Announcing Reason 11

[Ad0]

Yeah, they could have dropped the extra REs, and released the VST plugin and workflow improvements as a part of a 10.5 release.

Also I don't understand why it's so hard to support hosting VST plugins when it is a VST plugin itself. It's just code. A ton of other plugs do this already, like Plogue Bidule and so on. Fruity Loops is /was a VST plugin as well through a number of years.

So yeah it's cool that they have a VST plug, but a single MIDI channel, no MIDI output, no VST hosting in the VST makes this kinda limited. It will just be a glorified Combinator (without VST a part of the chain) at that point. So then it's way more limited than Reason itself. The interesting thing was to make VSTs a part of the FX chain etc.

[mashers]

Wow every step forward with this DAW is a fight. You can't express how helpful it would be to have a simple mix knob on the MClass compressor without getting into the weeds about ratios and whether you actually need it or not or talking about work-arounds.s any indication,

This times a million. I can't believe the way people make excuses for everything with "workarounds".

If everything needs a "workaround" then the features are not good enough, that's the whole fucking point.

I do not agree with this. Reason is not intended as a DAW with every feature there ready to use. It is intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software. If a feature doesn't exist, you can generally create it by wiring devices up. This is the whole point of Reason. If you want a DAW which has everything already provided, why not just use a DAW that has those features? If you want a DAW where part of the fun of the creative process is figuring out how to solve these "problems" using weird wiring schematics, then use Reason. There is space for both of these types of products in the market, and both are equally valid as tools for creativity.

As for "you can't ask if a feature exists without somebody giving you a workaround"... what are you expecting to happen in a forum? That people will just say "no you can't do it?" How is that remotely helpful other than confirming what the person asking the question already believes? Or "no, but I've got a hotline to Propellerhead and will instruct them to implement this feature at once"? Of course if somebody asks how to do something like wet/dry mix on compressors, the appropriate response would be "it doesn't have that function, but you can implement it as follows". The correct response to that is "thank you", not "BUT I WANT THE FEATURE!!!!!"

Look, I love the Reason concept, but some of you need to look outside of Reason and see how it compares to the current state of the art.

Why? What difference does it make to compare it to the "state of the art"? "State of the art" is just a nebulous term which positions one method as "better" than another. But we're not talking about methodology, we're talking about creative artistic expression. If you think Reason isn't up to the job you are trying to use it for, then more fool you for trying to use it in a manner in which it was not intended and then complaining about it afterwards.

I have a *FREE* vintage desk style EQ VST which blows the Reason SSL EQ away, with the same basic operation and clear sound but options for multiple different desk models, and a choice of saturation types on the EQ bands and the output. So easy to try out different types of vintage Mojo.

Great! So you can just use that VST directly in your Reason rack. What's the problem?

[musicman691]

Ok so My first time posting anything about Reason...My only complaint which i really have a problem with is if using reason 11 as a plugin...why would you take away the advance midi section to where i can assign each reason instrument to it's own channel instead of using multiple instances??? Just like Kontakt!!! I load an instrument and it automatically goes to midi channel 1 and so on..from there i can decide if i wanna stack multiple instruments on the same channel several times or use 16 individual channels assigned in my mpc software....P.S I'm 1 of those people with the old reason logo tattoo .

They took the advanced MIDI section away? Sucks if true.

[pjeudy]

Reason is not intended as a DAW with every feature there ready to use. It is intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software.

From the Propellerhead Blog:
Reason 11 is much more than Reason Rack Plugin though. It comes packed with five new devices as well as top requested workflow features for the DAW. From small improvements that make a huge difference, like quickly drawing multiple notes at the current snap value, to crucial editing features like curved automation and crossfades.

Reason didn't start out as a DAW. But it's clearly been a DAW for years now.

If a feature doesn't exist, you can generally create it by wiring devices up

You are conflating features and wiring !?. You can not create your own features in REASON. Workaround ? Yes!...But some of those workaround can be cumbersome and inconvenient and slow. You can Wire devices to create new signal path but it's not what people asking for features mean when they ask for features. Think of features as the best possible, fastest way of a workaround. And also a way to help you be even more creative depending on the feature.

This is the whole point of Reason.
fool you for trying to use it in a manner in which it was not intended and then complaining about it afterwards.

