WHY are you thinking of changing DAW? (if you are)

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
zebbleganubi
Posts: 8
Joined: 15 Oct 2017

Post 06 Sep 2019

i just bought a sensel morph mpe controller a few days ago and got a nice surprise email after with a licence for bitwig 8 track. i wasnt even aware it came free with it. ive had been trying out bitwig's demo for the last week and theres a lot of really great things going on but not being able to save files is just completely daft, it should be the other way round... allow projects to be saved but not loaded again until you pay up. well anyway now i dont have to worry about that now. i can noodle around with bitwig for the next while without having to make a huge investment

ive been looking at reaper too and being able to fold up tracks is the bees knees. you can have tracks coloured automatically by their name (so *guitar would match lead guitar or rhythm guitar) and you can also add a custom icon to the track to make it easier to see what the track is at a glance.

ive never really looked much further than reason because i just wanted to stick with 1 daw instead of switching the whole time, but im starting to realise how much im missing out now

PeterP
Posts: 66
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post 06 Sep 2019

Yonatan wrote:
06 Sep 2019
You mean it is per se a better summing or would it be replicatable if using same saturation plug on all channels in Reason?
It shouldn't affect summing per se, it's more like if you put the Harrison 32C channel strip on every mix channel in Reason and used that instead of the built in SSL 9000K emulation.

They have released it as a standalone plugin that you could use inside Reason if you have a UAD interface. It's not cheap though.

https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/equa ... n-32c.html

Edit: Apparently that's only an EQ, it's not including the dynamics..

User avatar
moneykube
Posts: 1919
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 06 Sep 2019

I want my daw of choice to work as promised... nothing more... nothing less... do not promise things you refuse or can not deliver ... I have seen the prop page do this many times... and... it has alwats been a lie. Perhaps lying is accepted in their country... for me... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I have spent 1000's trying to keep the liers going so they can deliver what they promise for once... and for all fan boys... liers... is Not and overstatement at all... I suggest research to verify what I say is true... can not even have a forum to help when they can't be bothered
Last edited by moneykube on 06 Sep 2019, edited 1 time in total.

Yonatan
Posts: 766
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 06 Sep 2019

PeterP wrote:
06 Sep 2019
Yonatan wrote:
06 Sep 2019
You mean it is per se a better summing or would it be replicatable if using same saturation plug on all channels in Reason?
It shouldn't affect summing per se, it's more like if you put the Harrison 32C channel strip on every mix channel in Reason and used that instead of the built in SSL 9000K emulation.

They have released it as a standalone plugin that you could use inside Reason if you have a UAD interface. It's not cheap though.

https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/equa ... n-32c.html

Edit: Apparently that's only an EQ, it's not including the dynamics..
Thanks for clarifying. Havnt got UAD yet.
Would be nice to try that plugin some day.
Reason for all Seasons

dezma
Posts: 95
Joined: 02 Jun 2015

Post 06 Sep 2019

Jagwah wrote:
06 Sep 2019
By the way I totally agree with your sentiment about 'All they did was creating more devices I don't need.' Maximising profit f*cking destroys everything!!!!!!!!!
Hi Jagwah,

They are a profit organisation so if I'm honest they shouldn't be blamed for maximize profit :), nothing wrong with that. I don't think however the current direction is going to do such a thing, at least not in the long run.

Imho they should have kept middle ground between the sequencing and rack part (and now also the mobile/rack VST stuff). The Rack VST doesn't even seem properly done. They now have a bunch of brilliant players and they decide to.. have it released without midi? What a joke.. Props: hey our rack vst is not finished, what are we going to do? CEO: release it anyway otherwise we'll get 50 pages of moaning about the lack of features in the R11 announcement :D

What did we get last couple of years? First we get VST support, so performance issues aside, a lot of us are thinking Reason could FINALLY be the only DAW they need - I was one of them. Freed from the the rewire burden at last. While everybody is hoping on vst midi out, amongst other sequencer improvements: the following updates contain loads of new devices, mobile app and now Rack VST. Each of them taking a big chunk of their very limited resources both for the last few years and for many years to come. The release changelog tells something about the strategy behind the company. I think it would be interesting to see a pie chart showing the for Props' development hours %share for rack devices/mixer/sequencer/mobile of the last 2 years. Might need a magnifier tool to see sequencer part.

I'm done waiting.. Given the R11 "list" of improvements, at this rate I'll be in a retirement home (I'm 35) when Reason finally is on par with the 2019 DAW's. I might be senile enough by then to stop giving a f*ck though :puf_bigsmile:

2003's Emagic Logic 5.5 for PC had curved automation 16 years ago.. just saying..

