How Did Reason Miss The Modular Boat So Badly

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

joeyluck wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Faastwalker wrote:
18 Jul 2018
I'm not sure about cables on the front of Reason's rack when we've got them on the back. I'd imagine it would get a bit messy. I'm happy with Euro Rack style modules that fit in the rack in the current format. Maybe they could be made so parameters on the front are directly mirrored as i/o on the rear. So hitting 'Tab' shows basically the same GUI layout as the front. I think that would be a workable work around to having cables on the front of the rack.
Yes, completely possible and a great idea :puf_smile:

Look at ABL3.

It is the first and only device in Reason that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong) that has knobs on the front and back that mirror each other. This was done with the Hipass and Gate Trim (when they were added to the front in the update). And while you can’t right-mouse-click to choose ‘edit automation’ from the back panel, you can however option+click on Hipass or Gate Trim on the back panel to assign automation. If you hit record and start turning the knobs on the back panel, it will also create automation lanes and record the automation.

It was over a year ago that the update was released to ABL3, and when I wrote the article pointing this out, I was certain somebody would get the idea to make a more convenient modular/semi-modular synth utilizing the cable system. And knobs on the back panel can also be custom, they don't have to be those standard knobs you typically see. So yeah, you could have the front panel and back panel look identical. The back panel could be everything plus cables and the front panel would be your cable-free view. Best of both worlds. Totally feasible and would love to see somebody do this :puf_smile:
This got me thinking. I wonder if Propellerhead could implement a split screen so you could see the front and back of the rack at the same time side-by-side and have them scroll in sync. That would be an excellent way of making the back of the rack more accessible to those that wanted it. Would probably make it much easier to learn as well.

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
18 Jul 2018
Undistraction wrote:
18 Jul 2018


I was wondering if the answer to my question is as simple as that: the cables are hidden in Reason and part of the primary interface in Eurorack - whilst that might seem like a small thing if you've never played with a real rack, it is a critical part of the workflow. In fact you could say it is the critical part of the workflow. When you combine that with the separation between audio and CV I guess this is actually a big technical limitation of Reason.

I don't think Propellerhead will ever put cabling in the front, but without it, a big part of the modular way is impossible.
Take a look at Blamsoft's VK-2. On this RE the CV ins and outs are doubled with audio ins and outs. The real limitation in Reason is that data is processed in chunks of 64 samples whereas in VCV data is processed on a per sample base. That makes a huge difference in feedback loops.
Can you explain a little more about what effect this has? (Per-sample vs 64 sample)

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

selig wrote:
18 Jul 2018
Also, I always hated the cable mess when working with real modular systems. Software is the perfect environment to improve upon the limitations of things like front panel “physical” cables. Why re-create all aspects of the modular originals? The “experience” is what we want, not necessarily a one-to-one literal reproduction warts and all.
I'm definitely not in love with cables, but there is an immediacy to using them and they encourage tampering and experimenting in a way a combo-box doesn't. I think we'll see some kind of streamlining in the next version of Reason. If they could find a good solution to routing cables that didn't involve animated cables then there would be no reason that couldn't be applied to the front of the rack as well.

I guess the other thing with cables is you can see where they go, even if you don't know the name of where they are going. With a matrix you just get a name, and if you don't know where that is or what it is, it's hard to find out. A cable is effectively an arrow pointing from one point to another.

The territory between real and virtual is always so interesting because it shines a light on exactly what it was about the real that works or doesn't work and equally what the virtual representation adds or is missing.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

19 Jul 2018

Undistraction wrote:
selig wrote:
18 Jul 2018
Also, I always hated the cable mess when working with real modular systems. Software is the perfect environment to improve upon the limitations of things like front panel “physical” cables. Why re-create all aspects of the modular originals? The “experience” is what we want, not necessarily a one-to-one literal reproduction warts and all.
I'm definitely not in love with cables, but there is an immediacy to using them and they encourage tampering and experimenting in a way a combo-box doesn't. I think we'll see some kind of streamlining in the next version of Reason. If they could find a good solution to routing cables that didn't involve animated cables then there would be no reason that couldn't be applied to the front of the rack as well.