Question, your interpretation of what Reason is intended for is it your opinion or is it's mostly Universal?

If you want a DAW which has everything already provided, why not just use a DAW that has those features?

This is an interesting mind set. Do you think that liking a software means not criticizing it or asking for features? So do you think you like Reason more then others because you don't ask for request as often as others?
If not others to ask for features and updates who will ask? Should we simply except any features delivered at the pace of a decade and say nothing to the developer?

Sure some complaints can get overwhelming and not all feature will be implemented, but people asking can help a developer get a sense of what some people want as appose to those who stay silent but see the lack of features but instead think that the lack of feature is actually the best feature and that spending hours trying to trouble shoot and creating a half baked solution is the best part of making sounds/music.

I have my fair share of hours spent on combinators with a dozen or so devices and CV tools in them. I love doing that stuff.... but when it comes down to working on the rest of the session that when those limitation can rear there ugly heads , hence the need for feature request.

[Goriila Texas]

You seem very young and naive with your approach at people and understanding of how forums work. People come to forums to communicate with other Reason music makers,tips n tricks, general discussion about gear and from time to time vent their frustrations at some developers. People have a right to vent when they're 100's to 1000's of dollars invested in Reason and Re (that they cannot sell). You and other forum members asking people why don't they just use another DAW with those features is just silly period! People believed in this company and spent their hard earned money on the Reason platform hoping things would get better,but now are too heavily invested to just walk away. Another thing that makes me think you're young is saying Reason isn't a DAW . Where have you been? It's been marketed as such since they got rid of Record. Some users might've came on when Reason got midi out and vst's. Why wouldn't they think Reason would keep growing?

I can tell with the compressor convo you haven't been doing this very long and I let it go because I didn't want to kill the vibe of the thread. The hardest thing for a young person to do is listen,hell I use to bump heads with Selig on this forum thinking I knew everything but as time grew I realized he's been dropping gems for years.

This times a million. I can't believe the way people make excuses for everything with "workarounds".

If everything needs a "workaround" then the features are not good enough, that's the whole fucking point.

I do not agree with this. Reason is not intended as a DAW with every feature there ready to use. It is intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software. If a feature doesn't exist, you can generally create it by wiring devices up. This is the whole point of Reason. If you want a DAW which has everything already provided, why not just use a DAW that has those features? If you want a DAW where part of the fun of the creative process is figuring out how to solve these "problems" using weird wiring schematics, then use Reason. There is space for both of these types of products in the market, and both are equally valid as tools for creativity.

As for "you can't ask if a feature exists without somebody giving you a workaround"... what are you expecting to happen in a forum? That people will just say "no you can't do it?" How is that remotely helpful other than confirming what the person asking the question already believes? Or "no, but I've got a hotline to Propellerhead and will instruct them to implement this feature at once"? Of course if somebody asks how to do something like wet/dry mix on compressors, the appropriate response would be "it doesn't have that function, but you can implement it as follows". The correct response to that is "thank you", not "BUT I WANT THE FEATURE!!!!!"

Look, I love the Reason concept, but some of you need to look outside of Reason and see how it compares to the current state of the art.

Why? What difference does it make to compare it to the "state of the art"? "State of the art" is just a nebulous term which positions one method as "better" than another. But we're not talking about methodology, we're talking about creative artistic expression. If you think Reason isn't up to the job you are trying to use it for, then more fool you for trying to use it in a manner in which it was not intended and then complaining about it afterwards.

I have a *FREE* vintage desk style EQ VST which blows the Reason SSL EQ away, with the same basic operation and clear sound but options for multiple different desk models, and a choice of saturation types on the EQ bands and the output. So easy to try out different types of vintage Mojo.

Great! So you can just use that VST directly in your Reason rack. What's the problem?

[Goriila Texas]

You beat me to it

Reason is not intended as a DAW with every feature there ready to use. It is intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software.

From the Propellerhead Blog:
Reason 11 is much more than Reason Rack Plugin though. It comes packed with five new devices as well as top requested workflow features for the DAW. From small improvements that make a huge difference, like quickly drawing multiple notes at the current snap value, to crucial editing features like curved automation and crossfades.

Reason didn't start out as a DAW. But it's clearly been a DAW for years now.

