Reaper and PT on MacIntel

by **NYMo** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:41 am

Hi there,

I've got a vocal tracking client next week who is bringing his producer and they have the tracks on Reaper
...which I've never used.

Being the accomodating type that I am, I was thinking of setting up Reaper on my mac so the producer can use that but I am worried that it will ***k with my perfectly working PT HD system.

Has anyone had any experience with a similar setup and how did it go ??

Jeez ..I'm just getting paranoid about stability as I'm writing this...I might have to track the session myself in PT (the producer doesn't use it)
BTW He's tracking @192k (first person I've ever met ;-)

Anyone want to talk me into using reaper ?

Macintel 10.4.1 Lynx Aurora 16's

by **rick** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:43 am

before i respond about the only guys that ever insist on using 192k
does the producer read this forum ...?

by **13thbeach** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:20 am

HaHa!

by **Brent** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:37 am

FWIW we had a guy run reaper off a stick and pull 22 x 24/48 inputs through aurora's all day at 32 samples without a glitch. This was on a PC though and none of that 192K silliness.

For whatever reason talk of 192K always makes me think of the jousting sticks scene in The Castle.

Brent Punshon

by **Kurt** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:19 am

Reaper doesn't "install" and doesn't change anything on your system so I don't think it can damage your PT set-up.

by **ChrisW** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:31 am

Most people I know are tracking 24bit 96k.

by **TimS** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:48 am

John,
Reaper is sh!t easy to use and install - wont mess with your system
Will run off a USB stick if you dont want to install.
I have it on my PC at work for checking files and stuff too..

by **jkhuri44** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:51 am

ive already gone through the path of recording an album at 24/96....that was BS....i assure you which i will never repeat again....beg the producer to at least scale down to 176 or 88k :)

by **walding** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:00 am

jkhuri44 wrote:ive already gone through the path of recording an album at 24/96....that was BS....i assure you which i will never repeat again....beg the producer to at least scale down to 176 or 88k :)

What problems did you have recording at 24/96 ?

by **heathen** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:33 am

walding wrote:
jkhuri44 wrote:ive already gone through the path of recording an album at 24/96....that was BS....i assure you which i will never repeat again....beg the producer to at least scale down to 176 or 88k :)

What problems did you have recording at 24/96 ?

We maxed out my pc in pretty much every song, had to keep raising latency till it was maxed also, so we were constantly listening for buffer errors and the like. Files were huge.

Then there was mastering................ :)

by **rick** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:39 pm

oh but i have sooo much heavier converters nowadays , and the really heavy one hasn't arrived yet
but recording at 192 is for the experts :)

by **TimS** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:47 pm

rick wrote: but recording at 192 is for the experts :)

expert = a drip under pressure
hmmm!

by **heathen** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:54 pm

rick wrote:oh but i have sooo much heavier converters nowadays , and the really heavy one hasn't arrived yet
but recording at 192 is for the experts :)

What have you got and getting? Did you move the Weiss on?

by **rick** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:08 pm

nah its still all weiss but they are getting heavier !

by **tunetown** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:14 pm

I'm doing all my new material at 24/96. Bouncing it all down to a Korg DSD 1 bit recorder. Get ready Rick. I hope you can deal with this unit.

I find mixing at 96 smoother then 44.1. 44.1 is like spreading butter from the fridge and 96 is like spreading butter at room temperature.

Maybe i'm crazy.

by **jkhuri44** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:21 pm

peter, i dont think ur crazy..end of the day, if your comp can handle it...why not!!

i just hate dealing with the projects at that sample rate! and pc sluggishness!

by **tunetown** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:26 pm

I have the new i7 core Intel 64 bit pc with 6 gig ram. It smokes. It handles everything I throw at it.

Sweet.

by **heathen** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:34 pm

tunetown wrote:I have the new i7 core Intel 64 bit pc with 6 gig ram. It smokes. It handles everything I throw at it.

Sweet.

Still running Nuendo?

Has Jamil been over with one of his 97 track monsters?

Actually it probably would handle it..........just. Mine is still that AMD dual core 4400 with 2GB, so yeah yours would be fine. :)

by **tunetown** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:40 pm

Jamil is more than welcome anytime. I just finished tracking a song last night with 40 odd tracks. At 256 samples it doesn't get over 10%.

by **tunetown** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:41 pm

Oh, and yeh, still Nuendo 4 here. Works for me.

by **heathen** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:51 pm

Double nice. :)

by **NYMo** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:52 pm

Hi there,

Yeah...i knew the 192 would get a few laughs !

Apparently he has tracked everything @ home at 192...thats why he wants the vocals at the same sample rate (and no...he has never been on this forum...I presume)

When i asked why 192 (as I was choking) he said *it gives the best quality* !
He said he was using a fireface 800.

I haven't met him yet ..but as usual i just do what the client wants...i asked him to bring a stereo wav @192 of the backing track....I'm sure my PT HD should be able to handle 5 trax @192 (fingers crossed!)

Time to experiment me thinks.

Cheers
N
Y
M
O

by **13thbeach** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:17 pm

Brent wrote:For whatever reason talk of 192K always makes me think of the jousting sticks scene in The Castle.

Brent Punshon

Tell him he's dreamin'

by **heathen** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:27 pm

rick wrote:nah its still all weiss but they are getting heavier !

New PSU's? Lead shielding? :)

by **Chris H** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:11 pm

heathen wrote:
rick wrote:nah its still all weiss but they are getting heavier !

New PSU's? Lead shielding? :)

From what i've picked up, his weiss have mated with his HD1's to produce a very heavy hard hitting converter puppy....but i might be barking up the wrong tree:)

by **rick** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:14 pm

oh if i was allowed to show you a picture ...

by **ChrisW** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:12 pm

I've had my hearing tested a few times.
Which is why I'm still happy to work at 44.1Khz.

by **jkhuri44** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:57 pm

NYMO, i tracked a band on 1 X 192 a while back, simple set up, but it was fine.....was just an experiment...it worked with no hiccups...but 3 takes of a 3 minute song with an 8 GB file size is way too much !!!!

give it a go, and report back :-)

by **Martin** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:15 am

tunetown wrote:I have the new i7 core Intel 64 bit pc with 6 gig ram. It smokes. It handles everything I throw at it.

Sweet.

all thats left to do now is install Mac OS on it and you're all set!

by **musikwerks** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:55 am

Chiming in a little late but man.... 192? And it's going to wind up on iTunes right?

I'm putting a project together now and if it wasn't for the Blu Ray component that forces me to go 24/96 I can promise you I'd be doing it at 24/48 (DVD).

Reaper and PT on MacIntel

Reaper and PT on MacIntel

Re: Reaper and PT on MacIntel

Re: Reaper and PT on MacIntel

Who is online