Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Q&A, Tips, Tricks and Howto

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2010, 05:08 PM   #1
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default Simple workflow suggestions?

Well, I used Reaper for the first time for real over this weekend. Using a Lexicon U82s under Vista 64 bit. Not a glitch, hiccup, click, pop. I'm pleased.

But I'm wondering if there is a simpler workflow for what I do. I'm basically recording acoustic music running between three and six mic inputs, each to a separate track. I find the take system to be utterly unusable (I'm sorry, the splitting thing drives me nuts) so for each new take of the same tune I delete all track media, append "take n" to the project title and re-save it to a new subfolder under the parent folder bearing the tune name. For new tunes, I create a new folder with the tune name and then save the project to the new folder and tune name after deleting any track media. This keeps all tunes / takes together along with the associated media files. But it is kinda labor intensive especially when my clients keep changing their mind re: what the next tune will be. And a couple times I accidentally created the new subfolder in the wrong place (easy to fix though).

Is there perhaps a better / more efficient way of getting to the same place? At the end of the day, I want all tunes and takes to be separate and easily identifiable even if something happens to the RPP file and I need to start over.

I must say that aside from the cumbersome way I deal with takes, I'm impressed with Reaper. Well worth what I paid for it.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 02:12 AM   #2
The Bagwhan
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default

My brain's a bit fried from a busy day to fully comprehend what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure the Take System has had its fair share of critics and queries before now and if you search the forum with a few keywords, you might find a reasonable thread offering advice. I think Susan G with a long association with Sonar asked something a while back.
The Bagwhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 03:54 AM   #3
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Sorry, I wasn't asking about other ways of using the take system. I have read up on it and I simply don't think it applies to what I do. At least not in its present present form.

What I am asking is.... for someone who does whole tunes (all tracks at once) as a "take", is there a simpler way to keep things neat and orderly. I am concerned for example that if something happens to my RPP file that I can still figure out what file goes where. I'm not doing MIDI and I have a low track count. What I described works great (I end up with a separate project folder for each take) but it is labor intensive starting a new take and especially if I need to work fast because my client decided to change tunes after I got the new take set up.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 03:58 AM   #4
SpellingMastake
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 51
Default

I just use the free item positioning mode. Have you tried that?
SpellingMastake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 06:10 AM   #5
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

I played with FIP but found it very cumbersome to switch from take to take. Don't you have to mute / unmute each track manually?

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who did "direct to two track" for years in Wavelab. Name a tune and Wavelab would append a take number and create a new file each time you hit RECORD. Now that I am dealing with multiple files per take, I'm looking for a way to keep things as simple as possible. With each take in its own folder, I almost don't need my track sheet except for notes. I like everything about it except the fact that it is very manual.

Maybe it is as simple as creating a macro where you input the song title and it takes care of creating folders and naming the project each time?

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 04:59 PM   #6
The Bagwhan
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default

Do you use:
In Preferences/Audio/Recording there's an option to "Prompt to save/delete new files" on Stop, which if enabled means if you don't like a Take, select Delete and the files/takes are rejected and erased from your drive. Unfortunately having this selected doesn't give you the opportunity to listen back to them first, but if you know for certain it was a bad take, then...

Otherwise I have my preferred track count, track names, FX, etc all included in a Project Template. So my workflow in your case to start a new tune or take would be to close the existing project (1 mouse click), open a new project based on a template (1 mouse click), immediately Save Project (navigate to where you want to save the project)... and you're ready to go. Because Reaper automatically creates new Project Audio Folders when you Save the project (so it's important to Save before you do anything else).

The RRP file is the bedrock of the projects, just like Sonar and Cubase projects, so if you lose the RRP's then it's a problem. The only way to safeguard apart from backups is to name each wave file in the project with the song name included, e.g. "New Song Bass", but again it's getting labour-intensive.

Hope this helps.

Bag.
The Bagwhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 05:24 PM   #7
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Yes, I use those options as well as creating a subfolder with the same name as the project I am saving. They work great.

I do something similar.... when I start a new tune I use the previous tune's project as the template, delete all media and save under the new tune name in a new folder of the same name. Also works great, just is labor intensive at the very moment it shouldn't be.... when the talent is deciding what tune to play and suddenly starts playing it I saved the new project as a subfolder of the previous tune a couple times. The good part is that you can move the whole shebang as one and there are no problem with paths to the files.

