Fighting with Reason

[8cros]

I love how the people who claim to have evidence that prove Reason sounds worse compared to other daws ALWAYS fail to provide that evidence to others.

Or reverse the burden of proof. "Prove me there are no aliens!" No mate, until science finds a way to demonstrate a negative proposition, the burden is on you.

You do not know all the troubles.
It's just a joke. I've seen entire generations of people disappeared in the Russian-speaking communities because of the unimaginable trolling.

Do you want a mixture of moderation, cynicism, hatred of Reason and carelessness?
When Reason is only for show. And in fact, all do not use it.

Speaking of Black Mirror - I know you use a translation app, but sometimes your posts come across like not-quite-ready-for-prime-time AI algorithms…

Sorry, carry on, nothing to see here!

I would like to say that this forum is a quiet haven in a stormy sea.

"Sometimes it is important not science, but the authority". (from)

[8cros]

Speaking of Black Mirror - I know you use a translation app, but sometimes your posts come across like not-quite-ready-for-prime-time AI algorithms…

Sorry, carry on, nothing to see here!

You just imagine that us less. We are right, but we are two. And those who say that Reason terrible toy, there are 10 and more. And they can correct your posts.

...0nce me have started to ban. Because of the dispute in favor of Reason.
And in the end I get more time. But nobody not delete my account.
Because I have a lot of tracks papers and patches.

[The_G]

I use Reason and Logic, and used to use Live (8). I've never noticed a difference in how unprocessed audio sounds from DAW to DAW. A 909 sample sounds like a 909 sample sounds like a 909 sample. Ditto guitars or vocals.

On the other hand, some VST/AU synths sound bigger, fatter and fuller than what you get from stock synths or REs in Reason. I fully realize that this *might* be a perception issue, rather than something that holds up on test. But it *might* also have something to do Reason's sdk. (FTR, some prominent VST/AU synths--like FM8--do not sound bigger, fatter or fuller, and "bigger, fatter and fuller" isn't always a good thing either.)

I'm curious for people who know more about the inner workings of Reason and its sdk to comment on this. And I am 100% open to the conclusion being "it's your imagination, dude."

[WongoTheSane]

I love how the people who claim to have evidence that prove Reason sounds worse compared to other daws ALWAYS fail to provide that evidence to others.

Or reverse the burden of proof. "Prove me there are no aliens!" No mate, until science finds a way to demonstrate a negative proposition, the burden is on you.

Then don't state it as a negative: Prove to me there ARE aliens. Does that make it any easier?

In our case, isn't the negative proposition: prove to me there is NO change introduced by running audio through Reason (or summing audio in Reason)?

Just thinking out loud, nothing to see here.
Or is there?

Sorry, I didn't mean that in the linguistic way, but in the argument logic way. Negative means that the claim is negative ("prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist").

In this case, the request is to prove that "Reason's sound alteration doesn't exist" (which goes against common knowledge, contradicts studies made by people from audio, maths & CS backgrounds, and is based on the assumption that there are different ways to add floats in 64-bits - we're definitely in Santa Claus territory). But let's try anyway:

Alice - Here are the waveforms, as compared to all other DAWs. Identical to the last bit.
Bob - Yes, but it can still be heard by ear.
Alice (after a while) - All right, I've conducted tests with all humans alive today, none of them could tell Reason from anything else.
Bob - Aha! I didn't say humans. What if it's only audible to... [jarring chord] other animals?
Alice (after a longer while) - OK, I've conducted tests on all living species, none of them can tell Reason from another DAW.
Bob (triumphant) - But... I didn't say "on earth"!
Alice (after an even longer while) - Here, I've gone through the whole galaxy... (etc...)

Now reverse the proposition (imagining their claim is indeed true): "prove that Reason alters the sound". It's soooo much easier to prove! Import a wav, export, notice the difference, end of! It took all of 30 seconds, as compared to an infinite amount of work for the negative claim. That's why a positive claim is provable while a negative one isn't. And it's easy to derive who the burden of proof falls upon from that (whomever holds the positive claim).

(Watching too much Black Mirror lately…)

Featuring stand-alone dramas -- sharp, suspenseful, satirical tales that explore techno-paranoia -- "Black Mirror" is a contemporary reworking of "The Twilight Zone" with stories that tap into the collective unease about the modern world.


This is an official notice for the devs I'm beta-testing for at the moment that I won't be able to help them during the next three days for binging reasons.

