"The Reason sound" - ;-)

[inmatus]

Well that's a header that could start the flaming (boring) and the ever so discussed topic  :t0152:

But.. Its not my intention to discuss if Reason as a DAW sound different than other DAWs cause I don't beieve -from a technical point of view-that it can.

However.. The different synths in Reason sound -IMO-different. I tend to use RE's prior the prop standard synths like subtractor, Malström and Thor. I just got the feeling that Antidote sounds so must clearer than e.g. Thor. I thought that maybe it was the novelty of the newly downloaded RE -or the soundbanks that maybe suites my preferences.
In the end I didnt care cause in the end I use whatever I fancy

Then during a period I started to look in to modular synthesis in Reason when Blamsoft came with their Polymodular, the A-series from Ochen K and the Jiggery Poker Ammo + Charlotte etc. It was partly for the fun of it and partly trying to build an retro analogue -rich sounding with several OSC, separate filters etc etc.. Sort of the HW way.
In the end it wasnt that easy. Not that many filters etc REs to find and the different solutions in to polyfony etc from Blam, Jiggery and Ochen is not easily compatible with each other (I like the Blam variant  &nbsp

But it made me think: What should I use as the OSCs? Viking? Ammo? etc etc..Do the oscillators sound different? Anyone "better" than the other?
So I took Subtractor, Thor, Predator, Rob Papen Quad, Jiggery Ammo 100A, Viking OSC and Wiz-audio and set them up with a plain SAW form -just one OSC. Just to compare if there are differences. Then I did my best to set filters and rest similar and compared the sound from them.

They sounded quite different. Subtractor sounded like a 128 kbs mp3 recording (well maybe taking it too far but..) and Thor was quite muddy too. 
I was thinking on shooting a film on the trial but.. Too much fun to do and too little time

AND.. most importantly.. Since I dont know the Reason SDK, maybe the OSC and SAW form is all in the libraries-what do I know? Maybe there are other reasons..I am not technically skilled to say it is a different way of implementation of an OSC and vendor A did a better job than B or why it did sound quite different.

So.. to make a LONG story short. I post in a forum where hopefully someone can tell -from a technical point-if this is rubbish or the truth? There are sound quality difference between the soft synths? If so..
It would be a very plausible explanation to the long debate about how Reason sounds. If it was prior REs and there only was the prop stock synths.. If it is people complaining since they never bought any REs and just use stock? 

A synth is of course not just the plain SAW sound. Thor has fantastic capabilities but to me it always sound a bit muddy. If I am WRONG WRONG WRONG doesnt matter much. I use whatever I want for whatever reason.
And I love Reason so that is the DAW for me for sure

Any comments, idea?
Not really interested in subjective opinions if this sounds better than that. Just is there differences and why. 

[Benedict]

Sure there are differences. They form the reasons for each synth to exist. A Yamaha Grand Piano sounds different from a Bosendorfer and neither is better quality as such. An artist will choose the one that best suits their needs.

You have an idea of what you want a synth to sound like and are looking to find that in the real world. That may be discovered by looking at every synth ever made till one clicks but I would suggest that is not likely a useful outcome (I have seen many ask the same question and even done it myself). The real question is: why can't I get synths to give me the sound I hear in my head?

A particular synth may help with the answer but training definitely is the main part of the solution. If I purchased the best violin ever made it would not make me the best violinist. I think it was Yehudi Mehnuin who gave the same answer when someone suggested his Stradovarius was a great part of his success. He grabbed a cheap violin and proceeded to give an equally great performance on the "rubbish" instrument.

The reason most people accept 128k mp3 files is that they hear the music and not the technical flaws. Focusing on the technical flaws destroys the music.

[ScuzzyEye]

When a developer is designing a digital oscillator there are many choices to be made.

For the sine wave, since there are no overtones the goal is to have each sample produced by it to hit as closely to the continuous waveform as possible. Any deviation from the pure math function will present itself as noise and/or distortion.

But for waveforms that have infinite harmonics like the saw or square wave it's not about reproducing the samples as closely as you can--unless you are going for aliasing artifacts. The simple saw wave really does have infinite harmonics, but a series of digital samples only has the ability to reconstruct a signal with a finite bandwidth (up to the Nyquist limit). So some system has to be built into the oscillator's design to limit the upper harmonics. It's in designing that limiting that a lot of the characteristics of sound come into being. Cutting too much from the upper frequencies makes an oscillator sound dull, cutting too little results in aliasing artifacts (but that was the part of some older digital oscs).

[gak]

2c...

I've heard both sides of the argument 500,000,000 times and I hold no judgment on either side. Personally, I've always found the questions intriguing...but usually they end up getting nasty. Not trying to say I'm some foremost expert but I'd just go with what works for you.

What I'm trying to do in reason is not be all worried about "other" stuff and focus on what is there. Some RE's are unavoidable (like the softube amp isn't terribly great and the kuassa creme is exactly what I want) or drums (I finally decided I'd be better off with reason drums 2.0 rather than relying completely on rex files)

I do feel reason has a "vibe" to it but that is a 100% subjective thing that I cannot quantify in any way. But I'm not saying it sounds better. I just think that the way it handles time stretch/grooves and such allows me to get what's in my head easier than anything I've used...thus "vibey" 

[Benedict]

This from the notes on my Body Pool album

"I wasn’t really working at this time. I felt that whatever I turned my hands to was going nowhere. Even my SynthStudio Packs had really come to their natural conclusion. I wanted to compose but was struggling with the technology again. I remembered the pleasure I had got from composing in Reason and hoped that may help.
Initially I went straight back into not being able to get the sound I wanted. But in a stroke of random dumbness or Zen brilliance I thought; what if I dedicate myself to this sound and make the most of what it is and see where it takes me?
Where it took me was straight into the heart of The Body Pool and the album leaped into being and I loved it then and now. This album was definitely one of my turning point projects and set my course for years to come."
and straight out Gear Lust

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2012/12/15/gear-lust/

[gak]

Thanks for posting that. 

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

Nobody explained so far what the so called "Reason Sound" is! My only guess is the exclusive use of Reason's Factory Sound Bank, but that can happen with every other DAW too!

Ah, about sawtooth waveforms....

I made some quick comparisons using Skope together with some REs and stock devices:

- Subtractor, Thor and Predator seem to deliver "perfect" sawtooths.
- iVoks and Tres' waveforms are more like that one (which isn't a bad reference at all - watch at 8:35)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUetiH4pT4k&t=8m35s

[inmatus]

Thank you for answering. As I said I am not enough technically skilled but studied physics and some acoustics even at university so not totally ignorance.

I think ScuzzyEye came with reasoning I was looking for. My thinking: A lot of sounds you use and build are based on some standard wave forms. There are of course exemptions but as long as you do "analogue" stylish stuff you take the saw, the square. detune or whatever, filter it, LFO, envelope it etc. So my thinking was.. what if those standard OSC sounds differ in your taste. Like on sounds somewhat muddy, the other "sparkling" or whatever due to design choices. Then adding two of the detune etc.. End result will sound different. 

I mean they differ a lot in how they are constructed, what you can manipulate but if the sound sources differs but quite few build on same prinicples

I do think there are different characteristics of the synths of same time -eg additive- in REs/stock. The Papen Quad e.g. is in my ears sparkling while Subtractor sounds muddy if you do same basic set ups of some sounds. 
Like if you wanna do a string (mono) sound

Well.. Was just curious

[inmatus]

Missed your comment Joshua prior posting..

I used to have Cakewalk and I cant say hear any difference. The synths sound different. The soundbanks do too. I think effects do too. 
I started to fiddle around with skope too but never got that far..

The video you posted is an ARP Odessey review. Did you post wrong video?

What I am thinking on is actually.. How much design and craftmanship is it to develop a softsynth. Like what ScuzzyEye is saying about designing digital oscillators -are they valid when a soft synth in e.g. Reason is developed? I guess might be hard to discuss since you might end up in a Reason SDK discussion. I could e.g. imagine that an SDK could be a set of APIs but maybe also some objects/methods in some C++ libs where one could be "oscillator" and you instance how many you want etc.. What do I know? I understand that it is not a topic to discuss but.. What I am really after - if two companies develop the same soft synth -lets say the subtractor. One of the companies is very skilled and the other not. Will they sound differently (taking in to consideration that there are no bugs)? Will there be any sound quality difference? This due to design decisions, algorithms etc..

Sorry for maybe being noobish

[altron]

Every synth sounds different, hardware or software. You can (for example) make a sound with a Juno 106 that you cannot make with a MKS-70, and vice-versa ... I must know, I tried. The most boring synths are those that try to be very general to cover a large domain of sounds. Personally I think the synths that feature more peculiar oscillators are sounding very good (like the MKS70 for instance).

Actually I've created a patch recently on the Roland MKS70 that sounds typically 80s analogue... marvellous! I then tried to recreate it with Thor but it ended up sounding cold and harsh in comparison.

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

The video you posted is an ARP Odessey review. Did you post wrong video?

No, it's the right one! At 8:35 the sawtooth of both old and new Odyssey is shown - and they don't look perfect at all.

But in general I think the oscillators (as long as we speak about standard waveforms like saw, pulse etc.) are far less important for the sound character than the filters. Minimoog, MS-20 or TB-303 are famous for their filters, not for their oscillators (except that the Minimoog easily detunes, but that's another story ) .

[JNeffLind]

One theory I had on this is that workflow or a DAW's "personality" can influence sound, hence the "Reason Sound." If it's really easy to do something on one DAW and hard on others, that that'd push it's users to create content that took advantage of that strength. Just an idea. I don't know how it would apply specifically in this case. 

[inmatus]

The video you posted is an ARP Odessey review. Did you post wrong video?

No, it's the right one! At 8:35 the sawtooth of both old and new Odyssey is shown - and they don't look perfect at all.

But in general I think the oscillators (as long as we speak about standard waveforms like saw, pulse etc.) are far less important for the sound character than the filters. Minimoog, MS-20 or TB-303 are famous for their filters, not for their oscillators (except that the Minimoog easily detunes, but that's another story ) .

Understood
Yeah... I am just curious if filters/oscillators differences follow the same rules in SW world as in HW world
In the bottom we all have some HW like an audiocard to D/A it. But when working in DAW that is irrelevant since you bounce your result to a WAV to be played at on another audio card
A HW synth has all HW components including the D/A / amp. That for sure would create an unique sound that you then record analogue to a track.
It is different, isnt it?

A soft synth like Predator is all done by modelling HW circuits in SW on a "standard HW" platform and even inside a DAW with ruling of its own. Reason handles all internal audio processing in 32-bit floating point resolution, with 64-bit summing in the mix bus in the Main Mixer Master Section. I am just the curious if e.q. filters from different vendors sound different or not due to SW design inside Reason. It is like saying "there are difference in EQ" -it is a matter of SW design of the EQ soft device.
When reading the press releases on some of the REs it seems it.. Like the Korg Monopoly:
"Mono/Poly for Reason uses Korg's proprietary CMT (Component Modeling Technology) to precisely model the electronic circuitry of the original analog instruments, capturing the exact sound and parameter responses of the original units."

So.. then coming back to where I started: "The Reason sound" probably is not due to the way Reason handle sound. Reason as a DAW doesn't sound different than Cubase or whatever. Plug in an ARP Odyssey HW synth and record it and play it back. Sounds the same if you use the same HW doing it. 
However.. The stock synths you get like Subtractor, Thor etc has its own characteristic sound. Same goes for the effects. This due to the SW design of those models You might like it or not.
But.. When Props opened up for other vendors and introduced Rack Extensions it all gets irrelevant. The Korgs, Rob Papens, Antidote etc etc etc - you can no longer talk about a specific "Reason sound" at all.
Unless there are some boundaries in the SDK

[frog974new]

i don't have any problems with the sounds of reason
i consider first making music with tools and not compare my sounds to a trend music .

"in finé" there's no best or bad synth sounds ( in my opinion ) , may be we need to focus create music before to find a sound like as this or that Oo
i understand sometimes we want to have the same feeling as a Juno tune or a Korg hardware but as i said we compose with ours tools and this is the main goal : sharing our worlds

remind me somes feeback about the first Protracker on Amiga 500 , this DAW having this particular sound/feeling but its not really a problem . In 90's some popular album were done only those modTrackers ^^

[lowpryo]

Every synth sounds different, hardware or software. You can (for example) make a sound with a Juno 106 that you cannot make with a MKS-70, and vice-versa ... I must know, I tried. The most boring synths are those that try to be very general to cover a large domain of sounds. Personally I think the synths that feature more peculiar oscillators are sounding very good (like the MKS70 for instance).

Actually I've created a patch recently on the Roland MKS70 that sounds typically 80s analogue... marvellous! I then tried to recreate it with Thor but it ended up sounding cold and harsh in comparison.

 
I'm curious about your attempt to recreate it in Thor. Did you just mimic the settings of the MKS70 and listen back to it? Did you try all of Thor's filter types, and all the shaper options? Did you try using EQ or maybe a Scream tape saturation? I know those aren't synth-related, but I consider all of the stock rack units as part of the "sound" that Reason is capable of.
I only ask because, if I was attempting to re-create the synth, and I noticed it was "cold and harsh" in comparison, I wouldn't stop there. I would try and make it less cold and less harsh. Surely Reason has plenty of tools to do that. That just leads to the issue of workflow, which I think contributes more to the "Reason sound". Different synths and DAWs make it easier to create certain types of sounds, so you're more likely to hear those sounds from users. But it isn't an issue of "capability".

[ScuzzyEye]

What I am really after - if two companies develop the same soft synth -lets say the subtractor. One of the companies is very skilled and the other not. Will they sound differently (taking in to consideration that there are no bugs)?

I see you keep asking this question in different ways. I think it's safe to answer this one, in this way: I have no reason to believe that any two Rack Extension developers will approach the design their oscillators or filters in the same way. So there is a very high likelihood each one will have a unique sound.

[inmatus]

What I am really after - if two companies develop the same soft synth -lets say the subtractor. One of the companies is very skilled and the other not. Will they sound differently (taking in to consideration that there are no bugs)?

I see you keep asking this question in different ways. I think it's safe to answer this one, in this way: I have no reason to believe that any two Rack Extension developers will approach the design their oscillators or filters in the same way. So there is a very high likelihood each one will have a unique sound.

Yes I was..

Thanks
Happy with the answers

[deepndark]

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.

[jfrichards]

As a starting point to move away from the Reason sound, I suggest putting a Trident EQ on as many devices as possible, a Faturator on every synth, and a Pulverizer on every rex drum loop (with the rex envelope decay set on 50% to get rid of the embedded reverb).  And use the Pultec-style EQ wherever applicable (it can be done with many different EQ's).  All this tweaking takes the sound away from what was the typical sound at the old ReasonStation site, where almost every song sounded like it was done by the same Swedish house producer (even the death metal songs!).

[craven]

The commercial music we usually hear - is never made with Reason. FACT!
Because it's quiet a work to not sound like Reason.

yes, true - but only if you keep using the same standard sounds over and over again or if you don't know how to create fat sounds, mix and master etc. (still an issue for me and Reason does not make it easier).

Other than that, there is no Reason sound. No TONE. With RE this discussion should have settled once and for all

[selig]

I wonder if this thread will go poof like the EQ thread a few days ago?  :s0238:

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…

[lowpryo]

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!!

this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! please explain how that's possible. with the synths & samples inside Reason, as well as the infinite amount of samples you could import yourself, and the infinite amount of ways you can EQ, compress, distort, modulate, resample, layer, etc. the amount of sounds you can make with Reason is endless. there's no imaginary "tone" that persists through all of these infinite possibilities.

if you aren't getting professional results, it's not because Reason is coloring your music with a "tone". it's because of problems with your songwriting, or arrangement, or sound design, or mixing. are you familiar with Koan Sound? they use Reason. please listen to their music and tell me where the Reason "tone" is.

[Reasonistas]

Wow, it must be true!  Even Beatport knows people who use Reason have "The Reason sound".

 
 
 

[Reasonistas]

They even have me figured out. 
 
  

[inmatus]

Cool Noel!

I think deepndark is either ironic or sarcastic -I never learn the difference between the words -and dont try to teach me!

If we knew what they use it would be cool Google on "what synths do Röyksop use on do it again"