Reaper's Audio Engine?

[ElyR]

Hey, I'm fairly new to mixing and music production, my teacher uses Cubase and I've been using Reaper for over a year. He made the claim that Reaper runs so lightly on the CPU comparing to Cubase and other DAWs because its Audio Engine is not as strong... Personally I don't hear a difference between DAWs but since I know nothing about the subject, I had no response...

Do different DAWs sound better/worse?

I've seen both arguments around the internet, some claim that all DAWs are based around the same basic engine and there shouldn't be a difference between Ableton, Reaper, Pro Tools, etc...
but I've never seen a definite answer, backed by some... well, proof.

P.S: I'm quite new to the forums, and yea, I'm sick of the "Reaper vs [INSERT DAW HERE]"... I love Reaper, but I'd still like some kind of answer... To those of you who see these kind of posts on a daily basis, I apologize (:

Thank you!

[Stella645]

So what would you consider proof that could possibly be posted in a forum response?

[ElyR]

Originally Posted by Stella645

So what would you consider proof that could possibly be posted in a forum response?

Honestly, I don't know... A Link to an article perhaps? A Detailed comparison?
Like I said, I know nothing about the subject, In some posts I've seen all DAWs use ASIO thus all DAWs sound the same, then again, cubase pride themselves with an "advanced audio engine", I don't even know what that means, since it all seems so vague on the internet...

[Stella645]

https://www.image-line.com/support/f.../app_audio.htm

[jrengmusic]

You’d better find a better or i may say a stronger teacher.














HAHAHAHAHA

[MRMJP]

I would say you have received bad info. I use REAPER for mastering and listen to it in very detailed room/playback system and there is no discernible difference in sound when play audio in REAPER vs. WaveLab or iZotope RX. I bounce between those 3 apps all day and REAPER is every bit as equal. Before REAPER I used Pro Tools and again, there is no difference in sound.

If anything, with REAPER having a 64-bit mix engine it could be argued that it has more precision and detail in some scenarios than some other DAWs using only 32-bit flatting point but we're talking about extreme hair splitting at that point.

Don't fear the REAPER.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by ElyR

Reaper runs so lightly on the CPU comparing to Cubase and other DAWs because its Audio Engine is not as strong

Here are 4 ways people compare DAWs:

1. The audio engine refers to the way a program routes and mixes audio together. In a very basic sense, most DAWs do simple math to achieve this. 1.4 + 1.6 = 3. In these cases mixing together the same tracks results in identical (or near enough identical) results. There may be some differences based on random noise added at very low levels (dither). 1.4 + 1.6 = 3.0000000523. This added bit of noise may also slightly change the way the final result sounds, adding a bit more warm or color, but in most cases you can't tell the difference.

2. The other way people compare DAWs includes how the default way each one pans. This can skew results as one DAW may use different pan laws resulting in louder mixes which compared to quieter mixes sound "better". This can easily be missed when people compare DAWs, causing confusion and much debate.

3. The final thing is built-in plugins. This will most definitely have a much bigger difference and is a legitimate reason to choose one DAW over another. REAPER's built-in EQs are very efficient and clean, while something from Cubase, Logic, or any other DAW may require more processing power because it's trying to sound a bit more unique or coloured.

4. No doubt there are psychological reason we may prefer one DAW over another. Price plays a role as folks here have suggested. Really it's the over-all user experience though. To truly rules this out you really need to do double blind ABX tests. Do a little research on ABX tests. You'll find people, professionals, completely duped by their own emotions, thinking one thing is better than the other but then proved they can't really tell the difference in a blind test.

[Tomm]

I forgot to mention other typical DAW features like time-stretching, frequency response translation (e.g.: going from 44.1kHz to 48kHz) built-in limiting

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by ElyR

He made the claim that Reaper runs so lightly on the CPU comparing to Cubase and other DAWs because its Audio Engine is not as strong...

It rather worries me that somebody in a teaching position could be advancing ideas which have no scientific basis. There can well be perfectly good reasons, subjective or otherwise, why he could prefer to use Cubase (or Sonar, or Logic, or ....) in preference to anything else (including wanting to stick with the product he knows), but audio engine is not one of them.

Originally Posted by ElyR

Personally I don't hear a difference between DAWs but since I know nothing about the subject...

Well there you are! You know more than you realise! Learn to trust your ears!

[cassembler]

You should earn extra credit and offer to run a null test.

Ask him to render some tracks, any number (more is a better test of a summing engine I suppose). Then, dump both tracks into Cubase and Reaper. Don't touch panning (unless you match pan law settings), don't touch faders (unless you match settings), etc.

Export to the same lossless format, sample rate, bit depth, etc. Flip the polarity on one of the files, sum them together. That's the delta. I predict it will be -infinity dB across the board.

Pro tip: good teachers are intrigued when they are proved wrong; bad teachers get upset.

EDIT: Please post results here!

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by cassembler

You should earn extra credit and offer to run a null test.

Teachypoo will overlook something in the test and think he proved himself right.

[cassembler]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Teachypoo will overlook something in the test and think he proved himself right.

And then ElyR can come to us and we can help!

[emid]

@ElyR If I were you I would have asked the respected teacher why cubase engine is what he considers superior than reaper backed with a proof(s). I use Reaper and Cubase 9 Pro side by side. Please come back with his reasons to enlighten us or show him this thread. I'm seriously interested to get an educated version on the topic this time.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by cassembler

I predict it will be -infinity dB across the board.

Pro tip: good teachers are intrigued when they are proved wrong; bad teachers get upset.

FYI not all meters that say -infinity are technically -infinity, but rather below a certain threshold. in REAPER for example you can boost a "-inf" signal... so if you want to prove a true null or -infinity you should probably use a file compare program to compare the bits absolutely

[jerome_oneil]

The long answer is all up there.

The short answer is your teacher doesn't know what he's talking about.

[peter5992]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

The long answer is all up there.

The short answer is your teacher doesn't know what he's talking about.

That sums it up.

[cassembler]

Originally Posted by Tomm

FYI not all meters that say -infinity are technically -infinity, but rather below a certain threshold. in REAPER for example you can boost a "-inf" signal... so if you want to prove a true null or -infinity you should probably use a file compare program to compare the bits absolutely

I am intrigued by your point, and I stand corrected!

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by cassembler

I am intrigued by your point, and I stand corrected!

I think reaper bottoms out around -120 or -144 dB maybe? I forget but either way... it's closer to infinity than any human ears alive can possibly hear.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by nicholas

It rather worries me that somebody in a teaching position could be advancing ideas which have no scientific basis.

You would be absolutely HORRIFIED on a college campus then!

We have a nursing department here teaching reiki

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by ElyR

Reaper runs so lightly on the CPU comparing to Cubase and other DAWs because its Audio Engine is not as strong...

Exactly the reason a 1200cc 36 horsepower 1960 Volkswagen is able to go 156 MPH!

The weaker the engine, the faster the car!!!

[lolilol1975]

Originally Posted by ElyR

Hey, I'm fairly new to mixing and music production, my teacher uses Cubase and I've been using Reaper for over a year. He made the claim that Reaper runs so lightly on the CPU comparing to Cubase and other DAWs because its Audio Engine is not as strong... Personally I don't hear a difference between DAWs but since I know nothing about the subject, I had no response...

Do different DAWs sound better/worse?

I've seen both arguments around the internet, some claim that all DAWs are based around the same basic engine and there shouldn't be a difference between Ableton, Reaper, Pro Tools, etc...
but I've never seen a definite answer, backed by some... well, proof.

P.S: I'm quite new to the forums, and yea, I'm sick of the "Reaper vs [INSERT DAW HERE]"... I love Reaper, but I'd still like some kind of answer... To those of you who see these kind of posts on a daily basis, I apologize (:

Thank you!

To be fair, the myth of the better sounding DAW (because that's what we're talking about, a myth) is an historical accident and came from the mid 1990s. So please people correct me as this is an account that is probably very inaccurate (if not downright false), but I hope it conveys the idea. Beginning of the 1990s is around the time when ProTools appeared.
At the time, in digital pro audio on the computer there were already Cubase, Digital Performer and a few other competitors, but DAWs were still in their infancy compared to what they have become. They weren't even called DAWs at the time. In particular it's true that a lot of tools were working in 16 bits. Which is not surprising given the CD format was only 10 years old. And also because microprocessors were mostly manipulating 16 bits audio. When you have only 16 bits, it is pretty easy to lose a few bits of digital accuracy after a few treatments, as computation errors accumulate. So if you did a lot of digital processing, you could end up with only 14 bits available and you had introduced nasty digital noise that you had to correct with dithering. Then with 32 bits processors, came the possibility to process on 24 bits. But taking advantage of these wasn't an easy task and meant rewriting much of the core parts of the software. I suppose Digidesign ProTools moved to 24 and then 32 bits faster than the competition, which allowed their commercials to boast that its "sound engine" (whatever that is) was better than the others. Whether that was true or not was another matter but at least their claim had some technical merit. And I think that's where the myth of the "DAW sound" came from. Of course, as soon as everyone else moved to 32 bits, the point was completely moot, and today, it certainly has no technical basis at all.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by lolilol1975

To be fair, the myth of the better sounding DAW (because that's what we're talking about, a myth) is an historical accident and came from the mid 1990s. So please people correct me as this is an account that is probably very inaccurate (if not downright false), but I hope it conveys the idea. Beginning of the 1990s is around the time when ProTools appeared.
At the time, in digital pro audio on the computer there were already Cubase, Digital Performer and a few other competitors, but DAWs were still in their infancy compared to what they have become. They weren't even called DAWs at the time. In particular it's true that a lot of tools were working in 16 bits. Which is not surprising given the CD format was only 10 years old. And also because microprocessors were mostly manipulating 16 bits audio. When you have only 16 bits, it is pretty easy to lose a few bits of digital accuracy after a few treatments, as computation errors accumulate. So if you did a lot of digital processing, you could end up with only 14 bits available and you had introduced nasty digital noise that you had to correct with dithering. Then with 32 bits processors, came the possibility to process on 24 bits. But taking advantage of these wasn't an easy task and meant rewriting much of the core parts of the software. I suppose Digidesign ProTools moved to 24 and then 32 bits faster than the competition, which allowed their commercials to boast that its "sound engine" (whatever that is) was better than the others. Whether that was true or not was another matter but at least their claim had some technical merit. And I think that's where the myth of the "DAW sound" came from. Of course, as soon as everyone else moved to 32 bits, the point was completely moot, and today, it certainly has no technical basis at all.

Pro Tools had "double precision" 48 bit fixed integer summing. Avid were actually late to the game with floating point. Dithering did make a non-trivial difference in the days of fixed integer audio though.

Where it got weird was people arguing about which sounded better between 48 bit fixed-integer and 32 bit floating point processing. But in the days before native Pro Tools you have to take into account the hardware differences as well as the audio engine.

[serr]

Yep Protools was the first to increase their audio engine resolution. They had 48 bit when everyone else was 32 bit. Then when everyone else caught up and surpassed that with the 64 bit fp audio engine, apparently internet forum posters missed that and kept repeating how Protools sounded better. Or something like that.

Assuming no one is straight out lying about their specs like a Worst Purchase product, a 64 bit floating point audio engine is just that. Pretty sure all the major DAW's are doing this now. I think even the bug riddled remains of what used to be Protools is limping along with a 64 bit fp mix engine now.

For an instructor to confuse an app installer's file size with the software's featured mix engine (or any other feature of the software) would be reason to drop the class and demand a refund. That's just a shocking lack of even a basic level of understanding.


Wait a minute... Wasn't Reaper the first 64 bit fp DAW? Followed by Presonus Studio One? If that's not right, Reaper was at least one of the first which makes that comment even more ridiculous.

[karbomusic]

They had 48 bit when everyone else was 32 bit.

Shouldn't that be they had 48 bit fixed and everyone else went to 32 bit float? If so, the latter is better no?

[Judders]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Shouldn't that be they had 48 bit fixed and everyone else went to 32 bit float? If so, the latter is better no?

Yes, but of course many Pro Tools people thought their inferior audio engine sounded better!

[serr]

Hmmm... Must have been a scenario like me not being able to afford to even read a Sonic brochure or even keep a memory of their existence at the time. Oh well.

[BenK-msx]

Trump has the Best Audio Engines.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by Judders

Pro Tools had "double precision" 48 bit fixed integer summing. Avid were actually late to the game with floating point. Dithering did make a non-trivial difference in the days of fixed integer audio though.

