Re: Announcing Reason 13
Posted: 12 May 2024
Neither of those are marketed a Studio DAWs. Both Maschine 2 and MPC 2 are Grooveboxes for sampling, beat production and sketching. Many producers will sketch in Maschine or MPC and then bring things into a Studio DAW for Arranging and Mixing.Both lack even more features than Reason (Maschine is not trying to be a DAW).
This is why they are compared against each other far more than against anything else. People generally choose between MPC and Maschine, not Maschine and Cubase Pro or MPC and Logic Pro (again - generally...).
Reason 12 (13) is marketed as a Studio DAW, so the base of comparison is different and the base feature level that people expect from it - particularly at its $499 price point - is completely different from MPC 2 or Maschine 2. Unless you want us to start thinking of Reason as a groovebox and sketching workstation, you're gonna have to make this make more sense to me. Why even bring this up?
I have a Maschine (MK3 and Mikro). When I want to use a Maschine Controller with more Studio DAW features and workflow, I use it with Bitwig Studio, instead. They are excellently-supported, there, out of the box, so I get the benefits of the tactile Maschine hardware while still having practically full functionality within a DAW that has a feature set more in line with what I prefer to use. And keep in mind, Bitwig is missing things like ARA2, but it also has other features that at least give many users the chance to say "Okay... I can live with that." They're actually pushing that DAW forward on a functional level.
Reason Studios is not doing that with Reason. They're adding more devices, but the actual workflow and feature set remains in stasis.
If you buy a Ferrari that's marketed as a sports car, you expect it to have features and performance of a sports car - not a base Honda Civic. If it has the price tag of a Ferrari and the features and performance of a base Honda Civic, then most people will just buy the Ferrari instead. Paying 40% of MSRP (hilariously high upgrade cost, when you look at it that way) so they can add in the sports seats that you just assumed would be there given the high[er] price tag is probably not going to hit well.
Absolutely... That's most rational people on the planet. That why we have colloquialisms like "May not look pretty while doing it, but it gets the job done."You would rather have an unintuitive ARA2 plug-in than none at all.
I don't need the most flawless implementation. I do need a tool that actually gets the job done, though.
Like what? So much disagreement here - which I absolutely don't mind - with vague references to things that are never actually written out (which I find weird, since it's such a consistent thing to see).I would rather they use their development resources to implement intuitive features.
This is almost like saying "I'd rather starve than eat because I'd rather have 'better tasting food.' It's edible enough, but it's not quite hitting the spot for me..."I would rather they get other features done well than ARA2 or MPE editing.
That is crazy to me.
And again? What "other features" are you talking about? You imply that there are more important things that you have in mind - whether they're "in your opinion" or not, I don't care - I understand needs are different - but you continuously write this while not giving a single example. Why?
You do realize that I was just using ARA2 and MPE as off-the-cuff examples, right? Nothing depends on those two specific features. They were just used to drive the point home, because they're easy to type and because most people would easily understand the nature and impact of those two features.