I guess the other thing with cables is you can see where they go, even if you don't know the name of where they are going. With a matrix you just get a name, and if you don't know where that is or what it is, it's hard to find out. A cable is effectively an arrow pointing from one point to another.
Works both ways…
With the matrix you also get depth and scaling and multiple destinations all in one easy display. With cables you would need 5-6 cables and 2 more devices (mult and scale/gain) just to recreate that routing - and good luck understanding it at a glance!

One of the ways to improve the matrix approach I’ve considered in some older mockups is to use a smaller matrix for every module or group of modules (a matrix for all oscillators, another for all filters, etc). Then you know the destination already, and it’s only the source you need to “see”.

You can also build a “wire” display into the matrix where it would temporarily display the “physical” connection when you click a button or certain area or use a modifier key.

In other words, there are probably many better ways to illustrate routing than simple wires and massive matrices.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

You can also build a “wire” display into the matrix where it would temporarily display the “physical” connection when you click a button or certain area or use a modifier key.
That's definitely an interesting idea.

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1367
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

Undistraction wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
18 Jul 2018


Take a look at Blamsoft's VK-2. On this RE the CV ins and outs are doubled with audio ins and outs. The real limitation in Reason is that data is processed in chunks of 64 samples whereas in VCV data is processed on a per sample base. That makes a huge difference in feedback loops.
Can you explain a little more about what effect this has? (Per-sample vs 64 sample)
In the analog world it is possible to do a feedback loop with literally zero delay. In the digital world this is not possible (except you do some more complicated math like explained here https://urs.silvrback.com/zero-delay-feedback ) because the minimal delay is at least 1 sample.

Depending on the sampling frequency the minimal delay for e.g. 44.1 kHz is about 2.3 nanoseconds. So in a system like VCV the smallest possible feedback delay is 2.3 nanoseconds if you are using cables. In Reason the smallest possible delay over a virtual cable is about 145 nanoseconds, that's more than 0.1 milliseconds and that gives an audible frequency about 700 Hz.

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1367
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

I did a quick test to see what GUI elements work on the back panel:

:exclamation: pop up menue for automation etc. doesn't show up on the back panel
:exclamation: custom displays (everything beyond buttons and knobs) are not allowed on the back panel
:exclamation: patch name doesn't show up on back panel

So now it becomes clear why there is no enlightment on the dark side of the Reason rack.
I'm not going to follow this path any further.

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
I did a quick test to see what GUI elements work on the back panel:

:exclamation: pop up menue for automation etc. doesn't show up on the back panel
:exclamation: custom displays (everything beyond buttons and knobs) are not allowed on the back panel
:exclamation: patch name doesn't show up on back panel

So now it becomes clear why there is no enlightment on the dark side of the Reason rack.
I'm not going to follow this path any further.
Thanks. So there we have it at least in part - there are a number of technical limitations:

1. Lack of options on the back.
2. Lack of cables on the front and no mitigating UI (like the split screen I mentioned above).
2. Delayed feedback.

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 1775
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

19 Jul 2018

Interesting about the technical stuff! I think it's important to be clear on what the aim is of Reason. I think it's more about emulating a studio rack (synths, effects) rather than a Euro Rack. And much as I've *love* to see PH's take on the latter, I think these technical limitations go some way to understanding why its not possible. At least not now. Would audio modulation instead of CV be the answer? Like a new socket type on the back of instruments that looks like a CV in/out (perhaps a different colour) but actually just sends audio. So then you're only limited by the sample rate of your project. Right?
Enjoy!

http://www.paulortizmusic.com

HP Envy J130ea | i7 4700MQ | 12 GB DDR | 2GB GeForce 740m | Komplete Audio 6

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

chimp_spanner wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Interesting about the technical stuff! I think it's important to be clear on what the aim is of Reason. I think it's more about emulating a studio rack (synths, effects) rather than a Euro Rack. And much as I've *love* to see PH's take on the latter, I think these technical limitations go some way to understanding why its not possible. At least not now. Would audio modulation instead of CV be the answer? Like a new socket type on the back of instruments that looks like a CV in/out (perhaps a different colour) but actually just sends audio. So then you're only limited by the sample rate of your project. Right?
As long as they included some kind of virtual adapter that you had to drag onto the socket first ;)

But yes, I guess one of the takeaways is that the modular rack and the rack that Reason emulates are very different. Even if Reason does allow the use of CV, it is discrete from audio, meaning much of the modular paradigm is lost.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

19 Jul 2018

Again, no “reason” they can’t add a section for modular synthesis in Reason, outside of the rack paradigm.

This could be a 19” rack device, or better still a VST based host that allowed CV/Audio interconnection with Reason devices. As a VST, there would be less of a size restriction as there is with REs. And as a Propellerhead device, it would conform to Reason standards and allow RE developers to more easily create panels for the new rack.

This would also remove the limitations of building in Combinators, as they would provide more features for a VST based host than a Combinator allows by a long shot!

And those folks who can’t live without cables on the front would be happy too! ;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1367
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

selig wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Again, no “reason” they can’t add a section for modular synthesis in Reason, outside of the rack paradigm.

This could be a 19” rack device, or better still a VST based host that allowed CV/Audio interconnection with Reason devices. As a VST, there would be less of a size restriction as there is with REs. And as a Propellerhead device, it would conform to Reason standards and allow RE developers to more easily create panels for the new rack.

This would also remove the limitations of building in Combinators, as they would provide more features for a VST based host than a Combinator allows by a long shot!

And those folks who can’t live without cables on the front would be happy too! ;)
I just discovered that the VCV Bridge can route 16 VST VCV devices into the VCV app. There is a port parameter that can be set for each VST VCV device in the Reason rack. So 16 different MIDI channels/tracks can be routed from Reason to VCV and also from VCV to Reason. Each VCV VST device supports 8 audio inputs and 8 audio outputs. This makes up to 128 audio (or CV over audio) connections in each direction between VCV and Reason. So from my perspective, everything is there. The only limit is my CPU.

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

19 Jul 2018

selig wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Again, no “reason” they can’t add a section for modular synthesis in Reason, outside of the rack paradigm.

This could be a 19” rack device, or better still a VST based host that allowed CV/Audio interconnection with Reason devices. As a VST, there would be less of a size restriction as there is with REs. And as a Propellerhead device, it would conform to Reason standards and allow RE developers to more easily create panels for the new rack.

This would also remove the limitations of building in Combinators, as they would provide more features for a VST based host than a Combinator allows by a long shot!

And those folks who can’t live without cables on the front would be happy too! ;)

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
If only you were calling the shots.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 363
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Undistraction wrote:
19 Jul 2018


Can you explain a little more about what effect this has? (Per-sample vs 64 sample)
In the analog world it is possible to do a feedback loop with literally zero delay. In the digital world this is not possible (except you do some more complicated math like explained here https://urs.silvrback.com/zero-delay-feedback ) because the minimal delay is at least 1 sample.

Depending on the sampling frequency the minimal delay for e.g. 44.1 kHz is about 2.3 nanoseconds. So in a system like VCV the smallest possible feedback delay is 2.3 nanoseconds if you are using cables. In Reason the smallest possible delay over a virtual cable is about 145 nanoseconds, that's more than 0.1 milliseconds and that gives an audible frequency about 700 Hz.
In the real analog world the signal is also not instantaneous. For coax cable you get about 1 ns of delay for each 30 cm of wire. Thus with 1 sample latency and 96 kHz sample rate you would be very close to a real world eurorack modular in terms of signal delay.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
Loque
Posts: 3363
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

19 Jul 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
In the analog world it is possible to do a feedback loop with literally zero delay.
What is the advantage of that? The only thing i can imagine is increasing phasing.
Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
...that's more than 0.1 milliseconds and that gives an audible frequency about 700 Hz.
And what does this matter?

Just curious...because i am a big fan of feedback loops and i am aware, i cannot change the speed of light (maybe soon...i let you know).
:reason: 10, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 1775
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

19 Jul 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
selig wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Again, no “reason” they can’t add a section for modular synthesis in Reason, outside of the rack paradigm.

This could be a 19” rack device, or better still a VST based host that allowed CV/Audio interconnection with Reason devices. As a VST, there would be less of a size restriction as there is with REs. And as a Propellerhead device, it would conform to Reason standards and allow RE developers to more easily create panels for the new rack.

This would also remove the limitations of building in Combinators, as they would provide more features for a VST based host than a Combinator allows by a long shot!