I have one other question that just came up as I played around with the results of this weekend's sessions but I'll start a new thread because it doesn't directly relate.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2010, 11:54 PM   #8
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,203
Default

Hi Paul,

If I follow you correctly, what I would do personally is just keep all your takes on separately named tracks in a single project. If you want to keep a copy of each track in a separate folder, say for backup, just open explorer, create a folder, then CTRL+ALT+Drag a copy of the file out of Reaper into the folder.

If your concerned about the .rpp project file, just make sure it's backed up frequently.

Regards,

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 03:19 AM   #9
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

No that's not really what I'm doing. Let me try it another way.....

I record a tune. The tune consists of five tracks, four mic tracks and a direct in from a piano. I create a folder called "Tune 1" and create a RPP file called "Tune 1 take 1". I save it using the "create subfolder" feature so my parent "Tune 1" folder now has a subfolder called "Tune 1 take 1" in it containing the RPP file and all media files generated during take 1.

When we do take 2, I save "Tune 1 take 1, delete all media from the timeline, and save it as "Tune 1 take 2" in a new subfolder of "Tune 1" called "Tune 1 take 2".

And on and on.

This works great and keeps everything organized so I can easily tell what files are connected with which take even if I lose my track sheet or the RPP file itself. Or even if years later I no longer use Reaper and want to load the project into another DAW (I'm not using any MIDI features). The only trouble is it is labor intensive and easy to save the RPP in the wrong place. Fortunately, Reaper doesn't seem to care if I later move the subfolder I saved in the wrong place.

What would be better would be an automated way to do the same thing. Or is there another way?

For example, if Reaper tacked the PROJECT NAME onto the media filename along with the track name, I wouldn't have to keep things in separate folders. That would solve the PIP problem too since everything would be / could be together in the same folder. THAT would be a useful and easy feature to implement.

Paul

Last edited by pgoelz; 05-18-2010 at 03:38 AM.
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 09:32 AM   #10
suckspeed
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
Default ...why not using the template method?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgoelz View Post
No that's not really what I'm doing. Let me try it another way.....

This works great and keeps everything organized so I can easily tell what files are connected with which take even if I lose my track sheet or the RPP file itself. Or even if years later I no longer use Reaper and want to load the project into another DAW (I'm not using any MIDI features). The only trouble is it is labor intensive and easy to save the RPP in the wrong place. Fortunately, Reaper doesn't seem to care if I later move the subfolder I saved in the wrong place.

What would be better would be an automated way to do the same thing. Or is there another way?

Paul
Hi Paul,

if I get you right, the labor intensive task is to clean the copied project from the media files, right? In my opinion this is something you can easily avoid.
When being asked, why you don't use a template, you answered you would do something similar. But that's the point: instead of saving the project as a copy and afterwards removing the media items, you should use a real template.
Your situation is that you setup a project with several tracks. Then you record a take and save the project. The next step should be to save the project as a template. As mentioned above you could create a new project from that template with two clicks. You could close the project with the first take or leave it open. Due to the new feature of multiple projects in tabs it shouldn't be a problem. After creating a new project based on that first take's project, you just save the new project under a new name and you get a new project file for free.
Please try that approach and get back to us with your questions then.

Good luck

suckspeed
suckspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:11 AM   #11
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

I don't see much difference between what I do and what you suggest. In essence, when I delete the media from my previous project it becomes the "template" for the new one, complete with any fx, levels, etc. And I can delete the media with a right drag and DELETE so that isn't the issue.

The labor intensive step and the step that caught me a couple times is saving the new project in a subfolder of the parent project folder. Several times I saved as a subfolder but forgot to navigate back up one level beforehand. Fortunately, Reaper looks in the project folder first, so moving the entire folder was no big deal and the moved project folder worked as expected.

If Reaper had the option to append the project name to the media files during record-save, it would become very simple... just rename the project xxx-take n and put everything in the same folder. Without the project name, I can still piece takes together manually if needed by looking at the time stamp but adding the project name would make it foolproof.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:04 PM   #12
suckspeed
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Ok, but now it does not sound too much like too much effort, but mainly the danger of forgetting to select the right subfolder while saving a copy of the current project, right? At the beginning your posting sounded like "This is so complicated and too many manual steps. How can it be done better in general?" Now it sounds like "Sometimes I miss to step up one directory level before saving the project copy. It would be nice to have an option like 'make sure that the file chooser starts in a specific directory'."
At then end there is stress during recording and there are many ways things can be messed up. But I consider these kinds of flaws to be avoidable or at least manageable. If there was an option for the behaviour you ask for (how specifically would you phrase that btw?), it seems to be very specific to your workflow, most of the other folks here don't seem to favor actually.
Well, I think you have received a lot of useful input and options above. At the end of the day it is on you to choose the one most suitable for you. Or create a feature request as soon as you know exactly, what the feature should look like. ;-)

