How do you guys feel about Reason getting rewritten on 11?

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

08 Dec 2017

Some suggestions? Default track colors should be selectable, gui needs scaling adjustments for the guys with 4k monitors and...maybe lift that vst buffer and call it a day for reason 10's update list :? Propellerhead has their own ecosystem going on so I think it's best to suggest something along the lines of that and let other daws do the completely different approaches that Propellerhead simply does NOT do with Reason fellas they built rewire before reason
Last edited by Oquasec on 08 Dec 2017, edited 3 times in total.
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

User avatar
Catblack
Posts: 1020
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Contact:

08 Dec 2017

I don't want a rewrite. But if they released version 10.1 on the tenth of January, and a point upgrade on the tenth each month next year, (all with sequencer and workflow improvements,) that'd be perfect.
If you ain't hip to the rare Housequake, shut up already.

Damn.

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

08 Dec 2017

We cannot suggest things that are out of propellerheads scope because this is really really different from other daws that literally focus on everything Reason does not.
(Which is a testament to why this shit is still around, to begin with) So they are now focusing on incorporating what other daws do into the system they made exclusive to their platform (which is what separates them from NI's Reaktor) and integrating them with as little issues as possible.

The workaround is using another bridge like jbridge, rewire etc other than the integrated bridge (which is still gonna be used for when I wanna see a vst in a combinator cuz yeah)
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

User avatar
NekujaK
Posts: 631
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Location: USA

09 Dec 2017

Reason is already able to work with plugins that are efficient and have minimal performance issues - they're called REs. So how different are VSTs from REs?

With that in mind, here's a crazy idea whch I'm sure is completely impossible to do... what if Reason were able to automatically "deconstruct" VSTs and "recompile" them into somethng similar to an RE? So the first time Reason scans a new VST, it analyzes and processes it to create an RE-styled version that it saves on the system and uses internally. I know this is a totally bonkers idea, but it just seems like REs and VSTs are so similar that some clever coding could bridge the gap between them, so at least the DSP portion of a VST could behave like an RE.

Anyway, crazy ideas aside, it would be interesting to understand what makes REs more efficient that VSTs (or maybe they're not?). Aren't they both performing basically the same tasks?

Also, has anyone done null tests between identical VSTs and REs? Such as with Synapse or Softube plugins... Do REs give the same results as their VST counterparts?
wreaking havoc with :reason: since 2.5
:arrow: https://soundcloud.com/nekujak-donnay/sets

User avatar
teddymcw
Posts: 432
Joined: 13 May 2016

09 Dec 2017

So realistically what part exactly would be worth rewriting? What would be modular enough to do so? Rewriting the whole app is only a hypothetical designed to make Ernst and friends cry, myself included to be serious though.

I'd postulate in order of modularity, graphics first by making the rack more hi-def and zoomable. I'm not much of a front-end person and esp not in desktop apps but its seems possible to use existing visual tags to point to rewritten enhanced visuals, that would be an earnest 're-write.' Along with rack visuals add fold panels for such things as more combi panels or built-in splitters for side-chaining, but that'd be adding in code to existing base. Then sequencer functions liked the famed curve and the rest of the sequencer graphics of course.

tibah
Posts: 903
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

09 Dec 2017

I think the question is, how much you can change it and not *break* your initial idea / vision?

Maybe it's time for a new PH DAW...

madmacman
Posts: 786
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

09 Dec 2017

NekujaK wrote:
09 Dec 2017
Reason is already able to work with plugins that are efficient and have minimal performance issues - they're called REs. So how different are VSTs from REs?
Well, let's hope they do at least proper refactoring with each release. Coming from classic "boxed" software development, the usual lifecycle for complex software is roughly ten years of continuous updates. After that it tends to go beyond maintainability and extensibility. This can be reduced by extensive refactoring, but this is time-consuming and the customer doesn't see an immediate benefit. (side note: I remember people pulling wry faces when Apple announced Snow Leopard: "We revamped the system foundations rather than bring you shiny new features." - wait, what?)

Steinberg has done several more or less complete rewrites in the past (iirc - taken from several magazine reports or interviews). Cubit/Cubase --> Cubase VST --> Cubase SX and so on.

So it's not uncommon, but as already stated, it is very expensive for the companies, because you have to keep alive the current branch while building up the new one.

User avatar
Gorgon
Posts: 1233
Joined: 11 Mar 2016

09 Dec 2017

dioxide wrote:
08 Dec 2017
Perhaps a better question might be: how do you feel about getting no new features while Reason's existing features are being rewritten?
Adding features just for the sake of adding features is also not a good thing.

That said, rewriting for the sake of rewriting is also not a good thing. :D

But it could be that the way it is setup now, limits Propellerhead in implementing some radical and much needed sequencer changes. So in that case, a (partly) rewrite could be a good thing.
"This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit."