[8cros]

Just for example:

It is not necessary to prove that the view is not correct.
Just if you spoil the reputation of your opponent has. And the accent on the weak side.

Logic is in fact a lot of white spots.

[selig]

I love how the people who claim to have evidence that prove Reason sounds worse compared to other daws ALWAYS fail to provide that evidence to others.

Or reverse the burden of proof. "Prove me there are no aliens!" No mate, until science finds a way to demonstrate a negative proposition, the burden is on you.

Then don't state it as a negative: Prove to me there ARE aliens. Does that make it any easier?

In our case, isn't the negative proposition: prove to me there is NO change introduced by running audio through Reason (or summing audio in Reason)?

Just thinking out loud, nothing to see here.
Or is there?

Sorry, I didn't mean that in the linguistic way, but in the argument logic way. Negative means that the claim is negative ("prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist").

In this case, the request is to prove that "Reason's sound alteration doesn't exist" (which goes against common knowledge, contradicts studies made by people from audio, maths & CS backgrounds, and is based on the assumption that there are different ways to add floats in 64-bits - we're definitely in Santa Claus territory). But let's try anyway:

Alice - Here are the waveforms, as compared to all other DAWs. Identical to the last bit.
Bob - Yes, but it can still be heard by ear.
Alice (after a while) - All right, I've conducted tests with all humans alive today, none of them could tell Reason from anything else.
Bob - Aha! I didn't say humans. What if it's only audible to... [jarring chord] other animals?
Alice (after a longer while) - OK, I've conducted tests on all living species, none of them can tell Reason from another DAW.
Bob (triumphant) - But... I didn't say "on earth"!
Alice (after an even longer while) - Here, I've gone through the whole galaxy... (etc...)

Now reverse the proposition (imagining their claim is indeed true): "prove that Reason alters the sound". It's soooo much easier to prove! Import a wav, export, notice the difference, end of! It took all of 30 seconds, as compared to an infinite amount of work for the negative claim. That's why a positive claim is provable while a negative one isn't. And it's easy to derive who the burden of proof falls upon from that (whomever holds the positive claim).

(Watching too much Black Mirror lately…)

Featuring stand-alone dramas -- sharp, suspenseful, satirical tales that explore techno-paranoia -- "Black Mirror" is a contemporary reworking of "The Twilight Zone" with stories that tap into the collective unease about the modern world.


This is an official notice for the devs I'm beta-testing for at the moment that I won't be able to help them during the next three days for binging reasons.

Black Mirror is a deep rabbit hole, and oh so much fun - enjoy!

As to your previous comments, you say it's so much easier to prove Reason alters the sound. And yet. No one has been able to do just that - and yet countless people have indeed proven the "negative", as you say. So which one is easier?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WongoTheSane]

As to your previous comments, you say it's so much easier to prove Reason alters the sound. And yet. No one has been able to do just that - and yet countless people have indeed proven the "negative", as you say. So which one is easier?

It is easier IF (and only if) the proposition is true. It's not a tool to convince them (or determine who is right or what is true), it's only to define who has the burden of proof (it's used in legal too: cops have to prove culpability, otherwise defendants would have to prove their innocence, which is impossible, so the burden is always on the cops). If it is determined that the burden of proof falls on them and they don't recognize that fact, don't even engage, it's useless, they won't respect the rules of a fair debate (starting with rule 1: provide evidence of your claim [FAIL], rule 2: respect Occam [FAIL], rule 3: asking for evidence requires you to effectively review it when provided [FAIL], and so on and so forth).

Logically speaking though, you can't say "it is proven that Reason doesn't alter the sound", because you cannot test all possibilities (specifically, you can't test the stupid ones, like "it alters the sound in alternate dimensions", or "at the subatomic level" or whatever bullshit they'll throw at you). That proposition is not formally provable - which they'll take as being "false", another of their common mistakes ("two parallels never cross" is unprovable AND true, so "provable/unprovable" and "true/false" are completely unrelated).

It reminds me of a dialog I read not too long ago, about creationism:

- You can't provide a formal proof that earth wasn't created 6000 years ago.
- We don't need to, we have the fucking bones.

We can't prove Reason doesn't alter/color/dull the sound, but we don't need to, because we use it everyday and can see/ear that it doesn't, because it's been tested every which way by a huge number of very knowledgeable people (you being one of them), because it contradicts basic known facts, but most importantly, because it's not on us to do so. And we have the fucking bones!

