Fighting with Reason

[Noplan]

But yeah man it's wild, you mention you hear something different and all the insults start flowing "it's in your head" etc.

Well, you assume that the human brain is a perfect tool to represent the reality?




Straight lines! But we are talking about subtle diffrences in auditory perception and you can't consider that you are wrong.
you are insulted by a real phenomenon that gives producer the abilty to create acoustic illusions through two loudspeakers. things that are not there.



Here is another example.

[selig]

I'll try another example of the process. Here's something I was mixing in Reason. This is where I got with it:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... reason.aif

I then bounced out stems, imported into Tools, and this is a bounce without doing anything, no added nothing, no master bus, I didn't touch anything:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... otools.wav

It's much softer of course, but crank it up, and it's all just sounding so much more... I dunno, real. Like a band.
It's in Reason's eq or something, I don't know, but it's in the way the snare's hitting... all sorts of stuff. I can't get it to sound like the Pro Tools mix, when working in Reason.

It's very hard to replicate what I'm talking about, because yes there's master channel stuff going on with this mix obviously, but it doesn't seem to matter.

If you do a test like this and end up with overall levels that do not match (they should match IMO), and then you CANNOT even explain EXACTLY why this has happened, then I simply cannot trust the "test".

Also, if you cannot replicate what you suggest IS actually happening, well…

Folks, this IS difficult to do properly - please take the time to do so if you're going to bother presenting "evidence" for your claims here! We deserve at least THAT - then we can argue all day about which one "feels" better.

Now if you're going to argue you PREFER working in one environment over another based on the results you get, then no test is going to support or refute that claim - it's a personal thing and we should all be using the tools we prefer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Riverman]

I'll try another example of the process. Here's something I was mixing in Reason. This is where I got with it:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... reason.aif

I then bounced out stems, imported into Tools, and this is a bounce without doing anything, no added nothing, no master bus, I didn't touch anything:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... otools.wav

It's much softer of course, but crank it up, and it's all just sounding so much more... I dunno, real. Like a band.
It's in Reason's eq or something, I don't know, but it's in the way the snare's hitting... all sorts of stuff. I can't get it to sound like the Pro Tools mix, when working in Reason.

It's very hard to replicate what I'm talking about, because yes there's master channel stuff going on with this mix obviously, but it doesn't seem to matter.

If you do a test like this and end up with overall levels that do not match (they should match IMO), and then you CANNOT even explain EXACTLY why this has happened, then I simply cannot trust the "test".

Also, if you cannot replicate what you suggest IS actually happening, well…

Folks, this IS difficult to do properly - please take the time to do so if you're going to bother presenting "evidence" for your claims here! We deserve at least THAT - then we can argue all day about which one "feels" better.

Now if you're going to argue you PREFER working in one environment over another based on the results you get, then no test is going to support or refute that claim - it's a personal thing and we should all be using the tools we prefer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do you mean "evidence for my claim"?
I'm replicating my process so you can hear what I'm experiencing, in the hope of perhaps fixing an issue. I'm seeking practical help, not proving a philosophical concept.

The Reason mix is as I last heard it, with master bus compression etc. as good as I could get it in Reason.
I bounced out the stems, and imported them into Tools. Rather than add master bus stuff or tweak that mix at all, I simply bounced it out so you could hear what I hear when I import the dry stems.
I hear a vast improvement without even doing anything.
I will usually go and tweak the mix a bit, but it general doesn't take much.

[sdst]

I read in this forum that something is wrong with the pans in the reason mixer

Maybe that is the problem With the famous reason sound.

For me the reason sounds is good, i don't have problems with that

[selig]

I'll try another example of the process. Here's something I was mixing in Reason. This is where I got with it:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... reason.aif

I then bounced out stems, imported into Tools, and this is a bounce without doing anything, no added nothing, no master bus, I didn't touch anything:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... otools.wav

It's much softer of course, but crank it up, and it's all just sounding so much more... I dunno, real. Like a band.
It's in Reason's eq or something, I don't know, but it's in the way the snare's hitting... all sorts of stuff. I can't get it to sound like the Pro Tools mix, when working in Reason.

