk so as to instantiate recording/FF/Rew, etc from the desk transport controls.....

Sorry if my idle thought disrupted your flow.

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Banned

Also, in order to prevent confusion: we don't have "Item FX", we have "Take FX".

I agree there is some confusion.

When you select a take and press Shift E (or choose Show FX chain for selected take from the menu) up pops windows titled FX:Item and Add FX to Item, not Take:FX and Add FX to Take !!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by ivansc

Back in the dark ages I was running two fostex hard disk recorders synched via MTC but wanting to control them via either MMC, MTC or SMPTE from my computer AND vice versa.

(You know MIDI Clock is *not* MTC nor MMC, right?) Well, imho MIDI Clock isn't really suitable for hard disk recorders anyway, since hard disk recorders (typically) run at a fixed speed. MIDI Clock is suitable for syncing to a 'musical' time base, including varying tempii, but not so much for absolute time.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by nicholas

I agree there is some confusion.

When you select a take and press Shift E (or choose Show FX chain for selected take from the menu) up pops windows titled FX:Item and Add FX to Item, not Take:FX Add FX to Take !!

Yes, conceptually, it's a big inconsistent mess. One more reason I'm not enthusiastic about it at all.

[paulheu]

Originally Posted by Marcin Szwajcer

What kind of stuff are you missing? I'm curious as an recording/mixing engineer :-)

One thing I miss is direct (one click) access to active VSTs in TCP. I prefer working in TCP and must now have MCP open as well just to have direct access to VSTs.

Another is that I can't assign a VST to a specific slot, say always at the end of a chain.

[Viente]

Originally Posted by paulheu

One thing I miss is direct (one click) access to active VSTs in TCP. I prefer working in TCP and must now have MCP open as well just to have direct access to VSTs.

Another is that I can't assign a VST to a specific slot, say always at the end of a chain.

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=144266

Works even better as you can move window around

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by paulheu

One thing I miss is direct (one click) access to active VSTs in TCP. I prefer working in TCP and must now have MCP open as well just to have direct access to VSTs.

You might already know this but ..

You have two click access, almost as good! Right click on FX button then select from list.

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by nicholas

You might already know this but ..

You have two click access, almost as good! Right click on FX button then select from list.

still.. I would love to have that when you expand the TCP vertically, we can see the inserts in boxes horizontally like we can in the MCP

a lot of daws have this and it's still useful to have.

EDIT: viente's post is cool though!

also, something that I'd be happy with is a second mixer so I can place it on the left side of the arrange page (like Logic and cubase have) that would be useful as I can still have a full size mixer too.

[Viente]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

EDIT: viente's post is cool though!

.

All credits goes to mighty spk77 !

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by Viente

All credits goes to mighty spk77 !

suspected as much!

he (and a few others) have been super prolific over the last few months. been awesome and a real showcase for the power of scripting in reaper!

[nofish]

Originally Posted by Viente

All credits goes to mighty spk77 !

And me of course because I did the request.

(just kidding)

[Viente]

Btw just found a new "Propagate item" action. And this is nearly a WOW feature for me though its so small. After all those pita copy/paste items when changing small details (or MIDI notes!!) in hundreds of duplicated items, now with one click - boom! Thanks for this, devs!

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Viente

Btw just found a new "Propagate item" action. And this is nearly a WOW feature for me though its so small. After all those pita copy/paste items when changing small details (or MIDI notes!!) in hundreds of duplicated items, now with one click - boom! Thanks for this, devs!

There are also propagate to takes actions, if that is any use to you ...

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Fergler

They've got a whole year, according to their pseudo-official schedule.

I must have missed this. Is it an estimate based (perfectly reasonably) on your own judgement or did you see it stated somewhere?

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by Fergler

$60 / unlimited license that is obviously abused by 95% of downloaders / GIGANTIC feature set considering size of program / amazing online community / customizability

and you STILL need to complain?

