Weird playback problem when opening session recorded elsewhere (SOLVED)

Reaper has been installed (and is about to be licenced...) on the radio station's PC in our new high tech concert hall here (Melbourne Recital Centre, ). The whole setup there is MADI based using DigiCo hardware. Audio anywhere can be routed anywhere by that system. The radio station's PC has a RME MADI card offering 64 channels in and out, and another RME card to provide analog and digital I/O for monitoring etc. Having recorded there last night using this rig for the first time, when I opened up the session here at home there was distortion which was definitely not there when I recorded it - I have an analog backup recorded from the PC's line output routed from Reaper's mixer output and that's fine, so there was clearly no problem with the original audio. When I looked at the routing matrix here, the master was not routed anywhere but audio (distorted) was still heard. Looking at the project file and comparing it with one recorded here, the one from the MADI system had these three lines for MASTERHWOUT - MASTERHWOUT 66 0 1.00000000000000 0.00000000000000 0 0 0 -1.00000000000000 MASTERHWOUT 62 0 1.00000000000000 0.00000000000000 0 0 0 -1.00000000000000 MASTERHWOUT 64 0 1.00000000000000 0.00000000000000 0 0 0 -1.00000000000000 MASTER_NCH 2 while one recorded here has only one such line - MASTERHWOUT 0 0 1.00000000000000 0.00000000000000 0 0 0 -1.00000000000000 MASTER_NCH 2 By manually editing the project file from the MADI system so that the MASTERHWOUT lines are replaced by the single line above, thankfully undistorted playback is restored. Should it be necessary to have to do this by hand? I kind of expected that Reaper would somehow accommodate running the project file on different sets of hardware itself.

Hmm try clicking on the master i/o button in the mixer.. you'll probably see 3 hardware sends. The current behavior (for the master track only) is to clamp the output index to available outputs.. which is probably less than ideal, and should likely be corrected... -Justin

Thanks for the response - yup, now I see them. I was looking in the matrix - maybe it can't show them there as there's no rational way of doing so given that the hardware concerned doesn't actually exist and therefore can't be included in the table. If in due course some more elegant way of dealing with the scenario can indeed be found, it would be ideal.