And those folks who can’t live without cables on the front would be happy too! ;)
I just discovered that the VCV Bridge can route 16 VST VCV devices into the VCV app. There is a port parameter that can be set for each VST VCV device in the Reason rack. So 16 different MIDI channels/tracks can be routed from Reason to VCV and also from VCV to Reason. Each VCV VST device supports 8 audio inputs and 8 audio outputs. This makes up to 128 audio (or CV over audio) connections in each direction between VCV and Reason. So from my perspective, everything is there. The only limit is my CPU.
How do you find VCV in Reason? For me it's sadly unusable atm. I've spoken to Andrew about it but it's pretty low on his fix-list atm. FL and Ableton are getting priority. For me, I get momentary pauses in the audio stream (which seem to be worse when VCV is in the background). The only way I can run VCV with Reason is on its own audio interface connected to my main interfaces line inputs. I'm on an i7 4700mq 12GB btw.
Enjoy!

http://www.paulortizmusic.com

HP Envy J130ea | i7 4700MQ | 12 GB DDR | 2GB GeForce 740m | Komplete Audio 6

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1367
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

chimp_spanner wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018

I just discovered that the VCV Bridge can route 16 VST VCV devices into the VCV app. There is a port parameter that can be set for each VST VCV device in the Reason rack. So 16 different MIDI channels/tracks can be routed from Reason to VCV and also from VCV to Reason. Each VCV VST device supports 8 audio inputs and 8 audio outputs. This makes up to 128 audio (or CV over audio) connections in each direction between VCV and Reason. So from my perspective, everything is there. The only limit is my CPU.
How do you find VCV in Reason? For me it's sadly unusable atm. I've spoken to Andrew about it but it's pretty low on his fix-list atm. FL and Ableton are getting priority. For me, I get momentary pauses in the audio stream (which seem to be worse when VCV is in the background). The only way I can run VCV with Reason is on its own audio interface connected to my main interfaces line inputs. I'm on an i7 4700mq 12GB btw.
The VCV Bridge shows up as a VST instrument in Reason. What kind of errors do you get?

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1367
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

Loque wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
In the analog world it is possible to do a feedback loop with literally zero delay.
What is the advantage of that? The only thing i can imagine is increasing phasing.
It's a more "analog" sound.
Loque wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
...that's more than 0.1 milliseconds and that gives an audible frequency about 700 Hz.
And what does this matter?

Just curious...because i am a big fan of feedback loops and i am aware, i cannot change the speed of light (maybe soon...i let you know).
Here you get an additional fixed frequency that usually won't fit to your sound/music.

User avatar
emilng
Posts: 76
Joined: 03 Oct 2017

19 Jul 2018

Reason has several barriers to entry that it has to overcome in order for people to consider it a go to for modular software.

The modular community generally has an aversion to software and connecting their modular setup to a computer. The computer is usually seen as a crutch for missing modules or something you use if you can't afford the actual hardware. There are plenty of people who go into modular so they can get away from their computer.

It uses a different connection paradigm than what people are used to with modular systems. Most modular systems have a single connection type for audio and cv whereas Reason separates the two. Modular and Semi-modular synths usually have their connections on the front. Reason hides those connections on the back.

Reason is set up in a way where it's like you're working in a studio with a rack of effects and individual synths that you can hook together rather than modular synth components. So it doesn't default to a modular style of workflow unlike something like Reaktor, Max, VCV Rack, or Pure Data.

That being said, I actually really like working with Reason with a modular workflow. PSQ-1648 is a great sequencer. Parsec 2 is great for filtering any audio signal. Thor is really powerful as a general modular toolbox.

User avatar
tibah
Posts: 818
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Contact:

19 Jul 2018

Undistraction wrote:
18 Jul 2018
I didn't say anything about anyone making anyone do anything. I'm guessing from your use of English that it isn't your primary language, so I think you're maybe misunderstanding my original question.

I pointed out that Reason's rack-based approach had the potential to be a great catalyst for capturing the market created by the popularity of modular in hardware and its more recent move to a virtual modular paradigm. I'm interested why, despite seemingly being in the perfect position to become the go-to software solution for modular, it has completely failed on that count.
Yes, not a native English speaker. Sorry! :oops:

Here is the bit I was referring to:
It seems that despite being rack-based, the majority of REs are effects, synths and rompers. There are a few developers making more modular devices, but they aren't really in the same ballpark as some of the Eurorack devices available.