(the unprovability of the general (unbounded) proposition doesn't preclude formally proving that Reason doesn't alter the sound in a particular (bounded) setup, which is what you set up to do in this thread: this one is definitely in the provable set, and I'm pretty sure you'd have won the argument had they managed to define their particular setup. Or provide evidence. Or anything, really. Right now, you're just waiting for your opponent to find the ring. I admire your patience).

[8cros]

If Reason so good, make the same sound.
Wide, large, warm, as in modern Romplers.

But nobody does, because Reason is an outsider.

[Riverman]

I think people have mistaken my thread as a pissing contest.
1. I have nothing to prove, I was describing a personal frustration.
2. When asked for more explanation, I gave examples of the personal frustration - not to prove an assertion, but to better communicate what I was feeling.

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

This thread is weird. The attitude is weird. It seems like complete misunderstanding on top of a bizarre agenda.
The people I spend time with communicate how they feel to each other.
Someone may say "man, I'm struggling in my marriage this week"
We don't say to him "hey man, show us tests that indicate that your struggle isn't all in your head, because blah blah"
We'd just empathise and say "yeah man, marriage is hard, I feel you".

Thanks for the empathy guys. Wow.
Point completely missed.

[8cros]

(it's used in legal too: cops have to prove culpability, otherwise defendants would have to prove their innocence, which is impossible, so the burden is always on the cops)

Someone can confirm that you were at home?

[gak]

Since I hear this all the time, I really do wonder.

I don't have any answers, but it has to be something.

[drloop]

I think people have mistaken my thread as a pissing contest.
1. I have nothing to prove, I was describing a personal frustration.
2. When asked for more explanation, I gave examples of the personal frustration - not to prove an assertion, but to better communicate what I was feeling.

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

This thread is weird. The attitude is weird. It seems like complete misunderstanding on top of a bizarre agenda.
The people I spend time with communicate how they feel to each other.
Someone may say "man, I'm struggling in my marriage this week"
We don't say to him "hey man, show us tests that indicate that your struggle isn't all in your head, because blah blah"
We'd just empathise and say "yeah man, marriage is hard, I feel you".

Thanks for the empathy guys. Wow.
Point completely missed.

If you have a feeling, that´s one thing. But claiming that PT sounds better by posting two files which were processed in different way, what´s the point of that? We are comparing different mixes or mastering in that case.

Let me qoute your first post .
"I love creating music in Reason, but man, I always feel like I'm fighting to get a mixdown working. Especially getting vocals to sit in the mix.
I bounce out stems and import them into ProTools and bam. Without adding a single plugin or touching the faders, it all just sounds so much better balanced and together.
Why?
It's so bizarre and it's without fail."

Well I tried WITHOUT ANY PROCESSING with two different DAWs. AND BAM! The two files null....
I give some empathy. I was not succesful first time trying to null Reason 9 and Tracktion 6 stems.
Here´s how I did it.

1. I rendered the same stems in Reason 9 and in Tracktion 6. (14 stereo channels of audio) 44.1kHz, 24 bit, no dither, no normalise.
2. Then I took the two stereo files rendered from R9 and T6 and put them in R9 and flipped inv switch on one of the two channels.
They did not null out!
3. Going back to see what was the problem I found that the master volume in T6 was -3 db.
4. Rendered a new file from T6 now with the master at 0 db.
5. Put the new T6 file into R9. This time flipping of the phase switch made everything total silence.
6. I rendered the silence to see if there were anything left to hear.
7. Measured the silence file in Wavosaur and there was nothing.

Here is the R9 rendered file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6897056/r9test.wav
Here is the T6 rendered file : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6897056/t6test.wav
Here is the file I rendered (just took some bars not the whole song) after switching inv on one mixerchannel in Reason. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6897056/t6test.wav

[mataya]

I agree that the discussion is pointless.
No matter what you said, I'll still have the same problem working inside reason only. And no matter what I said, you'll alway produce a pristine hi-end chart banger with reason. So like most of of you say, it's got to be the producer problem and not reason. I'm ok with that. Im in the bussines for over 12 years and my mixes are all over tv and radio and have quite some music released(both reason, FL, Nuendo mixes). I'm able to produce a professional mix and get payed for it. I just have to do it with lot more workarounds when using just reason and I find it strange.
Still, the funfactor of reason is unbeatable.

[Kov]

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

As soon as You moved away from just playing an instrument to engeineering stuff like sound design, mixing and mastering, You entered a scientific area. When You learn the necessary science You'll be much more in controll of things and get much less frustrated.