Popey
Posts: 94
Joined: 04 Jul 2018

Post 06 Sep 2019

I have been trialling s1 for a fair few days now and will be buying it and reason 11. I am not on the beta yet but will get reason vst so I have expanse etc to use and the fx like synchronous (assuming they work fine as vst). I had no issues with reason and wasnt necessarily looking for sequencer improvements etc but since trying alternatives it sure opens your eyes to what is available from competitors. If I knew this before I probably too would have been requesting track folders etc. I only looked at other daw's due to the 11 announcement and what this could mean for the reason daw moving forward but Mattias has clarified that now (however at that point s1 was downloaded and eyes were widening). Not sure if reason considered this at time but can see others may have done the same as me and trialled alternatives. That said I fully expect them to shift a fair few reason 11 copies as some other daw users will want to try reasons synths etc and people who switch daw will likely want to take their re's with them. Personally I have a lot of affection for reason and hope they do well with this idea, perhaps i will buy re's in the future but only time will tell.

ColdBeast254
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Jul 2019

Post 09 Sep 2019

😏I was thinking of changing only because I hear that I'm missing out on so much with other DAW's. I'm actually excited about upgrading to the suite version! I think Reason Studio's suite users should get midi out and everyone else should have it disabled. Been looking at Reaper and studio one is looking sexy or maybe fruity loops. I hate looking at Ableton and just don't like it. I get that the company is trying to increase market share. Did some quick searches and was surprised to learn of Reason's market share. I thought it was far more than it actually is. Now I have the ability to explore other DAW's with my familiar devices. They will really have to come with it on version 12! But they usually always find something. I wouldn't upgrade if the suite version wasn't available and; I feel like they are throwing a bone to loyal/dedicated users with that upgrade.

Popey
Posts: 94
Joined: 04 Jul 2018

Post 10 Sep 2019

ColdBeast254 wrote:
09 Sep 2019
😏I was thinking of changing only because I hear that I'm missing out on so much with other DAW's. I'm actually excited about upgrading to the suite version! I think Reason Studio's suite users should get midi out and everyone else should have it disabled. Been looking at Reaper and studio one is looking sexy or maybe fruity loops. I hate looking at Ableton and just don't like it. I get that the company is trying to increase market share. Did some quick searches and was surprised to learn of Reason's market share. I thought it was far more than it actually is. Now I have the ability to explore other DAW's with my familiar devices. They will really have to come with it on version 12! But they usually always find something. I wouldn't upgrade if the suite version wasn't available and; I feel like they are throwing a bone to loyal/dedicated users with that upgrade.
I think the suite is a great deal if you don't have many rack extensions or are upgrading an older version of reason to use in your current daw and want more devices you don't currently own. I don't think locking midi out to everyone but suite 11 owners would be a good idea as those that purchased a lot of the suite rack extensions already would be disadvantaged unfairly. This I think would also affect sales as I believe many old reason users will return and buy 11 to access their re's as cheaply as possible (some will buy the suite of course). This announcement appears to me about enticing old and new people to try reason to use in their favourite daw and If it is suite only for midi out this could potentially impact sales dramatically in my opinion. All the above is based on if they do implement midi out but I personally this is likely as requests will now come from both reason daw users and those using the reason rack.

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 1027
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

Post 10 Sep 2019

MrFigg wrote:
28 Aug 2019
I’m wondering why there’s so much talk just now of switching DAW.
Yeah, I don't understand the switching DAWs mentality either. I spent much time learning the program - why would I want to give all that up?
Mind you, around Reason 8, I finally decided to buy Logic as I wasn't sure where Propellerhead was heading anymore, but never once did I think that I was going to just replace DAWs. Logic was something that I would use for its different tools and perspective. but I always knew that I would still use Reason. I'll use it until the end, I'm sure.

User avatar
kuhliloach
Posts: 625
Joined: 09 Dec 2015

Post 10 Sep 2019

As the tech keeps improving I'm finding it unnecessary and perhaps outright foolish to "choose" a single DAW. The tools are becoming too interesting to hide behind any walls. So my "DAW" is becoming an umbrella covering several interesting, and upcoming tools. The current array is Reason, Logic/Garageband, VCV Rack, Ableton Lite, Gadget iOS, Cubasis iOS, and a heaping pile of various amazing instruments on both desktop and mobile. On the horizon is Ableton Live Suite, Komplete, Maschine, and keeping Reason fully updated.

dezma
Posts: 95
Joined: 02 Jun 2015

Post 11 Sep 2019

stratatonic wrote:
10 Sep 2019
MrFigg wrote:
28 Aug 2019
I’m wondering why there’s so much talk just now of switching DAW.
Yeah, I don't understand the switching DAWs mentality either. I spent much time learning the program - why would I want to give all that up?
Because other DAW's evolve at a much faster speed while reason struggles to catch up on the basics. The fact they make a big fuzz of the curved automation while it should be there 10 years ago is a good example. Will it prevent you from making music? Off course not. Just like a 30 year old car will "probably" not prevent you to go from A to B. Most will prefer the modern car with sat nav and airco though. If I'm proven wrong in a few years I will happily return to reason as my main DAW, if they don't get their act together on the sequencer part, at least I don't have to start learning from scratch.

S1GNL
Posts: 81
Joined: 31 Jan 2018

Post 11 Sep 2019

The routing. No unlimited and flexible Send/FX channels (without PDC issues). Yes, yes, it’s like the real console!! Who seriously gives a sh.. about that nowadays??

VCA/Group faders! Yes, yes, you can select multiple channels... each time?!?

User avatar
Raveshaper
Posts: 1057
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 11 Sep 2019

I've already shouted enough but here's one last "why" response.

Other software allows you to enter exact values for parameters. Seems like a simple difference at first. Horses for courses some have said, and maybe so. But what that means is, internally, the other software has the capacity to calculate based on custom, fine grained values on the fly. If you can enter specific values, it's because that's true behind the scenes. I've got bad news for you. Reason doesn't have this feature because it only has fixed discreet values contained in arrays. There's no allowance for values outside of the ones you can select. It's stable for what it is. But... those other packages can do all of that calculation of exact values efficiently plus have all those added "bell and whistle" features too? Wow. Suddenly, huge difference.

That's one seemingly small thing, but it turns out to be a spotlight on how the software was designed and how the programming principles are lacking, not necessarily the software itself.

For example, those new automation curves. Can you see a vertical line of intersection aligned to your mouse pointer with a display of the curve's amplitude at that exact location? And does that amplitude show in the correct format of Hz or dB? I haven't seen that, and there are no points to use as a way to guess. What are users supposed to do? Curves indicate the need for precision, but instead the feature simply manages to exist at all.

Speaking of curves and fixed number of values in arrays, there's this huge elephant in the room about sequencer tracks. Everybody wants folders and collapsibility. It's an admirable desire and I agree it should be there. But in the case of automation lanes, every lane uses a discreet value based on the format displayed in the user interface, meaning every value for automation is computed in reverse from the displayed value and added to an internal array where it is then iterated, adding to the load on the CPU. What should be happening is that every automation lane is nothing more than a floating point value on the unit interval (between 0 and 1), where it is then efficiently multiplied by the range of value for the thing it automates to display in the sequencer. Instead, a lot of computationally expensive stuff involving slow arithmetic operators like division and/or modulo is going on. This is why you can't drag automation clips freely between any automation lanes you want. So, again, just like the limited number of values for knobs and stuff, every lane is treated as its own discreet entity, like a child class, that only contains a pointer back to the device it belongs to. That said, it should be easy to make track folders and collapsibility. Since it isn't here yet, it's because the entire internal structure of the sequencer was rolled out as re-skinned inefficiency under the hood. Because of competing projects or other situations, it hasn't been updated since.

All of this brings me back to the whole core idea behind why I'm leaving this app behind. It's like this software is one of the world's oldest running "pre alpha" releases. It looks good, but if you took the graphics out and focused the experience purely on sound without the need for visual appeal, like Ableton does, Reason simply isn't designed or built well. It hides behind that pop and flash of its "visual inspiration".

I think that other software has made as much progress as they have because they aren't trying to reinvent the wheel. That old line of limitations breed creativity also applies to software design, but in that context it's more accurate to say "clearly defined rules for a program make for an achievable project". I think Reason is too freeform to allow for progress. Seriously, research something like PostgreSQL and then treat Reason like an API. Get a white board or go on draw.io and try to map out what's going on. If you manage to map out a picture of what you think the internals look like, now imagine having to wade through all of that to move it all forward to where people want it to be. Ouch.

But that's my point. I don't think that this should be publicly funded through retail purchase. I think that a core of loyal people who see the promise and potential should be backing it on kickstarter somewhere and everyone else should have it as donation ware. It's just not on par with other packages from an honest business perspective. For the same price of Suite you can get Cubase Pro. Yeah there's an iLok on top of that but that is the direct feature comparison.

Endless amounts of money are going in, but nothing much is coming back out. I can partially see why, as I stated above about trying to design an API (there's a ton they have to re-do), but... it would be the honest thing to admit "hey, we don't know what we're doing, we have to rip everything out and rethink things so we can move forward, consider backing us on Patreon or somewhere while we figure this out and thanks for sticking with us if you're doing that", followed up with live streams of sprint meetings every 3 weeks and stuff like that, so people can at least have the offer of involvement and see confirmation of where their money is actually going.

In a nut shell, I don't respect what the company is doing and I know enough about how programs are built that everywhere I look, I see signs that the product is a broken mess. Like how the file browser uses "hot loading" to update and show a USB stick when you plug it in, but you have to restart the application for a theme to take effect or for your audio drivers to reflect changes you've made. That's a case of the file browser being "bolted on" around the edges. Everything should hot load like the file browser does, but bolting something in is quicker than doing it right.

