"Reason sound" tested :)

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.

Which wav file is Reason?

1
3
16%
2
9
47%
3
5
26%
4
2
11%
 
Total votes: 19
PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 3732
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway
Contact:

12 Jan 2019

jlgrimes wrote:
11 Jan 2019

2 but they all sound very similar.

Main difference in DAWS are pan laws.

Reasons is 0 db.

It is all compensatable and just a volume/dither issue.

The dither would be too low to really asses anyways.
So 0db center and +3db when panned left or right? Good to know.

User avatar
LarsK
Posts: 74
Joined: 20 Jun 2015

12 Jan 2019

If any difference at all, it's too little to notice.

Disclaimer: I've had a glass of red wine.

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

12 Jan 2019

OK so for achieving optimal sound in reason:
Use REX for maximum compatibility, learn all the plugins inside & out and lab the mastering suite that comes with it ok.
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

User avatar
djfm1983
Posts: 87
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Jan 2019

Why feel the need to use the same VSTi for each DAW? Why not just use a sine wave sample? Sine waves are pure tones so after uploading the same sine wave sample through each DAW with no processing and exporting you could use a spectral graph to see if any thing was added to the pure tone? If you see anything other than the fundamental frequency of the sine wave you’ll know that the DAW colored the sound.
soundcloud.com/djfm1983

antic604

20 Jan 2019

djfm1983 wrote:
20 Jan 2019
Why feel the need to use the same VSTi for each DAW? Why not just use a sine wave sample? Sine waves are pure tones so after uploading the same sine wave sample through each DAW with no processing and exporting you could use a spectral graph to see if any thing was added to the pure tone? If you see anything other than the fundamental frequency of the sine wave you’ll know that the DAW colored the sound.
I think I explained that somewhere above, but the point was to also see if all DAWs process the VSTs in the same way. Comparing sine waves would be like comparing samples and I belive those tests were done to death already.

Also, I wanted to avoid doing the "proper" null-test, because I think that even if there were so tiny differences, they could be inaudible to uman hearing, so even if it's not perfect then why would that matter?

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

21 Jan 2019

antic604 wrote:
20 Jan 2019
djfm1983 wrote:
20 Jan 2019
Why feel the need to use the same VSTi for each DAW? Why not just use a sine wave sample? Sine waves are pure tones so after uploading the same sine wave sample through each DAW with no processing and exporting you could use a spectral graph to see if any thing was added to the pure tone? If you see anything other than the fundamental frequency of the sine wave you’ll know that the DAW colored the sound.
I think I explained that somewhere above, but the point was to also see if all DAWs process the VSTs in the same way. Comparing sine waves would be like comparing samples and I belive those tests were done to death already.

Also, I wanted to avoid doing the "proper" null-test, because I think that even if there were so tiny differences, they could be inaudible to uman hearing, so even if it's not perfect then why would that matter?

Maybe VST developers should jump in, but VST runs in all program exactly the same. It's an external container. The only thing you need to make sure when running a test such as this one is that you're not measuring any free running, random stuff. You could try to use a sampler with just a "perfect" sine wave. No effects, nothing.

User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 1505
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Finland / Suomi

21 Jan 2019

@antic604 Could you reupload these files one more time or send them to me?

As of about "tiny differences" - there should not be even tiny ones in the audio-world, as already the tiny artifacts in the sound already matter ALOT.

antic604

21 Jan 2019

Heigen5 wrote:
21 Jan 2019
@antic604 Could you reupload these files one more time or send them to me?

As of about "tiny differences" - there should not be even tiny ones in the audio-world, as already the tiny artifacts in the sound already matter ALOT.
Everything should be there on my Google drive link I posted in the OP.
I only removed the Soundcloud stuff.

antic604

21 Jan 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
21 Jan 2019
Maybe VST developers should jump in, but VST runs in all program exactly the same. It's an external container. The only thing you need to make sure when running a test such as this one is that you're not measuring any free running, random stuff. You could try to use a sampler with just a "perfect" sine wave. No effects, nothing.
Ok, I get it. I wasted few hours of mine and (all of) yours time. Won't happen again :)

User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 1505
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Finland / Suomi

21 Jan 2019

antic604 wrote:
21 Jan 2019
Heigen5 wrote:
21 Jan 2019
@antic604 Could you reupload these files one more time or send them to me?

As of about "tiny differences" - there should not be even tiny ones in the audio-world, as already the tiny artifacts in the sound already matter ALOT.
Everything should be there on my Google drive link I posted in the OP.
I only removed the Soundcloud stuff.
Ok, thanx, will give it a fresh listen and report if I still hear the file 2 being a bit more artifacty. :shock:

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

21 Jan 2019

antic604 wrote:
21 Jan 2019
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
21 Jan 2019
Maybe VST developers should jump in, but VST runs in all program exactly the same. It's an external container. The only thing you need to make sure when running a test such as this one is that you're not measuring any free running, random stuff. You could try to use a sampler with just a "perfect" sine wave. No effects, nothing.
Ok, I get it. I wasted few hours of mine and (all of) yours time. Won't happen again :)
no problem. this is how we do it, by trial and error :D

User avatar
Creativemind
Posts: 4875
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Stoke-On-Trent, England, UK

21 Jan 2019

Karim wrote:
10 Jan 2019
But really in 2019 are we still talking about Reason Sound? Or maybe I traveled in time? :shock:
The Reason Sound is a bit like Santa Claus...
Everyone knows that it doesn't exist but everyone talks about it :lol:
Replace Santa Claus with Bigfoot or a Yeti or the Lochness Monster lol!

Yes, there was a mammoth thread on here (about 20 odd pages I think) 3 years ago with many doing tests, Selig and possibly 8cross are 2 I can remember who commented I think and the overwhelming consensus was, with no effects added or anything that could alter the audio, Reason sounded exactly the same as any other daw.

A guy on that thread even posted an audio comparison clip of a Thor patch rendered to audio (if memory serves me correct) and asked which one was Reason, which wasn't. They sounded almost identical but one sounded just a fraction better and a couple of people agreed. Surprisingly the one that sounded fractionally better was Reason.
:reason:

Reason Studio's 11.3 / Cockos Reaper 6.82 / Cakewalk By Bandlab / Orion 8.6
http://soundcloud.com/creativemind75/iv ... soul-mix-3

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

21 Jan 2019

hmmm crumbs a real grain of sand diffrence, with max marketing and a thouragh advertising campaign the reason sound is a there and b in. thatll be 500 quid payable to demt, at the marketing department. demt.co.uk
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

User avatar
Creativemind
Posts: 4875
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Stoke-On-Trent, England, UK

21 Jan 2019

Loque wrote:
10 Jan 2019
Yes, and maybe it doesn't make any difference to the success of the mix.....

Interesting video. I wonder what frequency I can hear up to at 43yo?

I used this video from You Tube and I couldn't hear 13, 000Hz or above.



Is that gonna be accurate with it being You Tube?
:reason:

Reason Studio's 11.3 / Cockos Reaper 6.82 / Cakewalk By Bandlab / Orion 8.6
http://soundcloud.com/creativemind75/iv ... soul-mix-3

User avatar
ScuzzyEye
Moderator
Posts: 1402
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

21 Jan 2019

Creativemind wrote:
21 Jan 2019
Is that gonna be accurate with it being You Tube?
Not a 240p video. Low bandwidth streams are low-passed around 12 kHz.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

21 Jan 2019

Heigen5 wrote:
21 Jan 2019
@antic604 Could you reupload these files one more time or send them to me?

As of about "tiny differences" - there should not be even tiny ones in the audio-world, as already the tiny artifacts in the sound already matter ALOT.
Depends on what you call "tiny". For some, a difference of 3 dB is barely noticeable. Others can hear a difference of 1 dB easily in all situations.
But for a null test, it is considered "tiny" when it's below the threshold of hearing or masked by other sounds. Additionally, most of these "differences" are either a difference of level or timing, which have NO effect on the quality of the sound but can reveal themselves in a null test.

And most null tests I've conducted on single files or summing are well over 100 dB or non-existent. That is tiny enough to become a non issue for all but the dedicated card-carrying pixel peepers out there (borrowing a photography term here).
;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

21 Jan 2019

This brings up a new idea in my head: I guess a lot of people are worried their software might not be ok. Or they need to make sure their software is better than some of the stuff other people are using.

You might ask yourself why that is.

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

21 Jan 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
21 Jan 2019
This brings up a new idea in my head: I guess a lot of people are worried their software might not be ok. Or they need to make sure their software is better than some of the stuff other people are using.

You might ask yourself why that is.
Shortcomings usually. But it just depends on the person I guess.

Sometimes people just want to figure out the "highest quality" possible for making music, which doesn't sound too crazy to me. Trying to hear a difference in DAW's that isn't there, is bit crazy though :P

User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 1505
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Finland / Suomi

21 Jan 2019

I just listened again and this time they all sounded the same. No soundengine there, just a mind-engine.

antic604

22 Jan 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
21 Jan 2019
This brings up a new idea in my head: I guess a lot of people are worried their software might not be ok. Or they need to make sure their software is better than some of the stuff other people are using.

You might ask yourself why that is.
That's a fair point, I guess.

Some of the best music out there is poorly recorded and/or purposefully processed in a "wrong" way (just listen to Portishead, for example). And some of the most pristine, clean and perfectly-sounding music is devoid of any soul, meaning and artistic merit (just turn on the radio). Especially with electronic music who's to say what it the correct way to sound? How does the perfect saw-tooth oscillator sound: is it one calculated with a formula? or the one from MiniMoog? If we'd get different renders of the same sample from Reaper, Cubase and Reason how do you determine which one is "worse" and how would you even define "worse" in this contexts, because different doesn't necessarily mean worse? The whole discussion about DAW audio engines is a bit like if someone discussed artistic worth of Mona Lisa (or whatever famous picture) saying it's only Ok, because the painter could've used better brush or better canvas :D

I'd gladly delete the topic, but I can't.

Can a mod close it, please?

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

22 Jan 2019

It's a trap I fall into many times. Still do. I am testing my stuff over and over again, and against competition just to make sure I am using the right tools. But all that time I can better put in making things. I know all this, but the trap is always there.

I believe it is a subjective. Mistakes can be beautiful. Bad sound can be great sound. There are no rules really, but that trap is a trap. At least it is for me. Maybe I should take a tattoo "just make music bro!"

antic604

22 Jan 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
22 Jan 2019
It's a trap I fall into many times. Still do. I am testing my stuff over and over again, and against competition just to make sure I am using the right tools. But all that time I can better put in making things. I know all this, but the trap is always there.
Exactly! That's why I appreciate Reason's graphical approach to things for example the fact, that you can't type in values for most of the knobs, faders, etc. I was really struggling with this first couple of weeks when I started using Reason (coming from Live/Bitwig), because I was used to typing "-6dB" or "60kHz" or "135ms" or "25%" and I thought this was BETTER, because it was PRECISE. With Reason, I had to start using my ears more, because if the only options I had were either -5.96dB or -6.03dB (and I had to be super patient to get there with Shift), then why even bother anymore? I'd just LISTEN for a sweet spot and set it at whatever value SOUNDED right.

Yesterday there was a post on KvR's Bitwig forum asking "why you love Bitwig" and I actually wrote that I know Bitwig is the better DAW, but I love Reason :D

Wish someone just combined the two :lol:

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

22 Jan 2019

The grass is always greener at... :)

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Trendiction [Bot] and 26 guests