[tzzsmk]

Originally Posted by ngarjuna

But I agree that REAPER actually is well suited for these kinds of deployments. It might take some customization (a bunch of it maybe) but it really can do so many different things in so many different ways.

this is something most companies simply cannot offer due to "closed" development environment, know-how, non-open-sourced components etc.., I think it's becoming very noticeable recently even huge companies are starting to use open-sourced elements because when considering pros and cons of closed vs open development, nowadays open dev cycle wins

Originally Posted by Reynaud

This is the direction BlackMagic is heading with DaVinci Resolve 14.

A single application that may be installed on Windows, OS X, and Linux.

Workflows and budgets are changing rapidly, and recording and post-production engineers are looking at every available option to be more efficient, more collaborative, while also saving money, and especially time.

As G-Sun mentioned, Reaper's hardware integration is its weakest trait. I tried in vain to get Reaper to be flexible with modern control surfaces such as the S6 and S3 while still functioning in more varied workflows (as mentioned above) and going forward with immersive audio workflows.
Instead, I'm transitioning to Resolve 14 for the majority of the audio workflow, with the Fairlight Accelerator card and Fairlight consoles to be added to fill the gap Reaper is currently unable to complete.

Now the entire team from Ingest to delivery can work on the same software, on the same Project, and in real time, anywhere they may physically be located. Much more productive, with faster turn around times, and much less hassle.

actually I've been keeping an eye on Blackmagic as a whole (as well as other companies such as HitFilm and Affinity, regarding non-audio world) but as it is right now it seems too much video-oriented to me, and that is in most cases to complex to use for relatively very basic audio workflows,
indeed a vision of entire production suite system is grand, I can remember Dalet Galaxy (entire media asset management platform) being serious player although not so much known worldwide, but problem of all those unified closed environments is 1) users have usually no other place to learn/use (compared to for ex. Reaper or Resolve you can download from free at home to check out) and 2) such massive closed ecosystem is pain to keep updated and fully-working (compared to single-station "standalone" independent clients such as Reaper for ex.)

Originally Posted by drichard

Everything you have written makes sense. The biggest problem is probably convincing the powers that be to switch to Reaper. Once done and users get used to it, it should perform quite well. And Cockos is obviously way better than Avid as a company.

I wouldn't dare to compare those companies at all, the way those started and developed, even the philosophy behind entire DAW idea is way different, yet it's remarkable how close the actual products can compete
convincing the people who have final word is about bringing up the advantages and disadvantages in widest possible scale/range of many different points of view, cost being seemingly important, especially in the long run, but not a crucial aspect in my opinion

Originally Posted by Eddy

The portable install version may be a boon in your circumstance. You could set up a number of quite different Reaper systems for radio editing, multi tracking, broadcast and so in, all based around Reaper but with ver different toolbars and looks. Maintenance teams only have one system to understand - Reaper - yet end users can have quite different and tailored systems designed for their specific tasks

yup this is something very appealing and cannot be ommited - people who will be supposed to manage/service/support whatever system within a company would be totally happy to have one system to learn, while end users could use specifically adjusted/tailored workspace settings (which could be easily saved/loaded, even remotedly) to suit their own needs

Originally Posted by gmgmgm

My experience of software purchasing decisions by large organisations suggests extreme reluctance to invest significant resources deploying a solution whose providers could be totally wiped out by a tandem bicycle accident - no matter how superior that solution might be.

that is understandable, but similarly of my experience most companies severely underestimate the substitutability of "core" workers (be it network admins, system admins, head editors etc..),
moreover companies being reluctant to ANY updates/upgrades, I wouldn't consider it a problem if whatever software bought today way was used for following couple years without any upgrades (if it worked well out of the box as it was)

Originally Posted by G-Sun

Yes, besides control-surface/desk-integration the 2 other main downsides of Reaper is:

- Support-desk/team/install-crew (as you said)
and
- Customization.

Yes, I'd say the way Reaper can act, look and perform so different is a weakness when you want to put it into a large-scale environment, where you want a DAW that acts simple and homogeneous for all users. But, please correct me if I'm wrong about this

not sure what did you mean by Customization as a downside, I consider that a major upside, and even if the requirement would be for unified environment, it's very easy to provide unified configuration and prohibit adjustments, or not?