[Gorgon]

I use Reason and Logic, and used to use Live (8). I've never noticed a difference in how unprocessed audio sounds from DAW to DAW. A 909 sample sounds like a 909 sample sounds like a 909 sample. Ditto guitars or vocals.

On the other hand, some VST/AU synths sound bigger, fatter and fuller than what you get from stock synths or REs in Reason. I fully realize that this *might* be a perception issue, rather than something that holds up on test.

It sounds fatter or fuller because there's already some processing (and/or effects) going on in the VST itself. In Reason, the stock devices are pretty much all without any effects so they might sound thinner. Adding that people are generally lazy and can't be arsed to actually learn their tools, slapping on a VST and saying that it sounds better than Reason might seem sensible to them.

[Yonatan]

There has been simular debate about that all music uploaded onto SoundCloud loses dynamic and life, which some says must have to do with some destructive bad compression of the audiofile compared to other sites. Is it so? I dont know.
Has Reason totally loseless data handling? Is it the same data handling in every DAW?
Is there at all any difference in inner data handling in a DAW?
That must be the most important issue. And who can answer that? Anyone working as a audio DAW developer?

If there is no real difference there, then there could be many other default issues that can make a difference.

This thread is interesting but has turned into a ghost buster. But I can still sympathize with the experience that the walls and roof of the mixing environment in Reason can sometimes "feel" more narrow and tough to get to where one wants to go with the overall sound of the mix, especially when having more complex mixes. My comparison goes to the analogue mixing environment as well as Cubase several years ago (2007). But that can be purely psycological or to do with how the overall design and workflow of the DAW. And also the factor that sometimes it seem to get harder the more one learns more about production, at least until one has come to new levels. It´s the same in all endeavours I guess, you just go with the flow at the beginning and then when you get into details you easily get lost in the details, and you have to push yourself into another "flow" position where you dont think too much and analyse, but still have gained more knowledge. Another level.

I think it´s easy to get started in Reason, but harder to end things for me. Maybe it´s easier to get lost because you really have to do a lot from scratch in Reason, at least up until more RE devices comes out.
Sometimes things just melt together well with or without RE:s, but often the head is hitting the wall for me, to get the mix to that final stage where it not only sounds good, but really shining. Everything just has to get right. I find it easy to screw things up with all the tweakings. But that must be so in all DAWs, right? I have not seriously used ProTools so can not compare how easy I get to where I want with the mix. So I sit back and listen to orther multi-DAW-users in here.

We have also had the discussion in this forum about that the exported stereo audiofile out of Reason gets a lot flatter than what is in the mixing project. And that many experience that some other DAWs seem to be more "neutral". That is also in the department of "feeling". Also simular issues been debating in different sounds of digital EQ:s and compressors. Can they be vintage at all etc.

I am all for debunking myths and I guess that Riverman also are interested in knowing more why he experience a difference.
It dont have to be a difference per se, but why so many experience this to be so, is interesting in itself. Is there same debate over in other DAW forums? Is there same insecurity?

The issue does not become easier when ProTools and Studio One brag about their refined audio machine. What is gimmicks and what is there any truth in?

I want to stay objective and would love to learn if these ghosts of digital audio have any core truth to it or if they are totally just psychoacoustic imaginations. Either way, the questions are interesting to investigate.

[Riverman]

I think people have mistaken my thread as a pissing contest.
1. I have nothing to prove, I was describing a personal frustration.
2. When asked for more explanation, I gave examples of the personal frustration - not to prove an assertion, but to better communicate what I was feeling.

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

This thread is weird. The attitude is weird. It seems like complete misunderstanding on top of a bizarre agenda.
The people I spend time with communicate how they feel to each other.
Someone may say "man, I'm struggling in my marriage this week"
We don't say to him "hey man, show us tests that indicate that your struggle isn't all in your head, because blah blah"
We'd just empathise and say "yeah man, marriage is hard, I feel you".

Thanks for the empathy guys. Wow.
Point completely missed.

If you have a feeling, that´s one thing. But claiming that PT sounds better by posting two files which were processed in different way, what´s the point of that? We are comparing different mixes or mastering in that case.

I never said ProTools objectively sounds better. I was describing a frustration with my process in Reason compared to Pro Tools. It's a description of a subjective process.
I uploaded examples in response to a request, to better communicate my situation. So you could hear what was going on from my perspective.

