A few responses here as someone who loves both Reaper and Cubase.
- The need to arm BOTH record and monitor just to hear what you are playing, if you are not using direct monitoring (and I never use it…).
Yes, it’s an extra click in Reaper, but it’s incredibly flexible. The routing matrix lets you set up monitoring paths that suit any setup, including virtual instruments, external gear, or hybrids. It may take an extra second to arm both, but that flexibility is worth it. In Cubase, it’s simpler upfront, but Reaper’s customization offers more control once you get the hang of it.
- The navigator (aka ‘Overview’ in Cubase) is a joke, compared to Cubase one.
True, Cubase’s overview is slick, but the Reaper navigator is just as functional. It’s not as pretty, but it’s fast, responsive, and I can place it anywhere in the UI without restrictions. Plus, Reaper lets me script or download enhancements that fit my workflow, so what may feel like a joke can become a serious tool.
- No track inspector.
Reaper doesn’t have a dedicated track inspector, but its alternative is the track control panels, which are incredibly customizable. I can add almost anything I need to the TCP, and if I want an inspector-like experience, there are scripts and themes for that. In Cubase, the inspector is great out of the box, but I prefer Reaper’s ability to mold things to how I work.
- No “pre-gain” setting.
While Reaper doesn’t have a labeled “pre-gain,” it offers similar functionality through its built-in gain control on each item. You can adjust gain on a clip-by-clip basis before it hits the channel fader, which gives a comparable effect. Plus, Reaper’s flexibility allows me to create my own “pre-gain” setups via track templates or scripts.
- Only one mixer view.
Reaper’s mixer view may seem limited, but its dockable layout allows you to replicate multiple views if needed. Also, with SWS extensions or scripts, you can switch between different layouts and configurations that suit your workflow. Cubase’s multiple mixer views are great, but Reaper’s adaptability fills that gap.
- Tracks aren’t separated accordingly to the data they receive (MIDI, instruments, audio, etc.). Actually, I never got used to the ‘all purpose’ track paradigm in Reaper.
The ‘all purpose’ track paradigm can feel unusual, but once you’re used to it, it’s incredibly powerful. It allows me to re-route and handle audio, MIDI, and instruments without needing separate track types. It simplifies complex routing and eliminates the need to worry about specific track types, which I think speeds up my workflow.
- No control room equivalent.
Reaper doesn’t have a dedicated control room feature like Cubase, but its routing matrix can emulate much of the functionality. The learning curve is steeper, but it’s highly configurable. Control room is a great Cubase feature, no doubt, but I prefer the endless routing possibilities I get in Reaper once it’s set up to my liking.
- An overall unfriendly interface, compared to Cubase one : markers lacking in the transport panel, no timebase settings and program selector in the track headers…
Reaper’s default interface might not be as polished, but it’s infinitely customizable. You can make the interface work for you. I’ve tweaked my setup to include marker controls, timebase settings, and other functions exactly where I want them. It might not be as intuitive initially, but Reaper allows you to shape it into a highly personalized environment.
- The Reaper mixer is not even comparable to the MixConsole one : not even a toolbar for usual functions such as transport, markers, channels linking and sizing, visibility, general bypass toggles…
Cubase’s MixConsole is great, no doubt, but Reaper’s mixer can be tailored to do most of that via extensions or scripts. The functionality is there; it just takes a bit more setup. Plus, the performance of Reaper’s mixer is hard to beat, especially when working with larger projects.
- The Reaper persisting MIDI bugs and pitfalls : among others, we need a script to properly split (which means, without splitting the notes…) a MIDI part equivalent in Reaper.
I agree that MIDI handling in Reaper has its quirks, and Cubase is definitely more polished in this area. But Reaper’s MIDI tools are getting better, and with scripts and extensions, I’ve managed to work around most of those issues. It’s not as elegant as Cubase’s MIDI editor, but the sheer flexibility of Reaper’s scripting community compensates for these bugs.
- No input transformer : again, scripting is mandatory to get an equivalent.
Reaper doesn’t have a native input transformer, but with scripts and ReaScripts, you can replicate that functionality and more. It’s not built-in like in Cubase, but Reaper’s scripting allows for even more custom transformations once you get into it. It’s the trade-off between out-of-the-box functionality and full customization.
- Several Cubase functions that are available if needed, even if I don’t use them much: arrange and chord tracks, among others.
Cubase’s arrange and chord tracks are fantastic, but Reaper’s flexibility allows for alternative workflows to achieve similar results. You can use region markers or external tools to replicate arrange track functionality, and for chords, there are plugins and scripts. I don’t deny that Cubase makes these more accessible, but in Reaper, the power lies in how you configure the tools for your needs.
Reaper may not match Cubase in every department right out of the gate, but its sheer adaptability and customization options make it superior for users who are willing to invest in tailoring their environment.
One area where Reaper is truly untouchable is its insane efficiency when it comes to CPU and memory usage. Whether I’m running hundreds of tracks or heavy plugins, Reaper barely flinches, while other DAWs, Cubase included, can start to bog down. This efficiency extends across the board, allowing for smooth performance on even modest systems. On top of that, Reaper’s API is on a level no other DAW can even imagine. The fact that I can script, automate, and integrate tools in ways that transform my workflow is unmatched. In one sense, Reaper is not like other DAWs in that it’s a customizable powerhouse that lets you shape your creative process without limits.