Why do people think this is? Why have two alternative platforms been developed by other companies in order to allow people to use virtualized racks when one already existed with an app-store built in and a large number of existing users?
Well, you do wonder about why the RE landscape is effects, synths and romplers and why even the modular devices we have are not in the same ballpark as some Eurorack modules. Quality is a thing we could argue about for days and I believe, up to the people involved in creating these emulations and kinda leads to a software vs. hardware debate and I won't go there. ;)

So who would create these emulations that represent the quality of the actual modules? PH? The original module developer? A 3rd party like Softube?

See, RE is a difficult format in many ways. Very few developers jumped on it, but it gave some life to some interesting new developers, because they understood Reason and the possibility within the RE technology. Eurorack is a trend. If you think about Softube, they have a history of emulating hardware and applied that knowledge to modular synthesis and made licensing deals with companies creating those units on a platform that was build from the ground up to be that - a modular synthesis emulation. Reaktor always been what it is and could adjust to the trend way more easily, because it simply required smaller, more focused, well, blocks. :)

So, who would have been responsible to bring quality Eurorack modules to Reason? PH in changing their major design choices, which are the back panel and the hardware rack mounting? Eurorack modules companies to get into the SDK and develop software? Softube to bring all their Modular licensed and emulated stuff to Reason as well. See, it does involve someone to make anyone do anything. Might it be conversations between PH and developer X, licensing deals for using a brand name, SDK changes or design choices. I think the latter being the major one.

When RE came out, I wrote numerous e-mails to VST devs, asking them to port their products to REs and even in this scenario, bringing software to software, loads of developers denied or just stopped showing interest in the format - u-he, Korg, Sugar Bytes, Audio Damage, just to name a few. Most of us are familiar with the reasons, like UI design, learning a new SDK, the shop split and so on.

Now imagine these small, specialized Eurorack companies, within their small realm, bringing their products into another small realm, which is the Reason universe (where 2 different formats basically would collide and never feel right) vs. bringing it to a broader, more established format like VST, to more specialized developers in emulations like Softube, to an enviroment that works the way these modules work in hardware.

Undistraction
Posts: 78
Joined: 11 May 2018

20 Jul 2018

tibah wrote:
19 Jul 2018
Undistraction wrote:
18 Jul 2018
I didn't say anything about anyone making anyone do anything. I'm guessing from your use of English that it isn't your primary language, so I think you're maybe misunderstanding my original question.

I pointed out that Reason's rack-based approach had the potential to be a great catalyst for capturing the market created by the popularity of modular in hardware and its more recent move to a virtual modular paradigm. I'm interested why, despite seemingly being in the perfect position to become the go-to software solution for modular, it has completely failed on that count.
Yes, not a native English speaker. Sorry! :oops:

Here is the bit I was referring to:
It seems that despite being rack-based, the majority of REs are effects, synths and rompers. There are a few developers making more modular devices, but they aren't really in the same ballpark as some of the Eurorack devices available.

Why do people think this is? Why have two alternative platforms been developed by other companies in order to allow people to use virtualized racks when one already existed with an app-store built in and a large number of existing users?
Well, you do wonder about why the RE landscape is effects, synths and romplers and why even the modular devices we have are not in the same ballpark as some Eurorack modules. Quality is a thing we could argue about for days and I believe, up to the people involved in creating these emulations and kinda leads to a software vs. hardware debate and I won't go there. ;)

So who would create these emulations that represent the quality of the actual modules? PH? The original module developer? A 3rd party like Softube?

See, RE is a difficult format in many ways. Very few developers jumped on it, but it gave some life to some interesting new developers, because they understood Reason and the possibility within the RE technology. Eurorack is a trend. If you think about Softube, they have a history of emulating hardware and applied that knowledge to modular synthesis and made licensing deals with companies creating those units on a platform that was build from the ground up to be that - a modular synthesis emulation. Reaktor always been what it is and could adjust to the trend way more easily, because it simply required smaller, more focused, well, blocks. :)

So, who would have been responsible to bring quality Eurorack modules to Reason? PH in changing their major design choices, which are the back panel and the hardware rack mounting? Eurorack modules companies to get into the SDK and develop software? Softube to bring all their Modular licensed and emulated stuff to Reason as well. See, it does involve someone to make anyone do anything. Might it be conversations between PH and developer X, licensing deals for using a brand name, SDK changes or design choices. I think the latter being the major one.

