"The Reason sound" - ;-)

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

27 Mar 2015

deepndark wrote:The commercial music we usually hear - is never made with Reason. FACT!
Because it's quiet a work to not sound like Reason.
Sad but true, Reason sound stopps your natural hearing and makes you analyze the music you made with it. The SOUND should never make you analyze, how it sounds.
It should be that Reason music doesn't make it impossible to breath - while listening.

You know what, it isn't possible because whatever you do with the Reason - the "Reason Sound" is there. The TONE! <-- The damn feckin Reason TONE!!

We should not be struggeling to get ridd of a certain sound - we should be focusing making music, not being a darn sound-scientists.
:?

Does these commercial hit songs sound like Reason?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHp2KgyQUFk 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53gjP-TtGE  

Both of these Grammy winners produced by S1 - a Reason user. http://symbolycone.com/about/



Reason has no sound. Some of the instruments have certain characteristics the overall sound of a production is dependent on the creative entity behind it. At the end of it all when a song is mixed well you can't tell what was used to make it unless very common presets were used.

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

27 Mar 2015

Now I want "Sound Scientist" as a forum title. :)

inmatus
Posts: 63
Joined: 25 Mar 2015

27 Mar 2015

I wouldn't be surprised is a lot of commercial music is recorded with HW synths..

Anthother Q somewhat out of topic is: Regardless of DAW and softsynth -are HW synths sounding bette than softsr? I wouldnt be surprised if they are..
If they are and you are in a studio with zillions of ancient priceless moogs and korgs.. will you use Thor or Hallion?

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

27 Mar 2015

Is a hardware synth better sounding than software? Define "better"? Different, for sure, but that doesn't even have to be the case. Follow me: If you can make a digital recording of a hardware synth that's indistinguishable from it being played, and the sampling theorem says this is possible. Then it is possible to represent the sound of that synth in software. It is only a matter of designing a piece of software that can emit those same bytes as the ones that were recorded. All that is required is the CPU cycles to model the needed parts and their interactions.

On the other hand it's possible to do things in software that are either impossible or, prohibitively expensive to do with a pure hardware synth. Ever wonder why so many hardware synths are monophonic? The costs for hardware, multiple pieces of matching hardware, adds up quickly. Want another voice in software? Just allocate a bit more memory, and spend a few more CPU cycles. If you need more voices than you can render in real time, just bounce it off-line.

As you may or may not know, I'm in the process of cloning a real hardware synth. While copy is still lacking features, I already prefer programming it over the hardware version. I'm starting to dread having to use its soft buttons to go in and find a parameter, to make one change, where my software version has all the controls laid out in plain sight. Having that many controls on a hardware synth would have made it too big to be useful. Also my hardware version, even though the filters are supposed to be able to be calibrated, one voice has a filter that will self-resonate when the others don't. Maybe someone would think that lends character to the hardware that wouldn't be present in a flawless piece of software, but it just annoys me (and I could technically make each filter slightly different depending on voice assignment, but I won't).

User avatar
gak
Posts: 2840
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

27 Mar 2015

gak wrote:I wonder if this thread will go poof like the EQ thread a few days ago?  :s0238:
selig wrote:
What EQ thread are you talking about? I didn't notice any going missing (but want to be sure I'm not overlooking anything), and also don't believe any mods have deleted a thread in a long while now…
:)
Well, I can't find it. Are members able to delete their posts? 



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

27 Mar 2015

gak wrote:I wonder if this thread will go poof like the EQ thread a few days ago?  :s0238:
selig wrote:
What EQ thread are you talking about? I didn't notice any going missing (but want to be sure I'm not overlooking anything), and also don't believe any mods have deleted a thread in a long while now…
:)
gak wrote:
Well, I can't find it. Are members able to delete their posts? 

I figured you wouldn't be able to find it if it was deleted! ;)

I was hoping you remember the title - just curious really, as anyone is allowed to delete any thread they start.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1456
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

27 Mar 2015

deepndark wrote:The commercial music we usually hear - is never made with Reason. FACT!
Because it's quiet a work to not sound like Reason.
Sad but true, Reason sound stopps your natural hearing and makes you analyze the music you made with it. The SOUND should never make you analyze, how it sounds.
It should be that Reason music doesn't make it impossible to breath - while listening.

You know what, it isn't possible because whatever you do with the Reason - the "Reason Sound" is there. The TONE! <-- The damn feckin Reason TONE!!

We should not be struggeling to get ridd of a certain sound - we should be focusing making music, not being a darn sound-scientists.
There's a lot of projection in this post, I think. (I'm assuming that you're not just being ironic like inmatus suggested.)

I get awesome sounds out of Reason. That's only partially boasting, the rest is just praise for Reason. The toolkit is ridiculously versatile and the workflow makes sense to me. If I experienced this apparently insurmountable struggle you're describing, I wouldn't feel so inspired working on music in Reason, but I've been here since 2003 and have no plans to change DAWs anytime soon. Even if every forum and tutorial site closed down and there was never another update, rack extension, or refill.
Sarah Mancuso
My music: Future Human

User avatar
Lunesis
Moderator
Posts: 422
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

27 Mar 2015

I think this argument is always going to be a dead end. If you cannot define the thing you are arguing about then you are just arguing over nothing. If Predator RE sounds exactly the same as Predator VST then where exactly is the difference?

inmatus
Posts: 63
Joined: 25 Mar 2015

27 Mar 2015

I am not sure if it is a dead end

I like what ScuzzyEye is saying.. It is all in the CPU and RAM

One thing I hope is clear:
-It is difference in sound between softsynts -it is a matter of design, right? (I think so absolutely)

Maybe a question then is.. How much do you like to spend in buying the "best sounding" RE? 29$? 300?
How much CPU and RAM -> latency gearing up with other plugs can you bear?
Limitations on SDK?
If somebody develope the RE that knocks me *ss over head I buy it for good money :)
(It can have 20 OSC and eat a lot of memory-I dont care)


and.. limitation on the format you work (32 bits) listen on (mp3)

I still do think when I hear commercial music -even solo synths - jeeeez that sounds sooo good.. I want one (talking about richness and sound quality)

User avatar
Lunesis
Moderator
Posts: 422
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

27 Mar 2015

Usually when you hear commercial synths they are hardware pieces that cost hundreds or more. Even if you have all that stuff, you still need to be able to make something catchy and thoughtful.

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

27 Mar 2015

inmatus wrote:Limitations on SDK?
Of all the comments I've seen from developers I don't think anyone has said the SDK is stopping them from making the sound they want. GUI limitations, yeah. CPU overhead, maybe. But nothing about sound.

hydlide

27 Mar 2015

Lunesis wrote:I think this argument is always going to be a dead end. If you cannot define the thing you are arguing about then you are just arguing over nothing. If Predator RE sounds exactly the same as Predator VST then where exactly is the difference?
I just wanted to bring up the argument, if I would record a hardware synth, stick it in the NN-XT, would this define as "the reason sound"?

Clearly, I think there used to be "the reason sound". This started with Reason 1 till Reason 4. The sound engine was clearly muffled in a way (due to the way that the final output was "rendered"). Since Reason 5 the floating 64 floating point was included in the final output of the mix.
After this stage the whole criteria of "that reason sound" was never brought up again in lets say, KVR. So from that end, we are all good as far as I can tell.
If you would compare Predator RE or Prederator VST, it kind of depends what the rate you are recording. This makes a tiny difference. But then again, the ear can't tell much of a difference between 48kHz and 48kHz (unless someone would drastic add EQ stages to the mix).

As far the argument goes with comparing Saw waves from the subtractor / malstrom / thor, would be comparing a Moog with a Arp with a Korg. Every synth has their take on how to sound like. This is what makes them awesome / terrible at the same time. REs have widen things up on how a Saw could / can sound like. Sometimes I like the Ammo 1200 wave tables, sometimes I don't and I would like to ECF-42 some sounds just to reduce some textures from the sound.

It is all based on taste.
And clearly the argument of "non of the commercial music hasn't been made with reason we hear today" is total rubbish.

There are dozen of promos where propellerhead will point out which artist created a hit with reason. Since it is partially a marketing thing, but at the same time pointing out that the argument of "no commercial music is being made with reason" can be thrown in the dustbin.
If the prodigy doesn't count as "commercial music", then I can just start playing with Lego and claim that its Barbie dolls I am playing with.
Also note that game music is being made with using Reason entirely (Eve Online, just to name one. And this is just an example of a complete soundtrack done entirely in Reason 4).

Also, I don't think it really matters what kind of program you are using to make a Hit song. But thats a different debate / discussion by itself. Heck, you can even make a hit song using a NES sound engine. Lets think "Mario" for a second and you know EXACTLY what I mean with that.



lowpryo
Posts: 452
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

27 Mar 2015

I usually find that the people arguing that there IS a "Reason sound" are generally the people who don't demonstrate sufficient knowledge about how audio really works...

User avatar
Benedict
Competition Winner
Posts: 2747
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Contact:

27 Mar 2015

Can someone perhaps present a couple of tracks that we can agree clearly define "Reason Sound". I will present the album I presented earlier as that was 100% Reason (v3 or 4 I think).

https://benedictroff-marsh.bandcamp.com ... -body-pool

or how about The New Space Album from v 2.5

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2004/03/17 ... ace-album/

or a re-rendered and slightly re-mastered version which is v8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa_t7iduCOU

Would we all pick any/all as having Reason Sound?

:)
Benedict Roff-Marsh
Completely burned and gone

User avatar
Orion
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

27 Mar 2015

HELP! I can't get rid of this damn reason sound.


User avatar
Benedict
Competition Winner
Posts: 2747
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Contact:

27 Mar 2015

Orion wrote:HELP! I can't get rid of this damn reason sound.

I get no sense of Reason from that

:)
Benedict Roff-Marsh
Completely burned and gone

User avatar
Orion
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

27 Mar 2015

Orion wrote:HELP! I can't get rid of this damn reason sound.

Benedict wrote:
I get no sense of Reason from that

:)
Haha... thank you

User avatar
Rook
Posts: 152
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

27 Mar 2015

When I first started out in Reason, I thought maybe there was a "reason sound" too. But, eventually I realized that it's really just a byproduct of how Reason works on a fundamental level, and an easily bypassed one at that.

Reason itself (before REs, especially) gives you a bunch of very basic, but versatile tools. It's not really expected that you will create a track with JUST a single Maelstrom/Subtractor on each channel...it's a modular system, so you should use multiple devices and combinators to build your own sounds. But the tendency of a lot of people is to just pull up a synth by itself, as they would a normal VST, and pick a preset and wonder why everything sounds so dry and flat.

VST synths have kinda spoiled some of us. They come with tons of built-in effects on any given patch. For instance, take a Massive patch; it's not JUST the synth you're hearing--it's the synth...through its built-in overdrive...and phaser...and delay...and reverb, etc. You pull up one instance of the plugin and you've got this huge, multi-dimensional sound almost instantly. Reason is just as capable of the same thing, but you actually have to put that stuff together yourself...or select a combinator patch.

One of my big revelations back in the day was downloading a free version of eXode's synth refill. I think it was "X Synth" or something? Going through his combi patches, it finally started to click. Like, "Oooooh, okay". That's when I started getting away from the so-called "Reason sound".

One other thing I've noticed is that so many of the stock tools are designed to be extremely versatile, so that they can be used in a million different ways. This is great, in a way. But it also makes it really easy to really mess things up. Thus the reason, I think, overuse of the stock compressors could also lend to the perceived "reason sound". VSTs are usually much more "specialized" that Reason's stock devices. So, it's easier to set the knobs almost anywhere and still get a decent sound. That's usually not the case with Reason. I'm still trying to figure out how to best use the M-class Compressor...it's got such a HUGE range, it's kinda difficult to get it right sometimes.

User avatar
Last Alternative
Posts: 1343
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Location: the lost desert

28 Mar 2015

I hope I have the Last Alternative sound :frown:
https://lastalternative.bandcamp.com
:reason: 12.7.4 | MacBook Pro (16”, 2021), OS Sonoma, M1 Max, 4TB SSD, 64GB RAM | quality instruments & gear

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

28 Mar 2015

hydlide wrote:  
Clearly, I think there used to be "the reason sound". This started with Reason 1 till Reason 4. The sound engine was clearly muffled in a way (due to the way that the final output was "rendered"). Since Reason 5 the floating 64 floating point was included in the final output of the mix.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong but up through Reason 5 it was still 32-bit float.  In order to get 64-bit summing in the mix bus at the Main Mixer Master Section, you had to use Reason 5 through Record (as the 64-bit summing was added with the new mixer in Record).  This of course became part of Reason permanently when it went to 6.0 and Record merged with Reason as one product.

Aside from that, the only changes of the sort I know of to Reason prior to that was high resolution samples being added at 2.0, a higher sample rate option via your audio card at 1.01, and dithering being added as an export option in 3.0.  

Source:
https://www.propellerheads.se/support/u ... elp-files/

https://www.propellerheads.se/download/ ... record_doc
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

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

28 Mar 2015

If we're talking about OSC's Reason already has so many options. In Thor the Wavetable Osc module has the cleanest OSC's (least distortion), FM Pair on sine is rather clean (less clean than Wavetable) and Analog is dirtier than the rest. But dirty has always proven to be a good thing in music. So in fact, stuff should be wrong to sound good. Same as for "perfect" tuning imo.

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

28 Mar 2015

hydlide wrote:  
Clearly, I think there used to be "the reason sound". This started with Reason 1 till Reason 4. The sound engine was clearly muffled in a way (due to the way that the final output was "rendered"). Since Reason 5 the floating 64 floating point was included in the final output of the mix.
EnochLight wrote:
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong but up through 
EnochLight wrote:Reason 5 it was still 32-bit float.
EnochLight wrote:  In order to get 64-bit summing in the mix bus at the Main Mixer Master Section, you had to use Reason 5 through Record (as the 64-bit summing was added with the new mixer in Record).  This of course became part of Reason permanently when it went to 6.0 and Record merged with Reason as one product.

Aside from that, the only changes of the sort I know of to Reason prior to that was high resolution samples being added at 2.0, a higher sample rate option via your audio card at 1.01, and dithering being added as an export option in 3.0.  

Source:
https://www.propellerheads.se/support/u ... elp-files/
EnochLight wrote:
https://www.propellerheads.se/download/ ... record_doc
EnochLight wrote:
Bit depth would not contribute in the least to a "clearly muffled" sound. I've done the testing and found version 2-4 to be perfectly fine with their renders - no "muffled sound" at all. This "muffled sound" of the renders is the false "Reason sound" that has been propagated through the internet over the years.

The only thing "muffled" in Reason is the top end of some of the oscillators, which is not only unchanged to date but would only be noticed IF you were running the filters wide open on all your patches. 

But running a sample through the system during my Recording Magazine review of Reason 4 showed an absolutely clean signal path throughout! Same for Reason 2 and 3, but I never owed Reason 1 so never tested that. I would imagine IF there was such an improvement in the muffled "Reason sound", it would have been more widely noted, no?

insert image of horse being beaten here…

;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1456
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

28 Mar 2015

Yeah, if Reason 5 and above (or whichever version) altered the output results in an appreciable way from earlier versions, it'd wreak havoc on any songs that were mixed using one of those earlier versions. My old songs from the 2.5 and 3.0 days still sound identical in 7.1. This really just isn't something you can change several versions down the line, as you'd break just as many mixes while trying to fix other ones. Any apparent difference in output quality between versions is almost certainly just a perception thing.
Sarah Mancuso
My music: Future Human

deepndark
Posts: 1270
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Finland
Contact:

29 Mar 2015

I wasn't serious about my post, some of you noticed it. Only thing I can say, is that Reason has no sound other than the stock instruements and effects can cause. Anyway, oftenly we hear music in mono. If we play our own music in mono too, there's not much difference then anymore.

kitekrazy
Posts: 1036
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

29 Mar 2015


 I guess there a lot of people who prefer the "Reason Sound" and like to use it in other DAWs via rewire.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: huggermugger and 30 guests