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

09 Dec 2017

Props is more of a sound design oriented place I feel. Composing in it is fast as hell since it doesn't have all the extra options some other daws do.
Getting used to its keyboard shortcuts and workflow makes you realize each daw handles things differently and it's the tool.
When it comes to Reason's piano roll, I want its carpet to match the drapes called the modules.

Thick gridlines & all
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

jlgrimes
Posts: 661
Joined: 06 Jun 2017

09 Dec 2017

NekujaK wrote:
09 Dec 2017
Reason is already able to work with plugins that are efficient and have minimal performance issues - they're called REs. So how different are VSTs from REs?

With that in mind, here's a crazy idea whch I'm sure is completely impossible to do... what if Reason were able to automatically "deconstruct" VSTs and "recompile" them into somethng similar to an RE? So the first time Reason scans a new VST, it analyzes and processes it to create an RE-styled version that it saves on the system and uses internally. I know this is a totally bonkers idea, but it just seems like REs and VSTs are so similar that some clever coding could bridge the gap between them, so at least the DSP portion of a VST could behave like an RE.

Anyway, crazy ideas aside, it would be interesting to understand what makes REs more efficient that VSTs (or maybe they're not?). Aren't they both performing basically the same tasks?

Also, has anyone done null tests between identical VSTs and REs? Such as with Synapse or Softube plugins... Do REs give the same results as their VST counterparts?

User avatar
pushedbutton
Posts: 1538
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

09 Dec 2017

I don't think rewriting it would make any sense but I do think there should be a distinct line drawn between the base program (everything not in the rack) and RE/instrument (everything in the rack) development.
No matter how wonderful the new instruments are they don't overcome the QOL issues that we keep finding in the sequencer section.
@pushedbutton on twitter, add me, send me a message, but don't try to sell me stuff cos I'm skint.
Using Reason since version 3 and still never finished a song.

User avatar
dioxide
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Jul 2015

09 Dec 2017

EdGrip wrote:
08 Dec 2017
If it makes Reason easier for the Props to work on/with over the next 17 years, I'm totally fine with that.
I don't want to wait 17 years for clip launching or better pattern support as I want to make music that matters in the next 5 years. I mean I care about the longer term health of Reason as a platform, but I also want improved features in the next 1-2 years.

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

09 Dec 2017

I'm not gonna be suggesting propellerhead do anything they don't have to to maintain a completely different producing experience...All I'm talkin about is makin a piano roll with like a thickness setting for the grid. Everything else is just a matter of learning all the stuff the prog can do.
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

User avatar
ProfessaKaos
Posts: 477
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

09 Dec 2017

Didn't Propellerhead rewrite the software at version 8 or 9 when the in software update feature was introduced? Or am I tripping balls?
Reason 12 & 11.3 Suite PC- Windows 10, AMD Ryzen 9 5900x, Asus ROG CROSSHAIR Dark Hero VIII, 64GB G.Skill 3600C16 RAM, 980 Pro Samsung M.2, RTX3060.

https://soundcloud.com/juo-jual
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNLcE ... DjhSI16TqQ

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1904
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

10 Dec 2017

Why should the Props do that? Software can't get rusty. And if they did we would not see any update for years!

madmacman
Posts: 786
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

10 Dec 2017

Ahornberg wrote:
10 Dec 2017
Why should the Props do that? Software can't get rusty. And if they did we would not see any update for years!
Of course it can get "rusty". It even happens with well organized major software companies (and not only at sweat shops).

There could be a lot of causes for introducing anti-patterns into the software development process which decreases quality over the years.

But don't take my word for it - listen to the guys from Steinberg:
Georg: The latest version of Cubase is an extremely complex suite of computer software, and when we release major updates, we completely rewrite entire sections of the source code. This means that while Cubase is a DAW software package with a long, proven history, the source code is actually very fresh.
Source: https://www.steinberg.net/en/artists/st ... story.html


I don't argue that Props don't do this (in fact - I don't have any in-depth view into their development process). But it's a good practice in doing so.

dana
Posts: 335
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Contact:

10 Dec 2017

Record was a rewrite, which became Reason 6,7,8,9,10 etc.

It was released on Sept 12 2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_(software)

I think they spent over 5 years re-coding it.

And remember, they had the first version of Reason around the time Rebirth was Released, it was only because they weren't happy enough with it they just released Rebirth.

So they have been at this a long time and i don't think you have to worry about their code and rewriting it.

With the time they take for each new feature i can guess that its very modular and very well-written code.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

10 Dec 2017

I don't know how many of you develop software or have looked into the process. Its more like the cells in a human body - after 7 years they all supposedly renewed themselves, some of them often and some of them only once. It's not like the body gets a complete "rewrite" every 7 years, all in one go.

Same for software, while you add new features you see that another part isn't quite up to the challenge anymore and you (re)write that bit or just change and update it. Some parts won't be touched for long but there also isn't any reason to do so (say bone cells in the analogy).

So in effect Reason has surely been "rewritten" a few times already.

Edit: As for the question in general I guess the angle here is "better 'efficiency' for VST plugins" - which some people seem to think is down to Reason being at fault for not supplying the most flexible platform for VSTs (i.e. 64 samples buffer). Then I'd have to say "no, Reason is like that for a reason". There is ways to make perform VSTs better but they should be at the cost of the VST (i.e. added latency) and not Reason (i.e. lower overall modulation frequency).

See it's like comparing a Porsche and a tractor. They both have 300HP but nobody is dumb enough to ask why the tractor is slower or why the Porsche can't pull a plough.

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

10 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
10 Dec 2017
See it's like comparing a Porsche and a tractor. They both have 300HP but nobody is dumb enough to ask why the tractor is slower or why the Porsche can't pull a plough.
Unless the Porsche pulling the plough is a P111…
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

10 Dec 2017

selig wrote:
10 Dec 2017
Unless the Porsche pulling the plough is a P111…
:lol: :thumbs_up:

sdst
Competition Winner
Posts: 896
Joined: 14 Jun 2015

10 Dec 2017

good to know that Reason has been rewrite from scratch several times

I hope next time they add a vector interface, so we can notice the rewrite

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

11 Dec 2017

My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!

besides the usual ability of REASON over other DAW's (CV,COMBINATOR,ROUNTING..blah..blah..blah u know the rest) Reason is the least able DAW on the Market. YOU may not need REASON to do this and that...but REASON lacks basic ability's that a computer based software is capable of doing.

Again..YOU may be cool with what REASON can do feature wise..and that's cool..But I don't see how much legs REASON will have simply releasing cool looking GUI's.

For a small tiny example a few days ago I needed to change the name of a session I was working on while the session was opened, so I decided to go into the file menu of the DAW that I was using so that I can do a save as and create a new copy with a new name..simple enough. Then I noticed next to save and save as...an option called "rename"...I was floored! it's not something I ever thought of requesting but there it was...the option to rename the session that you are actively working on without the need to save as.

It's a small thing I know, but it's the kind of flexing that you would expect of piece of software to be able to do. you can't even drag and drop from various REASON windows :shock: REASON has the planet's worst MIDI export/import. And when selecting all your MIDI notes , you for some reason need to hit = and then and only then can you set all the MIDI notes to the same parameter (like velocity for example). :thumbs_down:

these types of workflow should be an embarrassment to the people in charge of features development in 2017-2018. Yes, back in the day? sure REASON was new to us , these kinds of oversights where over shadowed by the beautiful UI and building combinators ect..(you all know what they are) But 10 years on ?!?

So if Propellerhead and some of you want to keep REASON that way..then cool...But if they don't rewrite the DAW then REASON will remain exactly where it is today if not go the way of SONAR.

P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

11 Dec 2017

pjeudy wrote:
11 Dec 2017
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
...but then you proceed to say you want added features. A rewrite would be - as the name implies - a lot of time spent on features that are already there, NOT new ones. So it really can't be what you want.

scratchnsnifff
Posts: 1423
Joined: 21 Sep 2016

11 Dec 2017

I’m alwaus for the idea of making the rack zoomable and or that one idea posted by someone on another thread, a small button on each synth/effect that either pops the synth into a floating scaleable window or just zooms the crap out of that section. I gueSs I’m just a sucker for how those 3D renderings look! Those subtractor and Europa images look amazing and I’d love it if the whole rack looked like that. I know Reason is different from other daws, but it does seem like other DAWS have made their UI more 3D/high def. fl studio ableton and Logic. Maybe it’s because those user bases are so high that those companies have the capital to play with. If that’s the case hopefully those fancy investors could help out :p of course I really no nothing about how feasible this all would be and from what others have said, if this did happen it seems like we’d see few improvements, all just to get a shiny interface. But if it helps with some users I’m all for it
Mayor of plucktown :evil:

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

11 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
11 Dec 2017
pjeudy wrote:
11 Dec 2017
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
...but then you proceed to say you want added features. A rewrite would be - as the name implies - a lot of time spent on features that are already there, NOT new ones. So it really can't be what you want.
No. A complete rewrite not add features to Reason as it is today. Not asking to keep as is and simply add multi window interaction...doing it that will make Reason even clunkier.

Rewrite the whole thing make it's existing features better or change them all together.
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Chizmata, Yandex [Bot] and 27 guests