If a feature doesn't exist, you can generally create it by wiring devices up

You are conflating features and wiring !?. You can not create your own features in REASON. Workaround ? Yes!...But some of those workaround can be cumbersome and inconvenient and slow. You can Wire devices to create new signal path but it's not what people asking for features mean when they ask for features. Think of features as the best possible, fastest way of a workaround. And also a way to help you be even more creative depending on the feature.

This is the whole point of Reason.
fool you for trying to use it in a manner in which it was not intended and then complaining about it afterwards.

Question, your interpretation of what Reason is intended for is it your opinion or is it's mostly Universal?

If you want a DAW which has everything already provided, why not just use a DAW that has those features?

This is an interesting mind set. Do you think that liking a software means not criticizing it or asking for features? So do you think you like Reason more then others because you don't ask for request as often as others?
If not others to ask for features and updates who will ask? Should we simply except any features delivered at the pace of a decade and say nothing to the developer?

Sure some complaints can get overwhelming and not all feature will be implemented, but people asking can help a developer get a sense of what some people want as appose to those who stay silent but see the lack of features but instead think that the lack of feature is actually the best feature and that spending hours trying to trouble shoot and creating a half baked solution is the best part of making sounds/music.

I have my fair share of hours spent on combinators with a dozen or so devices and CV tools in them. I love doing that stuff.... but when it comes down to working on the rest of the session that when those limitation can rear there ugly heads , hence the need for feature request.

[mashers]

Reason didn't start out as a DAW. But it's clearly been a DAW for years now.

I didn't say it's not a DAW. I said it's "not intended as a DAW with every feature there ready to use. It is intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software".

You are conflating features and wiring !?. You can not create your own features in REASON. Workaround ? Yes!...

If it's functionally the same, I don't see the difference apart from the effort required to do the wiring. Which is part of the creative process when using Reason.

Think of features as the best possible, fastest way of a workaround. And also a way to help you be even more creative depending on the feature.

And apparently, a way to turn the software into something that it isn't.

Question, your interpretation of what Reason is intended for is it your opinion or is it's mostly Universal?

It's based on observation of the feature set of the software. In the same way observation of the features of Excel shows that it is a spreadsheet.

If you want a DAW which has everything already provided, why not just use a DAW that has those features?

This is an interesting mind set. Do you think that liking a software means not criticizing it or asking for features?

Of course not. But criticising members for offering a workaround to a non-existent feature is irrational.

You seem very young and naive with your approach at people and understanding of how forums work.

You're welcome to believe that if you want. I'm not particularly interested though, and I certainly do not require your explanation of how a forum works.

Another thing that makes me think you're young is saying Reason isn't a DAW

Re-read my post and you will see that that is not what I actually said.

I can tell with the compressor convo you haven't been doing this very long

Again you can believe whatever you want. I don't require the validation of a stranger on a forum and am certainly not going to be drawn into the quicksand of justifying to you how and why I hold the beliefs that I do and communicate them how I do. You seem to think that while you have the "right" to share your views of Reason on this forum, I don't have the "right" to share my views of those views. That's not a conversation I'm interested in having under any circumstances as playing games about who is allowed to say what isn't my idea of fun.

[Goriila Texas]

Just stop bro!! The more you talk the more I smh Now I'm wondering if you even know what a DAW is?

Reason didn't start out as a DAW. But it's clearly been a DAW for years now.

I didn't say it's not a DAW. I said it's "not intended as a DAW with every feature there ready to use. It is intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software".

[guitfnky]

a whole bunch of words

at this point, the idea that "it's not intended as a DAW" is flat false. "intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software" is just a semantic game to justify missing features that should be there.

the thing is, wiring a workaround isn't functionally the same as having a feature built in; the end result may be the same, but they're functionally very different. and I have to note that you're limiting your response to rack features only...which conveniently ignores all of the shortcomings of the sequencer.

And apparently, a way to turn the software into something that it isn't.

wow...this is just about the most short-sighted comment I've ever read in these forums. every new feature turns software into something that it wasn't before--it's the very definition of a new feature. maybe you'd suggest we all go back to Reason 1, for the purest experience?