It's very hard to replicate what I'm talking about, because yes there's master channel stuff going on with this mix obviously, but it doesn't seem to matter.

If you do a test like this and end up with overall levels that do not match (they should match IMO), and then you CANNOT even explain EXACTLY why this has happened, then I simply cannot trust the "test".

Also, if you cannot replicate what you suggest IS actually happening, well…

Folks, this IS difficult to do properly - please take the time to do so if you're going to bother presenting "evidence" for your claims here! We deserve at least THAT - then we can argue all day about which one "feels" better.

Now if you're going to argue you PREFER working in one environment over another based on the results you get, then no test is going to support or refute that claim - it's a personal thing and we should all be using the tools we prefer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do you mean "evidence for my claim"?
I'm replicating my process so you can hear what I'm experiencing, in the hope of perhaps fixing an issue. I'm seeking practical help, not proving a philosophical concept.

The Reason mix is as I last heard it, with master bus compression etc. as good as I could get it in Reason.
I bounced out the stems, and imported them into Tools. Rather than add master bus stuff or tweak that mix at all, I simply bounced it out so you could hear what I hear when I import the dry stems.
I hear a vast improvement without even doing anything.
I will usually go and tweak the mix a bit, but it general doesn't take much.

I mean you are not comparing apples to apples, so how do we know what is actually going on?
This is new information, that you had a master compressor in Reason, which is not present in Pro Tools. You didn't mention this potentially huge difference the first time around, leaving us with the impression you understood how to do a proper comparison test.

Do we blame the master compressor for what you don't like, the summing bus, the export process, or something else you didn't mention the first time around?

You also didn't mention how you dealt with any send/return FX (if any). There are simply too many variables in your test, and further evidence that these tests are not easy to do properly.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[selig]

I read in this forum that something is wrong with the pans in the reason mixer

Maybe that is the problem With the famous reason sound.

For me the reason sounds is good, i don't have problems with that

This should not affect the perceived quality in any way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mataya]

I'm not saying I would hear the difference importing wavs in both nuendo and reason and then exporting. I'm pretty sure they would be the same, both in my ears or on papper. I Think that reason devices are the problem and don't really know which ones or do they interact differently then is nunedo for example or somethnig like that. I'm not a digital audio developer and have little knowledge about that. But as soon as I start combining instruments in reason I get into problems that I don't even expect...reaching for tools trying to fix it. Maybe it's just the process of mixing, but for me it's often so different then in other daw I worked with that it's weird, when everybody's saying all daws are "the same". Sure put a kick and few sounds in both FL and Reason and it's all the same...but like said earlier, somewhere down the process things start to fall apart and I have no clue why. I have to say I just tried comparing the "stereo imager" and new and free "kHs stereo" device and although I understand they are different a bit, I think reason stereo imager is soooo bad. Can't come close to the effect I want it to do and this is to wideen the hi spectrum. It muddy the whole things, while the kHS does excatly what I expect...widdens the hi spectrum(make it louder also). I don't know if it's the best comparison, but my point is...could it be that reason devices just aren't that good sounding, maybe in terms of a devlopers...they are written poorly and it could be causing the "bad sound" I hear often. tx and I'm really not trying to cause a flame, just seeing this forum as the best possible place to discuss what I can hear and feel for a long time.

[8cros]

It's in the summing. Different DAWs do it differently.

Where did you hear about this?

A couple of other pros who specialise in using Logic.
Dan Zank http://www.allmusic.com/artist/dan-zank-mn0000564224
and Tim K. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_K
But as said, I jumped off the Logic train. I didn't want to put all my eggs in an Apple-basket.

Thank you but I could not find the source.
Those. by you, this information is not proven?

You won't find the source online, it was in private conversations.

You trust what you are told by other people?

[EnochLight]

No offense meant to the OP, just playing devil's advocate, but haven't we already read a million posts/threads on someone claiming audio sounds different in Reason compared to other DAW, but it has already been demonstrated (ad infinitum) that audio from Reason is exactly the same as it is in other DAW? I mean right down to the audio nulling?

Maybe Selig can chime in on this...

*EDIT - d'oh!!! We posted at the same time LOL!

It's in the summing. Different DAWs do it differently. If you turn down the tracks in Logic for example, you get closer to the "more space" you can hear in Pro Tools/ Logic famously sounds smaller, and this workaround fixes that - apparently. I never went with the workaround, I just abandoned Logic for other reasons. Pardon the pun.
Ableton has a "sound" as well. I've found Logic and Reason in particular to sound differently from ProTools and Logic.

But that's not really the issue. I wasn't blowing a horn or anything, it's a genuine frustration I find. Vocals in particular just won't sit in the same way in Reason as when I'm mixing in Pro Tools. If there's something I'm doing wrong I would like to fix it, because I do enjoy composing in Reason, and it's a drag to have to bounce out stems to fix a mix that's just not quite sitting.

It's in the summing?!? I don't suppose you have an analog summing box attached to your Pro Tools rig or something else in the chain?

Look, I'm not saying your making things up, but Selig has worked in Pro Tools for years (@Selig - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your line of work literally audio engineering?), and he's been using Pro Tools almost as long as the technology has been in existence. He knows it back and front, through in through, upside down and sideways - trust me - he'd be able to tell if Pro Tools is doing something different compared to Reason.

There's lot of things Reason needs to get better at, but a dry project bounced down and summed in one sounds the exact same as any other DAW when levels are set the same and there's no inserts or any other effects in the chain.

I have to say, you sort of set the mood for your argument by posting 2 audio files to compare, then choosing MP3 for one format and AIFF for the other. And yes, I realize the PT mix was lossy, but come on man - do you even science??

The Reason mix is as I last heard it, with master bus compression etc..

I think your testing methodology is not only broke, it changes.

[8cros]

No offense meant to the OP, just playing devil's advocate, but haven't we already read a million posts/threads on someone claiming audio sounds different in Reason compared to other DAW, but it has already been demonstrated (ad infinitum) that audio from Reason is exactly the same as it is in other DAW? I mean right down to the audio nulling?

Maybe Selig can chime in on this...

*EDIT - d'oh!!! We posted at the same time LOL!

It's in the summing. Different DAWs do it differently. If you turn down the tracks in Logic for example, you get closer to the "more space" you can hear in Pro Tools/ Logic famously sounds smaller, and this workaround fixes that - apparently. I never went with the workaround, I just abandoned Logic for other reasons. Pardon the pun.
Ableton has a "sound" as well. I've found Logic and Reason in particular to sound differently from ProTools and Logic.

But that's not really the issue. I wasn't blowing a horn or anything, it's a genuine frustration I find. Vocals in particular just won't sit in the same way in Reason as when I'm mixing in Pro Tools. If there's something I'm doing wrong I would like to fix it, because I do enjoy composing in Reason, and it's a drag to have to bounce out stems to fix a mix that's just not quite sitting.

It's in the summing?!? I don't suppose you have an analog summing box attached to your Pro Tools rig or something else in the chain?

Look, I'm not saying your making things up, but Selig has worked in Pro Tools for years (@Selig - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your line of work literally audio engineering?), and he's been using Pro Tools almost as long as the technology has been in existence. He knows it back and front, through in through, upside down and sideways - trust me - he'd be able to tell if Pro Tools is doing something different compared to Reason.

There's lot of things Reason needs to get better at, but a dry project bounced down and summed in one sounds the exact same as any other DAW when levels are set the same and there's no inserts or any other effects in the chain.

I have to say, you sort of set the mood for your argument by posting 2 audio files to compare, then choosing MP3 for one format and AIFF for the other. And yes, I realize the PT mix was lossy, but come on man - do you even science??

The Reason mix is as I last heard it, with master bus compression etc..

I think your testing methodology is not only broke, it changes.

I'll tell you that if other programs have advantages in sound, we would long ago have allocated all the prints and to use sound in Reason that does PT.