Cheers

suckspeed
suckspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 04:06 PM   #13
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Like many people, I'm looking for a take system that works and doesn't slice my project into shreds in the process. Since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, I have found a workaround that is quite satisfactory except that it is more manual than I would like and requires that each new take be in a separate folder (because the filenames don't relate back to a take number done this way). I was merely asking if there was a better (ie., less manual) way of getting there. Doesn't sound like it.

During this conversation, I realized that was was missing and what would make things a lot better would be the ability for Reaper to append the project name to the saved media file name. To that end I have submitted a feature request.

Thanks,
Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 04:44 AM   #14
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

And on a related workflow note, got another question for the experts.

There seems to be a small but annoying bottleneck in the workflow between editing / mixing and creating a CD. Lets say I have ten tracks for a CD. Each one is a Reaper project. Getting those ten projects onto a CD seems needlessly manual unless I'm missing something.

After I'm done editing and mixing, I have two options as I see it. I can either render each project to a WAV file and place the WAVs in a master project or place each Reaper project in a master project using "project in project". If I render to WAV, I have to remember to re-render each and every project if I modify it after the first render. "Project in project" is a far more elegant solution but at least so far, it is not working 100% and does not always update when the child projects are modified so I can't trust it.

I can open all the projects with SWS project management but after that, rendering is still manual. I'd like to get rid of the manual steps because it is too easy to (for example) forget to re-render a project and have the wrong version end up on the CD.

Does anyone have any clever ideas to take this the rest of the way and automate the process of making a CD from a bunch of individual Reaper projects? Or is there one that I have missed?

One obvious solution would be an SWS extension that did exactly that..... burned a CD from each open project, in the order they appear in the tabs, using the filenames (minus extension) as the track name. Wouldn't that be a great function?

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 01:09 PM   #15
suckspeed
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
Default Not sure about Reaper as mastering software...

Hi again,

I see that you think about how to improve the workflow, which is a good thing. I must admit that I never considered to use Reaper for serious mastering. The question is whether it should provide that capability to full extend, or if it should concentrate on recording and mixing.
The point is that I see a lot of steps in the process of mastering, which cannot really be dealt with using Reaper (in its current state). I haven't used sub-projects yet, but you definitely need a different kind of access to the songs before burning them to CD. It's not just about burning the latest mix of each song/project in a desired order. Mastering also means to do the finishing like aligning the songs sound-wise and dynamic-wise. Its about fading in and out, setting the desired silence between songs... I hardly see a way for Reaper to provide all that in a reasonable way. There is specialized software for these kinds of tasks and the way you can do these things is much different from Reapers general UI layout so far. I don't say it would not be possible and it would make sense to have it included, but if done right, it would cause a certain amount of effort as far as I can see. I would be happier to see some of the outstanding recording and mixing features implemented.
I hope you don't recognize me as the one, who is always against changes and ideas. I'm looking forward to reading your reaction to this posting. Maybe you have something in mind I wasn't able to understand from your previous posting. ;-)

Take care

suckspeed
suckspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 04:23 PM   #16
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Heck no, your post was fine. Yes, I do think about workflow. And I think about how best to accomplish a task with what I have. I am a very (at the moment) part time living room recording engineer and I don't want to spend a lot of money on various applications.... especially when Reaper is about 90% there as it stands. All Reaper needs is to bridge the small gap between recording and mixing and burning a CD. It does both well, but in between, it requires several manual steps to get from a collection of projects to a CD. Actually, if "project in project" actually worked, I'd be a happy camper. Since PIP doesn't currently work (for me at least), I'm left doing the CD assembly manually.

My mastering needs are fairly simple and I've been happy with Wavelab for years. But my copy doesn't work in Vista and I refuse to pay their price for a new copy. Reaper's pricing structure is far more reasonable and since I already own it, why not ask it to do the whole job? If PIP worked and if it had a function to put a defined gap between projects and a marker at each, it does absolutely everything else I need it to do.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 05:02 PM   #17
suckspeed
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
Default well, then...

this sounds as simple as to ask for fixing the project-in-project feature in that sense and to add a rather simple feature request for the gaps between sub-projects for "mastering" or burning to CD.
I agree with you that Reaper has all the tools for mastering (well, most of them) in the form of plugins etc. Nevertheless I see a benefit in what Cool Edit Pro or Wavelab provide.
I'm not that familiar with the current Cubase or Sonar versions. Do they support this whole workflow in a better way? My experience with these two is a bit outdated... ;-)

Take care

suckspeed
suckspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 05:22 PM   #18
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

I have asked to have PIP fixed but it seems the dev's priorities are elsewhere at present. Video is Reaper is a cool idea but I'd much appreciate it if they finished audio editing / mastering first.

I am very familiar with Wavelab 5 and mastering and frankly, with the exception of automatically spacing the clips and getting PIP working correctly, Reaper is pretty much there right now. The only other things that Wavelab does that I ever used is CD text.

Paul

Last edited by pgoelz; 06-03-2010 at 11:25 AM.
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 07:04 PM   #19
KrisForward
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 9
Default Mastering in reaper

I Am just finishing the first commercial album that I have used Reaper for, switching over from a VS 1880. The Essence of sequencing the songs seems simple enough, provided that reaper allows me to set track markers?? , Figured I'd render all the songs at the working sample rate, load the tracks into my project for the finished album, and splice them together. Any mastering effects to be applied individually, I will add to the individual takes, simple, and anything to apply to the entire project, will just be on the master track. this seem waty easier than the "old" way. any tips?, also I need a good mastering fx suite, any advice?

Touch-a-cloud-studio
KrisForward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 04:14 AM   #20
suckspeed
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
Default That's what I meant...

Hi,

well, the described process in Reaper makes sense to me. But as your last question shows: there aren't the tools for analyzing and modification at hand. Maybe I just haven't stumbled upon it, but where are the tools like gathering statistics (frequency curve, phase analysis, RMS levels, peaks, ...) and adjusting things on that level? I think this is what you ask for, right? If it was just a master limiter, this would be easy. But for the rest of it, I see a lack of support. Correct me if I'm wrong...
If you are looking for a good master limiter: there used to be a free classic series of VST plugins at kjaerhusaudio.com. It seems that the page is down, but you could get that package (includes a couple of other good VST effects, too) somewhere on the net. I've seen some reviews and they sounded really nice.

Good luck

suckspeed
suckspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 11:16 AM   #21
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

well here's a thought.... a little work before hand

create a set of project templates... rename the traks of each one to take 1, take 2 etc....

save each template with appropriate names....

load one, record, save to a root folder like My New Project and with a sub folder for take one....
Reaper should hold the location for the root folder OK...
Now either close that project and open the next take template and save as to it's own sub folder... and on and on... this way each take project should get take 1, 2, 3 etc... names for it's traks...

Another option is to open the next take and template in a new project tab... if you have the computing power, that would let you switch between the tabs and compare them quickly....

but again, the way you are doing it seems OK, just looking to maybe make a proceedure that speeds it up
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 05:57 PM   #22
Sound asleep
Human being with feelings
 
Sound asleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 9,052
Default

i think free item positioning mode (activate by right clicking AR button on track.) records each take in a new file, not totally sure about that, but i think so.

otherwise there are mutliple explode features for takes. for example, you could explode all your takes to each have their own track, and then you can glue each one. when you glue items they create a new file for that new glued item.

i think free item positioning mode, even if the takes don't automatically record into each their own file, you could have this behaviour happen at one button press i do believe. create a macro, that will glue, move to next take, glue move to next take etc...

i would imagine free item positioning mode records to separate files though, i think this is exactly what it is, and why it behaves differently.

honestly, when i first got to reaper, i thought i would use this alot, but now that i found the explode features and build macros that do what i want, i don't feel the need for free item positioning.

i had trouble totally understanding your situation though, so maybe i would have a better way to get where you want to be.

really all i understood was you wanted each take as a separate file, but i don't understand why or anything.
Sound asleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 06:23 PM   #23
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

I'm not entirely sure who is talking to whom. But as the OP, here's my "take" on it.

The take system is useless for me because it splits all other takes when the current take ends. Regardless of whether or not this is a problem for anyone else, it is a problem for me.

Free item positioning resolves the splitting problem but now the takes are not "takes", they are simply new tracks. If I am recording (say) five track at once, each take is another set of five tracks and switching from take one to take two to take three involves a lot of muting and un-muting.

Since Reaper doesn't append the project name to each recorded file, I have no easy way of figuring out which files go with which take even though I name the project file to include a take number unless I put each take in a separate folder. This actually works very well, except that it is a manual process and more error prone than I like. My original question was whether there might be a better way to get there.

Reaper is a pretty marvelous tool and a terrific price point. I just wish they would iron out the little quirks in the audio part before trying to include video.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 11:42 PM   #24
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Paul,

People on this forum are super fast to help, and have helped me a lot in my few day trial period here. I have a similar problem that you have, takes is pretty useless in my opinion as well.

Adam gave me a heads up on a way to turn it off at least so it won't slice your tracks up or name ANYTHING as a "take".

When you set up your project, set up the tracks and name them..piano, guitar, whatever then save and name the song. After that go to the project settings and make sure you have a media folder set up for the audio so it goes in it's own subfolder.

After this is ready to go, set the two check marks in this video and record your first take, save it, then go to save as and name it something like "take 2" and record your next take....save...save as "take 3" and so on.

This way you'll have a common folder for the project files and the media files. If you need to put them together manually in another DAW at a later date, just import the one's with the same numbers...example "piano_234" "guitar_234".

Just make sure you don't accidentally record just piano one time, getting the number system out of wack.

http://screencast.com/t/YWQ2NGYw
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 03:39 AM   #25
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Yeah, that is pretty much what I do although I create a separate subfolder for each take. What I'm looking for is a less manual way to get there. The take system as it stands is pretty good if it didn't split my tracks. I've really tried to like it but I just don't.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 10:13 AM   #26
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

all good tips and work arounds.... and I agree, there could [should] be an alternative method of doing the takes...

I can see the 'logic' of the take system as it stands.... you get a set of takes and in theory you audition and choose one of them... but in actual workflow, it seems to get messy and tricky with all the little split up parts and not always being certain of which is which....

maybe we need to suggest some FR's for how it might be done?
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 11:55 AM   #27
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

There has been plenty of discussion and several FRs over the last year or more. The devs seem to be focused elsewhere at the moment.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:39 PM   #28
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Quick question to clarify your needs. Make sure my assumptions are correct.

1. You record acoustic acts that don't require many tracks.

2. The musicians are playing live. As in NO overdubs.

3. You are NOT doing any grid editing / time correction.

4. You are pretty much wanting to treat Reaper as a "tape machine"

And one more question...

Are you using a click when recording?
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 02:44 PM   #29
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Mostly correct. Although overdubs are a possibility, that is not the norm. I primarily use Reaper as a multitrack recorder. My A/D has eight inputs so that is the max number of tracks unless I do overdubs.

I do some editing to remove bad notes, etc. but no time correction (so far).

And no click. I hate click tracks. They suck the life out of the kind of music I do. Any overdubs will be either to a scratch track or to an existing mix. I and the musicians I record prefer to record with everyone in the studio at the same time so overdubs are the exception rather than the rule.

Like I have said, I have a very workable but manual take system that keeps things organized. I'm just wishing Reaper had a more automatic way of getting there. The existing take system is fine except for the track splitting.

It would be even easier if Reaper appended the project name to the recorded files. If it did that, I could use my system and keep all takes in the same folder (even easier) and just rename the project for each take.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 04:56 PM   #30
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Well in that case, it's almost as if you're recording different versions of the song every time. An overdubbed guitar in "take 1" will not line up with the drums in "take 2" and so forth.

I am not a fan of linear projects (that's what I call them, don't know if they have a name), but for what you do, that's what I would recommend. Let some silence pass after the first take of the song (30 seconds or so) and add a marker. Track the new take from the marker, and so forth. This way you have one project for a song, and clicking to the next marker will play your next "take". If I were working live, this is how I'd do it for quickness and organization.

None of your tracks are sharing reference tracks of any kind, so there is no need to lay the takes "on top" of each other. I'll make a video for ya real quick.
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:07 PM   #31
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

This will make Reaper act just like an old 4 or 8 track would doing "full band" stuff. You could probably also place a marker at the beginning as well so your marker numbers will match your take numbers.

http://screencast.com/t/ZTNiZjE4MzIt
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:16 PM   #32
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Thanks, I understand you perfectly. I hadn't considered recording each take AFTER the last, in the same file. I guess it makes sense and at least it keeps all "takes" organized without having to worry about filenames. But it means I have to cut it apart at some point. It just seemed to make more sense to record each one separately. And it makes it a bit more cumbersome to do a take, play it back, and then do another. In fact, is that even possible without creating new files?

