Ableton Forum

sqook wrote:

Angstrom wrote:I wish the guy well, but I have to agree that it lacks any killer feature which might make anyone swap over.

I think the two features that are being pushed the most are size (quick startup time, small executable size, etc.), and price.

While they aren't exactly software features, these are important to a lot of people, and thus Reaper has found a large potential market already. I think it's kind of funny that people look down on it for being "cheap" (both in price and appearance), and yet continuously bitch and complain whenever something is too expensive. I guess you really can't please all the people all the time.

cheap might make someone choose it as a new DAW, but my point was 'swap'.

If you have already bought another DAW, then you are throwing that money you spent away to go to this. And for you to do that it would have to have a killer feature, you can hardly count cost as that feature for people who already own a similar product.

If I have a television which cost me £400 and I see another similar which costs £100 I would not buy it and save 300 , I would have spent 500 in total, for no functional benefit.

it's classic case of perceived value based on price point... "logic is really great; it costs $999; it must be great, or else why would it cost so much?" Conversely, "reaper is cheap; it looks cheap; it's only $40; it must suck; shit, even Band-in-a-Box is more expensive."

Some of the best tools out there are cheap or even free: EnergyXT, FLStudio, SSS plugs, Kjaerhus Classic plugs, the list goes on and on.

Angstrom wrote:If I have a television which cost me £400 and I see another similar which costs £100 I would not buy it and save 300 , I would have spent 500 in total, for no functional benefit.

You mean apart from the whole having a second telly thing? like twice as many tellies

Angy has a point about swapping. I'd counter with the fact that a lot of people might want more than one app/host. If I was playing live, without question, I'd only use Live. But when producing, maybe I want some other options, like taking my CPU to 90%, or having 100+ tracks with track folders, etc. With low-cost alternatives, this is actually feasible for many people.

RhythmSickness wrote:

Angstrom wrote:If I have a television which cost me £400 and I see another similar which costs £100 I would not buy it and save 300 , I would have spent 500 in total, for no functional benefit.

You mean apart from the whole having a second telly thing? like twice as many tellies

I LOVE how you guys call them tellies. It's proper and a bit gay all at once.

does carl cox use it?

To make trance, yes he does.

Check out some videos of what it can do, keeping in mind these videos were made 6+ months ago, and even more features are in it now:

http://www.reaper.fm/~pipeline/REAPERVideos/basics/

especially http://www.reaper.fm/~pipeline/REAPERVi ... update.wmv

Angstrom wrote:

sqook wrote:

Angstrom wrote:I wish the guy well, but I have to agree that it lacks any killer feature which might make anyone swap over.

I think the two features that are being pushed the most are size (quick startup time, small executable size, etc.), and price.

While they aren't exactly software features, these are important to a lot of people, and thus Reaper has found a large potential market already. I think it's kind of funny that people look down on it for being "cheap" (both in price and appearance), and yet continuously bitch and complain whenever something is too expensive. I guess you really can't please all the people all the time.

cheap might make someone choose it as a new DAW, but my point was 'swap'.

If you have already bought another DAW, then you are throwing that money you spent away to go to this. And for you to do that it would have to have a killer feature, you can hardly count cost as that feature for people who already own a similar product.

If I have a television which cost me £400 and I see another similar which costs £100 I would not buy it and save 300 , I would have spent 500 in total, for no functional benefit.

Right, except the difference is that your television doesn't ask you for an extra 150$ each year for "upgrades"... after time, it adds up.

unless I am missing something, besides no session view, what about audio warping?

I realize I sound like a fanboy, but a couple of more things I like:
1. Per channel CPU usage notification
2. Native recording and rendering to MP3. Some companies charge you $20 for this added feature, and it's half the cost of the entire Reaper app.

sqook wrote:

Angstrom wrote:

sqook wrote: I think the two features that are being pushed the most are size (quick startup time, small executable size, etc.), and price.

While they aren't exactly software features, these are important to a lot of people, and thus Reaper has found a large potential market already. I think it's kind of funny that people look down on it for being "cheap" (both in price and appearance), and yet continuously bitch and complain whenever something is too expensive. I guess you really can't please all the people all the time.

cheap might make someone choose it as a new DAW, but my point was 'swap'.

If you have already bought another DAW, then you are throwing that money you spent away to go to this. And for you to do that it would have to have a killer feature, you can hardly count cost as that feature for people who already own a similar product.

If I have a television which cost me £400 and I see another similar which costs £100 I would not buy it and save 300 , I would have spent 500 in total, for no functional benefit.

Right, except the difference is that your television doesn't ask you for an extra 150$ each year for "upgrades"... after time, it adds up.

No. they take away all the channels you watch.
Then charge you for "digital tv".

Its not fair!!!
Belgium loses free CNN and discovery channel and Germany has its own comedy central and porn on every channel.

Damn tellie

hoffman2k wrote:

sqook wrote: Right, except the difference is that your television doesn't ask you for an extra 150$ each year for "upgrades"... after time, it adds up.

No. they take away all the channels you watch.
Then charge you for "digital tv".

Its not fair!!!
Belgium loses free CNN and discovery channel and Germany has its own comedy central and porn on every channel.

Damn tellie

All the Germans I know have the same ~15 crap channels, which they are supposed to pay like 20EUR a year for... but whenever the collection guys come around, everybody lies and says they have no TV... heh.

How many of those channels are dedicated entirely to Hasselhoff?

sqook wrote:

hoffman2k wrote:

sqook wrote: Right, except the difference is that your television doesn't ask you for an extra 150$ each year for "upgrades"... after time, it adds up.

No. they take away all the channels you watch.
Then charge you for "digital tv".

Its not fair!!!
Belgium loses free CNN and discovery channel and Germany has its own comedy central and porn on every channel.

Damn tellie

All the Germans I know have the same ~15 crap channels, which they are supposed to pay like 20EUR a year for... but whenever the collection guys come around, everybody lies and says they have no TV... heh.

Nothing different from here. Apart from the nightly programming.
Instead of porn we get reruns of whatever played that day. most likely a rerun of a dubbed infomercial.

They took away all the channels that mathered and left us with the crap that even my dead dog wouldn't watch..

The point being.. Even a TV will cost you yearly if you actually use it like a couch potato. And i'm not talking about the 20€ yearly fee. (which is about 100€ yearly here). there are other fee's if you actually want to watch something else then days of our lives.