ReasonTalk.com

Saw this on Gearslutz: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-pro ... ble-5.html

"Originally Posted by Studio Saturn
I have to tell you this thing is not ready for release. If you examine carefully, it looks like the plugin doesn't report DAWs how much delay compensation has to be done. And when you put it on send, you get something like a comp effect."

And then further down he makes this claim:

"I did further investigation this plugin doesn't even tell DAWs delay compensation either insert or send"

I can't test this because there is no AU version of the rack.

So is this true or what?

Please somebody who can test this now confirm

Check out this thread on Gearslutz. Confirmation of no delay compensation reporting from the plugin:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-pro ... lable.html

That's the link I posted and where I got this info from.

hurricane wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

Saw this on Gearslutz: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-pro ... ble-5.html

"Originally Posted by Studio Saturn
I have to tell you this thing is not ready for release. If you examine carefully, it looks like the plugin doesn't report DAWs how much delay compensation has to be done. And when you put it on send, you get something like a comp effect."

And then further down he makes this claim:

"I did further investigation this plugin doesn't even tell DAWs delay compensation either insert or send"

I can't test this because their is no AU version of the rack.

So is this true or what?

Haven't done an extensive test, but I haven't noticed anything.

hurricane wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

That's the link I posted and where I got this info from.

Oops, sorry - didn't catch that. But I believe there are recent posts in that thread from at least one person who has confirmed it.

Apparently, according to my very quick test.... It's true

hurricane wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

aweome

PhillipOrdonez wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

Apparently, according to my very quick test.... It's true

Well that's not good.

From what I'm reading around the web, non-Reason users were initially stoked by the Reason 11 / Rack VST announcement, but now due to the lack of latency reporting and a few other blatant oversights, enthusiasm is rapidly waning, and in some cases, turning ugly.

Key complaints are:
- Lack of latency reporting
- Inability to route MIDI out of the Rack VST
- Inability for the Rack VST to host 3rd party VST plugins (can't Combinate)
- Lack of VST3 support in Reason 11

I have no dog in this hunt since Reason 11 doesn't appeal to me in general (at least not in its current state), but it's been interesting watching the "outside world" react to this release and the Props being held to a whole new standard.

Instead of stating "it's confirmed" would it be possible to share the method which you used to confirm this?

Not looking for an argument but I'm plain out curious. I also couldn't help but notice that when then original poster ("Studio Saturn") got a response which quoted the manual and suggested a possible cause for his findings he basically went on the offense ("I know what I hear") and ran off. It's one thing to make a claim, it's another to back it up with arguments.

And for the record: I also couldn't care less in the overall because I tried Reason 11 and removed it the very same day. I'm back on 10 (usually rewired into Live) with a whole new collection of RE's and I'm very happy with my setup. I did make a backup copy of the Reason rack VST folder and moved that into the location where I wanted it to be from the getgo (you can only install it on C which is bad for me, now I have it on D where it should be) so now I get to play around with Reason 10 and got some features of 11 in the VST.

So I also tried using the same instruments in the VST on Live and Reason 10 rewired into Live and well... I'd like to know more.

Yeah the can't combinate as a vst thing was dumb.
You gotta bounce the vsts to combinate them when not in standalone mode

There's currently a bug in Reason Rack Plugin where it adds an additional 64 samples of latency. We're working hard to fix this (and other things) right now. Beyond that, Reason Rack Plugin should report latency properly so there shouldn't be a bigger timing difference than 64 samples, which is usable in most cases where you're not using a parallel channel. Sorry about this!

MattiasHG wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

There's currently a bug in Reason Rack Plugin where it adds an additional 64 samples of latency. We're working hard to fix this (and other things) right now. Beyond that, Reason Rack Plugin should report latency properly so there shouldn't be a bigger timing difference than 64 samples, which is usable in most cases where you're not using a parallel channel. Sorry about this!

Thanks for chiming in, Mattias! Do you mean in the case of using a Reason Rack FX on a parallel channel which is fed by a channel containing another Reason plugin? Or is it a problem for the Rack FX on any parallel channel?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

botnotbot wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

MattiasHG wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

There's currently a bug in Reason Rack Plugin where it adds an additional 64 samples of latency. We're working hard to fix this (and other things) right now. Beyond that, Reason Rack Plugin should report latency properly so there shouldn't be a bigger timing difference than 64 samples, which is usable in most cases where you're not using a parallel channel. Sorry about this!

Thanks for chiming in, Mattias! Do you mean in the case of using a Reason Rack FX on a parallel channel which is fed by a channel containing another Reason plugin? Or is it a problem for the Rack FX on any parallel channel?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

From my experience I *think* it's just a consistent 64 samples (whether that's as an instrument or an effect, send or insert). In the early/logging stages of beta I felt like PDC wasn't functioning but by the last release candidate, I did notice my host was adjusting its latency as I was doing things like changing the FFT size on Quartet or the number of EQ bands on BV12. So I don't think - as the linked thread seems to suggest - it's accurate to say Reason VST doesn't report PDC. It does but it seems to be +64 samples which is creating comb filtering when parallel processing. Fingers and toes firmly crossed for a swift fix

chimp_spanner wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

botnotbot wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

Thanks for chiming in, Mattias! Do you mean in the case of using a Reason Rack FX on a parallel channel which is fed by a channel containing another Reason plugin? Or is it a problem for the Rack FX on any parallel channel?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

From my experience I *think* it's just a consistent 64 samples (whether that's as an instrument or an effect, send or insert). In the early/logging stages of beta I felt like PDC wasn't functioning but by the last release candidate, I did notice my host was adjusting its latency as I was doing things like changing the FFT size on Quartet or the number of EQ bands on BV12. So I don't think - as the linked thread seems to suggest - it's accurate to say Reason VST doesn't report PDC. It does but it seems to be +64 samples which is creating comb filtering when parallel processing. Fingers and toes firmly crossed for a swift fix

Yeah, pretty much this. It's a consistent +64 samples that's not reported. Since it's such a short delay it only becomes audible when you do a parallel channel and put Reason Rack Plugin on one of them, leading to some amount of phasing. For most normal, single channel use you can't tell the difference.

ShelLuser wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

Instead of stating "it's confirmed" would it be possible to share the method which you used to confirm this?

Exactly THIS was my thinking...Its like "my car does not drive fast" and someone did not mentione, it was droven in the 1st gear or with no gasoline or reverse gear or...whatever...

Loque wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

ShelLuser wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

Instead of stating "it's confirmed" would it be possible to share the method which you used to confirm this?

Exactly THIS was my thinking...Its like "my car does not drive fast" and someone did not mentione, it was droven in the 1st gear or with no gasoline or reverse gear or...whatever...

Is it your first day on the Internet? I've been trying to fight with this for years ( "Does anyone else have problem with X in Y?" ) but I'm always getting criticised for not being helpful… I guess there's always someone with too much time on their hands ready to ask 10 questions to get the full story.

Loque wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

ShelLuser wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2019

Instead of stating "it's confirmed" would it be possible to share the method which you used to confirm this?

Exactly THIS was my thinking...Its like "my car does not drive fast" and someone did not mentione, it was droven in the 1st gear or with no gasoline or reverse gear or...whatever...

kinda moot at this point, since Mattias has just confirmed it.

antic604 wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

Loque wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

Exactly THIS was my thinking...Its like "my car does not drive fast" and someone did not mentione, it was droven in the 1st gear or with no gasoline or reverse gear or...whatever...

Is it your first day on the Internet? I've been trying to fight with this for years ( "Does anyone else have problem with X in Y?" ) but I'm always getting criticised for not being helpful… I guess there's always someone with too much time on their hands ready to ask 10 questions to get the full story.

No, its not my first day

Because of the lack of fundamental evidence, i completely tried to ignore those threads and did not asked before. Its just too hard to get those information from "ranting" ppl...

guitfnky wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

Loque wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

Exactly THIS was my thinking...Its like "my car does not drive fast" and someone did not mentione, it was droven in the 1st gear or with no gasoline or reverse gear or...whatever...

kinda moot at this point, since Mattias has just confirmed it.

Well, he confirmed a constant not reported delay of 64 samples. The guys in the threads are talking about no delay reporting at all. That are two different things, even if it all about delay compensation.

Loque wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

guitfnky wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

kinda moot at this point, since Mattias has just confirmed it.

Well, he confirmed a constant not reported delay of 64 samples. The guys in the threads are talking about no delay reporting at all. That are two different things, even if it all about delay compensation.

the point is, it’s not reported accurately.

So each instance adds 64 samples on its own? What if you have two instances on the same channel? Do they add up regardless of the devices contained? If you add devices that have latency, is that extra latency reported or not?

In the case that only the 64 samples are added and everything additional to that is reported, could adding an empty instance to every channel make everything even?

Please explain in layman terms

PhillipOrdonez wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2019

So each instance adds 64 samples on its own? What if you have two instances on the same channel? Do they add up regardless of the devices contained? If you add devices that have latency, is that extra latency reported or not?

In the case that only the 64 samples are added and everything additional to that is reported, could adding an empty instance to every channel make everything even?

Please explain in layman terms

Haha, sorry! I thought I was clear that Reason Rack Plugin always adds 64 samples of unreported latency.

Reason Rack Plugin still reports the "correct latency" of any devices added, plus an additional unreported 64 samples. If you have two instances on the Reason Rack Plugin on the same channel, that's two times 64. If you have several non-latency introducing devices in one instance of Reason Rack Plugin, that's still just 64 samples.

In pretty much all hosts you can manually offset tracks, so if you nudged a track with a Reason Rack Plugin effect 64 samples, it should be fine. However, and I want to re-iterate this, 64 samples is almost unnoticeable unless you do parallel processing and get phasing. It's a delay of 1.45 milliseconds on 44.1kHz sample rate. The human ear can sort that out just fine