Of course not. But criticising members for offering a workaround to a non-existent feature is irrational.

it isn't. someone asking for a feature isn't the same thing as someone asking whether something can be done. if I post a feature request, I'm looking for discussion about the feature request, not asking for advice. why would you automatically assume that someone isn't already aware of a workaround, if they're posting a feature request?

[mashers]

a whole bunch of words

at this point, the idea that "it's not intended as a DAW" is flat false.

I didn’t say it’s not intended as a DAW. Consider my clause “a DAW with every feature there ready to use” as a single noun phrase.

"intended as a replication of hardware device with the convenience of software" is just a semantic game to justify missing features that should be there.

This seems more a grammatical issue in terms of interpreting the grouping of words into noun phrases. Reason is obviously not intended as the same kind of DAW as others. It’s a different paradigm entirely.

the thing is, wiring a workaround isn't functionally the same as having a feature built in; the end result may be the same, but they're functionally very different.

Hence “different paradigm”

and I have to note that you're limiting your response to rack features only...which conveniently ignores all of the shortcomings of the sequencer.

Not “conveniently” at all. It’s just because that was the context of the feature request in question. Personally I don’t mind Reason’s sequencer but there is a lot that could be improved of course.

And apparently, a way to turn the software into something that it isn't.

wow...this is just about the most short-sighted comment I've ever read in these forums. every new feature turns software into something that it wasn't before--it's the very definition of a new feature. maybe you'd suggest we all go back to Reason 1, for the purest experience?

If you want to believe that’s what I meant then that’s up to you. But to clarify, I meant that implementing features and rejecting any workaround already present in the rack paradigm would be a great way to bloat the software needlessly. Just look at what has become of Sibelius for a horrible example of that. I had to use it when I did my A-Level in the late 90s and it was ok back then, but seeing its bloated feature set today makes me grateful for Reason’s simple flexibility.

it isn't. someone asking for a feature isn't the same thing as someone asking whether something can be done.

Ok, well ignoring suggestions for workarounds is your choice, personally I would prefer to find a solution with what I’ve already got rather than just wait and hope it’s implemented somehow.

if I post a feature request, I'm looking for discussion about the feature request, not asking for advice. why would you automatically assume that someone isn't already aware of a workaround, if they're posting a feature request?

Why would I assume that they are? If someone requests a feature and I can think of a way for them to accomplish the same thing in the current version, then I will suggest it. They don’t have to do what has been suggested, and making a suggestion for a workaround does not undermine the request for the feature at all.

[DougalDarkly]

Deleted

[chaosroyale]

Mashers, are you in charge of marketing for R11?

"Reason; it doesn't have every feature ready to use!"

"Reason; not supposed to be cutting edge!"

"Reason; use something else instead!"

Pretty catchy...

Luckily, I don't believe Reason Studios designed Reason as a lesser-featured DAW on purpose, because that would be fucking stupid in the highly competitive DAW market. I just hope they can get up to speed in future, because Reason has a very inspiring "feel" which deserves some better features.

[guitfnky]

1: I didn’t say it’s not intended as a DAW. Consider my clause “a DAW with every feature there ready to use” as a single noun phrase.

2: This seems more a grammatical issue in terms of interpreting the grouping of words into noun phrases. Reason is obviously not intended as the same kind of DAW as others. It’s a different paradigm entirely.

3: Hence “different paradigm”

4: If you want to believe that’s what I meant then that’s up to you. But to clarify, I meant that implementing features and rejecting any workaround already present in the rack paradigm would be a great way to bloat the software needlessly. Just look at what has become of Sibelius for a horrible example of that. I had to use it when I did my A-Level in the late 90s and it was ok back then, but seeing its bloated feature set today makes me grateful for Reason’s simple flexibility.

5: Ok, well ignoring suggestions for workarounds is your choice, personally I would prefer to find a solution with what I’ve already got rather than just wait and hope it’s implemented somehow.

6: Why would I assume that they are? If someone requests a feature and I can think of a way for them to accomplish the same thing in the current version, then I will suggest it. They don’t have to do what has been suggested, and making a suggestion for a workaround does not undermine the request for the feature at all.

re: 1 - you conveniently ignored the rest of the paragraph.

re: 2 and 3 - you're purposefully, conveniently missing the point.

re: 4 - ah, the old 'slippery slope' fallacy...a true classic!

re: 5 - again, if someone needs a solution, they'll ask for one. if someone wants to request a feature, they'll request a feature. they're different things.

re: 6 - because you're also assuming the OP of such a request doesn't know what they're doing. of course ignoring a feature request by offering an un-requested solution doesn't undermine the feature request--it just shows that you think fairly little of the OP--it's not respectful.