In fact, added parts or a re-do will line up just fine if done as overdubs to a previous take. Same as playing to a click but not as unnatural.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:17 PM   #33
DuraMorte
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In your compressor, making coffee.
Posts: 1,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viacom Army View Post
Let some silence pass after the first take of the song (30 seconds or so) and add a marker. Track the new take from the marker, and so forth. This way you have one project for a song, and clicking to the next marker will play your next "take".
None of your tracks are sharing reference tracks of any kind, so there is no need to lay the takes "on top" of each other.

This. Seriously.
I wouldn't use 30 seconds, when 2 will do the job, but yeah. This should work very well for you, OP.
And if you're concerned about losing the RPP, you could put takes 1-5 in one subfolder or whatever, and takes 6-10 in another, and only have to do that long manual process once every 5 takes, instead of every take. Or every 10 takes, or 20, etc.

The take system works great for me, but I seem to be in a small minority of users who take advantage of the tempo track and auto-punch features...
DuraMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:23 PM   #34
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgoelz View Post
It just seemed to make more sense to record each one separately. And it makes it a bit more cumbersome to do a take, play it back, and then do another. In fact, is that even possible without creating new files?
I honestly don't understand what you mean here. Is this statement for or against my suggested method?
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:26 PM   #35
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgoelz View Post
In fact, added parts or a re-do will line up just fine if done as overdubs to a previous take. Same as playing to a click but not as unnatural.

Paul
Haha, this is another debate for another day. Beatles or Elvis, Rep or Dem, click or no click....abortion anyone?

....

Kidding aside, what I meant was that doing the takes "live" without a "common reference" between them...If the drums were great in the first pass of the song, but the guitar was better in the second pass, etc. They are not, shy of a miracle, going to line up with each other BETWEEN TAKES. Of course a guitar overdub would line up if played along with the take he's dubbing on.
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:28 PM   #36
Kundalinguist
Human being with feelings
 
Kundalinguist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,630
Default

Nice to see all these new arrivals Welcome to FUNtasy Island [ as Ricardo used to say ].
__________________
Success is just one more plugin away! And happiness is as close as your next upgrade. (On the interweb: www.rolandk.ca / www.auroraskypublishing.com)
Kundalinguist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:30 PM   #37
Viacom Army
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Default

@Kundalinguist (best sn ever)

Well I'm lost as shit on some of these features, so I figure I'll try and keep my asking and helping balanced if at all possible, ha.
Viacom Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:30 PM   #38
DuraMorte
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In your compressor, making coffee.
Posts: 1,165
Default

Sorry for the unnecessary repetition... you guys ninja'ed me. =X
DuraMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 12:27 PM   #39
pgoelz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viacom Army View Post
I honestly don't understand what you mean here. Is this statement for or against my suggested method?
Basically, it is against Many times, I record a take, play it back, and then record another take. I don't think that would work well doing it your way. Remember, in this case, I am the engineer not the musician. The musicians are in another room. They may do a couple takes in a row, stop for playback, stop for conversation, tuning, food, potty.... who knows. If I stop the "transport" for any reason, I get a new file the next time I record a take so I don't see the benefit with your sequential record method.

I agree that I can't expect to use more than a short portion of one take in another take without a click track or some other method of tempo sync. But remember, I'm using Reaper like a multi track tape machine. Except for adding instruments with overdubs, each take is complete by itself. Any edits are to remove bad notes and the like, which can be done easily by taking snippets from elsewhere in the same take.

Paul
pgoelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 04:04 PM   #40
DuraMorte
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In your compressor, making coffee.
Posts: 1,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgoelz View Post
If I stop the "transport" for any reason, I get a new file the next time I record a take so I don't see the benefit with your sequential record method.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
When you were doing it your way, you were making new files too...
Every independent recorded track created a new file.
What's wrong with having multiple 'files' in the same project?
That's why they're called 'project' files, and not 'song files' or some other garbage.
I'm really not understanding your issue with the proposed method. Everything you've said has made me think it would work *better* for you than your current method.
If you record take 1, then play it back, to record take 2 would only require clicking somewhere after the end of the recorded tracks of take 1 and hitting the 'record' button again. Then take 3 after take 2, etc.
Then, when you decide which take is going to be *the* take, i.e. the one to go on the album, just highlight the entire take and 'render time selection'. Done and done. No splitting, no mess. Just one .wav file, of the best take.
DuraMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.