Audition vs Reaper

Nice review - but even to begin to attach the word "free" to the program (even with the qualifications you took pains to add) is totally incorrect.  The licence terms which are stated when you download it are extremely clear that it is not free - after 30 days you are not licenced to use it without payment of the very modest licence fee. 

The developers decided that they would not hobble the program in any way with technical means to enforce the licence, but because you are not forced to pay for it doesn't make it free - any more than the goods on the supermarket shelves are free because you can put them in your bag and walk out with them unpaid for.  Indeed, they've recently even removed the word "shareware" from their site, I believe.

Not aiming this at you, Euphony, just wanting to counter a perception which is prone to undermine the developers' progressive attitude to program protection.  How much of the size and price of Audition can be accounted for by the licence enforcement aspects I don't know (at least there's no dongle to lose...) but I suspect it's not negligible.

No problem - you are correct.  The software is not freeware. The company's laid-back approach to the distribution and use does interest me, and seems very admirable. 

I've tried to gravitate towards Reaper for a few reasons.  First, I have some good internet "friends" that develop that software, and I think it's just really cool to ask for a feature and "BAM," there it is.

Also, it's dirt cheap.

Also, you can sidechain compression for ducking out the bass whenever a kick transient hits, and I've never been able to figure out how to do that in AA.

Finally, it's dirt cheap.

I don't do any sequencing, so midi compatibility has never mattered much to me.  The biggest gripe I have is that it's NOT nearl as intuitive in my opinion...it's clunky if you're coming from a CEP/AA background, but maybe not so much if you're used to Cubase/Sonar, etc.

I would like for Reaper to do well, because I like the developers a lot, but right now, it's not for me...yet.

After 9 Months, I had to revive this thread to update my opinion.   Reaper is absolutely wonderful for tracking, for me.  I still use AA as an editor.   I tracked and mixed an album in Reaper in 3 weeks, which is a pretty good way to learn a piece of software, and while there are a million things that Reaper can do that I don't use (or even know about), it's most definitely "intuitive."  I was wrong about that before...I was just lazy, lol.

Its feature set continues to grow at a remarkable rate.  Until fairly recently its chief missing feature compared with Audition was lack of any means of reading or writing cues in wave/wavpack files, but once they got around to implementing that, they went some way past what Audition has in that respect.  Support remains very good and the 3rd party manual ($25 extra for the printed version though, but only $5 honour system for the pdf download) is excellent.  Now that there is no restriction on the number of  its "actions" (internal commands) that can be included in a macro, you can set up stuff like automatically copying and pasting from a selected part of a recording into a marked target location with crossfading each end of the insert, by pressing one key - it's very nice for classical editing.

It's now ballooned out to a 3MB download...   it's remarkable how they've kept the size down so low.

I would have thought that it would very high on the evaluation list for anyone who has needs that go beyond Audition's multitrack (if only because when you're paying for a second app you don't want to pay more than you paid for the first!).  However, some people just don't like it.  Car model "A" can go faster than car model "B" but if speed isn't your key criterion or you don't like the body style of car A you'll stick with B.  If (for instance)  you can't bear to work without separate lanes for automation, regardless of other matters, then you won't like Reaper.

But I do wonder what the implications for the future development of Audition are.  It would now require a massive development effort to match cheaper programs' feature sets on the multitrack and midi sides.  I don't think there is anything that special about Audition's basic stereo editor functions, but I can't think of anything much that could be added or improved there.  The restoration side of the app remains its unique strength and who can tell what magic may appear there in the next version, but that's a bit of a niche market these days.  Or am I being unimaginative?

I've been using Reaper for most of my multitrack work for nearly a year. I only ever open up Audition's multitrack window to work on old projects. There are so many things that it does better than Audition that I just can't see myself going back to Audition's multitrack and I'm certaiinly unlikely to upgrade Audition unless Adobe's approachability and support for Audition improves dramatically.

I still use Audition's restoration features but that's about all.

Cheers

James.

I've been trying loads of programs lately in an attempt to make myself a more well-rounded producer.  I'm also trying many types of projects, aside from my typical radio stuff.  For music mixing, I've taken a real liking to Nuendo.  Not great for radio projects, though I still enjoy using it.  For music mixing, it seems very intuitive.  It combines some of Pro Tools' more intuitive features, but it's more fun to use, like Audition.

Anyhow, Peter, you've forgotten Audition's major market: Radio!  And for that, NOTHING compares to Audition.  I can safely say that after trying just about everything I can get my hands on, nothing comes close to Audition for radio projects.  Some of my more elaborate promos will include hundreds and hundreds of clips from dozens of files.  Audition is the only program I've found that is reasonably efficient when dealing with files like this.  And, of course, the editor is second to none...Which is very handy when dealing with voice files.  On the other end of the radio spectrum, even creating a simple spot (voice over a music bed) is still easiest in Audition.

Every week, I do several concert spots, which include multiple shows in each spot...No less than 4-5 music hooks, plus an intro, close and voiceover work.  In Audition, I can complete one of these from scratch in less than 30 minutes.  Even with a lot of practice and assigning keyboard shortcuts and such, I doubt I could do one in much less than an hour in any other program.  I've seen people spend hours in other programs building similar spots.

On a similar note, I teach at a broadcasting school.  The school is geared toward SAW and the text is all written about SAW.  They hired me primarily to teach Audition.  Our students learn at thier own pace, at individual workstations...No classrooms.  I pondered a great deal about how to effectively teach Audition to a bunch of students who have already started learning another software.  I came to the conclusion that the best way was to simply throw them into it and allow questions when needed.  I usually start them on Audition after they've completed about 40 projects in SAW.  I would say about 50% of them get working on their own and don't need much help at all.  The other half need a little crash-course, which takes me, literally, about 5 minutes...Sometimes 10 for the students who struggle with technical things.  My only requirement is that students complete one project in Audition...If they don't like it, they may return to SAW.  Even though they are more comfortable with SAW because of the amount of time they've spent with the program, I would estimate 19 out of every 20 students chooses to finish the program with Audition.  After a day or two, they feel right at home and realize how intuitive it is for radio.

Radio is still a huge medium...And I'm pretty sure Audition has become the standard for radio.  I have no doubt that you'll find more copies of Audition being used in radio stations than any other product.  As long as Adobe continues to cater to broadcasters, they will have a solid client-base.  I'm not saying that Adobe should ignore their music clients, but I am saying that the focus should be on things that will help the broadcaster.  Secondary should be restoration and mastering, followed by multitrack music recording.

Emmett

I think that Emmett has it spot on. The only thing that I would add is how odd it seems to be where broadcasting colleges that I know run rooms full of Macs for the Vision courses and rooms full of PC's for radio. I still think the Achilles heels with Audition are the lack of an easy way to import readily available approved codecs (paid for if necessary and Video and some audio), and the perennial complaint - lack of the entry level version that students can afford.

Anyhow, Peter, you've forgotten Audition's major market: Radio!  And for that, NOTHING compares to Audition.

Now would I do a thing like that?    I give periodic Audition classes for a local radio school, focussing on multitrack (others do edit view), with a half hour gallop round Reaper at the end.   

Some of my more elaborate promos will include hundreds and hundreds of clips from dozens of files.  Audition is the only program I've found that is reasonably efficient when dealing with files like this.

Reaper lacks a "bin" type file management system, and that's indeed a source of criticism from some users who work with libraries of audio files.

And, of course, the editor is second to none.

Well, there we could get into an argument but one that would be better held in front of a PC than in a forum!  Probably depends on exactly what you want to do.

nothing comes close to Audition for radio projects

As I don't work in radio I can't comment but certainly don't dispute.  I am curious what is it that radio does that is so different to recording generally?

I use AA to record full bands, numerous overdubs, hours of slicing and dicing tracks, reparing other engineers efforts, restoring, etc etc and anything else where a big bag of pixie dust is required AA does it for me.

I've tried Reaper, Cubase and a few others and sure the one you know is always the best but if its just 'run of the mill' recording or editing or when nothing short of a miracle is required AA is where I go.

I ran into this scenario about a year ago or so.  I was able to purchase the student version of Adobe 3.  And since old projects were done in cool edit pro, adobe 1.5 and 2 on a buddy's computer, I was familiar with the interface.  And I was able to open the old session files and be close to where I was.  Some weird things did happen but easily fixed.  For Reaper, I would have had to redo ALL the effects applied to the tracks.  I don't do destructive effects.  I like to always have the original dry wave.  I know there were other options to move it all to Reaper...but it was easier to just convert to the new AA.

So...I weighed the cost of Reaper vs the cost of STUDENT AA, what I got with AA package, and my experience with it....I decided to go with AA.  And I am happy.  AA isn't as bloated as what I thought.  I built a new PC and am happy with the performance.  I am able to play 14-16 tracks of simultaneous audio all with UN-frozen effects.  The meters may lag a smidgen...but it works great. 

So for performance....AA 3 worked great.  I remember 2.0 wasn't the greatest on my friends PC.  Reaper also was VERY light weight.  Worked fast and efficient.  GREAT multi-tracker. 

For application....I really just wanted a multi-track.  I play music.  I record bands live and my own projects at my house.  I am used to faders and analog tape (cassette or ADAT...never had enough $$$ for Reel to reel).  So Reaper was the simplicity i needed. 

Had I not been enrolled in school, I'll admit, I probably would have not purchased AA.  To much $$$ for what I do.  I mean, now if I need to I can transfer some OLD Cassette tapes I made when I was 10 doing the "mock" radio stations. (C'mon we've all made those.)  And I can clean them up pretty good with all the restoration tools in AA.  (The tapes are VERY bad quality).  So...it does all boil down to what you do. 

nothing comes close to Audition for radio projects

As I don't work in radio I can't comment but certainly don't dispute.  I am curious what is it that radio does that is so different to recording generally?