[miscend]

From reading discussions over at both GS and the Avid forums about the new announcement. It seems many Pro Tools users are still using Reason as a rewire slave. So not having an AAX version of the Reason Rack seems like a missed opportunity to make serious money. Pro Tools has a large market share over in the US.

[mashers]

Mashers, are you in charge of marketing for R11?

"Reason; it doesn't have every feature ready to use!"

"Reason; not supposed to be cutting edge!"

"Reason; use something else instead!"

Pretty catchy...

It's pretty obvious that I'm not so I'm going to interpret your comment as an attempt to imply that I am stating the things you have said. If you'd like to correct me on that, go ahead. We're not talking about a DAW which is just like others and could therefore be reasonably expected to have similar features. Reason is a completely different beast. So actually, if I did work for Reason's marketing and was receiving requests for features which belong in other DAWs but not in Reason, then my response would absolutely be "those features do not fit with Reason's paradigm, so if you want them you will have to use another DAW for that". The fact that R11 will be available as a VST is a pretty clear indication that this is the intention anyway.

Luckily, I don't believe Reason Studios designed Reason as a lesser-featured DAW

Who said anything about "lesser-featured"? It's got different features, but who is saying that makes it lesser? I certainly don't think that's true and absolutely did not say it at any point.

[guitfnky]

You and other forum members asking people why don't they just use another DAW with those features is just silly period!

I don't agree - I think it's stupid (not silly, stupid) to pretend like other DAWs don't exist when 'asking' for features that already exist in those DAWs, especially without expecting someone to ask why you're not using the DAW that has the feature you're so desperate for.

What you seem to be saying is that if you use and like Reason for what it is, you're naive for not realising that you even need 'x' feature.

That fact is that Ableton, Logic, Cubase, Bitwig, Studio One etc etc (I've learned a few new ones in this thread) DO EXIST and if you want those features you CAN BUY THEM. This is the incredibly simple fact that I, and others like me, are stuggling to understand, no?

People believed in this company and spent their hard earned money on the Reason platform HOPING THINGS WOULD GET BETTER, but now are too heavily invested to just walk away.

Sounds to me like these people are the naive (or at the least, desperately optimistic) ones - NOBODY told you you would get the features you wanted - people on this forum, whether happy with Reason or not, have told you repeatedly that you won't get that feature FOR YEARS.

has anyone suggested other DAWs don't exist? I thought the essential premise was that many other DAWs do exist, and nearly all of them have a core set of features that are considered 'best-practice' features--and that many of those features don't yet exist in Reason.

why aren't people using x DAW with those features? why don't they just switch? because shortcomings aside, Reason has a workflow we vastly prefer. and most of those other DAWs cost money (as you've acknowledged with the statement that you "CAN BUY THEM"). to speak your language, NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER $100-$800 FOR ANOTHER DAW, JUST TO USE A WORKFLOW THEY DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN REASON.

[mashers]

re: 1 - you conveniently ignored the rest of the paragraph.

Except I didn't, did I. I responded to each point in the first paragraph I was quoting in separate parts. I didn't omit anything at all from your first paragraph. I don't know why you would assert that I did when it is plainly obvious that I didn't.

re: 2 and 3 - you're purposefully, conveniently missing the point.

Nice try attributing intentions to me by stating that I have missed a point purposefully. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean you get to state what my intentions were when I gave the answer.

re: 4 - ah, the old 'slippery slope' fallacy...a true classic!

Feature-creep is a well documented phenomenon, particularly in software development. I don't know why you would think this is not a concern to software developers. All software developers have to balance feature requests from current and potential customers with their own vision for their software and the current feature set. This is obvious to anybody who is a software developer.

re: 5 - again, if someone needs a solution, they'll ask for one. if someone wants to request a feature, they'll request a feature. they're different things.

Did you consider that some people might actually be grateful to be offered a workaround? Of course they can still hope for the feature to be implemented, but in the mean time a workaround might be helpful. If it isn't, that's fine.

re: 6 - because you're also assuming the OP of such a request doesn't know what they're doing.

Again, nice try asserting my intentions. I assume nothing about the knowledge of the poster. If they already know and have chosen not to use a workaround, that's up to them. It is precisely because I don't know what they already know that I make the suggestion.

of course ignoring a feature request by offering an un-requested solution doesn't undermine the feature request--it just shows that you think fairly little of the OP--it's not respectful.

Of course, failing to provide a potential workaround and allowing somebody to just wait for their requested feature to maybe be implemented when you know of a way for them to achieve the same outcome right now just shows that you think fairly little of the OP—it's not respectful.

See, I can play the same "of course" games you can. At the end of the day, if you don't like the fact that somebody has made a suggestion then you can just ignore it, or add that person to your ignore list or whatever you have to do to make sure you don't accidentally see information you don't want to see on the internet.

[DougalDarkly]

Deleted

[Heigen5]

Thank God I don't know too much about the other DAWs. Otherwise I might also get grey hair by suggesting this that and other about the other DAWs features they have. But a vice versa is also true, all the other DAWs are not doing stuff like Reason.

[Goriila Texas]

You and other forum members asking people why don't they just use another DAW with those features is just silly period!

I don't agree - I think it's stupid (not silly, stupid) to pretend like other DAWs don't exist when 'asking' for features that already exist in those DAWs, especially without expecting someone to ask why you're not using the DAW that has the feature you're so desperate for.

I think you would have to be a damn fool to ask someone who's spent their money investing in a DAW just to use something else. We wouldn't have vst's in Reason without people asking for it. The people who say use another DAW are just ignorant to the fact they're not qualified to say it period! You don't own the company so you don't take a lost when a customer jumps ship. Only Reason Studios can say use another DAW. People come here to vent some times with valid complaint that can't be disputed by fans so they pull the "use another DAW" card. In my experience most people who speak the loudest against adding features are the least skilled. I seen it happened with vst integration. Fans didn't want it but praised it once we got it.

What you seem to be saying is that if you use and like Reason for what it is, you're naive for not realising that you even need 'x' feature.

That's exactly what I'm saying most cases see above about vst integration.

That fact is that Ableton, Logic, Cubase, Bitwig, Studio One etc etc (I've learned a few new ones in this thread) DO EXIST and if you want those features you CAN BUY THEM. This is the incredibly simple fact that I, and others like me, are stuggling to understand, no?

Users might like the workflow of Reason and just want some changes done. Why would they move on and lose all time and money invested? PH said hell would freeze over before they implement vst's but we got them now because we voiced our wants. It's stupid to users see all the new toys in other DAWs and not want the same lol.

People believed in this company and spent their hard earned money on the Reason platform HOPING THINGS WOULD GET BETTER, but now are too heavily invested to just walk away.

Sounds to me like these people are the naive (or at the least, desperately optimistic) ones - NOBODY told you you would get the features you wanted - people on this forum, whether happy with Reason or not, have told you repeatedly that you won't get that feature FOR YEARS.

[/b]

Again,your comments makes no sense because we got vst support after many people like You said it wouldn't happen. So we will continue our fight for a better Reason DAW and how about you just ignore those threads? Nobody cares if you feel like someone should move on to another DAW when asking for features. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand and the mods really need to crack down on it. The threads that praise Reason with all it's faults I avoid. I don't go there just to pick fights with users who I don't agree with. But users like you feel entitled to come in threads and tell people to move the fck on to another DAW for some reason.

[guitfnky]

features which belong in other DAWs but not in Reason, then my response would absolutely be "those features do not fit with Reason's paradigm

please explain how each of these features wouldn't fit with Reason's paradigm:
- 4k support
- auto punch in/out
- MIDI VST support
- track folders
- markers
- track freeze
- improved video refresh rate
- improved rack cable management (scroll speed when dragging cables; better hide/visibility options)
- improve Regroove implementation
- MIDI key press to initiate recording
- improve browser search+organization tools
- probability, aftertouch and pitch bend per note
- mixer snapshots
- clip launcher
- lyrics/session notepad
- MP3 export
- ghost tracks (see outline of another track superimposed on current track to identify/correct timing, etc.)
- additional color options
- option for linked MIDI clip editing (changes to parent clip propagage to child clips that were copied from it)
- have a short buffer always recording on armed tracks so when I start recording, if my first note is slightly ahead of the beat, I can still keep it by dragging the clip resize slightly left (as opposed to having to re-record, or always doing a manual pre-roll)
- note cleanup settings in the F8 tools, to easily remove duplicate notes, etc.
- allow for proper overwriteable MIDI loop recording, so if I set my loop markers and keep recording, each new loop overwrites the existing info, instead of stacking it
- improved spectrum analyzer

and you can't justify why they don't fit by referencing another DAW...aaaaaand, GO!

Who said anything about "lesser-featured"? It's got different features, but who is saying that makes it lesser?

most everyone who isn't happy with Reason 11 is saying that.

[Goriila Texas]

I don't agree - I think it's stupid (not silly, stupid) to pretend like other DAWs don't exist when 'asking' for features that already exist in those DAWs, especially without expecting someone to ask why you're not using the DAW that has the feature you're so desperate for.

What you seem to be saying is that if you use and like Reason for what it is, you're naive for not realising that you even need 'x' feature.

That fact is that Ableton, Logic, Cubase, Bitwig, Studio One etc etc (I've learned a few new ones in this thread) DO EXIST and if you want those features you CAN BUY THEM. This is the incredibly simple fact that I, and others like me, are stuggling to understand, no?



Sounds to me like these people are the naive (or at the least, desperately optimistic) ones - NOBODY told you you would get the features you wanted - people on this forum, whether happy with Reason or not, have told you repeatedly that you won't get that feature FOR YEARS.

has anyone suggested other DAWs don't exist? I thought the essential premise was that many other DAWs do exist, and nearly all of them have a core set of features that are considered 'best-practice' features--and that many of those features don't yet exist in Reason.

why aren't people using x DAW with those features? why don't they just switch? because shortcomings aside, Reason has a workflow we vastly prefer. and most of those other DAWs cost money (as you've acknowledged with the statement that you "CAN BUY THEM"). to speak your language, NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER $100-$800 FOR ANOTHER DAW, JUST TO USE A WORKFLOW THEY DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN REASON.

Agreed %100 it's the same type people who didn't want vst's in Reason or any sequencer improvements now they're all hype up!

[DougalDarkly]

Deleted

[mashers]

Just so we're clear, it's ok for you to "conveniently ignore" parts of my post, but when you (incorrectly) believe that this is what I have done, you use it as the basis for a rebuttal to the point I made. I don't actually care, just wanting to make sure I've understood correctly.

please explain how each of these features wouldn't fit with Reason's paradigm:

...

and you can't justify why they don't fit by referencing another DAW...aaaaaand, GO!

I don't necessarily think that any of those features are contrary to Reason's paradigm. But they're also not the kind of features to which people would suggest a workaround. There is no workaround to any of those suggested features, so obviously you're not going to get one. And a lot of them are great suggestions for sure. But a wet/dry knob on a compressor is just so easy to work around that if somebody asks why there isn't one and requests that one is added, the obvious response is "there isn't one, but you could use a VST compressor with one, or rig one up in a Combinator". The distinction being that one type of "missing" feature can be worked around, and the other can't. This dichotomy is the reason why you might receive workaround suggestions for one particular request but not another.

most everyone who isn't happy with Reason 11 is saying that.

Well then take that up with them. I'm not interested in arguing about whether Reason 11 is lesser-featured, I didn't assert whether it was or was not, and it isn't relevant to the points I was making. Raising another person's complaint about Reason, which I may or may not agree with, in response to a point I have made, is not a particularly helpful way of conducting a discussion.

[Goriila Texas]

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER $100-$800 FOR ANOTHER DAW, JUST TO USE A WORKFLOW THEY DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN REASON.

Yeah - if you don't understand why this is a weird and confusing statement, there's not really much point in continuing to discuss it is there?

Maybe I've misunderstood completely - maybe you're right now typing the same thing on other DAW's forums asking for the workflow you like from Reason to be included in their 'industry standard' DAW?

Most people are asking for common sense and modern improvements to an outdated DAW. It's more of a catch up with the times rather than we want Reason like every other DAW.