Solved: Does Reaper sounds like crap? (Edit: NO NOT AT ALL!!!) Help needed...

[Slowfox]

HI,
I love Reaper for it´s look and versatility. It´s really easy to use and nearly everything is possible with not that much effort. Every Other DAW I tried did not convince me here.
Especially when it comes to visual esthetics, I get eye cancer looking at them. I need an creative workspace and do´nt want to end as a computer broker!
Just see this Pictures to grab what I mean:





After working in this beautiful und practical environment quite a time, always struggling to get a really fine Sound, investing in ever better microphones and converters, Plugins etc. I finally had to discover that there is a problem with it´s sound quality.

EDIT: Solution in post #24

The first thing I started to realize, was, when I tried the Elysia Alpha Compressor plugin, that I found it to be quite unusable, because just to bypass it sounded better than having it on and bypass the plugin internally. It sounded to dull...
First I thought it is poor coding by Brainworx. But an EQ of Nugen (known for Broadcasting standard) had the same issue. Now I started an investigation, leading me to download several DAW trial versions.

First I rooted sound thru Reaper with no processing at all and compared it with the source. DULL!!!
Then I tried Pro Tools, Digital Performer and Cubase and ran sound to all of them, on 192kHz sampling rate. Pro Tools did´nt change the sound, as well as DP. Cubase also was a bit dull but maybe not as bad as Reaper.
Comparison of Reaper and Pro Tools recording sound - no Processing, no further rendering:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qlal10v6f...6TCTai7ba?dl=0
(Better download the files, for better sound quality. But it is even noticeable, listening to the compressed online streaming thru Laptop speakers.)

The Elysia AC Plugin worked just fine in Pro Tools. Great sound, terrible ugly and confusing interface. Reaper is just so intuitive. Is there anything I do wrong? I hope so, cause I want to keep my beloved workspace. But in the end it is the Sound that matters.

I learned a lot, trying to make this dull sound shine. That at least is a good side effect.

I´m running Reaper6 and all the others on Mac Mini i7 8Gb, Mojave, RME ADI-2 Pro FS.

If anyone has an idea how to keep my Reaper and get the sound of Pro Tools, please. please share...
I am really desperate!

Boris

[fakemaxwell]

Let's play a little game. Took a snippet of both clips you shared and uploaded them under different names. Which is which?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4syg9i2hg...Uz9N-XYZa?dl=0

[akademie]

Originally Posted by fakemaxwell

Let's play a little game. Took a snippet of both clips you shared and uploaded them under different names. Which is which?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4syg9i2hg...Uz9N-XYZa?dl=0

Good job , well I am 100% sure that A is from Cubase and B is from Nuendo

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

HI,
I love Reaper for it´s look and versatility. It´s really easy to use and nearly everything is possible with not that much effort. Every Other DAW I tried did not convince me here.
Especially when it comes to visual esthetics, I get eye cancer looking at them. I need an creative workspace and do´nt want to end as a computer broker!
Just see this Pictures to grab what I mean:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/axh7lkvht...ycWzTSqXa?dl=0

After working in this beautiful und practical environment quite a time, always struggling to get a really fine Sound, investing in ever better microphones and converters, Plugins etc. I finally had to discover that there is a problem with it´s sound quality.

The first thing I started to realize, was, when I tried the Elysia Alpha Compressor plugin, that I found it to be quite unusable, because just to bypass it sounded better than having it on and bypass the plugin internally. It sounded to dull...
First I thought it is poor coding by Brainworx. But an EQ of Nugen (known for Broadcasting standard) had the same issue. Now I started an investigation, leading me to download several DAW trial versions.

First I rooted sound thru Reaper with no processing at all and compared it with the source. DULL!!!
Then I tried Pro Tools, Digital Performer and Cubase and ran sound to all of them, on 192kHz sampling rate. Pro Tools did´nt change the sound, as well as DP. Cubase also was a bit dull but maybe not as bad as Reaper.
Comparison of Reaper and Pro Tools recording sound - no Processing, no further rendering:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qlal10v6f...6TCTai7ba?dl=0
(Better download the files, for better sound quality. But it is even noticeable, listening to the compressed online streaming thru Laptop speakers.)

The Elysia AC Plugin worked just fine in Pro Tools. Great sound, terrible ugly and confusing interface. Reaper is just so intuitive. Is there anything I do wrong? I hope so, cause I want to keep my beloved workspace. But in the end it is the Sound that matters.

I learned a lot, trying to make this dull sound shine. That at least is a good side effect.

