As others have hinted at, Reaper has quite the steep learning curve if you’re new to DAWs. Then again, Kenny Gioia’s Reaper Mania Channel is extremely helpful in flattening said curve.
That’s interesting Steve. So Rack v2 is definately ahead of the curve there? But I guess I could just use an aggregate device with the Focusrite + the ES-9. I’ve been doing that for my hybrid setup and it works fine. But surprising…
I use Harrison Mixbus and Ardour. Love both. The devs, community, and quality of both products are pretty high in my opinion. I’ve both bought Mixbus, and donated to Ardour. Of course, you can compile and build Ardour yourself, for free. Or if you have Linux, install from repository.
Could you tell us what those limitations are?
I don’t even know how that can work. Odds are 100% that your two cards will have slightly different sample rate. So what is supposed to happen?
I’ve no idea. Best ask Andrew how it works, but it does seem to.
Thanks everyone for all this advice. For me this sums it up (re: the advantages of Bitwig).
That’s exactly what attracted me to VCV in the first place, and it was love at first sight. I now have some analog instruments and a multitrack mixer, which are all working like a dream in VCV2. So I’ve been thinking about what I need to make it all work together even better and get the most out of VCV + hardware. This and other threads are helpful. And when I find I’m thinking about it all too much, I stop and load up VCV for a jam…
When you make an aggregated audio device on macOS, one is designated “clock-master” and the others as “clock-slaves”. In Rack v2 you can have multiple audio modules and one of them (right-click) is the “master audio module”.
ok, but what happens if the non-master is running 1% slower than the master? at some point you will overflow the buffer - you will have data to write out but the card isn’t ready for it. Do you buffer it infinitely? Even worse (for playback) - what if it’s 1% fast? Then it will underflow and play the same buffer twice.
No idea, I can only quote what it says on the tin But if the core modules are still part of the Rack codebase I’ll bet the answer lies there where Rack is concerned. If you find out let us know.
I will try to take a peek. My guess is that it just works by luck. As long as your cards run “pretty close” to the same rate it works.
I’ve never heard of an audio system with multiple adapters that didn’t require a master clock to make them all play in exact sync.
Maybe 20 years ago I worked at a DAW company. Every night they would test the daily build by recording 128 channels for 14 hours. If there was a single underflow or overflow the test would fail. I kind of doubt that you could pass this test with independent audio hardware that didn’t run from a common clock.
I vote for Bitwig. But …
… is there really that great benefit when using the Rack inside a DAW?
Before Rack v2 I thought this would be a game changer.
Now I’m a bit disappointed because I only see usability improvements compared to running the Rack and a DAW side by side.
What’s your opinion?
I have a feeling that in a short time we’ll start seeing very clever ways of putting VCV to work as a VST to accomplish things that would be difficult or impossible by running VCV and the DAW independently. I can’t imagine what those techniques are going to be. I’m kind of still at the base of the mountain just starting the climb and it goes up further than I can see, or hear. But I’ll bet by January the internet will already be flooded with good ideas for what to do with this new functionality, in many different DAWs.
In general, Rack VST can be the turning point to replace Massive, Serum and other closed synthesizers whose famous presets are often used, taking away elegance and uniqueness from the music.
For me the real turning point is using Rack in standalone. Create the whole composition in Rack, melodies, modulations, rhythms, patterns … Then record the Rack’s outputs into the inputs of a daw to handle mixes and masters. In order to stay closer to the motto “Virtual Eurorack”
Echoing some points here I would go with Bitwig myself.
I regularly use two other virtual modulars besides Rack, one extensively, both of which work as VSTs but I use both standalone (one has a standalone, the other I host in a lightweight standalone host). Using virtual modulars as VSTs is not very appealing to me. I have always mixed and recorded straight out of my virtual modulars; with my hardware rack I usually record into Disting or my Sony PCM-D100 as I have come to realise that I really don’t want to look at a computer AT ALL when I am using hardware.
Rack, however, I have come to realise in its VST form, offers something different to my other two virtual modulars as a VST when used in Bitwig (and probably Logic and Reaper too given their enormous flexibility). Until the VST was released I was considering selling my Bitwig licence because I wasn’t using it - long habit and a love of Max4Live devices means that I always default to Live, but as noted, Live’s per channel midi handling, which people have been complaining about for a decade or more, is terrible.
Yesterday I blew the virtual dust off Bitwig and, yes, this is the DAW to use with Rack. Taking CV out of Rack works perfectly. I am still pretty sure that 98% of the time I will continue to use Rack standalone but on that odd occasion I need a DAW I will definitely be firing up Bitwig.
Bitwig is a full blown DAW that is on par with most other DAWs on the market.
The rest is the user’s capabilities and how the tool is used by the user.
I suggest you try a demo/trial.