Let me qoute your first post .
"I love creating music in Reason, but man, I always feel like I'm fighting to get a mixdown working. Especially getting vocals to sit in the mix.
I bounce out stems and import them into ProTools and bam. Without adding a single plugin or touching the faders, it all just sounds so much better balanced and together.
Why?
It's so bizarre and it's without fail."

Well I tried WITHOUT ANY PROCESSING with two different DAWs. AND BAM! The two files null....
I give some empathy. I was not succesful first time trying to null Reason 9 and Tracktion 6 stems.
Here´s how I did it.

1. I rendered the same stems in Reason 9 and in Tracktion 6. (14 stereo channels of audio) 44.1kHz, 24 bit, no dither, no normalise.
2. Then I took the two stereo files rendered from R9 and T6 and put them in R9 and flipped inv switch on one of the two channels.
They did not null out!
3. Going back to see what was the problem I found that the master volume in T6 was -3 db.
4. Rendered a new file from T6 now with the master at 0 db.
5. Put the new T6 file into R9. This time flipping of the phase switch made everything total silence.
6. I rendered the silence to see if there were anything left to hear.
7. Measured the silence file in Wavosaur and there was nothing.

Here is the R9 rendered file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6897056/r9test.wav
Here is the T6 rendered file : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6897056/t6test.wav
Here is the file I rendered (just took some bars not the whole song) after switching inv on one mixerchannel in Reason. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6897056/t6test.wav

Good for you.
How does that help me?
It doesn't. It doesn't give me any information about my process or what I can do differently to replicate whatever I'm experiencing in Pro Tools when mixing.

[Riverman]

t have to do with some destructive bad compression of the audiofile compared to other sites. Is it so? I dont know.
Has Reason totally loseless data handling? Is it the same data handling in every DAW?
Is there at all any difference in inner data handling in a DAW?
That must be the most important issue. And who can answer that? Anyone working as a audio DAW developer?

If there is no real difference there, then there could be many other default issues that can make a difference.

This thread is interesting but has turned into a ghost buster. But I can still sympathize with the experience that the walls and roof of the mixing environment in Reason can sometimes "feel" more narrow and tough to get to where one wants to go with the overall sound of the mix, especially when having more complex mixes. My comparison goes to the analogue mixing environment as well as Cubase several years ago (2007). But that can be purely psycological or to do with how the overall design and workflow of the DAW. And also the factor that sometimes it seem to get harder the more one learns more about production, at least until one has come to new levels. It´s the same in all endeavours I guess, you just go with the flow at the beginning and then when you get into details you easily get lost in the details, and you have to push yourself into another "flow" position where you dont think too much and analyse, but still have gained more knowledge. Another level.

I think it´s easy to get started in Reason, but harder to end things for me. Maybe it´s easier to get lost because you really have to do a lot from scratch in Reason, at least up until more RE devices comes out.
Sometimes things just melt together well with or without RE:s, but often the head is hitting the wall for me, to get the mix to that final stage where it not only sounds good, but really shining. Everything just has to get right. I find it easy to screw things up with all the tweakings. But that must be so in all DAWs, right? I have not seriously used ProTools so can not compare how easy I get to where I want with the mix. So I sit back and listen to orther multi-DAW-users in here.

We have also had the discussion in this forum about that the exported stereo audiofile out of Reason gets a lot flatter than what is in the mixing project. And that many experience that some other DAWs seem to be more "neutral". That is also in the department of "feeling". Also simular issues been debating in different sounds of digital EQ:s and compressors. Can they be vintage at all etc.

I am all for debunking myths and I guess that Riverman also are interested in knowing more why he experience a difference.
It dont have to be a difference per se, but why so many experience this to be so, is interesting in itself. Is there same debate over in other DAW forums? Is there same insecurity?

The issue does not become easier when ProTools and Studio One brag about their refined audio machine. What is gimmicks and what is there any truth in?

I want to stay objective and would love to learn if these ghosts of digital audio have any core truth to it or if they are totally just psychoacoustic imaginations. Either way, the questions are interesting to investigate.

Fascinating and very helpful. I wonder if the fatness in exporting is what's going on with the stem importing then?
I mean certainly the snare is fatter for example... Thanks so much for posting bro.

[Riverman]

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

As soon as You moved away from just playing an instrument to engeineering stuff like sound design, mixing and mastering, You entered a scientific area. When You learn the necessary science You'll be much more in controll of things and get much less frustrated.