When RE came out, I wrote numerous e-mails to VST devs, asking them to port their products to REs and even in this scenario, bringing software to software, loads of developers denied or just stopped showing interest in the format - u-he, Korg, Sugar Bytes, Audio Damage, just to name a few. Most of us are familiar with the reasons, like UI design, learning a new SDK, the shop split and so on.

Now imagine these small, specialized Eurorack companies, within their small realm, bringing their products into another small realm, which is the Reason universe (where 2 different formats basically would collide and never feel right) vs. bringing it to a broader, more established format like VST, to more specialized developers in emulations like Softube, to an enviroment that works the way these modules work in hardware.
Your points are well made. I suppose I should have left out my value judgement about the 'quality' of REs. There are some wonderful REs out there, but the lovely thing about Eurorack modules is how focused they are - the quality is in the little things rather than the multitude of features which is usually how REs distinguish themselves. I guess this is partly because it's harder to give an RE a 'sound' compared to a hardware module, and also because an RE is easier to sell if it is feature rich. Though hopefully the Noise Engineering REs might encourage some more focused REs in the future.
So, who would have been responsible to bring quality Eurorack modules to Reason? PH in changing their major design choices, which are the back panel and the hardware rack mounting? Eurorack modules companies to get into the SDK and develop software? Softube to bring all their Modular licensed and emulated stuff to Reason as well. See, it does involve someone to make anyone do anything. Might it be conversations between PH and developer X, licensing deals for using a brand name, SDK changes or design choices. I think the latter being the major one.
To me this is a big missed opportunity on Propellerhead's end. There is obviously a market for virtualised modular devices - hence VCV and Softube Modular, but Ph failed (or chose not to) target it (until recently). Perhaps this will change with Reason 11, or perhaps we'll get VCV in the rack somehow.
Now imagine these small, specialized Eurorack companies, within their small realm, bringing their products into another small realm, which is the Reason universe (where 2 different formats basically would collide and never feel right) vs. bringing it to a broader, more established format like VST, to more specialized developers in emulations like Softube, to an enviroment that works the way these modules work in hardware.
I'm never sure how small the Reason realm really is. You hear huge numbers being used in marketing, but I never meet other people using it, and judging by the dirth of content online (compared to Ableton for example), I'm guessing the numbers are really pretty low. Certainly very few pros use it. Again perhaps this will change if Ph address the wide-range of missing features and performance issues (but lets not go there).

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 1775
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

20 Jul 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018
chimp_spanner wrote:
19 Jul 2018


How do you find VCV in Reason? For me it's sadly unusable atm. I've spoken to Andrew about it but it's pretty low on his fix-list atm. FL and Ableton are getting priority. For me, I get momentary pauses in the audio stream (which seem to be worse when VCV is in the background). The only way I can run VCV with Reason is on its own audio interface connected to my main interfaces line inputs. I'm on an i7 4700mq 12GB btw.
The VCV Bridge shows up as a VST instrument in Reason. What kind of errors do you get?
Oh yeah it shows up fine. It's performance that sucks for me. When tabbed away from VCV the audio performance is very poor/stuttery. Slightly better when VCV has application focus. But still not really usable. Also the buffer size on the core audio module in VCV reports 64 samples regardless of what Reason is running at. So yeah, something not quite right there...
Enjoy!

http://www.paulortizmusic.com

HP Envy J130ea | i7 4700MQ | 12 GB DDR | 2GB GeForce 740m | Komplete Audio 6

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1367
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

20 Jul 2018

chimp_spanner wrote:
20 Jul 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
19 Jul 2018

The VCV Bridge shows up as a VST instrument in Reason. What kind of errors do you get?
Oh yeah it shows up fine. It's performance that sucks for me. When tabbed away from VCV the audio performance is very poor/stuttery. Slightly better when VCV has application focus. But still not really usable. Also the buffer size on the core audio module in VCV reports 64 samples regardless of what Reason is running at. So yeah, something not quite right there...
Reason internally always runs on 64 samples, nothing wrong here.
There's an alternate version where VCV runs inside a VST with better CPU performance: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7507652&p=401599&h ... st#p401599 maybe this helps.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests