TAXI.com

What does Cubase Essential 4 have that Reaper does not?

I have been playing around with both for a while, and if anything, Reaper seems to be the superior product. Loads much faster, for one thing.

But for those out there who actually know their stuff, is Cubase Essential 4 the better product? And if so/if not, why?

I think Cubase can have a few more separate monitor mixes, like eight instead of six, but I'm far from an expert on Cubase and jes' getting a handle on Reaper.

I'd choose Reaper between those two. I use Cubase 5. Cubase E4 is a very stripped down version with a lot of limitations that will soon annoy you, like very tight limits on how many effects you can use on a track, things like that. Reaper, however, is a full version of itself, and they continually update it for free. If you go Cubase, you'll probably want at least one of the "Studio" versions if not the full version...but the Essential is just too limiting--it's a big tease.

Mark Kaufman wrote:I'd choose Reaper between those two. I use Cubase 5. Cubase E4 is a very stripped down version with a lot of limitations that will soon annoy you, like very tight limits on how many effects you can use on a track, things like that. Reaper, however, is a full version of itself, and they continually update it for free. If you go Cubase, you'll probably want at least one of the "Studio" versions if not the full version...but the Essential is just too limiting--it's a big tease.

Thanks for the input. I have been testing them both over the past day or two and I just like Reaper better. Without a doubt it is more intuitive for knuckleheads like me.

It's not just you, I use Cubase5, and at first I found it to be the most un-intuitive thing I've ever had. Now though I don't think I could do without it, it does about everything. It's like learning a different language, German I suppose,lol!!

Jeremy Michael K wrote:

Mark Kaufman wrote:I'd choose Reaper between those two. I use Cubase 5. Cubase E4 is a very stripped down version with a lot of limitations that will soon annoy you, like very tight limits on how many effects you can use on a track, things like that. Reaper, however, is a full version of itself, and they continually update it for free. If you go Cubase, you'll probably want at least one of the "Studio" versions if not the full version...but the Essential is just too limiting--it's a big tease.

Thanks for the input. I have been testing them both over the past day or two and I just like Reaper better. Without a doubt it is more intuitive for knuckleheads like me.

Maybe their ad should be: 4 out of 5 knuckleheads prefer Reaper!

(Just kidding! )

I use cubase 5 and had really never heard of reaper until I saw this post. Just looking at it, if it really does all that it says it does and does it in a stable, bug free way. I think I'd go that route.

As other's have mentioned Cubase is very unintuitive (although very capable) and is fairly crippled until you start to get up into at least the studio versions.

You've got me curious about this reaper now. I'm gonna download a copy and play with it.

B

Reaper is definitely a contender. It just presents itself in such a different way than Cubase that it's like learning a new language. But as DAWs go, it's no slouch...just a matter of the learning curve.

The DAW you choose to learn and use truly doesn't matter these days--they all rock. But a limited version of any of them will soon make you feel weak, like Superman on a Kryptonite binge.

I started messing with Reaper about a month ago and it's very impressive. But like Mark says "its like another language". I really would need a lot of time to get to understand it well and I just don't have the time to learn a new DAW.

I also looked into Mixcraft 5 for my Windows laptop, but for $15.00 less Reaper has a lot more features.