Nope. Missed the point. It has nothing to do with how I go about making music and everything to do with what I was trying to communicate in the thread. I was communicating feeling because I'm a musician. I was not making a scientific assertion because I'm not a scientist.

[Riverman]

I agree that the discussion is pointless.
No matter what you said, I'll still have the same problem working inside reason only. And no matter what I said, you'll alway produce a pristine hi-end chart banger with reason. So like most of of you say, it's got to be the producer problem and not reason. I'm ok with that. Im in the bussines for over 12 years and my mixes are all over tv and radio and have quite some music released(both reason, FL, Nuendo mixes). I'm able to produce a professional mix and get payed for it. I just have to do it with lot more workarounds when using just reason and I find it strange.
Still, the funfactor of reason is unbeatable.

Yeah man, I can relate. Thanks for posting.

[drloop]

I don´t argue with you about struggling doing a good mix in Reason.
I just say that you are wrong in your first post.
And that you have processed the PT and Reason files differently. Why you did this is I don´t know.

That´s all.

[EnochLight]

If you're on the Internet and getting your feelings hurt, you're doing it wrong.

[selig]

…I wonder if the fatness in exporting is what's going on with the stem importing then?
I mean certainly the snare is fatter for example... Thanks so much for posting bro.

I thought you understood this already. I already pointed out why this was so, why Pro Tools sounded so very different in your two examples. Do you not remember what I said?

There is a HUGE difference IMO in the two files you presented as examples of the "fatness in exporting". I feel it would be very helpful to your quest if you understood the difference, because I believe it goes a long way towards answering your original question - and I'm glad to see you are still interested in answering your original question, and I'm still interested in helping you find that answer. But with the above response I worry you're not listening to what's being said…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[selig]

I think people have mistaken my thread as a pissing contest.
1. I have nothing to prove, I was describing a personal frustration.
2. When asked for more explanation, I gave examples of the personal frustration - not to prove an assertion, but to better communicate what I was feeling.

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

This thread is weird. The attitude is weird. It seems like complete misunderstanding on top of a bizarre agenda.
The people I spend time with communicate how they feel to each other.
Someone may say "man, I'm struggling in my marriage this week"
We don't say to him "hey man, show us tests that indicate that your struggle isn't all in your head, because blah blah"
We'd just empathise and say "yeah man, marriage is hard, I feel you".

Thanks for the empathy guys. Wow.
Point completely missed.

Again, I feel many of us ARE concerned that you are not getting the results you desire, and if nothing else the fact so many of us are taking time away from our lives to spend it here with you trying to answer your question is evidence of that IMO.

I hope I've been clear that you must remove the variables before you can trust your "feelings" about something. I also hope you remember I have agreed your assertion you're hearing a difference. I hear it too, and pointed it out to you! But despite my very description of what's going on in your example files you still wonder why the PT file sounds "fatter".

At this point I'm feeling you've completely missed what folks are saying about your files, and they are the biggest clues to what's going on that we have to work with.

No, you're not imagining things, the PT file really is "fatter" - but are you now interested in figuring out how to deal with this? The first step is in acknowledging there is something additional going on with the PT mix, something that if you keep working the way you're working that you'll NEVER get from Reason.

I see two paths from here. One is to keep assuming Reason is more difficult to work with, mix wise. The other is to find out if there's anything you can do to change this. I'm thinking the second is the way to go, at least it's what I'd do. Otherwise, if I took the first path I'd drop Reason altogether and move on to something that works better for you. If you're interested in the second path, just let me know and I'll be happy to help in every way I can.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[selig]

Why? Because I'm a musician, not a scientist. I communicate what I feel, I'm not putting forth demonstrable hypothesis. I'm not interested in presenting tests that prove a theory, I was providing examples of my process to better communicate a struggle I was feeling.

As soon as You moved away from just playing an instrument to engeineering stuff like sound design, mixing and mastering, You entered a scientific area. When You learn the necessary science You'll be much more in controll of things and get much less frustrated.

I totally agree, and the key to success IMO is to find the balance between the two. If you are all emotion, you'll create great ideas but suffer poor execution. If you are all scientific and logical, you'll create uninteresting and emotionless ideas with excellent execution.

If the more logical side is not for you, find an engineer to partner with - no shame in that, plenty of folks work that way. But if you're going to try to take on both jobs, you need to learn both jobs!

For me it required a few years devoted to learning engineering, and then from there the engineer side went into auto-pilot and the emotional musician was able to lead the charge forward!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk