Reason 10: Not Very Impressed

[Goodbye]

For anyone still banging on about how their 1080 screen is more than adequate, here are current worldwide screen-size stats: http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolu ... /worldwide

TDLR almost everyone has a higher res screen nowadays.

[esselfortium]

For anyone still banging on about how their 1080 screen is more than adequate, here are current worldwide screen-size stats: http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolu ... /worldwide

TDLR almost everyone has a higher res screen nowadays.

According to your link, the only screen resolution more common than 1920x1080 is 1366x768, which is actually smaller than 1080p. 4k resolutions are apparently not common enough to be given their own lines on the chart at all. This says the opposite of what you're saying it does.

[Goodbye]

I conflated 1024 and 1080. You are right. Apologies to everyone banging on about your 1080 screens.

For anyone still banging on about how their 1080 screen is more than adequate, here are current worldwide screen-size stats: http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolu ... /worldwide

TDLR almost everyone has a higher res screen nowadays.

According to your link, the only screen resolution more common than 1920x1080 is 1366x768, which is actually smaller than 1080p. 4k resolutions are apparently not common enough to be given their own lines on the chart at all. This says the opposite of what you're saying it does.

[chimp_spanner]

Yeah screens CAN go higher. But for most people 1080 is quite enough. I'm 34. My eyes are trashed from years of computer screens. The thought of 4K terrifies me. I struggle as it is! I did briefly flirt with having a huge screen at a high resolution but I just ended up having to move my entire head to scan around the screen and ended up losing track of where everything was. Moved it further back and then everything was too small again. Went back to 1080. Getting on fine haha.

[splangie]

[/quote]



Yeah, I'd do her.

No offense intended.

[Psuper]

Reason doesn't need any GUI "graphics" adjustments on 4k:
download/file.php?id=2371431

Yeah, this is nice but also shows exactly what I mean - the windows are not aligned properly, if you move one of them (eg. accidentally) others stay in place, you have double browsers, triple manus, if you click on the Rack its transport bar will appear and cover part of the sequencer, etc. and so on.

It's a stop-gap and not a sustainable, workable solution - at least for me it isn't.

Totally agree, the graphics are fine for 4k, I still hate musical chairs Reason windows < 1080p. However the workflow, options, consistency etc can be a nightmare at any resolution.

[MusicianX]

I "jumped ship" despite having several REs.

Or maybe a better way would be to say that I stopped using training wheels. As a result I can now cycle faster.
I do still use Reason occasionally, but then it's usually just for playing around and making short loops.

What software do you primarily use now?

[stratatonic]

I "jumped ship" despite having several REs.

Or maybe a better way would be to say that I stopped using training wheels. As a result I can now cycle faster.
I do still use Reason occasionally, but then it's usually just for playing around and making short loops.

Congratulations on your jump from a plastic Fisher Price toy trike to your professional titanium racing bike.

And that you would still toy around with Reason from time to time to make short loops truly warms the cockles of my heart. You still play around in the Reason sandbox! Awesome!

Thank you so much for sharing that on your very first post here.

[jimmyklane]

Reason 5 was like that, then they messed up that

Well done. As it stands now I have to run 3 monitors just to have reason spread out and useable. Mousing across all three to get from sequencer to mixer is a pain.

Your mock-up is excellent and I think propellerhead should take notice.

[Raveshaper]

The advantage of the computer is the ability to display what you need when you need it and PH don't seem to have grasped this as yet.

This. There are many advantages to emulating real world situations in a computer. But it seems as though none of these are within their grasp. What it has felt like to me is that the point of Reason is to emulate a sort of time capsule of the older, harder ways of doing things; proudly, defiantly, and just because. Does that make any sense? Am i communicating that clearly?

It seems like the programmers behind Reason have no idea what computers are capable of. That's my central point.

I think the insistence on backwards compatibility all the way back to version 1 has made all tangible improvements impossible going forward. Sure it's a headache when Cubase gets updated and older files don't work. But at least it's a trade off toward measurable improvements.

Anyway, by year's end I'll be setup in another host. Need to plan and build my next computer first.

[Zac]

The advantage of the computer is the ability to display what you need when you need it and PH don't seem to have grasped this as yet.

This. There are many advantages to emulating real world situations in a computer. But it seems as though none of these are within their grasp. What it has felt like to me is that the point of Reason is to emulate a sort of time capsule of the older, harder ways of doing things; proudly, defiantly, and just because. Does that make any sense? Am i communicating that clearly?

It seems like the programmers behind Reason have no idea what computers are capable of. That's my central point.

I think the insistence on backwards compatibility all the way back to version 1 has made all tangible improvements impossible going forward. Sure it's a headache when Cubase gets updated and older files don't work. But at least it's a trade off toward measurable improvements.

Anyway, by year's end I'll be setup in another host. Need to plan and build my next computer first.

At least we will all be saved your INTRANCER like updates and mods. Good luck in your next host. I hope it doesn't reject you.

[Oquasec]

Use what works for you and learn that sucker inside & out if possible.

[chimp_spanner]

The advantage of the computer is the ability to display what you need when you need it and PH don't seem to have grasped this as yet.

This. There are many advantages to emulating real world situations in a computer. But it seems as though none of these are within their grasp. What it has felt like to me is that the point of Reason is to emulate a sort of time capsule of the older, harder ways of doing things; proudly, defiantly, and just because. Does that make any sense? Am i communicating that clearly?

It seems like the programmers behind Reason have no idea what computers are capable of. That's my central point.

I think the insistence on backwards compatibility all the way back to version 1 has made all tangible improvements impossible going forward. Sure it's a headache when Cubase gets updated and older files don't work. But at least it's a trade off toward measurable improvements.

Anyway, by year's end I'll be setup in another host. Need to plan and build my next computer first.

Well I think that's a bit of a stretch. Whoever coded a near-limitless virtual rack of gear with total freedom of routing between all devices definitely knows what computers can do I've mentioned it before but I feel like there's kind of an unfair standard applied to Reason vs other DAWs. There are things I simply can't do in Cubase. Not without putting in the kind of time and effort that you are - rightly - no longer willing to put into Reason, because it's clearly not working for what you need to do with it. All of which is to say it's a matter of preference, mostly. Of course there are some things that could and should be revised in future versions. And I think we all know that. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen things that'd make my life easier. Folder tracks. Pop out editors for rack devices in the arranger. Pin style routing (double click on the source port, navigate to destination port, double click to connect). Combi v2. Track/channel/device order sync. Multi-channel MIDI. Per-device remote override (not global/project). Yes, the fabled automation curves A quicker/better media browser. Drag and drop samples from timeline to devices. Linked faders. MIDI chase. Etc. etc. I'm by no means blind to the need for improvements.

However...even if all that doesn't happen, I've got Cubase Pro 9.5. I've got a Maschine MK3. And I'll still be making music in Reason. I use whatever works at the time, and I think that's really all of us can do. We're not trapped. Some criticism of Reason is valid. And some...feels like getting angry at a hammer because it's useless for eating cereal with. You just have to use what works.

[madmacman]

Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen things that'd make my life easier. Folder tracks. Pop out editors for rack devices in the arranger. Pin style routing (double click on the source port, navigate to destination port, double click to connect). Combi v2. Track/channel/device order sync. Multi-channel MIDI. Per-device remote override (not global/project). Yes, the fabled automation curves A quicker/better media browser. Drag and drop samples from timeline to devices. Linked faders. MIDI chase. Etc. etc. I'm by no means blind to the need for improvements.

A "true" track freeze! Even if some people would complain that this cannot be the final answer to performance issues, it would mitigate the pain.

[chimp_spanner]

Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen things that'd make my life easier. Folder tracks. Pop out editors for rack devices in the arranger. Pin style routing (double click on the source port, navigate to destination port, double click to connect). Combi v2. Track/channel/device order sync. Multi-channel MIDI. Per-device remote override (not global/project). Yes, the fabled automation curves A quicker/better media browser. Drag and drop samples from timeline to devices. Linked faders. MIDI chase. Etc. etc. I'm by no means blind to the need for improvements.

A "true" track freeze! Even if some people would complain that this cannot be the final answer to performance issues, it would mitigate the pain.

Would be great! The only thing I can imagine prevents that, however, is CV routing. How would you tell a device not to consume any DSP for audio processing but still output CV to connected devices? And what if that CV is derived from audio? I think the things that make Reason strong are also the things that make certain things hard to achieve. But I should stress, I know nothing about coding. I'm just assuming it's REALLY hard and that's why it hasn't happened haha.

[antic604]

A "true" track freeze! Even if some people would complain that this cannot be the final answer to performance issues, it would mitigate the pain.

Would be great! The only thing I can imagine prevents that, however, is CV routing. How would you tell a device not to consume any DSP for audio processing but still output CV to connected devices? And what if that CV is derived from audio? I think the things that make Reason strong are also the things that make certain things hard to achieve. But I should stress, I know nothing about coding. I'm just assuming it's REALLY hard and that's why it hasn't happened haha.

Then you'd just get a popup like Live does, that you can't freeze this particular track & you need to come up with a workaround.

[pjeudy]

I think the insistence on backwards compatibility all the way back to version 1 has made all tangible improvements impossible going forward. Sure it's a headache when Cubase gets updated and older files don't work. But at least it's a trade off toward measurable improvements.

Also this ^^^
The Double edged Sword of backwards compatibility.

[jayhosking]

Counterpoint: I've reinstated my ProTools license for the month, in order to mix a friend's album. Let me tell you: ProTools may be great at some audio aspects but it's still a pain in the ass in others. First, just trying to get Avid's ridiculous online service working properly took hours; their built-in background app is just a waste of resources that keeps trying to sign me in and then automatically signs me out, over and over ad nauseam. Once I actually was able to get ProTools running again, a bunch of the licenses for my plug-ins didn't work properly. Third, there's the hassle of using an iLok, updating its firmware, and so on. Fourth, now that I'm actually running the program, it loses audio files that are plainly in the correct audio directory. Fifth, if I want to add a plug-in at the front of an effects chain, I have to move all the other programs down one first (compare this to Reason, where you can drag and drop an effect into a chain at any point and it perfectly wires it in).

It's got plenty of features I've missed, like grouping mix channels for things like fades, volume faders, edits, and so on, but I'll be happy when this mix job is over and I'm back to Reason. Plus, $40 Canadian a month to use it, or an exorbitant amount if I want to have a one-time buy in? I'll gladly take Reason's $130 updates, since they're clearly offering much more than what I'd be getting out of the same amount of time with ProTools.

[QVprod]

Counterpoint: I've reinstated my ProTools license for the month, in order to mix a friend's album. Let me tell you: ProTools may be great at some audio aspects but it's still a pain in the ass in others. First, just trying to get Avid's ridiculous online service working properly took hours; their built-in background app is just a waste of resources that keeps trying to sign me in and then automatically signs me out, over and over ad nauseam. Once I actually was able to get ProTools running again, a bunch of the licenses for my plug-ins didn't work properly. Third, there's the hassle of using an iLok, updating its firmware, and so on. Fourth, now that I'm actually running the program, it loses audio files that are plainly in the correct audio directory. Fifth, if I want to add a plug-in at the front of an effects chain, I have to move all the other programs down one first (compare this to Reason, where you can drag and drop an effect into a chain at any point and it perfectly wires it in).

It's got plenty of features I've missed, like grouping mix channels for things like fades, volume faders, edits, and so on, but I'll be happy when this mix job is over and I'm back to Reason. Plus, $40 Canadian a month to use it, or an exorbitant amount if I want to have a one-time buy in? I'll gladly take Reason's $130 updates, since they're clearly offering much more than what I'd be getting out of the same amount of time with ProTools.

People don't understand this side of the fence. Every DAW has it's issues. Pro Tools has plenty that make Reason seem like a godsend.

[pjeudy]

People don't understand this side of the fence. Every DAW has it's issues. Pro Tools has plenty that make Reason seem like a godsend.

I think that most people do Realize that side of the fence.
Even some audio software engineer/programmers know that side of the fence. That's why those developers gathered the time,energy investment necessary to create There own DAW. With features that they feel is lacking, workflow they can modernize and improve on for example from a software package like Avid's Pro Tools which is 29 years old. Steinberg Cubase which is also a 29 years old package, LOGIC another also a 20 something old DAW.

It could just be me but when I read people comparing REASON to Other DAW'S they are mostly referring TO relatively newcomer DAW's who know what they like and don't like with a legacy DAW package... like Ableton, BitwigG, FL Studio, Studio One.....
Sure REASON get's compared to older DAW also, of course, different people have different tools.

[Goodbye]

People don't understand this side of the fence. Every DAW has it's issues. Pro Tools has plenty that make Reason seem like a godsend.

I think that most people do Realize that side of the fence.
Even some audio software engineer/programmers know that side of the fence. That's why those developers gathered the time,energy investment necessary to create There own DAW. With features that they feel is lacking, workflow they can modernize and improve on for example from a software package like Avid's Pro Tools which is 29 years old. Steinberg Cubase which is also a 29 years old package, LOGIC another also a 20 something old DAW.

It could just be me but when I read people comparing REASON to Other DAW'S they are mostly referring TO relatively newcomer DAW's who know what they like and don't like with a legacy DAW package... like Ableton, BitwigG, FL Studio, Studio One.....
Sure REASON get's compared to older DAW also, of course, different people have different tools.

I think this is just what happens when a developer doesn't keep up with the newer competition. It is something that happens in software again and again. As a codebase grows, so too does the technical debt associated with. To begin with this debt is minimal, but over time it starts to slow things down until change is very slow and painful. The new DAWs have much less of this debt and not only start off with the latest features, but can move quickly. I think Propellerhead have just left it way too long to address this (or maybe we are about to see the fruits of a comprehensive rewrite).

I really can't understand all the animosity to people complaining about how little Reason is progressing. If you are happy with things as they are then you are gold. You have your dream DAW and no-one can take that from you. You'll probably be able to use it for another 10 years. That's amazing for you. For the rest of us who see the countless issues with the current version and don't find it fulfills what we need from it, nothing will change unless we make a noise.

[QVprod]

I think that most people do Realize that side of the fence.
Even some audio software engineer/programmers know that side of the fence. That's why those developers gathered the time,energy investment necessary to create There own DAW. With features that they feel is lacking, workflow they can modernize and improve on for example from a software package like Avid's Pro Tools which is 29 years old. Steinberg Cubase which is also a 29 years old package, LOGIC another also a 20 something old DAW.

It could just be me but when I read people comparing REASON to Other DAW'S they are mostly referring TO relatively newcomer DAW's who know what they like and don't like with a legacy DAW package... like Ableton, BitwigG, FL Studio, Studio One.....
Sure REASON get's compared to older DAW also, of course, different people have different tools.

I think this is just what happens when a developer doesn't keep up with the newer competition. It is something that happens in software again and again. As a codebase grows, so too does the technical debt associated with. To begin with this debt is minimal, but over time it starts to slow things down until change is very slow and painful. The new DAWs have much less of this debt and not only start off with the latest features, but can move quickly. I think Propellerhead have just left it way too long to address this (or maybe we are about to see the fruits of a comprehensive rewrite).

I really can't understand all the animosity to people complaining about how little Reason is progressing. If you are happy with things as they are then you are gold. You have your dream DAW and no-one can take that from you. You'll probably be able to use it for another 10 years. That's amazing for you. For the rest of us who see the countless issues with the current version and don't find it fulfills what we need from it, nothing will change unless we make a noise.

I don’t think animosity is the word. Simply balance. I wouldn’t use 2 DAWs if I thought Reason was perfect. Just saying that other Daws have their issues as well. Studio One isn’t perfect either, and I don’t think it has much to do with the age of the DAW. Many of the downsides of Pro Tools have more to do with how Avid conducts business than legacy code or old workflow. I agree there are certain things about Reason’s design that make certain things not work well and other things that simply need updating

[Geltic Höhn]

I really can't understand all the animosity to people complaining about how little Reason is progressing.

Not sure animosity is the word, but I certainly am reading into some responses as being apologetic to Propellerhead, and 'give them time' hopefulness that I really don't think is getting anywhere. The oversights on a lot of basic stuff comes across as a company in which the project teams aren't using the software they're selling, but just pushing out 'shiny new things' to make it a valuable proposition for new customers, and completely ignoring those of us who have been longer term users. The 'more more more' marketing doesn't fix the sloppy design flaws that have been present for a long time, and in some cases to take backwards steps in usability is quite daft. I'm sure Europa is great for many people, but we can buy synths that we choose by ourselves in their store, or now even as VST. I would happily pay another $130 for zero new content, even though it's only 6 months since the last version release, if someone actually sat down and sorted out all the user-end things that have been crap for 10 years.

Once I actually was able to get ProTools running again, a bunch of the licenses for my plug-ins didn't work properly. Third, there's the hassle of using an iLok, updating its firmware, and so on.

On this point, I agree with you. Reason's closed-shop model of licencing third party plugins is brilliant. So much so that I will never likely use VSTs, because I love the efficiency and intelligence behind Rack Extension management. People I speak to in 'other' DAW land still talk about unstable plugin crashes, so Propellerhead's vetting and testing (I assume) of RE before they are made public is what makes Reason a high-valued choice for me. I don't recall ever coming across 'buggy' plugins.

It's just a shame that the audio editor is such garbage. The whole sequencer window, really.

[Raveshaper]

Would be great! The only thing I can imagine prevents that, however, is CV routing. How would you tell a device not to consume any DSP for audio processing but still output CV to connected devices? And what if that CV is derived from audio? I think the things that make Reason strong are also the things that make certain things hard to achieve. But I should stress, I know nothing about coding. I'm just assuming it's REALLY hard and that's why it hasn't happened haha.

Then you'd just get a popup like Live does, that you can't freeze this particular track & you need to come up with a workaround.

In this situation the CV values would become frozen too and would run from the rendered audio, making calculations unnecessary.

Nearly anything can be done in code given enough skill and will to accomplish something. But the fundamental way Reason behaves rightfully sheds considerable doubt on the potential of creative programs for those who are less savvy to current standards.

The bubble is a bit too strong.

[chimp_spanner]

Then you'd just get a popup like Live does, that you can't freeze this particular track & you need to come up with a workaround.

In this situation the CV values would become frozen too and would run from the rendered audio, making calculations unnecessary.

Nearly anything can be done in code given enough skill and will to accomplish something. But the fundamental way Reason behaves rightfully sheds considerable doubt on the potential of creative programs for those who are less savvy to current standards.

The bubble is a bit too strong.

Well I meant more like, if the device you’re freezing is supplying CV to another track. So would it have to freeze all connected devices? Or if not, would you just lose out on any modulation being driven by the device? Orrrr maybe it could generate a sort of ghost/hidden virtual device that just runs the CV that was on the frozen track. I guess there are ways. I just wouldn’t want to be the one to have to implement them haha,