I´m running Reaper6 and all the others on Mac Mini i7 8Gb, Mojave, RME ADI-2 Pro FS.

If anyone has an idea how to keep my Reaper and get the sound of Pro Tools, please. please share...
I am really desperate!

Boris

Click bait is discouraged here. Make a real topic and we can talk.

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by fakemaxwell

Let's play a little game. Took a snippet of both clips you shared and uploaded them under different names. Which is which?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4syg9i2hg...Uz9N-XYZa?dl=0

Hard to say. They are both downsampled and quieter then the originals, therefore processed and sound quite similar.
If they are not the same I would go for A Reaper and B Pro Tools.

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by Coachz

Click bait is discouraged here. Make a real topic and we can talk.

Hey man I just need help thats all...

Edit:
Is it the Title that is wrong? I can change that...

[akademie]

Originally Posted by akademie

Good job , well I am 100% sure that A is from Cubase and B is from Nuendo

So, back to the topic, joking aside.
Both WhichIsItA.av and WhichIsItB.wav are the same file, of course.
They do null totally So it was fakemaxwell's silly game, right?

In reality, I cannot get original Slowfox's files null completely.
Also some raising and falling edges of waveform are different between two examples.

But we have no info on render bit depth mixing etc
EDIT> ProTools file is 32bit integer, while Reaper is 24bit

[ivansc]

have you by any chance checked what the respective performance meters are doing when you tried all these different DAWs? It would seem to me that you are on the borderline as far as ram is concerned to be working in 192 for a start. On my system, which has a good quality RME interface and excellent monitors, (Unity Audio The Rock IIs) I can hear no real difference at all in the two samples you put up on dropbox. And since they both zero sum, this pretty much proves there IS no difference.

My bet is that the Pro Tools take is just slightly louder.

Oops - just started to add a Windows-centric question! sorry.

[fakemaxwell]

Originally Posted by akademie

So, back to the topic, joking aside.
Both WhichIsItA.av and WhichIsItB.wav are the same file, of course.
They do null totally So it was fakemaxwell's silly game, right?

Not only are they the same file, they're random splices of the first two files stitched together:

[xpander]

But interestingly enough the original samples don't seem to null, even when tried to match to the same single sample points. Well, at least not the resampled versions, could try with full rate too. Why is a different quest, of course.

---
edit: No, I'm not able to get them nulling. I get max. peaks of about -32 dB for the inverted output. Comparing those files by ear, I cannot tell the difference.

[coucou]

Reaper sounds simply perfect, transparent. Having used Logic for the last 20 years and now using Reaper, I feel Reaper has sort of a better stereo imaging and an overall more relaxed sound. If you can not make a good mix with Reaper it is not because of Reaper definitely!

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

Hey man I just need help thats all...

Edit:
Is it the Title that is wrong? I can change that...

Please do

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by akademie

So, back to the topic, joking aside.
Both WhichIsItA.av and WhichIsItB.wav are the same file, of course.
They do null totally So it was fakemaxwell's silly game, right?

I just listened with Quicktime player because I can´t rely on my workstation right now and don´t know how to align perfectly in Pro Tolls, cause it shows no dots for the Samples when faded in.

Originally Posted by akademie

In reality, I cannot get original Slowfox's files null completely.
Also some raising and falling edges of waveform are different between two examples.

But we have no info on render bit depth mixing etc
EDIT> ProTools file is 32bit integer, while Reaper is 24bit

All I did was rooting the source to both DAW simultaneously and pressed record no FX or any ajustments. Directly took the recorded files out of the Projectfolders and uploaded them.

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by coucou

Reaper sounds simply perfect, transparent. Having used Logic for the last 20 years and now using Reaper, I feel Reaper has sort of a better stereo imaging and an overall more relaxed sound. If you can not make a good mix with Reaper it is not because of Reaper definitely!

It´s just that I hear the same sound as the original source in Pro Tools and not in Reaper. In Reaper the Sound narrows.

[Coachz]

Drag a song I to reaper and render it out at 0db with no fx. Import it back in on a new track, reverse the phase and it should null with the original proving reaper rendered correctly.

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by ivansc

have you by any chance checked what the respective performance meters are doing when you tried all these different DAWs?

Later I can run exact measuring plugins to them and see what they tell me.

Originally Posted by ivansc

It would seem to me that you are on the borderline as far as ram is concerned to be working in 192 for a start.

No Problem here. Plenty of CPU recourses and only 5. something out of 8 GB RAM.

[valy]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

It´s just that I hear the same sound as the original source in Pro Tools and not in Reaper. In Reaper the Sounds narrows.

Sounds like a pan law issue

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by Coachz

Drag a song I to reaper and render it out at 0db with bo fx.

1. What is bo fx?

2. It´s not about the rendering in this case but the recording quality. It seems that Pro Tools records with 32 bit and my reaper just with 24. (See post above.)
My Reaper might processes just in 24 bit and the original bitstream in my computer is higher?

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by valy

Sounds like a pan law issue

So what can I do?

Edit:
Just Use mono tracks?

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

1. What is bo fx?

2. It´s not about the rendering in this case but the recording quality. It seems that Pro Tools records with 32 bit and my reaper just with 24. (See post above.)
My Reaper might processes just in 24 bit and the original bitstream in my computer is higher?

No fx. Reaper sounds awesome here. I run through digimax fs to rme 9652. Sound killer

[domzy]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

2. It´s not about the rendering in this case but the recording quality. It seems that Pro Tools records with 32 bit and my reaper just with 24. (See post above.)
My Reaper might processes just in 24 bit and the original bitstream in my computer is higher?

Originally Posted by Slowfox

So what can I do?

If you are going to compare you probably ought to record at the same sample rate, bit depth, volume & pan law in both DAWs.
All these are adjustable in Reaper (& Pro Tools)

[valy]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

So what can I do?

Edit:
Just Use mono tracks?

No, you set REAPER to the pan law of the DAW you are used to

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by domzy

If you are going to compare you probably ought to record at the same sample rate, bit depth, volume & pan law in both DAWs.
All these are adjustable in Reaper (& Pro Tools)

Great, that sounds promising...
I will check that. Probably will have to search a bit for the right settings. I hope this will help. (Will it also help with the Plugin issue?)

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by valy

Sounds like a pan law issue

Wow I´m so relieved now!!!!

I do´nt have to swap to an unpractical, and very expensive interface which esthetics are not my taste at all.

It was not the pan law but the project resample mode.
Had to set this to Extreme HQ and the Plugin I mentioned sounds even better then in Pro Tools which does only 32bit processing. Killer...

HURRAY, THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE QUICK HELP.

There´s always something new to learn. Sorry that I was a bit hysterical but I have an important recording session ahead of me and loads of new gear to become familiar with. (Even finally a Master Tape Machine.) I could simply not need to switch Platforms right now...

And hey, it´s always good to check your gear with organ and choir recordings, there you have the most rich and versatile soundscapes and you detect every flaw on the fly. YOU HELPED ME deleting this flaw and I´m very greatfull for that

Boris

EDIT:
For further improvement of sound quality, see this thread:

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=247436

Reaper Rules!!!!!

[CQrity]

For anyone who thinks their DAW would change the sound of anything, I would like to recommend this german paper: https://curdt.home.hdm-stuttgart.de/PDF/Maluschke.pdf
For your convenience I‘ve copied the abstract:

„The Engine of a professional musicsoftware should not effect the sound of a musical work. This topic is highly discussed by the users of DAW ́s. The question “Does a DAW`s soundengine have an own soundcharacter?” will be answered here. After a short technical basics part there will be aural examinations as well as some measurements to figure that out. 3 musical works that come from totally different musicstyles are compared later. There will also be a load test with one of these pieces to figure out if its possible to force the engine to make mistakes while summing. The DAW ́s ProTools, Logic and Reaper will be tested. The aural examinations were all done and commented by professionals. The measurements as well as the aural examinations bring it out clearly. Todays DAW ́s engine ́s are working absolute precisely. Even the load test could not bring out any mistakes of it.“

The rest of the paper unfortunately is written in german. However the abstract says it all. Human error is the bigger source for mistakes these days

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by CQrity

For anyone who thinks their DAW would change the sound of anything, I would like to recommend this german paper: https://curdt.home.hdm-stuttgart.de/PDF/Maluschke.pdf
...
The rest of the paper unfortunately is written in german. However the abstract says it all. Human error is the bigger source for mistakes these days

Thanks a lot for the link. As I am german I will read it. I´m curious if I´m able to learn something useful...

[CQrity]

Let me know if there is anything you disagree with. Apparently you have very high standards and I am eager to learn something new, too

[Slowfox]

Hey there,
today I have learned a lot about buffer-, sample rate- and requested block size settings. If anyone is interested I will write an article about it...

[CQrity]

Mhh, I might be intrigued. What was your biggest improvement from learning this?

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by CQrity

Mhh, I might be intrigued. What was your biggest improvement from learning this?

It improved the sound quality of monitoring a lot on different latency settings. And it might have a similar effect on render quality as well. (I have to do further testings on that one.)

[akademie]

Originally Posted by Slowfox

It improved the sound quality of monitoring a lot on different latency settings. And it might have a similar effect on render quality as well. (I have to do further testings on that one.)

You really mean it like that "sound quality" vs "ASIO buffer size"?

(e.g. I would not consider crackles and skipping etc. as "sound quality" so that's why I'm asking).

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by akademie

You really mean it like that "sound quality" vs "ASIO buffer size"?

(e.g. I would not consider crackles and skipping etc. as "sound quality" so that's why I'm asking).

As I´m on mac, there is no ASIO setting on my side, but it might be true for it as well. And it´s not about crackles and skipping at all. As far as I understand it: all of this settings have a lot of influence on how the sound is processed and how the very subtle differences of subtle distortion of this processes effect the sound...

There is not one perfect setting for everything. It´s like finding a sweet spot for the calculations of the digital audio gear. It also depends a little bit on the source material. But so far I found a few settings for my system that did come with an overall increase of quality of the monitored sound. If You re-record a stem inside the DAW it has no effect on that. But as rendering uses this settings, it probably improves rendering quality to what ever you desire. Like you can run a tape machine with different settings for different results. (As said, I have to do further testings on that one...)

[akademie]

^^^ so there is something wrong in the first place.

Only things that can be affected by buffer size are some automations and parameter modulations (as being not quick when large buufer size is set), but not the sound as such.

If you try to make static mix using reaper and render for few possible buffersizes, then you compare them side by side...

To test, you can also select Dummy driver (that is able to go to 1 sample buffer) - of course no audio will be heard with this - I mean for rendering tests. But you can also set specific buffersize for rendering!!! (So even if you are working at 512samples buffer, for example, you can set in preferences that any rendering is done with buffersize 32samples or any other of course). But then it may not sound exactly the same rendered in comprison to what was you hearing live, for sure (if automation and/or parameter modulation was involved etc.)

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by akademie

^^^ so there is something wrong in the first place.

Only things that can be affected by buffer size are some automations and parameter modulations (as being not quick when large buufer size is set), but not the sound as such.

Well I was very surprised by the results of my testings as well. But audio calculation in a computer seems to be far more complex than one could imagine. There are really sweet spots in the settings on my system. So not always the highest possible value is the best sounding...

Originally Posted by akademie

(So even if you are working at 512samples buffer, for example, you can set in preferences that any rendering is done with buffersize 32samples or any other of course). But then it may not sound exactly the same rendered in comprison to what was you hearing live, for sure (if automation and/or parameter modulation was involved etc.)

That should be also true if nothing than a single track, no automation, no FX is involved. At least on my system.

Please see this thread: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=247436

Post #17 and #18

[akademie]

^^^^ Well, I don't want to argue, please, but that is not possible!

Calculations are the same only done faster or not, if realtime is needed, then some portions are skipped, sure, so then it is presented as stutters, clicks and cracks when buffers of audio interface are not filled just in time, but if audio is streamed steadily, then if you set 128, 256 or 512 samples does not matter and does not affect audio DSP computation in any way.

Note:
It comes to mi mind that maybe you are using UAD or something like that? That is not my territory, maybe it does make difference for them.
Anyway if we are talking about almost RAW audio files in tracks and Reaper's native DSP at least, then it computes exactly the same for any buffer size (again with exception of modulations and automation).

Also worth to note that some third party plugins (mainly VSTi) may have settings for different quality for playback and for offline rendering.

Speaking of that, have you tried these options when rendering? (I mean Offline Render nonrealtime, Online render, Offline 1x, etc.)

EDIT: I will rread through your linked other thread later as I have to leave now. So then...

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by akademie

Note:
It comes to mi mind that maybe you are using UAD or something like that? That is not my territory, maybe it does make difference for them.

No Midi involved. And yes I tried it with UAD and native plugins (NUGEN, Waves, SPL, Brainworx, schulz.audio, Cockos) as well as without any FX and just with a single track. The phenomenon applies in any situation in different intensities.

[Slowfox]

Originally Posted by akademie

Speaking of that, have you tried these options when rendering? (I mean Offline Render nonrealtime, Online render, Offline 1x, etc.)

Yes, online render produced the best results. It´s even different from offline1x. (I think it´s because EDIT, not true: offline1x renders actually faster than one time on my system.)