It's just the general workflow involved.  Everyone has their own way of working, so nothing is set in stone.  But for radio, precision usually takes a backseat to speed.  And AA is (and always has been) really good for just slamming a bunch of files from different sources together, meanwhile being able to very quickly remove breaths and silence and apply dozens of effects throughout a single track.  Because of the temporary file system, I can voice and throw together a complete (basic) spot in less than five minutes.  I don't have to slow down to name files or anything.  And when working in multitrack, the auto crossfades, ease of moving, inserting, cutting, etc. just makes it extremely fast and intuitive for that kind of work.  A lot of programs have features to make music recording and mixing more intuitive...But to the radio user, these "features" are just clutter.  Most are still avail;able in AA, but are not as "front-and-center" as in other programs.  Which is why other programs are somewhat more intuitive for music mixing.  It's less about the presence/absence of features available and more about their placement and layout within the program.  I haven't found much that AA won't do, but some things could have a better layout for music mixing...But doing so would either clutter or ruin the wonderful radio layout.  Does that make sense?

Emmett

And when working in multitrack, the auto crossfades, ease of moving, inserting, cutting, etc. just makes it extremely fast and intuitive for that kind of work.

Heh, that shows how one man's meat is another man's poison.  It's precisely that area where I've found Audition's multitrack to be functionally weak.  Well, it's now got autocrossfades, and the beginnings of ripple editing, but those are only the first steps in the right direction (my definition of "right" of course!).

Because of the temporary file system, I can voice and throw together a complete (basic) spot in less than five minutes.  I don't have to slow down to name files or anything.

Personally I'd rather have a choice of recording format and record straight to that.  There's no naming of files required in that scenario either.  You can just quit at any point (eg to switch to another task) without having to save audio.  Unless you need to exchange source files with others who can only use it, wave format seems a bit of a thing of the past now with the availability of the likes of wavpack.  Even though storage is cheap these days, I'd still rather halve the size of my audio files given the choice.

The big problem when trying to introduce any alternative system in radio tends to be that the sheer pressure of time seems to preclude any change.  They're used to what they have, they're fast with it, and there's a big skills and money investment in the existing setup.   That too may make it hard to move ahead with Audition - there's a "but we like it the way it is" factor.

And when working in multitrack, the auto crossfades, ease of moving, inserting, cutting, etc. just makes it extremely fast and intuitive for that kind of work.

Heh, that shows how one man's meat is another man's poison.  It's precisely that area where I've found Audition's multitrack to be functionally weak.  Well, it's now got autocrossfades, and the beginnings of ripple editing, but those are only the first steps in the right direction (my definition of "right" of course!).

Indeed...I've been asking for ripple delete for quite some time, and the auto crossfading works nicely.  But yes, my workflow fits nicely into the Audition design.  I've always thought Audition worked as it should.  I'm not a user that "settled" on Audition or was stuck with it.  I learned SAW first and thought it was horrible.  Next I learned Pro Tools and was pretty content.  The station I was working for at the time used SAW but wanted to upgrade, so they asked me to choose something.  Originally, it was going to be Pro Tools, but they asked if I would try out some more demos and be sure.  So I started trying things and stumbed accross Cool Edit Pro 1.2.  And I kept coming back to it...It just seemed perfect, and I've stayed with it ever since.

Now, I'm getting pretty slick with Nuendo.  I'm enjoying learning in a way I havent since I discovered CEP.  To me, working with AA has always be a joy, not a job and I'm kina feeling that way with Nuendo.  I never cared much for Pro Tools.  It works, but isn't fun.  I don't like much else either.  It will all do the trick, but AA is still the most fun for me.  And the fun is what makes me stick with it.

Emmett

Thanks for that insight.

I was just curious about the whole 'radio' thing.

To me what you have described is not too much different (other than the recording side - which BTW I think is great and works just how I need it to work) to a normal editing session at my studio.

We don't just record, slap some 'verb on and send them on their way with a CD - many times they come to us because they know that we can 'fix' just about anything - most clients have never heard of AA but it is because of AA and our ears that we can achieve the results that keep them coming back as well as refering new clients).

You are right the workflow is just right (for me) and sure some little things here and there can always/most times be an improvement.

Thanks again for the info.

This is really to say that I've edited my earlier post to amend the typo that had codes instead of codecs. Sorry!

I also did start typing in some stuff about radio, but got interrupted by 2 separate calls from home based broadcasters that I 'help'. To be fair one was about his print copy to a newspaper rather than audio, but he is still essentially a radio contact. These are the sort of people who need ease of use and simplicity above all else because they get no backup whatsoever from the stations.

Speed, flexibility and ease of use were all the watchwords when I was actively involved on stations. AA can cope with turning incoming audio around from a sports event within seconds, and can provide all the tools to recover a dodgy field recording from, say, the folk music man in the same studio later the same day. The pressure to hack material to specific time under horrendous time pressure is the killer. That's why when broadcasters find an easy app they like they stick with it. 

That's why when broadcasters find an easy app they like they stick with it. 

I would have stuck with Audition as well  if they hadn't gone and broken too many features in Version 2. If there was one piece of software that needed a version 2.1 then that was it. Reaper offered a more reliable alternative with better support.

Cheers

James.