[selig]

No offense meant to the OP, just playing devil's advocate, but haven't we already read a million posts/threads on someone claiming audio sounds different in Reason compared to other DAW, but it has already been demonstrated (ad infinitum) that audio from Reason is exactly the same as it is in other DAW? I mean right down to the audio nulling?

Maybe Selig can chime in on this...

*EDIT - d'oh!!! We posted at the same time LOL!

It's in the summing. Different DAWs do it differently. If you turn down the tracks in Logic for example, you get closer to the "more space" you can hear in Pro Tools/ Logic famously sounds smaller, and this workaround fixes that - apparently. I never went with the workaround, I just abandoned Logic for other reasons. Pardon the pun.
Ableton has a "sound" as well. I've found Logic and Reason in particular to sound differently from ProTools and Logic.

But that's not really the issue. I wasn't blowing a horn or anything, it's a genuine frustration I find. Vocals in particular just won't sit in the same way in Reason as when I'm mixing in Pro Tools. If there's something I'm doing wrong I would like to fix it, because I do enjoy composing in Reason, and it's a drag to have to bounce out stems to fix a mix that's just not quite sitting.

It's in the summing?!? I don't suppose you have an analog summing box attached to your Pro Tools rig or something else in the chain?

Look, I'm not saying your making things up, but Selig has worked in Pro Tools for years (@Selig - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your line of work literally audio engineering?), and he's been using Pro Tools almost as long as the technology has been in existence. He knows it back and front, through in through, upside down and sideways - trust me - he'd be able to tell if Pro Tools is doing something different compared to Reason.

There's lot of things Reason needs to get better at, but a dry project bounced down and summed in one sounds the exact same as any other DAW when levels are set the same and there's no inserts or any other effects in the chain.

I have to say, you sort of set the mood for your argument by posting 2 audio files to compare, then choosing MP3 for one format and AIFF for the other. And yes, I realize the PT mix was lossy, but come on man - do you even science??

The bigger issue isn't actually the file format (which is concerning, of course) but the limiting of the PT file by 6 dB, which is huge. It's not a level difference either, which could be compensated for during listening tests.

One thing I should clarify, is that Pro Tools has gone through MANY iterations that HAVE affected the output in certain cases. Now that it's based on the same concept as Reason, which is to say now that it's a floating point audio architecture like Reason, it's easier to compare fairly.

I should also say I'm not running the latest version at the studio in Utah, so I don't have direct access to the latest version of PT to make the comparison myself.

I'll also say here that I have an open mind with regard to these things, and will freely admit that it's entirely possible a null test may or may not produce a "perfect" null due to potential rounding errors. But I'm certain that any difference, if they exist, would be quite small.

That's why the test I would 100% trust is a double blind A/B/C test, and I would also trust a more simple A/B test where folks could reliably choose the Pro Tools version over the Reason version. If one cannot consistently identify the sonic differences (using a variety of audio/music files), then I care not whether there is an infinitesimal difference in a null test.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gorgon]

You won't find the source online, it was in private conversations.

Oh powerful medicin man of arcane, unwritten knowledge.

[Logismos]

No offense meant to the OP, just playing devil's advocate, but haven't we already read a million posts/threads on someone claiming audio sounds different in Reason compared to other DAW, but it has already been demonstrated (ad infinitum) that audio from Reason is exactly the same as it is in other DAW? I mean right down to the audio nulling?

Maybe Selig can chime in on this....

Huhhmm.. I seem to remember selig not even being able to tell the differences between the internal 14:2 mixer null tests??? lol- remember that? surely well forgotton by those who were not able to 'prove' otherwise. blehhzzz . topic died to lack of inputs from those that claimed there were no differences... funny dat eh? no.

Look, I'm not saying your making things up, but Selig has worked in Pro Tools for years (@Selig - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your line of work literally audio engineering?), and he's been using Pro Tools almost as long as the technology has been in existence. He knows it back and front, through in through, upside down and sideways - trust me - he'd be able to tell if Pro Tools is doing something different compared to Reason..

^hmm? see above-and then below^

There's lot of things Reason needs to get better at, but a dry project bounced down and summed in one sounds the exact same as any other DAW when levels are set the same and there's no inserts or any other effects in the chain. .

Hmm again-you couldn't really be so wrong here-there certainly are differences between audio drivers signal>to>noise ratios I think you will find.?? no?

"I have to say,I think ""your not even showing any testing methodology,or science""...so please present some of your trained findings to end this debate now? no? yes?.."
Sigh.
There will be differences-the 2 programmes do not work identically-therein lay said 'problems',but also,the possible solutions! ! =)

The evidence presented so far has 0 bearing at this point.
2 clones need to be made 1st to compare--- lol, best of luck with that m8's.
Remember-- no 2 apples will ever be the same,unless 99.99999r% cloned.

[selig]

No offense meant to the OP, just playing devil's advocate, but haven't we already read a million posts/threads on someone claiming audio sounds different in Reason compared to other DAW, but it has already been demonstrated (ad infinitum) that audio from Reason is exactly the same as it is in other DAW? I mean right down to the audio nulling?

Maybe Selig can chime in on this....

Huhhmm.. I seem to remember selig not even being able to tell the differences between the internal 14:2 mixer null tests??? lol- remember that? surely well forgotton by those who were not able to 'prove' otherwise. blehhzzz . topic died to lack of inputs from those that claimed there were no differences... funny dat eh? no.

Look, I'm not saying your making things up, but Selig has worked in Pro Tools for years (@Selig - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your line of work literally audio engineering?), and he's been using Pro Tools almost as long as the technology has been in existence. He knows it back and front, through in through, upside down and sideways - trust me - he'd be able to tell if Pro Tools is doing something different compared to Reason..

^hmm? see above-and then below^

There's lot of things Reason needs to get better at, but a dry project bounced down and summed in one sounds the exact same as any other DAW when levels are set the same and there's no inserts or any other effects in the chain. .

Hmm again-you couldn't really be so wrong here-there certainly are differences between audio drivers signal>to>noise ratios I think you will find.?? no?

"I have to say,I think ""your not even showing any testing methodology,or science""...so please present some of your trained findings to end this debate now? no? yes?.."
Sigh.
There will be differences-the 2 programmes do not work identically-therein lay said 'problems',but also,the possible solutions! ! =)

The evidence presented so far has 0 bearing at this point.
2 clones need to be made 1st to compare--- lol, best of luck with that m8's.
Remember-- no 2 apples will ever be the same,unless 99.99999r% cloned.

You "seem" to remember something? I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're implying that I'm a human being, then I plead guilty as charged. Not that I'm admitting to what you're suggesting (because I'm not clear what your point is), but I'm not sure about your approach of presenting vague recollections as fact. So I suggest we ALL not introduce any more hearsay or recollections into this already muddy thread. We can do better, right?

I'll just add that there can be a null test that produces residual signals that are impossible to hear in most if not all cases, unless you can hear signals 140 dB below the loudest signal.
And MOST importantly, there can be two signals that sound IDENTICAL that won't null either because of slight delays between them or the SMALLEST level difference. To suggest other wise is to simply not understand the limits of a null test - it's not the "holy grail" test some would make it out to be.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FGL]

If this would be real, someone could tell how songs are made only by listening. But nobody can do this.

I actually read somewhere (may have been on this site actually) a producer with years and years experience making a living from it who said he could tell what daw songs were produced on. He said he was rarely wrong. Whether it be FL Studio, Reason, Pro Tools or Logic. He said they all kinda have a sound.

20 Years ago, maybe. Today I don't believe it. You can do so much changes in the Sound of your Mix only if you use different RE that this can't be real.

[selig]

If this would be real, someone could tell how songs are made only by listening. But nobody can do this.

I actually read somewhere (may have been on this site actually) a producer with years and years experience making a living from it who said he could tell what daw songs were produced on. He said he was rarely wrong. Whether it be FL Studio, Reason, Pro Tools or Logic. He said they all kinda have a sound.

20 Years ago, maybe. Today I don't believe it. You can do so much changes in the Sound of your Mix only if you use different RE that this can't be real.

Yes, it's easy to recognize a stock loop from GarageBand or Reason or FL/Ableton/etc.

But to recognize the raw audio path? It's not even that easy to do so with traditional large format consoles, as not all Neves sound alike, not all SSLs sound alike, not all API/Helios/Sphere/Trident etc. sound alike. There are so many different models for each manufacturer making it difficult to be 100% sure. In some cases, if you push a specific console you'll hear it, but in those cases you'd more likely be hearing the EQ or the compressors etc. Plus there are many producer/engineers that do not "push" the console in question so you'd never be able to recognize obvious fingerprints in all cases.

Now maybe there really are "golden ears" who've done the work to train themselves to identify the different analog consoles in some cases, but that's "best case" IMO. For one thing, it would be the rare engineer with enough experience on each to be able to reliably make that identification, who would ALSO be interested in taking the time to perform such a test in the first place - they typically don't have anything to prove to anyone in my experience.

But in the digital world, if we consider the audio path alone and discount plugins/loops/etc. it's very difficult to identify each DAW even for the best trained engineers out there.

Here's one way to test the theory…
Start with a clean stereo piano recording and pass it through each DAW that's popular right now and see who can tell you which is which. That's a test which should conclusively prove if a DAW has a sound on it's own. And if you want to instead compare summing, then take that same piano recording, reduce it's gain by 36 dB and create 64 copies of it, sum it in each DAW and do the same test. That's 64 stereo channels of summing, so if there's a way to identify each DAW based on summing it should be easy to hear.
Get back to me with the results and we'll talk (or suggest a better test and we'll use that one instead)…rr just use the DAW that has the workflow that's best for the music you make

Happy music making/testing!

[FGL]

If this would be real, someone could tell how songs are made only by listening. But nobody can do this.

But it's not about recognizing an identifiable sound in other's mixes, it's about trying to get a mix sitting, and finding you're doing all this work to get it to sound a particular way, and then popping it into something else, and hearing it instantly gelling more.

I don't think that this occurs because some DAW has a specific sound. It sound more like that there are some other settings on that are not easy to detect. But I don't have this Programm you are talking about and so I don't know what this Settings could be. I hope you found out, and it helps you to improve your settings in Reason.

[selig]

So to be fair (and for fun), I put a limiter (Ozone) on the Reason version with 6 dB of gain reduction, and WOW, the Reason track now sounds EVEN BETTER to me.

I'd be interested in hearing that!

If you have Ozone, set it to -6 dB and you'll hear it!


If not, any limiter would do IMO - try it with maximizer. I'd share the files but I've already deleted them off my hard drive - quicker for you to replicate on your end (not trying to be a smart ass here).

[selig]

If this would be real, someone could tell how songs are made only by listening. But nobody can do this.

But it's not about recognizing an identifiable sound in other's mixes, it's about trying to get a mix sitting, and finding you're doing all this work to get it to sound a particular way, and then popping it into something else, and hearing it instantly gelling more.

It's "gelling" more 'cause you're slamming the limiter in PT by 6 dB and doing no limiting in Reason!
At least in the examples you've provided so far.

[FGL]

Yes, it's easy to recognize a stock loop from GarageBand or Reason or FL/Ableton/etc.

But to recognize the raw audio path? It's not even that easy to do so with traditional large format consoles, as not all Neves sound alike, not all SSLs sound alike, not all API/Helios/Sphere/Trident etc. sound alike. There are so many different models for each manufacturer making it difficult to be 100% sure. In some cases, if you push a specific console you'll hear it, but in those cases you'd more likely be hearing the EQ or the compressors etc. Plus there are many producer/engineers that do not "push" the console in question so you'd never be able to recognize obvious fingerprints in all cases.

Now maybe there really are "golden ears" who've done the work to train themselves to identify the different analog consoles in some cases, but that's "best case" IMO. For one thing, it would be the rare engineer with enough experience on each to be able to reliably make that identification, who would ALSO be interested in taking the time to perform such a test in the first place - they typically don't have anything to prove to anyone in my experience.

But in the digital world, if we consider the audio path alone and discount plugins/loops/etc. it's very difficult to identify each DAW even for the best trained engineers out there.

Here's one way to test the theory…
Start with a clean stereo piano recording and pass it through each DAW that's popular right now and see who can tell you which is which. That's a test which should conclusively prove if a DAW has a sound on it's own. And if you want to instead compare summing, then take that same piano recording, reduce it's gain by 36 dB and create 64 copies of it, sum it in each DAW and do the same test. That's 64 stereo channels of summing, so if there's a way to identify each DAW based on summing it should be easy to hear.
Get back to me with the results and we'll talk (or suggest a better test and we'll use that one instead)…rr just use the DAW that has the workflow that's best for the music you make

Happy music making/testing!

There is so much going on this Days only with one Daw I would like if it would be more easy to make some good setting for larger Projects with more then one Song. It's harder to keep a consistent sound in a project with more songs than the other way round.

[mataya]

rr just use the DAW that has the workflow that's best for the music you make

I still think it's has to do with reason devices and not the output or summing.
And when you combine one crap with more crap, you get a big crap.
I mean diva sounds better then Albino for example(to me). Could it be Thor is even worse by comparison. And I think we can include audio effects devices here also. For example mclass compressor in Reason sounds crappy for my ears. Ugliest distortion I've ever heard in a compressor when aproching to the shortest release for example.
That's all I'm saying. Could it be devices are not that good(cpu efficent = sound so so in this case)?

Is this possible Selig? From a perspective of a obviusly talented coder.


tx
M

[selig]

rr just use the DAW that has the workflow that's best for the music you make

I still think it's has to do with reason devices and not the output or summing.
And when you combine one crap with more crap, you get a big crap.
I mean diva sounds better then Albino for example(to me). Could it be Thor is even worse by comparison. And I think we can include audio effects devices here also. For example mclass compressor in Reason sounds crappy for my ears. Ugliest distortion I've ever heard in a compressor when aproching to the shortest release for example.
That's all I'm saying. Could it be devices are not that good(cpu efficent = sound so so in this case)?

Is this possible Selig? From a perspective of a obviusly talented coder.


tx
M

All compressors distort when you use a fast release - this is something desirable in some cases IMO. As for one device sounding better than another, this happens in analog hardware and in software, and it's not necessarily related to the quality components or high CPU usage. In fact, for any one device you'll find lovers and haters. It's the nature of the beast IMO.

[mataya]

I'm a long time user of UAD plugs and I'm using them almost exclusively in my day job. And I said it like 10 times here already...so sorry about that. Like I said, mclass distorts in such an unpleasant way that I avoid it at all cost. 1176 for example does someting completely different and desirable.
I agree that cpu hit does not mean sound quality, but I can't escape the thought that maybe reason devices are to blame. I mean I did projects with so many eq's and compressors and synths with a lame dual core, that other daw's couldn't even imagine...so at one point I asked my self, could it be I'm loosing something in sound quality, while getting so many devices, or is it that reason is just so damn efficient? Since racks are available in reason, I'm even more convinced, since I can definitely hear something I never could before, in Reason.
I also agree it's a love or hate in most cases. But for example UAD has a few versions of la2a and depending on the sound you're going after you'll decide which one you'll use. Deciding if you're going to use one amazing sounding la2a or the other is not the same as deciding between mclass that will screw your sound or a stereo imager that will dissolve your hi end. I just think some devices are terrible in terms of "i don't know what's up" and that always gets me in trouble with reason.
I'm also sorry if I sound like I'm just trashing reason, but this is not my intetion at all...I even released an album made in reason and it's available commercially. Reason is so damn cool. Just thinking maybe an update in quality of the devices would make it sound nicer...if that's the case, since I heard it like a million times before.
Or extensions are actually just that...and I'm fine with that solution for now.
So, no more words from me.
tx
M

[EnochLight]

No offense meant to the OP, just playing devil's advocate, but haven't we already read a million posts/threads on someone claiming audio sounds different in Reason compared to other DAW, but it has already been demonstrated (ad infinitum) that audio from Reason is exactly the same as it is in other DAW? I mean right down to the audio nulling?

Maybe Selig can chime in on this....

Huhhmm.. I seem to remember selig not even being able to tell the differences between the internal 14:2 mixer null tests??? lol- remember that? surely well forgotton by those who were not able to 'prove' otherwise. blehhzzz . topic died to lack of inputs from those that claimed there were no differences... funny dat eh? no.

Look, I'm not saying your making things up, but Selig has worked in Pro Tools for years (@Selig - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your line of work literally audio engineering?), and he's been using Pro Tools almost as long as the technology has been in existence. He knows it back and front, through in through, upside down and sideways - trust me - he'd be able to tell if Pro Tools is doing something different compared to Reason..

^hmm? see above-and then below^

There's lot of things Reason needs to get better at, but a dry project bounced down and summed in one sounds the exact same as any other DAW when levels are set the same and there's no inserts or any other effects in the chain. .

Hmm again-you couldn't really be so wrong here-there certainly are differences between audio drivers signal>to>noise ratios I think you will find.?? no?

"I have to say,I think ""your not even showing any testing methodology,or science""...so please present some of your trained findings to end this debate now? no? yes?.."
Sigh.
There will be differences-the 2 programmes do not work identically-therein lay said 'problems',but also,the possible solutions! ! =)

The evidence presented so far has 0 bearing at this point.
2 clones need to be made 1st to compare--- lol, best of luck with that m8's.
Remember-- no 2 apples will ever be the same,unless 99.99999r% cloned.

So you agree that the "tests" that have been conducted by the OP are bunk? Great - good to see we agree! Hmmmm...

[Riverman]

I'll try another example of the process. Here's something I was mixing in Reason. This is where I got with it:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... reason.aif

I then bounced out stems, imported into Tools, and this is a bounce without doing anything, no added nothing, no master bus, I didn't touch anything:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/976 ... otools.wav

It's much softer of course, but crank it up, and it's all just sounding so much more... I dunno, real. Like a band.
It's in Reason's eq or something, I don't know, but it's in the way the snare's hitting... all sorts of stuff. I can't get it to sound like the Pro Tools mix, when working in Reason.

It's very hard to replicate what I'm talking about, because yes there's master channel stuff going on with this mix obviously, but it doesn't seem to matter.

If you do a test like this and end up with overall levels that do not match (they should match IMO), and then you CANNOT even explain EXACTLY why this has happened, then I simply cannot trust the "test".

Also, if you cannot replicate what you suggest IS actually happening, well…

Folks, this IS difficult to do properly - please take the time to do so if you're going to bother presenting "evidence" for your claims here! We deserve at least THAT - then we can argue all day about which one "feels" better.

Now if you're going to argue you PREFER working in one environment over another based on the results you get, then no test is going to support or refute that claim - it's a personal thing and we should all be using the tools we prefer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do you mean "evidence for my claim"?
I'm replicating my process so you can hear what I'm experiencing, in the hope of perhaps fixing an issue. I'm seeking practical help, not proving a philosophical concept.

The Reason mix is as I last heard it, with master bus compression etc. as good as I could get it in Reason.
I bounced out the stems, and imported them into Tools. Rather than add master bus stuff or tweak that mix at all, I simply bounced it out so you could hear what I hear when I import the dry stems.
I hear a vast improvement without even doing anything.
I will usually go and tweak the mix a bit, but it general doesn't take much.

I mean you are not comparing apples to apples, so how do we know what is actually going on?
This is new information, that you had a master compressor in Reason, which is not present in Pro Tools. You didn't mention this potentially huge difference the first time around, leaving us with the impression you understood how to do a proper comparison test.

Do we blame the master compressor for what you don't like, the summing bus, the export process, or something else you didn't mention the first time around?

You also didn't mention how you dealt with any send/return FX (if any). There are simply too many variables in your test, and further evidence that these tests are not easy to do properly.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I bounced out the reverb channels. They're the Reason reverbs. As said, no processing at all in the Tools mix.