There are some big FRs on the tracker and Justin & co are clearly getting around to some of them. They are starting with VCA request atm. After that, maybe they'll do area selection or something else big like that, for V5. They've got a whole year, according to their pseudo-official schedule.

So relax, ffs.

First $60 licence is not unlimited
second, the tracker is utter nonsense, if you dont know that you havent been here long enough to see how long standings FRs get ignored, the tracker should be deleted

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by nicholas

Not just envelopes but also MIDI learn and control surface learn capability. That's one of the main reasons that I just can't accept the OP is being reasonable in asserting that R5 contains nothing new that's of any use.

Actually, we can all assume that anybody posting here is talking about their own opinions, yes ?
In which case you refusing to accept that 5 has nothing of use for the OP, well that is just silly, and for what its worth i find no interest (use) in take envelopes, does that mean my opinion is wrong too ?

[syntaxed2]

Been interesting to read everyones opinion! Glad to see ya chime in

I want to add that I am never leaving Reaper, so dont take this thread as a complaint.

Just surprised at 5's features so far.

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

for what its worth i find no interest (use) in take envelopes, does that mean my opinion is wrong too ?

To answer your question, please consider the context. What I originally posted was:

"@syntaxed2: Sorry, but I don't think you add credibility to your case by asserting that REAPER 5 does not contain any useful features at all (emphasis mine). Just my opinion."

That does not assert that he was or is wrong. Of course his stating his disappointment at the absence of features he would like is totally valid. Just that I disagree with the assertion that there is nothing useful in Reaper 5. Item/take envelopes are for me important, but they are just one of many new features. For example, personally I have no need for video editing (for example) but that doesn't mean I conclude the feature is useless.

Thank you for inviting me to respond.

[paulheu]

Originally Posted by Viente

Works even better as you can move window around

That's cute and all but I'm not looking for another windows which always needs to be on top and so needs to be moved around as you work. Also this does not tell me it works when I only have TCP open as it seems linked to MCP.

I'd just like to have direct access to the VSTs on a track and see what VST are in the chain as well as their state. This is in MCP so I would assume getting it in TCP is really not that much of work (except for themeing which no doubt would be available quick enough.)

Having the ability to assign VSTs to a specific slot in the chain would be useful for obvious reasons I would think.

[Viente]

Originally Posted by paulheu

That's cute and all but I'm not looking for another windows which always needs to be on top and so needs to be moved around as you work. Also this does not tell me it works when I only have TCP open as it seems linked to MCP.

I'd just like to have direct access to the VSTs on a track and see what VST are in the chain as well as their state. This is in MCP so I would assume getting it in TCP is really not that much of work (except for themeing which no doubt would be available quick enough.)

Having the ability to assign VSTs to a specific slot in the chain would be useful for obvious reasons I would think.

Then right click on FX button

[ivansc]

Originally Posted by Banned

(You know MIDI Clock is *not* MTC nor MMC, right?) Well, imho MIDI Clock isn't really suitable for hard disk recorders anyway, since hard disk recorders (typically) run at a fixed speed. MIDI Clock is suitable for syncing to a 'musical' time base, including varying tempii, but not so much for absolute time.

Yes of course I do. You totally misunderstood what I was ACTUALLY doing with disk recorders, desk automation and computer.

I'll butt out, as I don't like being patronised unnecessarily

[Banned]

Originally Posted by ivansc

Yes of course I do. You totally misunderstood what I was ACTUALLY doing with disk recorders, desk automation and computer.

I'll butt out, as I don't like being patronised unnecessarily

Indeed, I don't understand at all what you were doing, nor what purpose MIDI clock would serve for your setup. But I'm sorry if you felt my reply to be patronising, that wasn't my intention at all.

[Lazarus]

I'd just like to have direct access to the VSTs on a track and see what VST are in the chain as well as their state. This is in MCP so I would assume getting it in TCP is really not that much of work (except for themeing which no doubt would be available quick enough.)

You can actually dock the mixer to the left of the screen which will follows track selection and give you this functionality right now.

Having the ability to assign VSTs to a specific slot in the chain would be useful for obvious reasons I would think.

Reaper doesn't have a numbered slot concept, but you can DnD from the FX browser to any relative position in the FX section of the "track inspector" mixer.

[paulheu]

Originally Posted by Viente

Then right click on FX button

That's not what I am looking/asking for.

I want to be able to see which VSTs are used where and whether they are active or not without the need to right click in a specific lane just like you can in MCP.

I can do this in several other DAWs but those aren't Reaper ..

That said, it is a feature I find very useful and may be a deciding factor when the time comes to either renew or upgrade.

[Winfield]

Originally Posted by heda

...instantiated FX. meaning any change in a plugin parameter in one track is also reflected in another track. It would be like pooling plugins. I think it should be easy to implement. And would be great.

Would be great to 'group' FX !

-W

[Marcin Szwajcer]

Originally Posted by paulheu

That's not what I am looking/asking for.

I want to be able to see which VSTs are used where and whether they are active or not without the need to right click in a specific lane just like you can in MCP.

I can do this in several other DAWs but those aren't Reaper ..

That said, it is a feature I find very useful and may be a deciding factor when the time comes to either renew or upgrade.

+1

That can be usefull and quite easy to implement :-) It's all about quick access and overall view on mixer with no mixer window turned on. It should be just anogher TCP theme.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by paulheu

That's not what I am looking/asking for.

I want to be able to see which VSTs are used where and whether they are active or not without the need to right click in a specific lane just like you can in MCP.

For now...

Project Bay > FX

Albeit you may have to do one single click if a VST is used multiple times. I have that and track manager open at all times because they are a couple of the most useful features in the product when you want to get things done. That won't make your wildest dreams come true but my offerings are to get work done with what is there.

[xpander]

Originally Posted by paulheu

I'd just like to have direct access to the VSTs on a track and see what VST are in the chain as well as their state. This is in MCP so I would assume getting it in TCP is really not that much of work (except for themeing which no doubt would be available quick enough.)

I disagree. Track panel is for the (most) basic track information and controls not just in Reaper but also in Logic X, Cubase 8, Pro Tools 11, Sonar X3 and Studio One 2.*

Everything else is handled by inspectors, browsers, consoles, several different windows, menus or indeed, mixer panels. Those may be visible all the time somewhere on the screen or be called up but the point is, things like whole FX chain views are not shown in the basic track panel. I think there are good reasons for that.

Where do you put the FX chain view so that your track panels will still be functional?

Originally Posted by paulheu

I can do this in several other DAWs but those aren't Reaper

I'd like to see one where they have it visible on the track panel all the time, no extra clicking, menus, separate dockers/windows etc.


*Can't include Ableton Live 9 to the comparison, their whole GUI approach is different.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

That won't make your wildest dreams come true but my offerings are to get work done with what is there.

That's the bottom line. Reaper has a few really nice individual workflow designs but overall it will probably always be a little helter skelter due to the way it's developed.

It's obviously a great workstation, but JCS are coders, not software workflow designers, and it shows, the coding parts of Reaper are exceptional (scripting, etc, etc) while the general design parts are a little disconnected or fragmented. Design by alternating committee (users) doesn't often produce really well connected things because users more often don't look at the bigger picture, only the smaller feature.

Everything like this (speaking literally) is a give and take... you can almost never have it all.

[Viente]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

JCS are coders, not software workflow designers, and it shows, the coding parts of Reaper are exceptional (scripting, etc, etc) while the general design parts are a little disconnected or fragmented. Design by alternating committee (users) doesn't often produce really well connected things.

Everything like this (speaking literally) is a give and take... you can almost never have it all.

THIS! I can agree with every word.

[Viente]

I would start with proper margins, symmetry, size balance, alligning etc etc...a lot of stuff in Reaper UI just piled in a heap.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Viente

I would start with proper margins, symmetry, size balance, alligning etc etc...a lot of stuff in Reaper UI just piled in a heap.

The problem isn't graphics, or graphic talent, they have a great graphic guy (imo). The problem is more with consistency or continuity. More effort goes into just getting X done than how X fits with Y and Z, so you get various threads talking about how feature X is half-done or something when it's more that X just doesn't fit well with Y and Z and people are asking for patches for those things.

One example of that is something someone brought up earlier in this thread, how transient detection and stretch markers and other related features are all different features when they probably should be all parts of the same feature with many fewer dialogs.

That's not actually a flaw or a mistake, that approach, it appears to be a conscious decision.

[karbomusic]

Design by alternating committee (users) doesn't often produce really well connected things because users more often don't look at the bigger picture, only the smaller feature.

Yup, then one of those gets added and two years later it gets asked for again although it is already there in some other form, or it is so misunderstood later, no one understands the simple reason it exists and pages of posts go buy unaware of the original reason. I tend to be aware of some of these because I was around when the original complaint + fix was made along with the big discussion, then someone new comes along never being aware of the previous discussion.

At times, I really don't blame the devs at all. They build a product, add a huge number of features that people complain about needing, it get's forgotten about and up it comes again with fingers pointing at the dev (not saying that about this thread). Just sayin' if people want to get work done, a large amount of that can be done, if people want to feel warm and fuzzy and have their balls constantly tickled, not so much.

[Viente]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

The problem isn't graphics, or graphic talent, they have a great graphic guy (imo). The problem is more with consistency or continuity. More effort goes into just getting X done than how X fits with Y and Z, so you get various threads talking about how feature X is half-done or something when it's more that X just doesn't fit well with Y and Z and people are asking for patches for those things.

That's not actually a flaw or a mistake, that approach, it appears to be a conscious decision.

Well, for me its mostly good (approach). I like the workflow. Its the clutter everywhere that bugging me everytime.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Viente

Well, for me its mostly good (approach). I like the workflow. Its the clutter everywhere that bugging me everytime.

Well, the approach is what causes the clutter. It's directly connected.

And like Karbo said, it's not the devs fault. It seems to be what most users actually want.

[Viente]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Well, the approach is what causes the clutter.

I mean if everything was properly organized a lot of "half-baked" features became mostly fixed already

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Viente

I mean if everything was properly organized a lot of "half-baked" features became mostly fixed already

When does (or when should) that organization take place? Before or after the initial design?

Again, the approach isn't flawed because it produces a certain good result, it's just a different approach. It's just not the same result you get from AVID or Steinberg who probably have teams of people planning those things in the early development stage.

My take is that first and foremost Justin is a coder, a problem solver, not so much a design guy. He may solve a really complex problem and get something to work that others couldn't figure out yet, but the design may not be that great for the end user. Being honest, no team of design guys would have ever modeled a modern daw after Sony Vegas to begin with. Justin pulled it off because he's a really great coder.

And (predictably) many people are still asking for area selection 9 years later.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Viente

I mean if everything was properly organized a lot of "half-baked" features became mostly fixed already

It's a catch-22. It would be impossible to fully bake all features. We either give up 1/2 of the half-baked ones for the other half to be finished or we deal with it. Half-baked = too many complaints being addressed in order to calm down the waaahhh factor. There is no such thing as "plenty of the right devs" in any product as there is always a trade off.

It's the exact reason I always say "Find the DAW that fits you best and run as fast as you can from all the others, even better to run off silently." I know I would and have, it's how I ended up here. If I were even 10% as upset as many I see complaining, I'd have long ago slipped silently into the DAW night without a whisper. Some show up, roll their sleeves up with the expectation they'll just have the Devs do everything they want because they know better.. "I'll get this DAW in shape in a jiffy". If so, they should create their own DAW. There are talkers and there are doers where the former far outnumbers the latter.