Grain & Europa - why as REs, why such limited "backside"

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 1655
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

17 Dec 2017

chaosroyale wrote:
17 Dec 2017
To put it another way - if you don't need the "virtual rack", then Reason is an underpowered DAW with the burden of the Rack & CV causing you nothing but performance bottlenecks and disadvantages. You'd be better off using Ableton or Bitwig. That's why I cannot understand the 2 new "flagship" synths having such terrible CV implementation.
Not necessarily. My attraction to Reason had absolutely nothing to do with CV and I still barely use it even though I understand it. Music I make simply doesn't require it. I'd dare say most people's music doesn't require it. It's the workflow of creating in Reason that maintains its user base. I also have Studio One 3, which is fantastic! I love it, but I still do most of my music creating in Reason. Many people are gonna use Europa and Grain the same way they would a VST synth in any other DAW, designing mainly with it's built in capabilities.

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 483
Joined: 29 May 2016

18 Dec 2017

avasopht wrote:
17 Dec 2017
Psuper wrote:
16 Dec 2017

Not sure how you figured I have an issue with those or how they were procured, far from the points I've made. I stated often before both are useful. Grain is very nice - almost upgraded only for Grain. Rest of your point was based off that assumption, however I think we all know the difference between an Izotope or Soundiron "RE Developer" than the ones we vehemently support because of their genuine investment developing specifically for Reason.

More to the point I've said in other threads, I didn't think Propellerhead should be wasting their time making more synths in-house at all. There's plenty of RE devs to do the cool synths and devices we want and more, and typically do a better job than Props based on R10. Only Propellerhead can work on 'Reason the DAW'. Work on the the performance, back-end, gui, options. Form the playground for the RE devs who form a playground for us who choose which devices are necessary.
Psuper, it's a complete waste of resources to have developers who specialize in DSP working on other stuff like GUI and SDK, especially if there are other developers working on that. Doubling numbers of people working on a single feature can actually reduce productivity.

In any case, Propellerhead have a better idea of what their development resources are and how best to manage them.

I think we should leave it for them to decide.
Avasopht, thanks for thinking my posts have such an impact to Reason development, however like you or anyone else I'm making observations and suggestions.

Regardless, your response is an assumption on top of an assumption:

1. I never said props should have DSP guys developing other shit. Who propellerhead hires for what is up to them.

2. I never said props have a GUI or SDK team. Do they? Cause version 1 through 10 GUI, backend, options, and performance says "No." or "Extremely limited"

3. Nor did I say any DSP hires should be doing another job someone else is doing. When would this ever make sense in any industry anywhere?

While I encourage banter, I prefer points be at the level of understanding beyond common sense. I'm posting here because I believe many users have a more mature understanding of business, and want to help best serve our Reason platform. I heard your "leave it to props" theme a few times already -- if I (or anyone else) felt Propellerhead was making all the right decisions, this forum would be void of all suggestions, including yours.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1707
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

18 Dec 2017

Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
1. I never said props should have DSP guys developing other shit. Who propellerhead hires for what is up to them.
You said, "I didn't think Propellerhead should be wasting their time making more synths in-house at all." Then what do their in house DSP developers do exactly? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying here.
Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
I heard your "leave it to props" theme a few times already -- if I (or anyone else) felt Propellerhead was making all the right decisions, this forum would be void of all suggestions, including yours.
I never said I felt Propellerhead are making all the right decisions. All I am saying is that we really have no idea of what is going on behind closed doors. We don't know what they're working on. We don't know what expertise they have in house. We don't know why they are working the way they are. We don't know what issues they may have to resolve.

We basically know jack shit.

Whatever good intention you have for furthering the software is likely lost in being largely irrelevant to those who are working with it on a day to day basis, because they may be tackling issues far removed from what you think they are.

Maybe the other place I said leave it to Propellerhead was in the "Should Reason be rewritten." If it's there, it's because I'm guessing most people in favour of it being rewritten have zero idea of what that really means and likely have false expectations about it.

Record was a clever approach to advancing Reason. If it didn't work out they could have simply left it as an optional enhancement while continuing to evolve vanilla Reason as per usual.

Nothing inherently wrong with speculation, but in some places it can be a fruitless exercise.
---

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 483
Joined: 29 May 2016

18 Dec 2017

avasopht wrote:
18 Dec 2017
Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
1. I never said props should have DSP guys developing other shit. Who propellerhead hires for what is up to them.
You said, "I didn't think Propellerhead should be wasting their time making more synths in-house at all." Then what do their in house DSP developers do exactly? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying here.
No biggy, you just missed my prior points which many seem to miss, so I put the essential message in my signature.

Propellerhead can hire or let go whomever they want for whatever needs arises.

I feel they should leave the RE stuff to RE devs. Give the RE devs the playground to create and develop. Propellerhead should only make core (i.e not synths) devices/tech that RE devs are unable to develop. RE devs can then utilize those new back-end options in their own RE offerings. Reason needs to DAW -- support the engine, which in turn supports all users and developers.

As for us not knowing jack shit about Propellerhead, partially true. I don't know what they plan on doing, nor *really* care beyond my own needs. Yet painfully aware of what Propellerhead has neglected, especially areas the majority would find more useful.

I'm not one for speculation however I certainly believe I know the path they should take for the betterment of all. I also believe if they don't take the path I see clearly, everyone will lose out in the end. I'm never afraid to speak my mind, nor should anyone.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

WongoTheSane
Posts: 1385
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

18 Dec 2017

Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
I'm not one for speculation
We should have a "funniest quotes" subforum somewhere.

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 483
Joined: 29 May 2016

18 Dec 2017

WongoTheSane wrote:
18 Dec 2017
Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
I'm not one for speculation
We should have a "funniest quotes" subforum somewhere.
You show me where I ever "speculate" (form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.) in avas context. I know what they aren't doing, as I stated, backed fully by V1 through V10 as evidence. And I state where they should be going.
Last edited by Psuper on 18 Dec 2017, edited 1 time in total.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

WongoTheSane
Posts: 1385
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

18 Dec 2017

Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
You show me where I ever "speculate"
search.php?author_id=8068&sr=posts

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 5312
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
Contact:

18 Dec 2017

One of the things I find interesting is that in our forum you'll see people accusing Propellerhead of competing with RE developers and hurting their sales by releasing somewhat similar instruments built into Reason (and by similar, only meaning they fit within the same categories of synthesis). I know I personally don't use only one subtractive synth... I've lost count.

And at the same time, people complain that Propellerhead doesn't implement the ability to load wavetables into Europa and it is lacking in CV connectivity; which seems to only give an edge to those other REs in similar categories. You can't please or convince everybody. And some of those are the same people on both sides (sympathizing with RE devs and wanting more from Propellerhead).

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 483
Joined: 29 May 2016

18 Dec 2017

WongoTheSane wrote:
18 Dec 2017
Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
You show me where I ever "speculate"
search.php?author_id=8068&sr=posts
How does a troll become a mod? :roll:
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1707
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

18 Dec 2017

Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
No biggy, you just missed my prior points which many seem to miss, so I put the essential message in my signature.

Propellerhead can hire or let go whomever they want for whatever needs arises.

I feel they should leave the RE stuff to RE devs. Give the RE devs the playground to create and develop. Propellerhead should only make core (i.e not synths) devices/tech that RE devs are unable to develop. RE devs can then utilize those new back-end options in their own RE offerings. Reason needs to DAW -- support the engine, which in turn supports all users and developers.

As for us not knowing jack shit about Propellerhead, partially true. I don't know what they plan on doing, nor *really* care beyond my own needs. Yet painfully aware of what Propellerhead has neglected, especially areas the majority would find more useful.

I'm not one for speculation however I certainly believe I know the path they should take for the betterment of all. I also believe if they don't take the path I see clearly, everyone will lose out in the end. I'm never afraid to speak my mind, nor should anyone.
Nothing wrong with speaking your mind.

So I looked at your sig. Still brings me back to the same question, what do the DSP devs do if not creating devices? Why leave it to RE devs? If your argument is they should only focus on native devices, then why?
---

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6244
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

18 Dec 2017

avasopht wrote:
18 Dec 2017
Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
No biggy, you just missed my prior points which many seem to miss, so I put the essential message in my signature.

Propellerhead can hire or let go whomever they want for whatever needs arises.

I feel they should leave the RE stuff to RE devs. Give the RE devs the playground to create and develop. Propellerhead should only make core (i.e not synths) devices/tech that RE devs are unable to develop. RE devs can then utilize those new back-end options in their own RE offerings. Reason needs to DAW -- support the engine, which in turn supports all users and developers.

As for us not knowing jack shit about Propellerhead, partially true. I don't know what they plan on doing, nor *really* care beyond my own needs. Yet painfully aware of what Propellerhead has neglected, especially areas the majority would find more useful.

I'm not one for speculation however I certainly believe I know the path they should take for the betterment of all. I also believe if they don't take the path I see clearly, everyone will lose out in the end. I'm never afraid to speak my mind, nor should anyone.
Nothing wrong with speaking your mind.

So I looked at your sig. Still brings me back to the same question, what do the DSP devs do if not creating devices? Why leave it to RE devs? If your argument is they should only focus on native devices, then why?
Speaking for myself, I would want the DSP devs to be implementing all the helpful new time saving features in the core application. But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that's just what "I" want them to be doing! ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 483
Joined: 29 May 2016

18 Dec 2017

selig wrote:
18 Dec 2017
avasopht wrote:
18 Dec 2017


Nothing wrong with speaking your mind.

So I looked at your sig. Still brings me back to the same question, what do the DSP devs do if not creating devices? Why leave it to RE devs? If your argument is they should only focus on native devices, then why?
Speaking for myself, I would want the DSP devs to be implementing all the helpful new time saving features in the core application. But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that's just what "I" want them to be doing! ;)
Absolutely -- your an RE Dev looking for back-end options that you and other Re devs can put to use that end up benefiting us all.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6244
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

18 Dec 2017

Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017
selig wrote:
18 Dec 2017


Speaking for myself, I would want the DSP devs to be implementing all the helpful new time saving features in the core application. But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that's just what "I" want them to be doing! ;)
Absolutely -- your an RE Dev looking for back-end options that you and other Re devs can put to use that end up benefiting us all.
That's not what I meant to imply - I'm a musician who wants an improved workflow for the core application. I'd even graciously wait for another SDK update if I knew they were working instead on improvements to the application itself!
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 483
Joined: 29 May 2016

18 Dec 2017

selig wrote:
18 Dec 2017
Psuper wrote:
18 Dec 2017


Absolutely -- your an RE Dev looking for back-end options that you and other Re devs can put to use that end up benefiting us all.
That's not what I meant to imply - I'm a musician who wants an improved workflow for the core application. I'd even graciously wait for another SDK update if I knew they were working instead on improvements to the application itself!
Same result -- we all benefit when Propellerhead works on the core DAW -- the stuff Re devs can't create.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1707
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

18 Dec 2017

selig wrote:
18 Dec 2017
Speaking for myself, I would want the DSP devs to be implementing all the helpful new time saving features in the core application. But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that's just what "I" want them to be doing! ;)
Sure I get what you're saying, and I agree with the desired outcome - develop the core application. But the notion of diverting all resources might not yield expected results of linear increases in production. After you've reached the point of diminishing returns you can see production decreases with increasing team size depending on what stage the codebase is at.

Regardless of the intended goal, the allocation of development resources is a matter of project management. I'm also saying this in the context of threads like, "Reason needs a code rewrite," as if Propellerhead don't know how to manage their own codebase.

There are way too many unknown unknowns. That's all I'm getting at.

You might know much more about the actual team than I do though.

---

I will say one thing, ine guy working around the clock on the GUI with an artist could make a great deal of progress in just a year. That's why I suspect it's more down to other things.

Maybe they're spending their time on a Harmonically Articulated Mathematical Modelling Of Classical Keyboards, ...
---

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 460
Joined: 23 Oct 2017
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

19 Dec 2017

Man, I might be out of touch with what the Reason community wants (as a completely new user), but my point of view is this:
- Reason has always been (positively) different, i.e. the idea was to keep as much as possible in the box, using native devices: instruments, effects, sequencers & modulators,
- that approach afforded the unprecedented routing / patching system and incredible flexibility, that's almost unmatched (Bitwig and Live's M4L come close),
- also, that meant that music projects could be self-contained, small & easily portable: everyone had exactly the same setup,
- subsequent opening to recording audio & REs aimed to expand that, catch up with modern standards and let in some "fresh air" from 3rd parties, but still in a way that retained tight control over the whole environment in terms of stability, performance & quality,

Now, opening to the VSTs was inevitable, but it introduced whole world of problems we know from other DAWs: incompatibility issues, performance drops, crashes and freezes, etc. To make it worse, as a user or Bitwig (& previously Live) their existence in Reason's rack does nothing for me - I can do all the same (and actually more) things in Bitwig with VSTs that I can in Reason, since VSTs do not magically open themselves up because they're run in Reason. They'll never fit inside the Rack and give control options similar to Subtractor or Thor. They're still "foreign" objects shoehorned into Reason's world. But OK, I understand people wanted them, they got them...

What I was hoping for however (and still do), was that Propellerhead will focus on three areas:
- improving the GUI, the workflow, the performance - obviously,
- adding new native devices to the Rack, to capitalise on Reason's particular strengths I mentioned at the start - hence my surprise at how sparse Europa & Grain are at the back,
- further developing the RE format, to put more distance between REs (native & 3rd party) and VSTs in terms of flexibility & control, to strengthen Reason's unique qualities.

In short, I hoped Reason will stay Reason and addition of VSTs will only be a necessary evil. Now, when I read that they should drop releasing new native devices and stop investing in RE, I start to worry, because suddenly all of the distinctive advantages and charm of Reason as we know it disappear.

It'd become just another, regular DAW, with some legacy stuff that no one uses anymore.

And there are DAWs better than it at being "regular" DAWs.

:(
Reason 10 / Bitwig 2 / Live 10
My music: https://soundcloud.com/antic604

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 460
Joined: 23 Oct 2017
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

19 Dec 2017

chaosroyale wrote:
17 Dec 2017
To put it another way - if you don't need the "virtual rack", then Reason is an underpowered DAW with the burden of the Rack & CV causing you nothing but performance bottlenecks and disadvantages. You'd be better off using Ableton or Bitwig. That's why I cannot understand the 2 new "flagship" synths having such terrible CV implementation.

As it is you have people saying Europa is "imitating instead of innovating", "late to the party" - not what you want from the flagship Reason synth after the early years of being such a synth innovator.
Sorry, missed that post earlier but this is EXACTLY my point of view.
Reason 10 / Bitwig 2 / Live 10
My music: https://soundcloud.com/antic604

scratchnsnifff
Posts: 708
Joined: 21 Sep 2016

19 Dec 2017

The idea of blamsoft doing a collab with the props +1000000000003848493920283929273829!!!!
That’d be something special
Mayor of plucktown :evil:

sot
Posts: 71
Joined: 03 May 2015
Contact:

19 Dec 2017

i think propellerhead should make new synths and go to more experimental not so musical route too... i think they try to be too musical, more cv options and harsh sounds manipulation is good too, it's like steinberg should not do any vst because they got the vst thing going, it's perfectly alright for propellerhead to do devices intergrated to reason wtf
:reason: 10.0 - i5 4670k - Fast Track Pro - win 7 / macos 10.10.5
https://allihoopa.com/sotir00

chaosroyale
Posts: 104
Joined: 05 Sep 2017

19 Dec 2017

joeyluck wrote:
18 Dec 2017
One of the things I find interesting is that in our forum you'll see people accusing Propellerhead of competing with RE developers and hurting their sales by releasing somewhat similar instruments built into Reason

And at the same time, people complain that Propellerhead doesn't implement the ability to load wavetables into Europa and it is lacking in CV connectivity; which seems to only give an edge to those other REs in similar categories. You can't please or convince everybody. And some of those are the same people on both sides (sympathizing with RE devs and wanting more from Propellerhead).
This seems like a strawman, if not completely made up. Certainly I haven't seen any of the hardcore "Rack fans" saying that Reason should intentionally make less capable Synths so as not to "hurt" REs. that's a ridiculous idea. RE devs already have to compete with hundreds of great VSTs, and dozens of great REs, that's just the nature of it.

Another ridiculous idea was the weird "conspiracy theory" floated earlier that maybe Props made the new synths less powerful on purpose! No developer would ever intentionally nerf their shiny new killer app. Props genuinely must have thought that 4 CV ins and limited wavetables was enough, for whatever reason.

I and some others seem to think that the new native Synths are under-powered and don't go nearly far enough in comparison with VST or RE synths, which is why several people have floated the idea that it might be time to get some new ideas and new blood on board from devs like Blamsoft etc. Hell, seeing as this is fantasy land, why not approach Steve Duda to help develop a completely different synth from Serum, eXpanse and Europa. Or how about the Thor2 we all wanted 5 years ago....

edit: for me at least, part of the reason I was disappointed with Europa is because Malstrom and Thor were so groundbreaking, so unique but useable, so good compared to the competition when they were released. Reason really felt like a sound design leader. I still love using them, and prefer Malstrom and Thor to many more modern synths. Europa feels like cut down Serum, after the wavetable boom already peaked, and actually has less CV capability than Malstrom... It's nuts.

User avatar
Biolumin3sc3nt
Posts: 364
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

24 Dec 2017

Hmmm, I've re-read this thread over again, and my conclusion is the Props Team felt as tho the modulation matrix was enough. I mean hell, there's quite a few options, and maybe, just maybe there's enough options to keep You busy for quite a while. And then there was VST 2.4- whatever implementation. Use those 8 Cv's in's bitches

I'm curious how things go from here, and by all means, post your most "extravangant patches"on how you can't achieve XYZ sound!

The world is Your's!!

I apologize is if I this came off the wrong way, I mean the best

chaosroyale
Posts: 104
Joined: 05 Sep 2017

24 Dec 2017

"my conclusion is the Props Team felt as tho the modulation matrix was enough"

Yes, that's the problem.

" was VST 2.4- whatever implementation. Use those 8 Cv's in's bitches"

3rd party VST instruments, not designed for CV in, now have more CV inputs than the 2 new Reason flagship synths - that's embarrassing.

"how you can't achieve XYZ sound! "

Doesn't even need to be extravagant. Let's say I have a wavetable patch with a CV input to the filter. I'm looking at the back panel and suddenly get an idea- "wave index...I could send a delayed version of the CV to modulate the index so I get a kind of lagging tonal sweep after the filter sweep, with the lag and intensity controlled live with my CV controllers. hmmm". Simply plug in CV, twist some dials, hey look at all these other dedicated inputs, I can try it out on all kinds of variables just for fun, and see and hear all the results instantly.

I could "make the same sound" by painstakingly setting up a bunch of modulators in a matrix. But there are 2 big problems here-

1. I wouldn't have gotten the inspiration in the first place, because its not the "sound", its the paradigm that makes the Reason Rack and CV special.

2. If I can do it efficiently with a modulation matrix, I could do it on something like Bitwig and then I can avoid the performance disadvantages of CV.

It's getting boring repeating this, but in Reason you take the hit in performance in order to get the Rack paradigm. If modulation matrices are your preferred paradigm, there are other DAWs which do it much better.

User avatar
Biolumin3sc3nt
Posts: 364
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

24 Dec 2017

chaosroyale wrote:
24 Dec 2017
"my conclusion is the Props Team felt as tho the modulation matrix was enough"

Yes, that's the problem.

" was VST 2.4- whatever implementation. Use those 8 Cv's in's bitches"

3rd party VST instruments, not designed for CV in, now have more CV inputs than the 2 new Reason flagship synths - that's embarrassing.

"how you can't achieve XYZ sound! "

Doesn't even need to be extravagant. Let's say I have a wavetable patch with a CV input to the filter. I'm looking at the back panel and suddenly get an idea- "wave index...I could send a delayed version of the CV to modulate the index so I get a kind of lagging tonal sweep after the filter sweep, with the lag and intensity controlled live with my CV controllers. hmmm". Simply plug in CV, twist some dials, hey look at all these other dedicated inputs, I can try it out on all kinds of variables just for fun, and see and hear all the results instantly.

I could "make the same sound" by painstakingly setting up a bunch of modulators in a matrix. But there are 2 big problems here-

1. I wouldn't have gotten the inspiration in the first place, because its not the "sound", its the paradigm that makes the Reason Rack and CV special.

2. If I can do it efficiently with a modulation matrix, I could do it on something like Bitwig and then I can avoid the performance disadvantages of CV.

It's getting boring repeating this, but in Reason you take the hit in performance in order to get the Rack paradigm. If modulation matrices are your preferred paradigm, there are other DAWs which do it much better.
I was absolutely expecting this response choasroyale. And completely valid.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 5312
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
Contact:

24 Dec 2017

chaosroyale wrote:
24 Dec 2017

" was VST 2.4- whatever implementation. Use those 8 Cv's in's bitches"

3rd party VST instruments, not designed for CV in, now have more CV inputs than the 2 new Reason flagship synths - that's embarrassing.
Well CV on the back of the VST device is not the same. Those CV connections are more like the connections on a Combinator, which is automation via CV (which is why you see the controls move). It is limited. So if the behavior of those connections does the job for you, then you can place Europa or Grain in a Combinator. Or you can automate those controls from the Sequencer. But again, CV connections on the Combinator and VST device are not the same as CV connections you find on the back of other devices.

chaosroyale
Posts: 104
Joined: 05 Sep 2017

24 Dec 2017

"CV connections on the Combinator and VST device are not the same as CV connections you find on the back of other devices."

Absolutely. All the more reason to have proper dedicated CV inputs, and more than 4 of them, on the new flagship synths.

Post Reply
  • Information