Reason 10.3 public beta is open!

[diminished]

Cool, I'm looking forward to seeing some true performance benchmarks once the final version of 10.3 has gone live without the logging slowing everything down

I already did one with R10.2 vs R8 vs R6 recovering an old project (mostly samples, with a lot of stuff from reason Combi - Pianos, Drums, Electric Bass and Abbey Road Keys) and with a Synth project with Synth Re's that work with R6. Performance is mostly the same in the 2-3% ballpark. I planned to turn it into a video, but i'm as lazy as they come. Maybe this weekend cause i even have the stuff prepared.

Sorry if I misunderstand something, but what does this have to do with 10.3?

[mcatalao]

Sorry if I misunderstand something, but what does this have to do with 10.3?

It comes from Magnus question, basicly if performance is the same from R6 to R10, R10.3 will have a better performance than R6 (considering also that Propellerheads blog talks better performance even for Re's and core devices in R10.3).

[Magnus]

I already did one with R10.2 vs R8 vs R6 recovering an old project (mostly samples, with a lot of stuff from reason Combi - Pianos, Drums, Electric Bass and Abbey Road Keys) and with a Synth project with Synth Re's that work with R6. Performance is mostly the same in the 2-3% ballpark. I planned to turn it into a video, but i'm as lazy as they come. Maybe this weekend cause i even have the stuff prepared.

Sorry if I misunderstand something, but what does this have to do with 10.3?

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se. It's perhaps because of the way retina Macs, which started becoming more popular around the same time, are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

[diminished]

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se, but because of the way retina Macs which started coming out around the same time are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

I see. Thanks!

[mcatalao]

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se. It's perhaps because of the way retina Macs, which started becoming more popular around the same time, are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

I'm sorry i cannot confirm your theory cause i don't use mac. But i'll post my data related to Windows.

[jwd606]

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se. It's perhaps because of the way retina Macs, which started becoming more popular around the same time, are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

I'm still using 9.2 on an old Macbook Pro because when I update to 9.5/10 and play one of the demo songs it uses notably more CPU. So it's not a "myth", the update to enable VSTs to run on Reason affected the performance, even if you're not using VSTs.

[aeox]

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se. It's perhaps because of the way retina Macs, which started becoming more popular around the same time, are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

I'm still using 9.2 on an old Macbook Pro because when I update to 9.5/10 and play one of the demo songs it uses notably more CPU. So it's not a "myth", the update to enable VSTs to run on Reason affected the performance, even if you're not using VSTs.

Do you happen to know when they added the "Hyper-threading" option in the preferences? And if turning that off helps you at all? For me, I get much worse performance with the hyper-threading option ticked.

[mcatalao]

I'm still using 9.2 on an old Macbook Pro because when I update to 9.5/10 and play one of the demo songs it uses notably more CPU. So it's not a "myth", the update to enable VSTs to run on Reason affected the performance, even if you're not using VSTs.

Do you happen to know when they added the "Hyper-threading" option in the preferences? And if turning that off helps you at all? For me, I get much worse performance with the hyper-threading option ticked.

Actually, the hyper threading option gives you a sense of worse performance, but in my tests i can run more devices (specially synths) with it, because the system is a bit stabler and has less dropouts. I started always using hyper threading because of that.

[Magnus]

Do you happen to know when they added the "Hyper-threading" option in the preferences? And if turning that off helps you at all? For me, I get much worse performance with the hyper-threading option ticked.

Actually, the hyper threading option gives you a sense of worse performance, but in my tests i can run more devices (specially synths) with it, because the system is a bit stabler and has less dropouts. I started always using hyper threading because of that.

I'm pretty sure Multi-Core and Hyperthreading have long-standing bugs on Mac systems where they can occasionally cause CoreAudio to completely crash into static requiring a reboot of the audio device/operating system to fix.

I've always had to turn the option(s) off since Reason 6 on Mac to get 100% stability.

[aeox]

Do you happen to know when they added the "Hyper-threading" option in the preferences? And if turning that off helps you at all? For me, I get much worse performance with the hyper-threading option ticked.