Where it got weird was people arguing about which sounded better between 48 bit fixed-integer and 32 bit floating point processing. But in the days before native Pro Tools you have to take into account the hardware differences as well as the audio engine.

And 24 bit insert points, which is where if people wanted to be EXTREME pedants, they could put in some absolutely pathological audio files and do some shennanigans to prove that against even the free DAW's PT "the industry standard" was the only broken one.

In real life its pretty hard to make that 24 bit thing matter in any real world signal levels and practices

[Xenakios]

Hmm, someone appears here to make 2 posts about "Reaper's audio engine", causes some discussion and then disappears. There maybe was some way to call those kinds of people in the internet, but it escapes me...

[BenK-msx]

Russian Audio Engine TrollBots

[siehorst]

I'm a bit late but can't resist:

Originally Posted by ElyR

... Reaper runs so lightly on the CPU comparing to Cubase and other DAWs because its Audio Engine is not as strong

CPU load as parameter for quality? Yes, as Qualitiy for the programmers skills,
To claim CPU load in the way it is mentioned here is nonsense at it's best.

[woogish]

look, idiots -
Reaper sounds better for two reasons:
1. Reaper is pretty
2. I say so

[enroe]

Originally Posted by woogish

look, idiots -
Reaper sounds better for two reasons:
1. Reaper is pretty
2. I say so

Haha, why revive such an old thread?

All which can be said has already been said:

Originally Posted by brainwreck

These discussions pop up over and over and go on and on. If anyone really thinks that there is a difference in 'audio engines', post some sound examples of such. I never heard a single one in any of these sorts of threads, and I think there is good reason for it.

In the digital realm "1 + 1 = 2" always and
forever. And that is the reasion why every DAW
sounds the same.

[mschnell]

The more expensive ones do sound better in the ears of those who spent the money, even if all bits in the output are identical .

(Also an "always and forever" law of nature.)

-Michael

[RCJacH]

Originally Posted by mschnell

The more expensive ones do sound better in the ears of those who spent the money, even if all bits in the output are identical .

(Also an "always and forever law of nature.)

-Michael

Not only that, I would say when you switch to a more analog looking theme like White Tie's Imperial, it will also affect the sound engine and make it sound more analog. Same with plugins .

[Steviebone]

I used Cuebase/Nuendo for the better part of 20 years before moving to Reaper. I've also regularly used Wavelab, Adobe and other DAWs. From my ears there is no discernible difference in playback on any of them. As for processing I have always felt that anything on a 64-bit platform (as opposed to 32 bit) seems to sound and perform better to my ears but that may be strictly subjective.

Reaper is a great deal more efficient on CPU usage. I think this is largely due to to the lack of intrusive copy protection schemes. I have read somewhere before that the code in Steinberg products is as much as 50% copy protection. This makes sense to me as Steinberg is one of the few companies out there who have successfully avoided rampant cracking of their products. I always found their products to be somewhat unstable and a hog on computer resources comparatively speaking.

I'm no expert and I'm not making any accusations but I would lean towards accepting that perspective as at least somewhat true. So to answer your question yes reaper is lighter on CPU resources because it is written in a more efficient manner but I don't think it has anything to do with sound quality at all. In fact I might make the argument of the opposite since any code that is being used to circumvent illegal pirating is taking away from resources that would otherwise be being used to process audio.

[Gerrit]

See : ProTools vs Reaper vs Neve Analog | Stream Records

Can we put this to rest now?

As for the comparison with the Neve console, the null test is missing and my question would be what happens if you use 'Neve' plugins or other stuff on the DAWs. But that's another can of worms

P.S. Never underestimate the McGurk effect

[JSMastering]

Originally Posted by Gerrit

See : ProTools vs Reaper vs Neve Analog | Stream Records

Can we put this to rest now?

As for the comparison with the Neve console, the null test is missing and my question would be what happens if you use 'Neve' plugins or other stuff on the DAWs. But that's another can of worms

They did provide the WAVs in the video description.

Originally Posted by Gerrit

P.S. Never underestimate the McGurk effect

That's exactly what I was talking about. It's an excellent example.

BTW, the difference between those two syllables is mostly the speed of the transient.