What is the ONE feature you'd like to have in the future version of Reason ?

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 882
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 10 Feb 2020

DJMaytag wrote:
10 Feb 2020
jam-s wrote:
09 Feb 2020

You can do this by using favourites lists.
Bolded. It’s not the same as being able to add things with right clicking. That’s just how I’ve always worked.
You can do this by using favourites lists.
Oops, sorry I read too fast and missed this. Still I think that this workaround is OK for now. But adding the favourites lists to the right click menu would not hurt and would not be that hard to implement.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 1591
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 11 Feb 2020

chimp_spanner wrote:
04 Feb 2020
Hey, imagine if the video player...was a device. That loaded FFGL plugins. And they could be controlled by CV. And Reason could export the video.

AHHHHH.
Quite a few years ago now I suggested something similar to Props via their suggestions mail.

The video player / editor itself could or could not live in the rack - but why not have stackable video effects just the same as we do with audio devices in Reason's rack. This could open the platform up to video effect developers, and Props could sell every basic video effect themselves for their favorite '$100 per device.' The idea of using CV to control certain parameters of a video or video effect just blows my mind, but given the amount of wanted things in Reason and the rate they come out at - it's such a shame it will probably never happen. :cry:

User avatar
TheDragonborg
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Feb 2020

Post 11 Feb 2020

Mmj85 wrote:
06 Feb 2020
Periwinkle wrote:
30 Jan 2020
Freeze tracks (Like Logic)
+1
Yes, the ability to Freeze Tracks!

We need this to alleviate our CPU usage with one click.
Heh that's not a problem for me... I'm running a 4.8Ghz Core i7 (6 core) and I never go above like 2% on CPU usage...

What I really want is multichannel MIDI I/O (for hardware, VSTs and REs) and multichannel audio I/O for VSTs (though I'm still on version 10 so I dunno if that's been added or not).

User avatar
diminished
Posts: 1636
Joined: 15 Dec 2018

Post 12 Feb 2020

With my latest track I've completely exhausted the capabilities of my 4 core i5 CPU. Maximum buffer size, several bounces... of course I wasn't finished yet, needed to make some changes - and imagine what the additional instance of Ozone at the very end did to my track. There was absolutely no way to A/B settings or even listening to one you thought that might fit.

Bouncing into a new project is not the solution to this, it kills all flexibility for changes and defeats the self-containment of *.reason projects.

Track freeze is long overdue.
:reason: Most recent track: The Test (feat. MrFigg) || Others: on my YouTube channel •ᴗ•

Busta US
Posts: 160
Joined: 26 Oct 2019

Post 16 Feb 2020

Jagwah wrote:
11 Feb 2020
chimp_spanner wrote:
04 Feb 2020
Hey, imagine if the video player...was a device. That loaded FFGL plugins. And they could be controlled by CV. And Reason could export the video.

AHHHHH.
Quite a few years ago now I suggested something similar to Props via their suggestions mail.

The video player / editor itself could or could not live in the rack - but why not have stackable video effects just the same as we do with audio devices in Reason's rack. This could open the platform up to video effect developers, and Props could sell every basic video effect themselves for their favorite '$100 per device.' The idea of using CV to control certain parameters of a video or video effect just blows my mind, but given the amount of wanted things in Reason and the rate they come out at - it's such a shame it will probably never happen. :cry:
Dude..this is an amazing suggestion honestly. I can picture this so much. Wow that'd seriously be amazing!

aeox
Posts: 2555
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 16 Feb 2020

Folders/organization over anything else first.

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2143
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 16 Feb 2020

I wish that the solo/mute buttons were connected between the sequencer/rack windows. I find it really annoying when you switch between the two windows.

Yonatan
Posts: 1073
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020
I wish that the solo/mute buttons were connected between the sequencer/rack windows. I find it really annoying when you switch between the two windows.
Same here, it feels like a broken workflow. But RS may chime in and explain why this separation is needed. Have we missed any advantage?

gbuck
Posts: 12
Joined: 21 May 2017

Post 16 Feb 2020

Yonatan wrote:
16 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020
I wish that the solo/mute buttons were connected between the sequencer/rack windows. I find it really annoying when you switch between the two windows.
Same here, it feels like a broken workflow. But RS may chime in and explain why this separation is needed. Have we missed any advantage?
Lookup 'Mute,Solo buttons' in the operation manual for an explanation. ;)

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2143
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 16 Feb 2020

gbuck wrote:
16 Feb 2020
Yonatan wrote:
16 Feb 2020


Same here, it feels like a broken workflow. But RS may chime in and explain why this separation is needed. Have we missed any advantage?
Lookup 'Mute,Solo buttons' in the operation manual for an explanation. ;)
Well I tried reading it. I still don't see why this is useful. Keep in mind I'm the least technical person there is.
It just says "Note that the Mute and Solo functions in the Main Mixer are NOT the same as Mute and Solo of sequencer tracks". But I don't see an explanation to why this is.
Please dumb it down for me.

gbuck
Posts: 12
Joined: 21 May 2017

Post 16 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020
gbuck wrote:
16 Feb 2020


Lookup 'Mute,Solo buttons' in the operation manual for an explanation. ;)
Well I tried reading it. I still don't see why this is useful. Keep in mind I'm the least technical person there is.
It just says "Note that the Mute and Solo functions in the Main Mixer are NOT the same as Mute and Solo of sequencer tracks". But I don't see an explanation to why this is.
Please dumb it down for me.
'Solo, Mute and Send FX logic' in the mixer section explains it somewhat. I read a post years ago about it that made a little sense but it would be nice for a status indicator on both sections for the mute/solo state of either one.

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2143
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 16 Feb 2020

gbuck wrote:
16 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020

Well I tried reading it. I still don't see why this is useful. Keep in mind I'm the least technical person there is.
It just says "Note that the Mute and Solo functions in the Main Mixer are NOT the same as Mute and Solo of sequencer tracks". But I don't see an explanation to why this is.
Please dumb it down for me.
'Solo, Mute and Send FX logic' in the mixer section explains it somewhat. I read a post years ago about it that made a little sense but it would be nice for a status indicator on both sections for the mute/solo state of either one.
Yeah I read that too. Didn't help me one bit. :lol: As I said I'm a dumbass with this stuff.
Anyway whatever the logic behind it is, I wish it wasn't so. Maybe it's supposed to be useful somehow, but it's not useful for me. It's just annoying and it always has been.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 882
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 16 Feb 2020

It's really not that hard with the different mute and solo buttons: In the sequencer you mute/solo the midi that is sent to a device while the mute/solo buttons in the mixer mute/solo the generated audio. And as those two do not have to have a 1:1 relation in Reason it's a good thing that those buttons are not linked.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

gbuck
Posts: 12
Joined: 21 May 2017

Post 16 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020
gbuck wrote:
16 Feb 2020


'Solo, Mute and Send FX logic' in the mixer section explains it somewhat. I read a post years ago about it that made a little sense but it would be nice for a status indicator on both sections for the mute/solo state of either one.
Yeah I read that too. Didn't help me one bit. :lol: As I said I'm a dumbass with this stuff.
Anyway whatever the logic behind it is, I wish it wasn't so. Maybe it's supposed to be useful somehow, but it's not useful for me. It's just annoying and it always has been.
If you route to a bus (or more) from a mixer channel the mutes would be independent of the other and the seq track.

Yonatan
Posts: 1073
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

I don´t think that say Logic Pro has sequencer and mixer Solo/Mute separated, as they do not try to mimic the hardware. So I guess the reasoning in Reason may be that Sequencer is seen as something of its own. I can buy it when it comes to the extra sequencer lanes which have only a "mute" button, those should not be connected with "mute" on main mixer as they are sub-mutes to the main sequencer track.

With every device, being it a midi instrument or audio track in the Sequencer, those main S/M would be so very handy to be linked together with the Rack and the Mixer. Quite many times when going back and forth between Seq-Rack-Mixer, this behavior has been confusing and one have to search for why a certain track does not sound or why I only hear this instrument, where is the Solo or have I muted something in the sequencer etc. It is enough of a hurdle to ask for a change there. Or, if some really loves that disconnection and find it useful in some way, let it at least be an option in the preferences for all who are working better with all 3 linked.

And while at it, sometimes I find myself wanting a Volume slide (mini fader) and Pan knob in the main sequencer track, that is connected to that same Fader in the Rack and the Mixer. The workflow dream is to be able to do basic work in each of the 3 views, and cut down on the unnecessary times one have to go into the Rack or the Mixer just to fiddle with volume or pan. Off course it must be implemented in a decent manner, maybe that they appear when dragging/zooming the sequencer tracks to a certain point, and disappear when putting them to the minimum. There is quite some space to put it when drag-zooming the track.

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2143
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 16 Feb 2020

jam-s wrote:
16 Feb 2020
It's really not that hard with the different mute and solo buttons: In the sequencer you mute/solo the midi that is sent to a device while the mute/solo buttons in the mixer mute/solo the generated audio. And as those two do not have to have a 1:1 relation in Reason it's a good thing that those buttons are not linked.
Ok. Well I'm simple man. It's very likely that function has never been of any use for me then.
I'm incredibly uninterested in the all the technical/routing aspects of Reason (I know I picked the wrong DAW :lol: ). All I want is for the channel to shut up or be heard when I tell it to, in whatever window I happen to be in at the moment. Wish there was some sort of option in Reason to make it so, like a "Dumbass mode" or something. That would be on my R12 wishlist.

User avatar
Dante
Posts: 484
Joined: 06 Jun 2015
Location: Australia

Post 16 Feb 2020

A Neve modelled mixer (alternative to SSL). Also the option to make these mixers full circuit level emulations so we get the analog sound (similarto Harrision Mixbus 32C). This would obviously use more CPU DSP so needs to be able to be turned off.
Last edited by Dante on 16 Feb 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Yonatan
Posts: 1073
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

gbuck wrote:
16 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020

Yeah I read that too. Didn't help me one bit. :lol: As I said I'm a dumbass with this stuff.
Anyway whatever the logic behind it is, I wish it wasn't so. Maybe it's supposed to be useful somehow, but it's not useful for me. It's just annoying and it always has been.
If you route to a bus (or more) from a mixer channel the mutes would be independent of the other and the seq track.
True true point, it gets more complex the way bus and parallel channels can be stackable in the Mixer view. In the Rack we can see each corresponding new parallel channel or output Bus, but that is not viewable in the Sequencer and if so was the case, it would surely need track folders. Ok, so I this might pretty fast become a bit tricky or complicated to fix in code? If that is the case, one just have to bite the dust and learn to clear all S/M in Seq when going on to the Rack or Mixer. But if there is a smart way to solve this, it would be nice.

Yonatan
Posts: 1073
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020
jam-s wrote:
16 Feb 2020
It's really not that hard with the different mute and solo buttons: In the sequencer you mute/solo the midi that is sent to a device while the mute/solo buttons in the mixer mute/solo the generated audio. And as those two do not have to have a 1:1 relation in Reason it's a good thing that those buttons are not linked.
Ok. Well I'm simple man. It's very likely that function has never been of any use for me then.
I'm incredibly uninterested in the all the technical/routing aspects of Reason (I know I picked the wrong DAW :lol: ). All I want is for the channel to shut up or be heard when I tell it to, in whatever window I happen to be in at the moment. Wish there was some sort of option in Reason to make it so, like a "Dumbass mode" or something. That would be on my R12 wishlist.
Haha, I am on the same page there! :)

One cannot use Logic in Reason, but we may use Reason in Logic. (Don´t ask what meant, it just sounded clever.)

Yonatan
Posts: 1073
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

Dante wrote:
16 Feb 2020
A Neve modelled mixer (alternative to SSL). Also the option to make these mixers full circuit level emulations so we get the analog sound (similarto Harrision Mixbus 32C). This would obviously use more CPU DSP so needs to be able to be turned off.
Switching Mixer desks would be like a dream. It sounds very complicated though, but maybe I am wrong about that. Changing on the fly would be incredible, but more realistic would be like switching the template colors in Preferences, that makes one have to restart Reason. Would it not be nice with some saturation/coloring knobs there above the Master Bus Compressor where there is a blank spot. And bring in some tape saturation options while at it. But these things I believe is more icing on the cake after some other workflow features or other functions has been added.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8275
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020
jam-s wrote:
16 Feb 2020
It's really not that hard with the different mute and solo buttons: In the sequencer you mute/solo the midi that is sent to a device while the mute/solo buttons in the mixer mute/solo the generated audio. And as those two do not have to have a 1:1 relation in Reason it's a good thing that those buttons are not linked.
Ok. Well I'm simple man. It's very likely that function has never been of any use for me then.
I'm incredibly uninterested in the all the technical/routing aspects of Reason (I know I picked the wrong DAW :lol: ). All I want is for the channel to shut up or be heard when I tell it to, in whatever window I happen to be in at the moment. Wish there was some sort of option in Reason to make it so, like a "Dumbass mode" or something. That would be on my R12 wishlist.
Channels already do this, linking mutes/solos in the mixer with the rack - I suspect it’s tracks you’re thinking of...
Meaning, there is a difference between channels and tracks. As such, mixer channel mutes appear on channels in the mixer and rack. Sequencer track mutes appear (unsurprisingly) in the sequencer. Muting a sequencer track is the same thing as muting all the clips in the track. Muting a mixer channel mutes the audio at the end of the channel signal path - audio is still going to parallel channels and inserts in this case, unlike track mutes which cut the signal at the initial source.
One solution would be to add mix channel controls to the sequencer, which would bloat the interface for sure. Or they could simply get rid of track mute/solo to avoid this confusion.
Sadly the one option that cannot be implemented is linking track and channel mutes, so are any of the other options attractive to anyone? Did I miss any other possible solutions?
Selig Audio, LLC

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2143
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 16 Feb 2020

selig wrote:
16 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020

Ok. Well I'm simple man. It's very likely that function has never been of any use for me then.
I'm incredibly uninterested in the all the technical/routing aspects of Reason (I know I picked the wrong DAW :lol: ). All I want is for the channel to shut up or be heard when I tell it to, in whatever window I happen to be in at the moment. Wish there was some sort of option in Reason to make it so, like a "Dumbass mode" or something. That would be on my R12 wishlist.
Channels already do this, linking mutes/solos in the mixer with the rack - I suspect it’s tracks you’re thinking of...
Meaning, there is a difference between channels and tracks. As such, mixer channel mutes appear on channels in the mixer and rack. Sequencer track mutes appear (unsurprisingly) in the sequencer. Muting a sequencer track is the same thing as muting all the clips in the track. Muting a mixer channel mutes the audio at the end of the channel signal path - audio is still going to parallel channels and inserts in this case, unlike track mutes which cut the signal at the initial source.
One solution would be to add mix channel controls to the sequencer, which would bloat the interface for sure. Or they could simply get rid of track mute/solo to avoid this confusion.
Sadly the one option that cannot be implemented is linking track and channel mutes, so are any of the other options attractive to anyone? Did I miss any other possible solutions?
Man I wish I hadn't brought this issue up. Now I'm getting all of these technical responses back. I take it back. I know you all mean well guys, but my head is starting to hurt reading all these explanations. Please no more. :lol: It doesn't work the way I want it to. Let's just leave it at that.
I'll shut up now and get back to creating some music instead.

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 765
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Colombia

Post 16 Feb 2020

selig wrote:
16 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020

Ok. Well I'm simple man. It's very likely that function has never been of any use for me then.
I'm incredibly uninterested in the all the technical/routing aspects of Reason (I know I picked the wrong DAW :lol: ). All I want is for the channel to shut up or be heard when I tell it to, in whatever window I happen to be in at the moment. Wish there was some sort of option in Reason to make it so, like a "Dumbass mode" or something. That would be on my R12 wishlist.
Channels already do this, linking mutes/solos in the mixer with the rack - I suspect it’s tracks you’re thinking of...
Meaning, there is a difference between channels and tracks. As such, mixer channel mutes appear on channels in the mixer and rack. Sequencer track mutes appear (unsurprisingly) in the sequencer. Muting a sequencer track is the same thing as muting all the clips in the track. Muting a mixer channel mutes the audio at the end of the channel signal path - audio is still going to parallel channels and inserts in this case, unlike track mutes which cut the signal at the initial source.
One solution would be to add mix channel controls to the sequencer, which would bloat the interface for sure. Or they could simply get rid of track mute/solo to avoid this confusion.
Sadly the one option that cannot be implemented is linking track and channel mutes, so are any of the other options attractive to anyone? Did I miss any other possible solutions?
I'm all for mix channel controls on the sequencer. A second set of M, S and a small knob that's linked to the mixer fader. That would be fantastic when working in the sequencer! Doesn't need to bloat the interface, does it? Can be small :)

Yonatan
Posts: 1073
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

selig wrote:
16 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
16 Feb 2020

Ok. Well I'm simple man. It's very likely that function has never been of any use for me then.
I'm incredibly uninterested in the all the technical/routing aspects of Reason (I know I picked the wrong DAW :lol: ). All I want is for the channel to shut up or be heard when I tell it to, in whatever window I happen to be in at the moment. Wish there was some sort of option in Reason to make it so, like a "Dumbass mode" or something. That would be on my R12 wishlist.
Channels already do this, linking mutes/solos in the mixer with the rack - I suspect it’s tracks you’re thinking of...
Meaning, there is a difference between channels and tracks. As such, mixer channel mutes appear on channels in the mixer and rack. Sequencer track mutes appear (unsurprisingly) in the sequencer. Muting a sequencer track is the same thing as muting all the clips in the track. Muting a mixer channel mutes the audio at the end of the channel signal path - audio is still going to parallel channels and inserts in this case, unlike track mutes which cut the signal at the initial source.
One solution would be to add mix channel controls to the sequencer, which would bloat the interface for sure. Or they could simply get rid of track mute/solo to avoid this confusion.
Sadly the one option that cannot be implemented is linking track and channel mutes, so are any of the other options attractive to anyone? Did I miss any other possible solutions?
Better have as is then, for the backward comp.
I find the S/M very useful when recording and tracking in sequencer. It could be removed if putting the corresponding controls from the Rack at each Seq track, as the muting will still be there for the midi-lanes. Maybe there is a reason why that has not been done.
I. must learn and remember to reset all s/m of tracks in seq before working in mixer mode.

Heater
Posts: 312
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 16 Feb 2020

diminished wrote:
12 Feb 2020
Track freeze is long overdue.
I still can’t believe it doesn’t have it. A relatively easy thing to implement I would have thought.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: andreasolsson, CommonCrawl [Bot], Ixus, korsun, robotgard, TheMiles, Trendiction [Bot], winterdunkel and 9 guests