Actually, the hyper threading option gives you a sense of worse performance, but in my tests i can run more devices (specially synths) with it, because the system is a bit stabler and has less dropouts. I started always using hyper threading because of that.

Results vary depending on the CPU I'd imagine. Mine in particular does better in all aspects with it turned off.

[Oquasec]

The monochrome version of Reason is already at 10.3 btw I think they update it a few months before the colored version.
Hey guys I think it's coming out in april for the colored version.

[Enterface]

This is amazing news! Thanks for the reply!

Don’t take it as truth, yet, though!

However, for sure the inability of the plugin to manage its own buffer would keep it from working properly.

Fingers crossed!

Understood. Yes... fingers crossed indeed.

[two shoes]

Just wondering...

Will the 10.3 update have vst MIDI OUT?

The vst plugin I would like to use in Reason is Jam Origin Midi Guitar. It needs midi out.

he already said no, but surely it will be part of Reason 11 - lack of midi vst out is the sole reason I still use other DAWs alongside Reason and there's a huge segment of the market that they're excluding as potential customers as long as this feature request remains unfulfilled.

i would actually rather have midi vst out than all other commonly requested features combined including performance improvements - it's that important.

[two shoes]

Personally, I appreciate the 192 kHz support for the bit of extra that gets created in those temporarily inaudible regions, during sound design. Sometimes after HP filtering, you go down couple of (pitch) octaves, and can hear awesome things.
Other times you make a noisy hat, start going up with the pitch, get a shorter, but better sounding hat, then render that (destructive process), go back down with the pitch, and still have perfect high frequency content. In 44.1 kHz, this process results in a Lo-Fi sound by the time you're finished.
If you make a non-synced, detuned FM synth sound, it may sound great at one note, but others may become nasty. Mostly, that's when you sample. Now, you start tuning multiple notes from that sample; by the time you get one or more octaves away from that root sample, the quality damage gets more and more apparent, with yet again more Lo-Fi effect at lower sampling rates.

Just a few examples of many. And you guys have no idea how much appreciated this possibility is, even if who truly makes use of it, may be a minority.

there are sample rates between redbook and 192kHz you know - as far as i'm aware no human has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish between any type of recorded sound at 96kHz and 192kHz sample rates. i'm almost certain no one has proven themselves able to distinguish music recorded at sample rates above 96kHz, but please point me to the evidence if this has changed.

[Steedus]

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se. It's perhaps because of the way retina Macs, which started becoming more popular around the same time, are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

I know this isn't the purpose of this thread, but..

I wouldn't say it's a Mac only thing, and I agree there was a noticeable drop in performance. I was on PC running v6.5 absolutely flawlessly, but after upgrading to v9.5 performance was noticeably poorer on the same machine. I'm now running a 2018 Macbook and the "run in low resolution mode" hack is essential.

[RobC]

Personally, I appreciate the 192 kHz support for the bit of extra that gets created in those temporarily inaudible regions, during sound design. Sometimes after HP filtering, you go down couple of (pitch) octaves, and can hear awesome things.
Other times you make a noisy hat, start going up with the pitch, get a shorter, but better sounding hat, then render that (destructive process), go back down with the pitch, and still have perfect high frequency content. In 44.1 kHz, this process results in a Lo-Fi sound by the time you're finished.
If you make a non-synced, detuned FM synth sound, it may sound great at one note, but others may become nasty. Mostly, that's when you sample. Now, you start tuning multiple notes from that sample; by the time you get one or more octaves away from that root sample, the quality damage gets more and more apparent, with yet again more Lo-Fi effect at lower sampling rates.

Just a few examples of many. And you guys have no idea how much appreciated this possibility is, even if who truly makes use of it, may be a minority.

there are sample rates between redbook and 192kHz you know - as far as i'm aware no human has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish between any type of recorded sound at 96kHz and 192kHz sample rates. i'm almost certain no one has proven themselves able to distinguish music recorded at sample rates above 96kHz, but please point me to the evidence if this has changed.

That's why I said, that for the best isolation, you high pass filter above 20 kHz for example, ~ and for simplicity, save that to file. The information will be there even if you can't hear it just yet. Then you load it into a sampler and bring it down multiple octaves. If it had ultra frequency content, then now you will be able to hear it. That's one way to make use of it, out of many.

[botnotbot]

Just wondering...

Will the 10.3 update have vst MIDI OUT?

The vst plugin I would like to use in Reason is Jam Origin Midi Guitar. It needs midi out.

he already said no, but surely it will be part of Reason 11 - lack of midi vst out is the sole reason I still use other DAWs alongside Reason and there's a huge segment of the market that they're excluding as potential customers as long as this feature request remains unfulfilled.

i would actually rather have midi vst out than all other commonly requested features combined including performance improvements - it's that important.

But in my opinion there is no way for Reason to host MIDI VSTs in a Reason-like way until there is MIDI routing at the rack level. Which is not happening with the current graphics stack.

[ScuzzyEye]

But in my opinion there is no way for Reason to host MIDI VSTs in a Reason-like way until there is MIDI routing at the rack level. Which is not happening with the current graphics stack.

A MIDI-out VST could simply be hosted inside a Player-like container, rather than the current CV/Audio container. Heck, there could be a check box that just makes the current VST container be able to emit MIDI like the Players do. So the instrument below it receives the MIDI.

[Magnus]

I think mcatalao's trying to disprove the 'myth' I perpetuated that Reason performance has somehow declined with the same devices since version 8 onward.

My theory is this is exclusively a Mac thing and not because of Reason per se. It's perhaps because of the way retina Macs, which started becoming more popular around the same time, are causing CPU overhead by default in Reason; reducing performance.

I know this isn't the purpose of this thread, but..

I wouldn't say it's a Mac only thing, and I agree there was a noticeable drop in performance. I was on PC running v6.5 absolutely flawlessly, but after upgrading to v9.5 performance was noticeably poorer on the same machine. I'm now running a 2018 Macbook and the "run in low resolution mode" hack is essential.

Wow, interesting. My original question stands then I guess, will Reason 10.3 bring us back to Reason 6/7 levels of performance with stock devices I wonder?

[botnotbot]

But in my opinion there is no way for Reason to host MIDI VSTs in a Reason-like way until there is MIDI routing at the rack level. Which is not happening with the current graphics stack.

A MIDI-out VST could simply be hosted inside a Player-like container, rather than the current CV/Audio container. Heck, there could be a check box that just makes the current VST container be able to emit MIDI like the Players do. So the instrument below it receives the MIDI.

True, but that still would not feel very Reason-like to me, especially your second option.

[Oquasec]

If Reason 10.3 performs like Reason 8 I will be one happy camper.

[PrivatePartsUK]

If Reason 10.3 with a bag of VST'S performs like Reaper I'll be a happy chappy

[plaamook]

there are sample rates between redbook and 192kHz you know - as far as i'm aware no human has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish between any type of recorded sound at 96kHz and 192kHz sample rates. i'm almost certain no one has proven themselves able to distinguish music recorded at sample rates above 96kHz, but please point me to the evidence if this has changed.

That's why I said, that for the best isolation, you high pass filter above 20 kHz for example, ~ and for simplicity, save that to file. The information will be there even if you can't hear it just yet. Then you load it into a sampler and bring it down multiple octaves. If it had ultra frequency content, then now you will be able to hear it. That's one way to make use of it, out of many.

True but if you're recording something with no data up there you're just pitching down nothing. Depends on what you're recording really. I'm not sure there's any point to recording EVERYTHING at 192k but there's prob a few things where it'd be worth it.

[EnochLight]

If Reason 10.3 with a bag of VST'S performs like Reaper I'll be a happy chappy

It will never run as lean as Reaper. Reason is way more complicated than Reaper ever has been or likely will be (but that's a topic for another thread)...

[Creativemind]

Might be a tad off-topic but does anyone else get that feeling like a kid the night before Christmas whenever a new Reason update is announced? lol!