That's why every answer to "simple question" threads about "how do I do basic thing x" always have ten items in a list. Everything is just sort of bolted together enough so that the app starts up. As long as it runs at all, job done. That's not worth my investment if that's the state of things after 20 years.

Compact was built from the ground up and there's no gesture zoom to see your entire arrangement, only horizontal scroll. There's no follow playback you have to do it manually. There's no coloration of black and white keys in the piano roll. And there's a limit on the number of devices because they either can't figure out how to write multi-core performant code or the DSP code for their new engine can't be ported to iOS. So, my point here is that even software they build more or less from scratch is a barebones "pre alpha" that shouldn't command a price tag. It's bolted together from the beginning, perhaps by stitching bits of code from the standalone together in a smaller Frankenstein.

For those who don't know, "bolting on" features is a term that refers to jamming a new piece of code into an old release and calling it a new release. Instead of properly implementing it by altering the surrounding code base to truly unify all aspects of the application, it's just sort of stitched together so that it "works", the major release number gets bumped, and the team hits the release target. It's a "close call" or "cut corner".

I don't want to pay for bolts. I'm not a sucker for those tricks. At least, not on this scale. The entire application is made of bolts and the very processes and paradigms that are unique to the brand obstruct my ability to create. That's why I'm leaving.
:reason: :ignition: :re: :refillpacker: Enhanced by DataBridge v5

RobBarnett
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Jul 2015

Post 11 Sep 2019

I agree with the above. The way it's been coded is holding back enhancements. I think their strategy now is to separate the rack out as an individual VST/AU only product and build the DAW from scratch.
I'm holding back until strategy becomes clear.
Thinking of getting Logic Pro but will wait to see how Rack AU development pans out first

reggie1979
Posts: 817
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 11 Sep 2019

stratatonic wrote:
10 Sep 2019
MrFigg wrote:
28 Aug 2019
I’m wondering why there’s so much talk just now of switching DAW.
Yeah, I don't understand the switching DAWs mentality either. I spent much time learning the program - why would I want to give all that up?
Mind you, around Reason 8, I finally decided to buy Logic as I wasn't sure where Propellerhead was heading anymore, but never once did I think that I was going to just replace DAWs. Logic was something that I would use for its different tools and perspective. but I always knew that I would still use Reason. I'll use it until the end, I'm sure.
A couple of things. First, a big selling point to 11 is being able to use the rack as a VST. So I'm sure there are people that want to change to let's say, Ableton Live. You get the rack and you get clips.

Also, people are BH about not getting what they want every time. It's not just Reason but I see this at others as well. All of the sudden you didn't get everything you wanted so poo on Reason Studio :lol:

For me I've decided to stick with 10.4, for now. I don't have a free 129 bucks laying around and I don't desperately need anything in 11 (though there are some definite wants! ) But I ain't jumpin' ship people. Reason is my Riker.

KGB
Posts: 31
Joined: 22 Nov 2016

Post 12 Sep 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
11 Sep 2019
stratatonic wrote:
10 Sep 2019

Yeah, I don't understand the switching DAWs mentality either. I spent much time learning the program - why would I want to give all that up?
Mind you, around Reason 8, I finally decided to buy Logic as I wasn't sure where Propellerhead was heading anymore, but never once did I think that I was going to just replace DAWs. Logic was something that I would use for its different tools and perspective. but I always knew that I would still use Reason. I'll use it until the end, I'm sure.
A couple of things. First, a big selling point to 11 is being able to use the rack as a VST. So I'm sure there are people that want to change to let's say, Ableton Live. You get the rack and you get clips.

Also, people are BH about not getting what they want every time. It's not just Reason but I see this at others as well. All of the sudden you didn't get everything you wanted so poo on Reason Studio :lol:

For me I've decided to stick with 10.4, for now. I don't have a free 129 bucks laying around and I don't desperately need anything in 11 (though there are some definite wants! ) But I ain't jumpin' ship people. Reason is my Riker.
This...................

User avatar
Dante
Posts: 475
Joined: 06 Jun 2015
Location: Australia

Post 12 Sep 2019

Yonatan wrote:
06 Sep 2019
Dante wrote:
06 Sep 2019
I’m using Harrison MixBus 32C to mix simply because I’m getting way better mix sound out of it than the Reason SSL. So I’m stemming stuff out of Reason. If Reason Racks become accessible inside MB32C there may be less reason to use Reason at all. From what I make out MixBus 32C is a circuit level emulation of a real Harrison mixer hence the nice rounded analog sound. However, and correct me if I’m wrong / the Reason SSL is not a circuit modeled version of a real SSL just a digital functional representation. Now my Reason mixes sound obviously digital after my ears are accustomed to same tracks done in MixBus. That, to me is where MixBus wins over all DAWS I’ve ever used - although that’s only been about 4 including Cubase and Reason.
I tried a demo years ago of Mixbus but found it so lackning in handling midi keyboard etc. But was interested to try the claim of getting better summing through it. I need to try it again. Must figure out if it is a myth or a reality. Have heard audio people claim both.
You mean it is per se a better summing or would it be replicatable if using same saturation plug on all channels in Reason?
MixBus or MixBus 32C ? It’s only the full 32C version that’s fully circuit modeled. That’s an entirely different ballgame from inserting the MixBus channel plug into Reason. Again, it’s the entire mixer that’s modeled - not just channels. That’s all channels, inserts, routings, effects and all the interconnections between. A mixer is more than the summing of some of its parts.

dezma
Posts: 95
Joined: 02 Jun 2015

Post 12 Sep 2019

Raveshaper wrote:
11 Sep 2019
I've already shouted enough but here's one last "why" response.

Other software allows you to enter exact values for parameters. Seems like a simple difference at first. Horses for courses some have said, and maybe so. But what that means is, internally, the other software has the capacity to calculate based on custom, fine grained values on the fly. If you can enter specific values, it's because that's true behind the scenes. I've got bad news for you. Reason doesn't have this feature because it only has fixed discreet values contained in arrays. There's no allowance for values outside of the ones you can select. It's stable for what it is. But... those other packages can do all of that calculation of exact values efficiently plus have all those added "bell and whistle" features too? Wow. Suddenly, huge difference.

That's one seemingly small thing, but it turns out to be a spotlight on how the software was designed and how the programming principles are lacking, not necessarily the software itself.

For example, those new automation curves. Can you see a vertical line of intersection aligned to your mouse pointer with a display of the curve's amplitude at that exact location? And does that amplitude show in the correct format of Hz or dB? I haven't seen that, and there are no points to use as a way to guess. What are users supposed to do? Curves indicate the need for precision, but instead the feature simply manages to exist at all.

Speaking of curves and fixed number of values in arrays, there's this huge elephant in the room about sequencer tracks. Everybody wants folders and collapsibility. It's an admirable desire and I agree it should be there. But in the case of automation lanes, every lane uses a discreet value based on the format displayed in the user interface, meaning every value for automation is computed in reverse from the displayed value and added to an internal array where it is then iterated, adding to the load on the CPU. What should be happening is that every automation lane is nothing more than a floating point value on the unit interval (between 0 and 1), where it is then efficiently multiplied by the range of value for the thing it automates to display in the sequencer. Instead, a lot of computationally expensive stuff involving slow arithmetic operators like division and/or modulo is going on. This is why you can't drag automation clips freely between any automation lanes you want. So, again, just like the limited number of values for knobs and stuff, every lane is treated as its own discreet entity, like a child class, that only contains a pointer back to the device it belongs to. That said, it should be easy to make track folders and collapsibility. Since it isn't here yet, it's because the entire internal structure of the sequencer was rolled out as re-skinned inefficiency under the hood. Because of competing projects or other situations, it hasn't been updated since.

All of this brings me back to the whole core idea behind why I'm leaving this app behind. It's like this software is one of the world's oldest running "pre alpha" releases. It looks good, but if you took the graphics out and focused the experience purely on sound without the need for visual appeal, like Ableton does, Reason simply isn't designed or built well. It hides behind that pop and flash of its "visual inspiration".

I think that other software has made as much progress as they have because they aren't trying to reinvent the wheel. That old line of limitations breed creativity also applies to software design, but in that context it's more accurate to say "clearly defined rules for a program make for an achievable project". I think Reason is too freeform to allow for progress. Seriously, research something like PostgreSQL and then treat Reason like an API. Get a white board or go on draw.io and try to map out what's going on. If you manage to map out a picture of what you think the internals look like, now imagine having to wade through all of that to move it all forward to where people want it to be. Ouch.

But that's my point. I don't think that this should be publicly funded through retail purchase. I think that a core of loyal people who see the promise and potential should be backing it on kickstarter somewhere and everyone else should have it as donation ware. It's just not on par with other packages from an honest business perspective. For the same price of Suite you can get Cubase Pro. Yeah there's an iLok on top of that but that is the direct feature comparison.

Endless amounts of money are going in, but nothing much is coming back out. I can partially see why, as I stated above about trying to design an API (there's a ton they have to re-do), but... it would be the honest thing to admit "hey, we don't know what we're doing, we have to rip everything out and rethink things so we can move forward, consider backing us on Patreon or somewhere while we figure this out and thanks for sticking with us if you're doing that", followed up with live streams of sprint meetings every 3 weeks and stuff like that, so people can at least have the offer of involvement and see confirmation of where their money is actually going.

In a nut shell, I don't respect what the company is doing and I know enough about how programs are built that everywhere I look, I see signs that the product is a broken mess. Like how the file browser uses "hot loading" to update and show a USB stick when you plug it in, but you have to restart the application for a theme to take effect or for your audio drivers to reflect changes you've made. That's a case of the file browser being "bolted on" around the edges. Everything should hot load like the file browser does, but bolting something in is quicker than doing it right.

That's why every answer to "simple question" threads about "how do I do basic thing x" always have ten items in a list. Everything is just sort of bolted together enough so that the app starts up. As long as it runs at all, job done. That's not worth my investment if that's the state of things after 20 years.

Compact was built from the ground up and there's no gesture zoom to see your entire arrangement, only horizontal scroll. There's no follow playback you have to do it manually. There's no coloration of black and white keys in the piano roll. And there's a limit on the number of devices because they either can't figure out how to write multi-core performant code or the DSP code for their new engine can't be ported to iOS. So, my point here is that even software they build more or less from scratch is a barebones "pre alpha" that shouldn't command a price tag. It's bolted together from the beginning, perhaps by stitching bits of code from the standalone together in a smaller Frankenstein.

For those who don't know, "bolting on" features is a term that refers to jamming a new piece of code into an old release and calling it a new release. Instead of properly implementing it by altering the surrounding code base to truly unify all aspects of the application, it's just sort of stitched together so that it "works", the major release number gets bumped, and the team hits the release target. It's a "close call" or "cut corner".

I don't want to pay for bolts. I'm not a sucker for those tricks. At least, not on this scale. The entire application is made of bolts and the very processes and paradigms that are unique to the brand obstruct my ability to create. That's why I'm leaving.
That's some interesting thoughts from a technical point of view, and might not be far from the truth since it would explain the slow pace of "core" things as opposed to the constant flow of new devices.

Just for my understanding, can you clarify what you mean:

Entering exact values: can you give me an example both in reason and another DAW?
Cannot drag automation accross? > You can copy it and then "adjust alien clip", or do you mean this extra step should not be necessary?

mmm
Posts: 7
Joined: 16 Oct 2018

Post 12 Sep 2019

Raveshaper wrote:
30 Aug 2019
Wobbleburger wrote:
30 Aug 2019
These are pretty great reasons. I've run into a lot of toxicity in this community too... Especially on the Facebook groups (which I promptly left). I really wonder why that is. I love Reason. With the option to use it as a VST, I've looked into Reaper and others. I probably won't switch until I have a sure shot reason to. I can 'get it done' in Reason, so I don't want to lose creative time having to learn another DAW. Ableton just didn't make sense to me.
Three primary causes for the anger/toxicity:
  1. Lack of economic means to afford and learn other programs.
  2. Being asked to repeatedly buy things we already own.
  3. Closure of the official user community
A lot of reason users are typically toward the bottom end of the wage scale. Not being able to choose because it costs too much can make a person feel trapped and frustrated.

There's no denying that when you upgrade, you're basically buying what you already have. Before, that came in the form of purchasing smaller and smaller differences in a program that almost entirely stayed the same as it was before, at a fixed price. The difference was smaller and smaller but the price didn't change. Now, it's overtly having to repurchase any and all extensions that are included in the new update, but you may have already bought. If you already don't have a lot of money and are frustrated, buying what you already have can feel insulting.

A company closing its doors to the official community is just degrading. It clearly communicated that it wasn't valued or a priority. That should spell death for any company, but people stay because they can't afford to leave. That, and the need to actually invest time into learning how to get started in other, better tools is mistaken for being worse than not having to read a manual to use a slower, outdated, more frustrating and predatory product.

Those other apps aren't worse, they just make seasoned users of reason confront the uncomfortable reality that all their years of isolation away from modern tools has completely unprepared them for what's over the garden wall. They have to start over, feeling somewhat the fool for having wasted so much time. It sucks to go through that, so they cancel their trial and come back where they aren't foolish, they're knowledgeable.

Not everybody is broke, not everybody wishes they could leave but don't because it's harder to learn something else. But a lot of people fit this description. And they're pissed they have to re-buy what they already have.
You sound like Nigel Farage talking about Europe :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Raveshaper
Posts: 1057
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 12 Sep 2019

dezma wrote:
12 Sep 2019
That's some interesting thoughts from a technical point of view, and might not be far from the truth since it would explain the slow pace of "core" things as opposed to the constant flow of new devices.

Just for my understanding, can you clarify what you mean:

Entering exact values: can you give me an example both in reason and another DAW?
Cannot drag automation accross? > You can copy it and then "adjust alien clip", or do you mean this extra step should not be necessary?
  • Entering exact values:
In Ableton Live for example, all you have to do is click the number displayed next to any knob or slider and type in the value you want to set. No need to carefully creep the knob to the value closest to what you want, you just enter it straight away and move on quickly. This is taken for granted as standard, correct operation in most other packages. Bitwig, Studio One, Cubase, they pretty much all have this. Implementation of this behavior sometimes falls on the VST dev if it's a third party plugin, but the core features in those apps all use this.
  • Automation Drag:
Correct. You should not have to go through any more steps than simply dragging a clip from one lane to another lane. Let's read what this page says about the alien clip feature here:

http://docs.propellerheads.se/reason10/ ... .62.3.html

Adjust Alien Clips to Lane
...Depending on the data, you may be able to fix this by selecting the clip and selecting “Adjust Alien Clips to Lane”. This scales the automation data in the clip to fit the range of the current lane.
So the idea here is that the sequencer should be storing a value ranging between -1 and 1. Every clip would then automatically multiply the internal values for the points by whatever range of values the lane uses to draw the final result. For example, an internal value of 0.5 multiplied by 8192 on a pitch bend lane would calculate to be 4096. Then dragging that same internal and unchanged 0.5 to a lane that uses 1000 for its data, like a fader in the main mixer, and it would calculate to 500. You wouldn't want to exhaust a lot of resources calculating the difference between 8192 and 1000, then multiply all the data by that difference, etc. That would make no sense.

To reiterate the simplicity of this, the internal point would remain fixed but the interface would scale it according to the lane it's dragged to. Also, editing the point once scaled would still result in internal values that could function in this seamless way, always constrained within -1 to 1.

By providing that additional "adjust" method, what that halfway measure is doing is analyzing the clip in reverse, performing a bunch of calculations on the data it contains and how it differs from the data the lane expects or requires, then making a "best guess" based on what it figures out.

Note that it says "you may be able to fix this", so not even this halfway measure can be guaranteed to be successful.

Is that more clear as to why that's a major red flag?

This is simple stuff. multiplying 0.5 by 128 equals 64, multiplying 0.5 by 16384 equals 8192. It's basic arithmetic and the sequencer can't do it. It should be doing it.
:reason: :ignition: :re: :refillpacker: Enhanced by DataBridge v5

User avatar
MusicianX
Posts: 58
Joined: 15 Jul 2016

Post 12 Sep 2019

guitfnky wrote:
28 Aug 2019
because Props are implying I should.
This lol

EdGrip
Posts: 1506
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

Post 13 Sep 2019

I see Camelphat are Bitwig users - have been since 2014, they say in a Tweet a bit further down.


User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1447
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 13 Sep 2019

Pro Tools First https://www.kvraudio.com/product/pro-to ... st-by-avid
Is this new? Might have to have a play. Not that I'd ever go subscription for the upgrade.
Image
Now available, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7512836
New tune (Happy House) 'big fat' viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7513201

User avatar
artotaku
Posts: 461
Joined: 09 May 2015
Location: Munich, Germany

Post 13 Sep 2019

Raveshaper wrote:
11 Sep 2019
I've already shouted enough but here's one last "why" response.

Other software allows you to enter exact values for parameters. Seems like a simple difference at first. Horses for courses some have said, and maybe so. But what that means is, internally, the other software has the capacity to calculate based on custom, fine grained values on the fly. If you can enter specific values, it's because that's true behind the scenes. I've got bad news for you. Reason doesn't have this feature because it only has fixed discreet values contained in arrays. There's no allowance for values outside of the ones you can select. It's stable for what it is. But... those other packages can do all of that calculation of exact values efficiently plus have all those added "bell and whistle" features too? Wow. Suddenly, huge difference.

That's one seemingly small thing, but it turns out to be a spotlight on how the software was designed and how the programming principles are lacking, not necessarily the software itself.

For example, those new automation curves. Can you see a vertical line of intersection aligned to your mouse pointer with a display of the curve's amplitude at that exact location? And does that amplitude show in the correct format of Hz or dB? I haven't seen that, and there are no points to use as a way to guess. What are users supposed to do? Curves indicate the need for precision, but instead the feature simply manages to exist at all.

Speaking of curves and fixed number of values in arrays, there's this huge elephant in the room about sequencer tracks. Everybody wants folders and collapsibility. It's an admirable desire and I agree it should be there. But in the case of automation lanes, every lane uses a discreet value based on the format displayed in the user interface, meaning every value for automation is computed in reverse from the displayed value and added to an internal array where it is then iterated, adding to the load on the CPU. What should be happening is that every automation lane is nothing more than a floating point value on the unit interval (between 0 and 1), where it is then efficiently multiplied by the range of value for the thing it automates to display in the sequencer. Instead, a lot of computationally expensive stuff involving slow arithmetic operators like division and/or modulo is going on. This is why you can't drag automation clips freely between any automation lanes you want. So, again, just like the limited number of values for knobs and stuff, every lane is treated as its own discreet entity, like a child class, that only contains a pointer back to the device it belongs to. That said, it should be easy to make track folders and collapsibility. Since it isn't here yet, it's because the entire internal structure of the sequencer was rolled out as re-skinned inefficiency under the hood. Because of competing projects or other situations, it hasn't been updated since.

All of this brings me back to the whole core idea behind why I'm leaving this app behind. It's like this software is one of the world's oldest running "pre alpha" releases. It looks good, but if you took the graphics out and focused the experience purely on sound without the need for visual appeal, like Ableton does, Reason simply isn't designed or built well. It hides behind that pop and flash of its "visual inspiration".

I think that other software has made as much progress as they have because they aren't trying to reinvent the wheel. That old line of limitations breed creativity also applies to software design, but in that context it's more accurate to say "clearly defined rules for a program make for an achievable project". I think Reason is too freeform to allow for progress. Seriously, research something like PostgreSQL and then treat Reason like an API. Get a white board or go on draw.io and try to map out what's going on. If you manage to map out a picture of what you think the internals look like, now imagine having to wade through all of that to move it all forward to where people want it to be. Ouch.

But that's my point. I don't think that this should be publicly funded through retail purchase. I think that a core of loyal people who see the promise and potential should be backing it on kickstarter somewhere and everyone else should have it as donation ware. It's just not on par with other packages from an honest business perspective. For the same price of Suite you can get Cubase Pro. Yeah there's an iLok on top of that but that is the direct feature comparison.

Endless amounts of money are going in, but nothing much is coming back out. I can partially see why, as I stated above about trying to design an API (there's a ton they have to re-do), but... it would be the honest thing to admit "hey, we don't know what we're doing, we have to rip everything out and rethink things so we can move forward, consider backing us on Patreon or somewhere while we figure this out and thanks for sticking with us if you're doing that", followed up with live streams of sprint meetings every 3 weeks and stuff like that, so people can at least have the offer of involvement and see confirmation of where their money is actually going.

In a nut shell, I don't respect what the company is doing and I know enough about how programs are built that everywhere I look, I see signs that the product is a broken mess. Like how the file browser uses "hot loading" to update and show a USB stick when you plug it in, but you have to restart the application for a theme to take effect or for your audio drivers to reflect changes you've made. That's a case of the file browser being "bolted on" around the edges. Everything should hot load like the file browser does, but bolting something in is quicker than doing it right.

That's why every answer to "simple question" threads about "how do I do basic thing x" always have ten items in a list. Everything is just sort of bolted together enough so that the app starts up. As long as it runs at all, job done. That's not worth my investment if that's the state of things after 20 years.

Compact was built from the ground up and there's no gesture zoom to see your entire arrangement, only horizontal scroll. There's no follow playback you have to do it manually. There's no coloration of black and white keys in the piano roll. And there's a limit on the number of devices because they either can't figure out how to write multi-core performant code or the DSP code for their new engine can't be ported to iOS. So, my point here is that even software they build more or less from scratch is a barebones "pre alpha" that shouldn't command a price tag. It's bolted together from the beginning, perhaps by stitching bits of code from the standalone together in a smaller Frankenstein.

For those who don't know, "bolting on" features is a term that refers to jamming a new piece of code into an old release and calling it a new release. Instead of properly implementing it by altering the surrounding code base to truly unify all aspects of the application, it's just sort of stitched together so that it "works", the major release number gets bumped, and the team hits the release target. It's a "close call" or "cut corner".

I don't want to pay for bolts. I'm not a sucker for those tricks. At least, not on this scale. The entire application is made of bolts and the very processes and paradigms that are unique to the brand obstruct my ability to create. That's why I'm leaving.
If your assumption is true (and we don´t know for sure without having access to the source code) it´s maybe best to rewrite the sequencer from scratch or at least parts of it depending on the way the sequencer code is currently structured. This can be a quite complex endevour and will take some time and costs and it´s quite unclear if it will happen at all.

Your perspective and perception seems from a software developer´s view (which I can fully relate to since I´m one as well at my day job) and most of the other Reason users without this background won´t care about this in detail. But I have to agree if it hinders further development of the sequencer it´s maybe best to rewrite it. It´s not the first time stuff is thrown away in software projects. I mean the sequencer is now about 20 years old and things have progressed.

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2392
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

Post 13 Sep 2019

Tbh I don't mind if the sequencer stays the same but blocks mode is kinda weak.
it should have 999 blocks.
Version 5-11 should be rewritten with 999 blocks...
Producer/Sound Designer.
Currently checking out peff & hydlide's archives.
FL & Reason 11.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Creativemind and 1 guest