Audition vs Reaper

I have used audition for about a year. At first I liked its "apparent" easy to use interface. But as time progressed I realised this is not the case. The plugin and vst support is probably the worst i've experienced. I use Guitar rig and philharmonik as well as ez drummer and I just got fed up with trying to use it as a VST through audition. I saw on the net that people recommended "reaper". After downloading this trial, i am AMAZED. This program is so good. Its easy to multitrack, use several vst plugins at once and is exactly what is needed when recording. I dont want to spend more time fiddling with the software than recording. Use reaper, it wins hands down.

I have used audition for about a year. At first I liked its "apparent" easy to use interface. But as time progressed I realised this is not the case. The plugin and vst support is probably the worst i've experienced. I use Guitar rig and philharmonik as well as ez drummer and I just got fed up with trying to use it as a VST through audition. I saw on the net that people recommended "reaper". After downloading this trial, i am AMAZED. This program is so good. Its easy to multitrack, use several vst plugins at once and is exactly what is needed when recording. I dont want to spend more time fiddling with the software than recording. Use reaper, it wins hands down.

I don't know about anybody else, but would you trust the judgement of somebody who clearly didn't do the slightest bit of research into what he was buying beforehand? (Making one major assumption there, of course...)

To me its the opposite of that Blue Oyster Cult song 

Durin (Adobe staffer) over on the Adobe forums made an interesting remark the other day, to the effect that the midi recording and editing and VSTi support should never have been touted as a midi sequencer.  It is intended to allow people who want to include virtual instruments as part of their recordings, given that these days it's a whole lot more practical to have (say) a midi master keyboard driving a sampled grand piano than to have the real thing (and yes, there is a difference!).  It's not intended to provide, and obviously does not achieve, the level of midi sequencing achieved by other packages where midi is a cornerstone of the whole package.

So as SteveG implies, if you want something with Reaper's functionality (and you don't want what Audition provides and Reaper doesn't) then buy Reaper and not Audition.  Don't go for either till you've used the demo of each for a month.

 
Hi everybody I just registered to contribute this post. I started recording with cool edit around 2005,grew up to adobe and adobe 3.0.
After so many years using Audition it was enough cause I was using only audio not midi and my music was like demo quality. I mean I wasnt pretending to sound like a profesional sounding recording. It was intuitive and quality seemed awesome to me.
Thru the years I thought of moving to another DAW like cubase protools but IM not going to lie Im a bit lazy,it took me years to really master audition I have my work routine and the idea of changing to a new DAW just wasnt atractive.
Last year I started to use Audacity for record wave forms and edit them later in audition.I found that teh recordings with audacity sounded fuller and better than Audition.
Then few weeks ago I came across forums cause I was looking for a sequencer.I tried to work midi with adobe and I had crushing and latency issues.Definately not meant for that.
So I read Reaper took little CPU didnt crasha nd was very light. You all know how heavy audition can be. To my surprise the waulity fo audio recording in Reaper is also superior to Adobe so is the mixing quality and so intuitive.
I tell you if you start to work with Reaper for a week you wont go back to audition.I still use Audition for mastering cause I have the waves vst installed in audition.I use it as a mastering tool,a hosting program.But other than that,I dont recor din adobe and I dont mix in adobe.
Try Reaper,record a basic piano track,some vocals and mix it.You will be surprised at how clean an dprofesional it sounds compared to adobe. Reaper along with a nice mastering plugin like Waves will give you close to pro results. Audition sound its still in the demo range.
I just wish adobe could release a new version,this is the program I gre up with as a producer and I would love to continue producing in a single platform but the sequencer and audio is not up to semipro standards of 2011. It was ok some years ago

I just wish adobe could release a new version,this is the program I gre up with as a producer and I would love to continue producing in a single platform but the sequencer and audio is not up to semipro standards of 2011. It was ok some years ago

Newer than 3.0.1?  They released that a few months ago. 

I found that teh recordings with audacity sounded fuller and better than Audition...

To my surprise the waulity fo audio recording in Reaper is also superior to Adobe so is the mixing quality...

And you are monitoring on what, exactly?

It must be nice to be the only person on Earth that can hear the difference between a zero in Audition and a zero in other software...

It must be nice to be the only person on Earth that can hear the difference between a zero in Audition and a zero in other software...

It's a fuller, rounder, better zero.

]It's a fuller, rounder, better zero.

...as opposed to the 1s, which are not as round or full...

...... audio is not up to semipro standards of 2011. It was ok some years ago

I'll agree the midi implementation is poor (which is why some of us never wanted it in the first place) and personally I don't like AA much for tracking, but the above must be one of the oddest comments ever made on this forum.

Last year I started to use Audacity for record wave forms and edit them later in audition.I found that teh recordings with audacity sounded fuller and better than Audition.

Since "recording" in both programs is merely making a copy of the bits coming out of the ADC of your interface*, you must be doing some processing to make a difference, which you could therefore do in either program - or maybe, of course, there is no difference and you're just imagining it (a common problem in audio).

Paul


* Unless one program has its parameters set in such a way that Windows SRC is being invoked, whose default quality setting is not as good as one would like.

I'm not personally going to lose any sleep over one cloth-eared individual. And I don't think that it was any accident that it was posted over half-term...

"When I use Reaper I end up with a better sounding result than when I use Audition" - that's quite possible if one addresses what you want to do and suits the way you want to work better than the other.  One DAW can make it easier to get what you want than another.  And that's different for each of us.  But doing exactly the same thing with either will end up the same - but you'd be amazed at how rigorous you have to be in making the comparison, to ensure the playing field is really level.

Having been an extensive user of both Reaper and Audition over the years, there's many points in favour of each, but basic recorded sound quality would be the last and least significant issue to consider.  In fact, a non-issue.

"When I use Reaper I end up with a better sounding result than when I use Audition" - that's quite possible if one addresses what you want to do and suits the way you want to work better than the other. 

I understand that, but it's not exactly what he said...

"Last year I started to use Audacity for record wave forms and edit them later in audition.I found that teh recordings with audacity sounded fuller and better than Audition."

Which is basically BS.