Reason 10.3 public beta is open!

[squint]

Waiting for the non-logging ver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[plaamook]

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!

Of course. But w'ere not getting new toys. We're just getting last years toys fixed.

[ProfessaKaos]

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!

Yeah I do

[BananaSkins]

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!

No I just want a bit more freedom to put more toys in my Reason pram without them being thrown out because Reason doesn't want to play with them

[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!

No I just want a bit more freedom to put more toys in my Reason pram without them being thrown out because Reason doesn't want to play with them

Haha!

[RobC]

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.

It's not exactly about recording for me, but creating sounds from scratch with synthesizers and various modulation types. Especially frequency modulation can create weird, useful things sometimes.

[plaamook]

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.

It's not exactly about recording for me, but creating sounds from scratch with synthesizers and various modulation types. Especially frequency modulation can create weird, useful things sometimes.

Yeah I got that. Same here. I’m just saying if you record a bunch of low freq stuff at 192 and pitch it down 3 octaves you’ll see a big drop off where the thing you were recording wasn’t making any higher freq noise to begin with. Which is the case for a lot of stuff. Even if you excite the hell out of it you’ll just make a bunch of static and garbage. But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

[selig]

…But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

You’ll need special gear to record bats etc - just because a convertor has a high sample rate doesn’t automatically mean it’s flat up to nyquist/2.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[plaamook]

…But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

You’ll need special gear to record bats etc - just because a convertor has a high sample rate doesn’t automatically mean it’s flat up to nyquist/2.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Yep.
You n I actually went over all this yonks ago.

[mcatalao]

…But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

You’ll need special gear to record bats etc - just because a convertor has a high sample rate doesn’t automatically mean it’s flat up to nyquist/2.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Yep... and if you're recording dolphins you'd need to have a 340 KHz A/D flat to 150 Hz (they produce and hear at that frequency)....

PS.: 340 KHz is arbitrary but to my limited knowledge of AD's you need to filter your input to compensate aliasing.

[RobC]

It's not exactly about recording for me, but creating sounds from scratch with synthesizers and various modulation types. Especially frequency modulation can create weird, useful things sometimes.

Yeah I got that. Same here. I’m just saying if you record a bunch of low freq stuff at 192 and pitch it down 3 octaves you’ll see a big drop off where the thing you were recording wasn’t making any higher freq noise to begin with. Which is the case for a lot of stuff. Even if you excite the hell out of it you’ll just make a bunch of static and garbage. But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

When creating electronic drums, especially the percussive ones - then a lot can happen there, and no frequency boost is required at all.
But if you don't like that, you can try slowly pitching up the said drum sound, until you have the right transient or characteristics (many surprises can happen with this type of destructive pitch change), then render that, tune it back down, and you already have another use for that ultra frequency content. That's because your new, "damaged" sound won't get a Lo-Fi effect, where after a point there would be zero high frequency content at lower sample rates, since the ultra frequency content followed your sound down on the frequency spectrum as you lowered the pitch.

[plaamook]

Yeah I got that. Same here. I’m just saying if you record a bunch of low freq stuff at 192 and pitch it down 3 octaves you’ll see a big drop off where the thing you were recording wasn’t making any higher freq noise to begin with. Which is the case for a lot of stuff. Even if you excite the hell out of it you’ll just make a bunch of static and garbage. But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

When creating electronic drums, especially the percussive ones - then a lot can happen there, and no frequency boost is required at all.
But if you don't like that, you can try slowly pitching up the said drum sound, until you have the right transient or characteristics (many surprises can happen with this type of destructive pitch change), then render that, tune it back down, and you already have another use for that ultra frequency content. That's because your new, "damaged" sound won't get a Lo-Fi effect, where after a point there would be zero high frequency content at lower sample rates, since the ultra frequency content followed your sound down on the frequency spectrum as you lowered the pitch.

Hmm...
So pitch shift rather than resample?

[RobC]

When creating electronic drums, especially the percussive ones - then a lot can happen there, and no frequency boost is required at all.
But if you don't like that, you can try slowly pitching up the said drum sound, until you have the right transient or characteristics (many surprises can happen with this type of destructive pitch change), then render that, tune it back down, and you already have another use for that ultra frequency content. That's because your new, "damaged" sound won't get a Lo-Fi effect, where after a point there would be zero high frequency content at lower sample rates, since the ultra frequency content followed your sound down on the frequency spectrum as you lowered the pitch.

Hmm...
So pitch shift rather than resample?

Well, the use definitely isn't about the audiophile thing that many wrongly suspect. Playing with pitch is one of the more obvious uses.

[Loque]

I regular came back here to read about the new beta and all i can read here is about other stuff...

Any news about the beta which can be shared?

[guitfnky]

It's not exactly about recording for me, but creating sounds from scratch with synthesizers and various modulation types. Especially frequency modulation can create weird, useful things sometimes.

Yeah I got that. Same here. I’m just saying if you record a bunch of low freq stuff at 192 and pitch it down 3 octaves you’ll see a big drop off where the thing you were recording wasn’t making any higher freq noise to begin with. Which is the case for a lot of stuff. Even if you excite the hell out of it you’ll just make a bunch of static and garbage. But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

don’t most mics cap out at around 20k anyway? even if you can record at sample rates that high, if your mic is bottlenecking the frequencies that are captured (and they all do, afaik), you’re not going to get much, if anything that’s usable up that high, even if you pitch it back down.

[selig]

Well, the use definitely isn't about the audiophile thing that many wrongly suspect. Playing with pitch is one of the more obvious uses.

I don’t think he (or anyone else here) thought you were taking about audiophile stuff!

Playing with pitch is probably one of the only creative uses I can think of for high sample rates - what else do you use it for?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[reddust]

I regular came back here to read about the new beta and all i can read here is about other stuff...

Any news about the beta which can be shared?

Totally agree, seems like waiting for news causes a lot of offtopic. Is there anybody here that is testing the beta and can share some infos?

[squint]

Yeah I got that. Same here. I’m just saying if you record a bunch of low freq stuff at 192 and pitch it down 3 octaves you’ll see a big drop off where the thing you were recording wasn’t making any higher freq noise to begin with. Which is the case for a lot of stuff. Even if you excite the hell out of it you’ll just make a bunch of static and garbage. But if you’re recording bats? Dolphins? Yeah that’s totally worth it. Loads going on up there in the high freqs.

When creating electronic drums, especially the percussive ones - then a lot can happen there, and no frequency boost is required at all.
But if you don't like that, you can try slowly pitching up the said drum sound, until you have the right transient or characteristics (many surprises can happen with this type of destructive pitch change), then render that, tune it back down, and you already have another use for that ultra frequency content. That's because your new, "damaged" sound won't get a Lo-Fi effect, where after a point there would be zero high frequency content at lower sample rates, since the ultra frequency content followed your sound down on the frequency spectrum as you lowered the pitch.

I love pitched-down snares

Check out Unless You Crave Danger - Black Celebration... pitched down the snare a lot for that one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[selig]

I regular came back here to read about the new beta and all i can read here is about other stuff...

Any news about the beta which can be shared?

Totally agree, seems like waiting for news causes a lot of offtopic. Is there anybody here that is testing the beta and can share some infos?

That’s the thing - no one participating in the beta CAN share anything, so coming here for news about the actual testing from those testing is going to disappoint. This thread was an announcement that the beta is open.

This would not be the place for news anyway, if one want’s to literally stay on topic!

But I get your point - sample rate discussion is off topic… But if you want to get picky, so is asking for folks to break the NDA and share here.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[reddust]

Totally agree, seems like waiting for news causes a lot of offtopic. Is there anybody here that is testing the beta and can share some infos?

That’s the thing - no one participating in the beta CAN share anything, so coming here for news about the actual testing from those testing is going to disappoint. This thread was an announcement that the beta is open.

This would not be the place for news anyway, if one want’s to literally stay on topic!

But I get your point - sample rate discussion is off topic… But if you want to get picky, so is asking for folks to break the NDA and share here.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Understood, didn't know that there was a NDA for beta testers, I guess I'll have to wait for the official update to check if there are indeed some improvements on VST performance by myself. Can't wait for that day

[selig]

Understood, didn't know that there was a NDA for beta testers, I guess I'll have to wait for the official update to check if there are indeed some improvements on VST performance by myself. Can't wait for that day

No problem, and I would guess there is definitely SOME improvements with VST performance or they wouldn’t be testing for bugs. The question that remains is how MUCH improvement. And that will probably vary depending on the VST in question and the CPU being used.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[PhillipOrdonez]

I regular came back here to read about the new beta and all i can read here is about other stuff...

Any news about the beta which can be shared?

Totally agree, seems like waiting for news causes a lot of offtopic. Is there anybody here that is testing the beta and can share some infos?

What, I thought we were all in the beta? Join already!

[CloudsOfSound]

So how and why does it also improve the overall, non-VST performance? I remember this wasn't an assumption or even expected (although I'm super happy about it, because I disabled VSTs in Reason altogether).

This is explained in the blog post.
They had do rewrite large parts of the audio engine, which had positive effects for the regular playback and operations in Reason as well as the VST specific operations.
They probably did a much needed, rather substantial refactoring and optimization of the old code base, having the positive side-effect of enhancing general performance.

[CloudsOfSound]

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.

Now that's a shot in the air, filled with bullshit.
Keep your theories in your head from now on, please...

[selig]

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.

Now that's a shot in the air, filled with bullshit.

Your theory is no more valid than anyone else’s. Be civil, please.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk