Announcing Reason 11

[guitfnky]

you trying to start a fight or something?

Always. Feather dusters at ten paces. Meet me on the heath at dawn!

[gaclab]

Can't see the dry / wet knob or ratio on the compressor, the number of treash

There are no frequency numbers in the EQ. Is this an update in 2019?

Ratio's there...? And there are numbers for all parameters including frequency, they appear on hover and click like most other rotaries in Reason. There's no Dry/Wet as the compressor it's based on doesn't have that, but it's easy to route up.

I agree with others a dry/wet function would be super helpful as I've always felt it was missing. Can someone here though describe how to do this with the routing?

[Goriila Texas]

If you can’t understand how it would sound how can you come up with a solution? Running a spider is the hard way. Why do that when you could compress audio hard and roll back the wet knob to taste? If never done it you won’t get the concept.

Parallel compression, blending between dry and "wet" (compressed) signal.

Interesting, I had never heard of this and having quickly read up on it I understand the principle but cannot imagine how it would sound. You could easily wire this up in Reason using a Spider if you needed to,.

[mashers]

If you can’t understand how it would sound how can you come up with a solution?

Because I understand the concept.

Running a spider is the hard way. Why do that when you could compress audio hard and roll back the wet knob to taste?

Obviously if the compressor had a wet/dry knob then you wouldn't use a Spider. I'm just suggesting it as a workaround.

If never done it you won’t get the concept.

You are wrong about that.

[diminished]

Interesting, I had never heard of this and having quickly read up on it I understand the principle but cannot imagine how it would sound. You could easily wire this up in Reason using a Spider if you needed to,.

If you can’t understand how it would sound how can you come up with a solution? Running a spider is the hard way. Why do that when you could compress audio hard and roll back the wet knob to taste? If never done it you won’t get the concept.

Hey chill a bit.
You're right however, doing it with a spider is way more complicated that it has to be, especially if it's somewhere in the middle of your signal chain. Most modern compressors come with a dry/wet knob.

Having that said:
Mashers, you're in for a real treat.
Create a parallel channel of your drum bus, turn down the volume of the parallel channel, dial the compressor on the parallel channel to extreme values, like a ratio of 20:1, fast attack, fast release. And now slowly turn up that channel fader and blend dry with wet.

Enjoy your new life

[mashers]

Mashers, you're in for a real treat.
Create a parallel channel of your drum bus, turn down the volume of the parallel channel, dial the compressor on the parallel channel to extreme values, like a ratio of 20:1, fast attack, fast release. And now slowly turn up that channel fader and blend dry with wet.

Enjoy your new life

Thanks man, I'm definitely going to try it. I'll probably stick the setup in a combi and use a line mixer instead of a spider to merge the audio, so I can map two knobs on my controller and twiddle the levels. Or just map one knob and invert the ranges to emulate a wet/dry knob. See, these little "oversights" in the software are inspiring. My latest (not out yet) has been a real journey into sound, and my rack is absolutely ridiculous.

[Goriila Texas]

Yeah you’re right I get kinda triggered when people who don’t understand feature requests shoot them down. My bad

If you can’t understand how it would sound how can you come up with a solution? Running a spider is the hard way. Why do that when you could compress audio hard and roll back the wet knob to taste? If never done it you won’t get the concept.

Hey chill a bit.
You're right however, doing it with a spider is way more complicated that it has to be, especially if it's somewhere in the middle of your signal chain. Most modern compressors come with a dry/wet knob.

Having that said:
Mashers, you're in for a real treat.
Create a parallel channel of your drum bus, turn down the volume of the parallel channel, dial the compressor on the parallel channel to extreme values, like a ratio of 20:1, fast attack, fast release. And now slowly turn up that channel fader and blend dry with wet.

Enjoy your new life

[guitfnky]

didn’t someone point out that parallel compression is essentially no different than adjusting the ratio? I want to say I remember @Selig chiming in on that a year or two ago. I might have just dreamed that though.

[selig]

Mashers, you're in for a real treat.
Create a parallel channel of your drum bus, turn down the volume of the parallel channel, dial the compressor on the parallel channel to extreme values, like a ratio of 20:1, fast attack, fast release. And now slowly turn up that channel fader and blend dry with wet.

Enjoy your new life

Thanks man, I'm definitely going to try it. I'll probably stick the setup in a combi and use a line mixer instead of a spider to merge the audio, so I can map two knobs on my controller and twiddle the levels. Or just map one knob and invert the ranges to emulate a wet/dry knob. See, these little "oversights" in the software are inspiring. My latest (not out yet) has been a real journey into sound, and my rack is absolutely ridiculous.

You are correct that at the basic level, ratio does this. But if you also add saturation to your compressed track (I KNOW I do!), then it's a whole new world. I tend to not use parallel compression on it's own due to the similarities to using Ratio, but when I do I want to be sure the compressed and dry signal have their own level controls, because once you compress a signal it's typically lower than the dry signal. That means at a 50/50 setting of a dry/wet knob you're NOT getting a true 50/50 balance. So I often use a parallel channel for this type of processing, so I can control levels independantly and so I can add saturation etc to the compressed channel.

Note that all other things being the same, a 2:1 ratio on an "insert" compressor equals an infinity to one compressor on a parallel channel. Also note, you must lower both channels by 6 dB when adding parallel compression, otherwise you're adding 6 dB overall gain with the parallel channel (in addition to any dynamic changes).

[mashers]

Yeah you’re right I get kinda triggered when people who don’t understand feature requests shoot them down. My bad

I think the problem is that you are confusing "discussion" with "shooting down", and are presuming to know the level of understanding in another person's mind.

[selig]

didn’t someone point out that parallel compression is essentially no different than adjusting the ratio? I want to say I remember @Selig chiming in on that a year or two ago. I might have just dreamed that though.

This is true only as long as both channels are equal level. Once you change the level of one channel, you DO get a slightly different effect - sometimes it's better, sometimes it's not worth the extra routing etc.

But it's ALWAYS worth adding a parallel channel IMO if you're going to ALSO saturate the compressed signal (or otherwise alter it). Parallel saturation is totally different from parallel compression (unless you're compressing so hard you're also distorting), which is why I based my ColoringEQ on parallel saturation.

[diminished]

(unless you're compressing so hard you're also distorting)

I think that's what I am doing with >= 20:1 and other extreme settings
Parallel com...prortion?

[Yonatan]

Good to finally get a flavour of the SSL mixer chain into the Rack. Liking the look of them now.

[guitfnky]

didn’t someone point out that parallel compression is essentially no different than adjusting the ratio? I want to say I remember @Selig chiming in on that a year or two ago. I might have just dreamed that though.

This is true only as long as both channels are equal level. Once you change the level of one channel, you DO get a slightly different effect - sometimes it's better, sometimes it's not worth the extra routing etc.

But it's ALWAYS worth adding a parallel channel IMO if you're going to ALSO saturate the compressed signal (or otherwise alter it). Parallel saturation is totally different from parallel compression (unless you're compressing so hard you're also distorting), which is why I based my ColoringEQ on parallel saturation.

ah, thanks for the quick response. that’s an important point I hadn’t remembered—especially considering if you’re setting the dry/compressed signals by ear, you’re almost never going to have equal levels.

[mcatalao]

I don't understand why a wet/dry parameter would be needed on a compressor. The threshold and ratio are what you use to determine how much of the signal gets compressed and to what extent. What more is needed? What purpose would a wet/dry parameter serve that you cannot already accomplish using ratio?

Parallel compression, blending between dry and "wet" (compressed) signal.

It's not a requisite on a compressor. The usual utility of a compressor is an insert. The wet dry knob is more related to devices that benefit from a parallel construction.

At most i'd like more an approach like Softube's parallel inject knob.
If you look at simpler compressors, that resemble more the likeness of this, mostly don't have a wet dry... C670, MooTube, Cakewakl's CA-LA, etc:


Creating a parallel for the is not that hard also. Just get an Audio Spider, searate the audio in 2 pass one to a mixer channel, the other to the compressor, then to the mixer, and you can control the amount of paralel.

Another thing you have to consider is that a parallel is not the same as a wet-dry. A wet dry reduces the sound of the original sound when you go to the right, and increases the sound of the parallel, like two faders going in different directions at the same time. So the correct implementation of a parallel (thinking of gain) would be 2 knobs, one for clean the other for processed.

For these reasons i wonder a wet dry knob makes sense on a device that is predominantly used as an insert.

Thinking on parallel processing, i would expect with the Reason VST, you'd create a a given vst device, add a parallel channel in the DAW, and create the compressor on the new parallel channel, and finally control that in the DAW's fader.

BTW, if and when props go the dry-wet route, hopefully it is completely wet as default (whereas for reverbs and delays, and other timed or phasing devices, the dry-wet should be at 0 (half gain each channel).

[scratchnsnifff]

Here's a preview for you! We'll update the website with the correct graphics real soon.

Woah! Looking good.

Was this done so rack vst users can have just about everything from the DAW?

Also will this rack vst work in protools?
Or will it have i he aax or what ever their format is

[scratchnsnifff]

If you can’t understand how it would sound how can you come up with a solution? Running a spider is the hard way. Why do that when you could compress audio hard and roll back the wet knob to taste? If never done it you won’t get the concept.



If I remember correctly it was you that posted on an old thread. Talking about how Reason had a game changer idea for RE. About bringing them to all platforms

Maybe it wasn’t you, but If it was... then this update is exactly what was to come


Lol I want to know if that was you who predicted this. Also, let me know if I’m just crazy and if I should get my tin foil hat

Interesting, I had never heard of this and having quickly read up on it I understand the principle but cannot imagine how it would sound. You could easily wire this up in Reason using a Spider if you needed to,.

[exxx]

Ratio's there...? And there are numbers for all parameters including frequency, they appear on hover and click like most other rotaries in Reason. There's no Dry/Wet as the compressor it's based on doesn't have that, but it's easy to route up.

I agree though, at least MIN, MAX and standard value should be there for the EQ

The rack occupies a large area of ​​the screen, and it's a bit strange to see the numbers only through the hover.

In order to see the hover, you need to move the mouse to the knob and act at least one click. Isn't it time to stop the approach that only prioritized such design?

I also like the beautiful rack, but as the racks pile up, the number of hover is increasing and sometimes I think it is annoying.

[Goriila Texas]

Can’t remember too long ago.

If you can’t understand how it would sound how can you come up with a solution? Running a spider is the hard way. Why do that when you could compress audio hard and roll back the wet knob to taste? If never done it you won’t get the concept.



If I remember correctly it was you that posted on an old thread. Talking about how Reason had a game changer idea for RE. About bringing them to all platforms

Maybe it wasn’t you, but If it was... then this update is exactly what was to come


Lol I want to know if that was you who predicted this. Also, let me know if I’m just crazy and if I should get my tin foil hat

[svenh]

Mattias,

will the VST wrapper for the rack introduce any additional latency?

[EdGrip]

I think Selig wrote a whole thing on whether parallel compression is functionally the same as ratio adjustments...

[way2cool]

i need to focus to my english now that administrator can not understand me. if this is to be those new device from the mixer i am happy for this! so finally we can used all of those ones now on each tracks! thank you to reason studio for this, as well to make 2 new effect for us, its just that i wish of a few more things to include along to reason 11, i can not say whether i have a needs in reason vst racks becos i want to throw protool in the garbage and use reason only, perhaps i can try it first


you may help me on some advices please,. long time ago i was watching a videos in regards of compressing, i think was the famous producer buch vigg said he doesnt use compressing so i tried not to but had to stiill since all the volume levels are fluctuating so badly-and it came to my thoughts it is perhaps not needing compressing as much as maybe more if my room sound is bad, but , when i am listen to regular musics it sound pretty good and not so fluctuating and i am unsure what to do with this prooblems

[Goriila Texas]

How does 2:1 ratio equal infinity on a parallel channel? Can you go into greater detail?

You are correct that at the basic level, ratio does this. But if you also add saturation to your compressed track (I KNOW I do!), then it's a whole new world. I tend to not use parallel compression on it's own due to the similarities to using Ratio, but when I do I want to be sure the compressed and dry signal have their own level controls, because once you compress a signal it's typically lower than the dry signal. That means at a 50/50 setting of a dry/wet knob you're NOT getting a true 50/50 balance. So I often use a parallel channel for this type of processing, so I can control levels independantly and so I can add saturation etc to the compressed channel.

Note that all other things being the same, a 2:1 ratio on an "insert" compressor equals an infinity to one compressor on a parallel channel. Also note, you must lower both channels by 6 dB when adding parallel compression, otherwise you're adding 6 dB overall gain with the parallel channel (in addition to any dynamic changes).

[tronam]

This is such a familiar cycle. Ever since version 1.0 I've always been able to think up dozens of features I'd like to see added in the next upgrade that never appear, so I can definitely sympathize with users who've grown frustrated with the pace of Reason's evolution. But, it is still my favorite creative music making environment regardless of its weaknesses and v11 doesn't detract from that, so I don’t feel particularly negative about it. For many years I've had several core requests: Kontakt support, full latency compensation and improvements to Rewire that take advantage of multicore processors (a longstanding issue) since I use other programs as well for notation and syncing to video. They've all been addressed now for the most part and in ways I wasn't expecting, so I'm mostly happy with the current state of Reason.

The core DAW improvements this time around shouldn't be a shocking revelation to longterm users. I’d say it falls in line with many past full version upgrades which rarely have massive feature dumps. Upgrading every other version is a pretty good strategy because the cumulative improvements do start adding up and you’re not penalized for skipping upgrades like with Steinberg, for example. I’m still sitting on Cubase Pro 9 since I didn’t find 9.5 or 10 compelling enough for my needs to upgrade yet, and I’m already looking at a $160 upgrade cost. It will likely be well over $200 if I wait until 10.5.

R11 may end up losing some faithfuls, but I suspect it will bring a lot more users back to the program who have long since abandoned it and thought their past RE purchases were lost investments. I'm looking forward to seeing how they evolve the Rack VST idea.

[MrBlue]

Here's a preview for you! We'll update the website with the correct graphics real soon.

It’s nice but for Reason users only it’s useless.

Wait and see for Reason 12...