Automation lanes for effects right under the instruments - how?

[antic604]

I'm coming from Ableton Live 9 and more recently Bitwig 2 and I'm used to behaviour, where if I'm automating an effect - say a distortion - that is an 'insert' effect to the synth, the automation lane will appear just under the synth and belongs to synth's track.

I've tried all I could think of, searched the manual but I couldn't get the same effect in Reason. Let's say I have Subtractor and I'm adding Pulveriser to it. No matter whether I put the effect as a Mix Channel insert or right after Subtractor, if I try to automate e.g. Dirt parameter Reason will always create separate track for Pulveriser in Sequencer and puts automation clips there. Now I wouldn't mind that, because it makes some sense, but in my music I automate instruments and effects a lot, so I can easilly imagine ending up with several tracks & automation clips for delays, reverbs, distortions, eq-s, etc. It can get really messy really quickly.

So, is it possible to have automation lanes and clips for effects right in the instrument track, like I would for e.g. Subtractor's filter's cutoff or resonance?

[Loque]

No. Every device in the rack has its own track. Grouping takes is highly wanted. Feel free to make a feature request at PH.

[antic604]

No. Every device in the rack has its own track. Grouping takes is highly wanted. Feel free to make a feature request at PH.

Damn, that's a bummer

[antic604]

Ok, I found a very limited solution - if I put instrument & effects into Combinator and map parameters to Combinator's knobs, then automation lanes will stay in its track, regardless whether they're for the instrument or the effects. But this is very limiting (4 knobs) and also goes against one of the biggest things I love about Reason: the track thumbnails & clarity of Rack...

Bummer

[MannequinRaces]

Take a look at Frame CV Generator RE: https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... generator/ that might help you out a lot in some instances.

[RandyEspoda]

Take a look at Frame CV Generator RE: https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... generator/ that might help you out a lot in some instances.

How about this one instead ?

https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... rol-board/

It was the developper's aim to get as close as you can get to a supercombinator through SDK...
Until we get that combi upgrade, I think this is it.

[antic604]

Take a look at Frame CV Generator RE: https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... generator/ that might help you out a lot in some instances.

How about this one instead ?

https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... rol-board/

It was the developper's aim to get as close as you can get to a supercombinator through SDK...
Until we get that combi upgrade, I think this is it.

Thanks guys! Those are good workarounds - esp. the Newton_8 - but they're just that: still the automation would be in separate tracks (one for all effects, so that's a positive), but I understand all the effects have to be wired into that.

A native solution would be much more convenient

[tobypearce]

I agree, although having used Reason for some time - with a brief interlude for Logic - I don't mind the way this works. It is true that extra sequencer lanes just for automation takes up real estate, but there are some advantages:
In Logic (not sure about Bitwig) the automation felt hidden compared to how Reason does it.
It's much easier when arranging, because you can copy and paste automation just as you would any other instrument, which is a big workflow help.

To help: minimising automation lanes using the little disclosure triangle keeps them from taking up too much space.

Reason is a modular beast you know: it's like having a massive euro rack inside the computer

[antic604]

I agree, although having used Reason for some time - with a brief interlude for Logic - I don't mind the way this works. It is true that extra sequencer lanes just for automation takes up real estate, but there are some advantages:
In Logic (not sure about Bitwig) the automation felt hidden compared to how Reason does it.
It's much easier when arranging, because you can copy and paste automation just as you would any other instrument, which is a big workflow help.

To help: minimising automation lanes using the little disclosure triangle keeps them from taking up too much space.

Reason is a modular beast you know: it's like having a massive euro rack inside the computer

Thanks, but:

1) It's not (only) about real estate, but more about being able to see which effect belongs to which instrument - if by the end of the project I have 10 actual instrument / audio tracks producing sound, but 50+ tracks altogether in the Sequencer (there's a lot of automation on everything in my music genre), it gets really messy - the effect tracks doesn't seem to be in any way connected to their instrument / audio track - they can be moved (and are being added) anywhere, they can have different colour, you can't group them in a 'folder'. Without meticulous colour-coding and naming (and good memory) there's no way to quickly tell whether given Pulveriser instance and its automation belongs to my bass line, acid line, synths, drums or maybe pads... I'll probably hate coming back to an old project, trying to understand what's what.

2) Logic - and now Live 10 - have a separate 'mode' for editing automation, which I agree with you is equivalent to 'hiding' it. That's the main reason why I'm not upgrading to Live 10, selling my license ...and purchased Reason 10. Bitwig is anyway better at being Live, than Live is

3) You can copy automation in Live or Bitwig freely - just select time range and copy-paste / duplicate / ctrl+drag. Also, there's a toggle which decides whether or not automation is copied or not with a midi / audio clip, so it's pretty flexible I think. At least that was never my concern.

4) Reason isn't any more modular than Live or Bitwig is and frankly things that are easily achievable in either using racks / layers respectively, take a lot of pre-planning and cabling in Reason. Although it might be I'm not yet used to it and I still have to "think" before doing anything, whereas in Live or Bitwig it was instinctive and muscle memory. On the other hand that whole revelation - that automating effect creates separate track for it - might impact creative playfulness: with Bitwig in particular I wasn't "afraid" to modulate or automate anything, quite the opposite - it is encouraging it! With Reason, I might start thinking whether it's really worth touching this or that parameter, in fear it will clutter up the Sequencer...

[Tryggvasson]

I also want that. I eases keeping a clear track of what belong to what.

[chimp_spanner]

I'd say colour coding is, for now, your best bet. Also consider using something like the TMA commentator RE to divide up your sequencer track list into regions. It's just a blank spacer but you can create a sequencer track for it and use it to create gaps between groups of devices and lanes. This helps me keep my place. But might not work for everyone.

[Loque]

I'd say colour coding is, for now, your best bet. Also consider using something like the TMA commentator RE to divide up your sequencer track list into regions. It's just a blank spacer but you can create a sequencer track for it and use it to create gaps between groups of devices and lanes. This helps me keep my place. But might not work for everyone.

Good idea, thx.

[antic604]

Also consider using something like the TMA commentator RE to divide up your sequencer track list into regions. It's just a blank spacer but you can create a sequencer track for it and use it to create gaps between groups of devices and lanes. This helps me keep my place. But might not work for everyone.

It's sad state of affairs that we even have to consider this as a viable option...

[househoppin09]

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your plight here, and agree that we should have better organizational options for this. But in all honesty, I don't quite see why it's more than a momentary pain? Generally speaking, when you create a new FX device, you probably have some idea which instrument it's going to be associated with, right? So why not just get into the habit of naming/moving each new FX device as you create it? So, for example, you want to add a distortion unit to your bassline: you create the distortion unit and immediately rename it "Bassline Distortion", then pop over into the sequencer view and move it to right below the "Bassline" instrument track there (and when patched as an insert between the instrument and its mix channel, it will already be in the right spot so you won't even have to do that part). So, you have to go through 10 seconds or so of slightly annoying extra work, but then you're all set, and other than having extra tracks eating up vertical real estate in the sequencer view, I don't really see the problem. If you clarify a bit further why that approach is lacking for you, maybe someone can chime in with further suggestions?

[chimp_spanner]

Also consider using something like the TMA commentator RE to divide up your sequencer track list into regions. It's just a blank spacer but you can create a sequencer track for it and use it to create gaps between groups of devices and lanes. This helps me keep my place. But might not work for everyone.

It's sad state of affairs that we even have to consider this as a viable option...

Hey I get that it's annoying. For me it's not a show stopper given everything else reason does well. And I really lke having automation in parts that I can chop up snapped to the grid, move, copy, stretch, reverse. I don't know how studio one handles this as I've never used it but in y experience reasons automation is the easiest to arrange in a musical way (without having to range select lines and dots). Folder tracks would probably sort all of this. As you could nest connected device tracks within a single folder. I've requested it myself so believe me I agree it's important that we have more organisational tools for now there are ways around it. It shouldn't stop you making music. Or I hope not anyway!

[antic604]

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your plight here, and agree that we should have better organizational options for this. But in all honesty, I don't quite see why it's more than a momentary pain? Generally speaking, when you create a new FX device, you probably have some idea which instrument it's going to be associated with, right? So why not just get into the habit of naming/moving each new FX device as you create it? So, for example, you want to add a distortion unit to your bassline: you create the distortion unit and immediately rename it "Bassline Distortion", then pop over into the sequencer view and move it to right below the "Bassline" instrument track there (and when patched as an insert between the instrument and its mix channel, it will already be in the right spot so you won't even have to do that part). So, you have to go through 10 seconds or so of slightly annoying extra work, but then you're all set, and other than having extra tracks eating up vertical real estate in the sequencer view, I don't really see the problem. If you clarify a bit further why that approach is lacking for you, maybe someone can chime in with further suggestions?

The "pain" is that a project with 10 tracks actually producing sound takes 50 tracks in Reason. With other DAWs:
- automation lanes for effects belong to instrument / audio tracks, so I still have "only" 10 tracks - it's just much easier to navigate,
- I can hide automation out of sight for tracks I'm not working on - in Reason I can collapse automation lanes, but not the effect tracks.

Again, it's not a huge deal, but something that surprised me - in a negative way! - a lot: there should be an option to:
- keep effect automations with instrument / audio track, or
- group those tracks in a collapseable folder, or
- have some visual cues, i.e. get rid of vertical padding between instrument / audio track and its effect tracks, nudge the effect track's header slightly to the right (an indentation),

Those would seem to be easy fixes and since they don't impact Rack or Mixer in any way, they could be pretty transparent to other features.

[Ahornberg]

The "pain" is that a project with 10 tracks actually producing sound takes 50 tracks in Reason. With other DAWs:
- automation lanes for effects belong to instrument / audio tracks, so I still have "only" 10 tracks - it's just much easier to navigate,
- I can hide automation out of sight for tracks I'm not working on - in Reason I can collapse automation lanes, but not the effect tracks.

I find it more logical and intuitive too that the automation lanes are displayed on the device's track in the sequencer. In Reason, compared to other DAWs, it is possible to route "effects" freely so there's no fixed association between an instrument that produces sound, an effect chain to manipilate that sound and an audio channel in the mixer. I often route my audio and CV cables way more different and complex and that is why I use Reason. So the way it is now works fine for me. I don't want any changes here (and knowing Reason for so many years I know the Props won't do any changes here, e.g. like curved automation).

[antic604]

The "pain" is that a project with 10 tracks actually producing sound takes 50 tracks in Reason. With other DAWs:
- automation lanes for effects belong to instrument / audio tracks, so I still have "only" 10 tracks - it's just much easier to navigate,
- I can hide automation out of sight for tracks I'm not working on - in Reason I can collapse automation lanes, but not the effect tracks.

I find it more logical and intuitive too that the automation lanes are displayed on the device's track in the sequencer. In Reason, compared to other DAWs, it is possible to route "effects" freely so there's no fixed association between an instrument that produces sound, an effect chain to manipilate that sound and an audio channel in the mixer. I often route my audio and CV cables way more different and complex and that is why I use Reason. So the way it is now works fine for me. I don't want any changes here (and knowing Reason for so many years I know the Props won't do any changes here, e.g. like curved automation).

Hmm, I can see that but still you put effects under (or as an insert) specified instrument, so in a way they "reside" in specific mix channel. If you're routing instrument on track B via effect on track A, then why not simply move the effect to where it belongs, i.e. track B? If you route both instruments A and B via effect on track A, then I'd probably move that effect to a dedicated bus or send track and control it from there, where dedicated track makes a lot of sense.

As I said, it's a surprising thing and one that can potentially - negatively - impact bigger projects, where I'd have 5-6x more effect tracks than instrument tracks.

But then again maybe it speaks more about my music that I care to admit - that it's all modulated noise, instead of proper rhythm and melody

[Ahornberg]

I find it more logical and intuitive too that the automation lanes are displayed on the device's track in the sequencer. In Reason, compared to other DAWs, it is possible to route "effects" freely so there's no fixed association between an instrument that produces sound, an effect chain to manipilate that sound and an audio channel in the mixer. I often route my audio and CV cables way more different and complex and that is why I use Reason. So the way it is now works fine for me. I don't want any changes here (and knowing Reason for so many years I know the Props won't do any changes here, e.g. like curved automation).

Hmm, I can see that but still you put effects under (or as an insert) specified instrument, so in a way they "reside" in specific mix channel. If you're routing instrument on track B via effect on track A, then why not simply move the effect to where it belongs, i.e. track B? If you route both instruments A and B via effect on track A, then I'd probably move that effect to a dedicated bus or send track and control it from there, where dedicated track makes a lot of sense.

As I said, it's a surprising thing and one that can potentially - negatively - impact bigger projects, where I'd have 5-6x more effect tracks than instrument tracks.

But then again maybe it speaks more about my music that I care to admit - that it's all modulated noise, instead of proper rhythm and melody

I use Reason more like a virtual modular synth. For effetcs I use sends in the mixer so there's seldomly a 1:1 relation between a synth and an effect. And most of my devices are neither a synth, nor an effect. They are CV utilities that control parameters elswhere and that are controlled by other synths/effects/CV-utilities and/or by automation lines. Therefore the "best" way is to keep the automation lines on the automated devices itself. If I would like to have it different than as it is in Reason I simply would use another DAW.

[antic604]

I use Reason more like a virtual modular synth. For effetcs I use sends in the mixer so there's seldomly a 1:1 relation between a synth and an effect. And most of my devices are neither a synth, nor an effect. They are CV utilities that control parameters elswhere and that are controlled by other synths/effects/CV-utilities and/or by automation lines. Therefore the "best" way is to keep the automation lines on the automated devices itself. If I would like to have it different than as it is in Reason I simply would use another DAW.

Ok, but I understand Reason is still a DAW and its workflow should support creating full musical pieces in-the-box.

BTW, for what you describe I think Bitwig would be much better suited, with it's audio-rate modulators and CV/gate devices (http://www.musicradar.com/how-to/how-to ... r-hardware). Not to mention it's a proper, awesome DAW.

[madmacman]

Ok, but I understand Reason is still a DAW and its workflow should support creating full musical pieces in-the-box.

There are not few people around here who would wholeheartedly disagree

[Ahornberg]

I use Reason more like a virtual modular synth. For effetcs I use sends in the mixer so there's seldomly a 1:1 relation between a synth and an effect. And most of my devices are neither a synth, nor an effect. They are CV utilities that control parameters elswhere and that are controlled by other synths/effects/CV-utilities and/or by automation lines. Therefore the "best" way is to keep the automation lines on the automated devices itself. If I would like to have it different than as it is in Reason I simply would use another DAW.

Ok, but I understand Reason is still a DAW and its workflow should support creating full musical pieces in-the-box.

BTW, for what you describe I think Bitwig would be much better suited, with it's audio-rate modulators and CV/gate devices (http://www.musicradar.com/how-to/how-to ... r-hardware). Not to mention it's a proper, awesome DAW.

I made a lot of music in Bitwig and I came back to Reason because Reason is simply more fun

[Sorped]

Colour coding and moving tracks around in the sequencer to group them would make it a bit better, no?

[RandyEspoda]

Colour coding and moving tracks around in the sequencer to group them would make it a bit better, no?

That's exactly what I do too. This becomes second nature after a while.
If you get used to color coding all mix channels per instrument/effects group and place them all together,
then I don't see any downside, other than the little bit of extra work needed to do the above.
Also you can minimize all the effect channels, so you'll still have a very decent oversight.

It's all about being used to it.
For those used to a workflow as in most other DAW's, they'll have trouble in the beginning, adjusting to reason's 'different' approach.
Once used to the ins and outs though, you are presented with a sh*tload of flexibility, unlike any other DAW (imvho), regardless of its flaws.

[antic604]

Colour coding and moving tracks around in the sequencer to group them would make it a bit better, no?

That's exactly what I do too. This becomes second nature after a while.
If you get used to color coding all mix channels per instrument/effects group and place them all together,
then I don't see any downside, other than the little bit of extra work needed to do the above.
Also you can minimize all the effect channels, so you'll still have a very decent oversight.

It's all about being used to it.
For those used to a workflow as in most other DAW's, they'll have trouble in the beginning, adjusting to reason's 'different' approach.
Once used to the ins and outs though, you are presented with a sh*tload of flexibility, unlike any other DAW (imvho), regardless of its flaws.

I agree with flexibility, but it doesn't have to come at the cost of Sequencer clarity or ease of use, does it? For Reason to be as flexible as it is, we could still have effects' automation lanes under the main instrument and it wouldn't suffer a bit.

I know Propellerheads are in Sweden, so Reason's user develop a 'Stockhom syndrome' but come on... You can love a product and still see & criticise its shortcomings