Mattias: "Reason is the rack and you can use it as a plug-in or standalone with its own sequencer and mixer etc."

[stratatonic]

I happen to disagree. The USP is the hardware emulation concept, not the rack per se, that's why the mixer fit so perfectly with it.

I totally agree with this.
So for me, Reason's USP wasn't the rack, but that was nice. It wasn't the sequencer, but that was also nice. It was the instrument(s).

The instrument(s) [and FX(s)] are in the rack. So the instrument(s) are the rack, no?
You are disagreeing with Mattias?

EDIT: I posted this without seeing Enoch and your reply. I guess you sort of answered that. I just don't understand what the heck the rack is if it's not the stuff that's in it.

[selig]

I totally agree with this.
So for me, Reason's USP wasn't the rack, but that was nice. It wasn't the sequencer, but that was also nice. It was the instrument(s).

The instrument(s) [and FX(s)] are in the rack. So the instrument(s) are the rack, no?
You are disagreeing with Mattias?

If you are in something are you that something? if you are in a car, are you the car?
The instruments could be visualized to be in a studio, or on a boat, or in a rack, but it would not change the sound or the idea of working with the collection of instruments. Originally the mixer was in the rack - so does that mean the mixer is the rack?
The rack is a container for the instruments, and other containers could have been just as effective although never exactly the same. I was being "literal" when I said the instruments are not the rack - only the rack can truly be the rack, and the rack starts empty in Reason. So is the empty rack what makes Reason great? Or do you not need the instruments? Take away the rack and you still have all the power of Reason IMO. Take away the instruments/FX, and you have nothing but an empty rack.
And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone BTW, I'm just sharing my take on Reason - FWIW, as always!

[stratatonic]

The rack is a container for the instruments, and other containers could have been just as effective although never exactly the same.

We'd be calling things Container Extensions if it wasn't for the Rack.

[selig]

The rack is a container for the instruments, and other containers could have been just as effective although never exactly the same.

We'd be calling things Container Extensions if it wasn't for the Rack.

Not necessarily, if the container was the studio we might be calling them studio extensions. We use the name of the container, not the term "container"!
Reason is the rack because they chose the rack as the container for the devices. It COULD have been a different container, and then we would be saying a different word instead of "Rack" - but the word "container" would still apply because it is a generic word describes the function of things like "racks".

But that's not my point - I see the cables and the ability to freely connect things as the primary thing that makes Reason "Reason". Others see the rack as the primary thing that makes Reason "Reason". That's how the world works…

[EnochLight]

Yeah I just don't really agree with that. To me, the rack is everything that goes in it - all of Reason's instruments, effects, and utilities. Things that people have been using in other DAW via ReWire since Reason came out. We're arguing semantics, IMHO.

[Billy+]

But that's not my point - I see the cables and the ability to freely connect things as the primary thing that makes Reason "Reason". Others see the rack as the primary thing that makes Reason "Reason". That's how the world works…

The cables are my favourite thing about the RACK, there are a number of interesting things that happen when you just plug cables into sockets sometimes it works other times it's doesn't but the point is that Reasons RACK allows you to make these kind of mistakes that sometimes produces results that without the RACK just wouldn't be possible.

[QVprod]

The instrument(s) [and FX(s)] are in the rack. So the instrument(s) are the rack, no?
You are disagreeing with Mattias?

If you are in something are you that something? if you are in a car, are you the car?
The instruments could be visualized to be in a studio, or on a boat, or in a rack, but it would not change the sound or the idea of working with the collection of instruments. Originally the mixer was in the rack - so does that mean the mixer is the rack?
The rack is a container for the instruments, and other containers could have been just as effective although never exactly the same. I was being "literal" when I said the instruments are not the rack - only the rack can truly be the rack, and the rack starts empty in Reason. So is the empty rack what makes Reason great? Or do you not need the instruments? Take away the rack and you still have all the power of Reason IMO. Take away the instruments/FX, and you have nothing but an empty rack.
And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone BTW, I'm just sharing my take on Reason - FWIW, as always!

Actually yes, if you’re referring to equipment or components. The shell of a car can still be referred to as a car, but all the things within it are what make it functional. So generally when you speak of a car, you’re talking about the entire running thing rather than it’s individual pieces like steering wheel, engine, gas pedal, break...etc... The steering wheel is not the car, but it is part of the car.

In the same sense; referring to Reason’s rack, I don’t think most people are thinking about an empty rack, but rather everything that happens inside it. I used to do shop work for an events company. Whenever a rack was requested for a job, we knew it wasn’t an empty one. When one says they’re going to build a rack, it usually includes the equipment they desire to be inside of it and not just the assembling of an empty rack.

But yes, as been stated, this is semantics and I believe we’re saying the same thing.

[bangaio]

The instrument(s) [and FX(s)] are in the rack. So the instrument(s) are the rack, no?
You are disagreeing with Mattias?

If you are in something are you that something? if you are in a car, are you the car?
The instruments could be visualized to be in a studio, or on a boat, or in a rack, but it would not change the sound or the idea of working with the collection of instruments. Originally the mixer was in the rack - so does that mean the mixer is the rack?
The rack is a container for the instruments, and other containers could have been just as effective although never exactly the same. I was being "literal" when I said the instruments are not the rack - only the rack can truly be the rack, and the rack starts empty in Reason. So is the empty rack what makes Reason great? Or do you not need the instruments? Take away the rack and you still have all the power of Reason IMO. Take away the instruments/FX, and you have nothing but an empty rack.
And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone BTW, I'm just sharing my take on Reason - FWIW, as always!

I am glad someone here gets it form my point of view. As Selig says the USP for me was the devices. I couldn't afford a Juno or any flavour - the props' .plan file in 1999 said that the subtractor best resembled a Juno. I couldn't afford an S1000 or even an S2000 or ESI but in the same package as the juno sounding subtractor I could now have a sampler.

The rack was a metaphor and I couldn't care less what it was called or looked like. I wanted those instruments and the tight integration the sequender offered. As anyone from back then can remember sequencing midi gear back then was a nightmare. Forget all your fancy automation and curves. Get delving in to NRPNs and sysex messages. That was no fun at all. Imaging a multitimbral synth that sounded great in performance mode and a sack of shit in multi mode and I couldn't afford a decent mixer or effects.

Reason changed all that.

Now "the rack" just means the instruments and the place they go and if that is their product I still maintain they are missing a trick because as far back as V1 Reason meant everything played together easily and well. Now it is a mass of devices (great) in a rack (same as always) that is sequenced using an antiquated poorly designed sequencer. No wonder they aren't drawing in new customers RRP or not - the tool just doesn't cut it when compared with other sequencers or even in some ways how their sequencer used to work.

[antic604]

...Now it is a mass of devices (great) in a rack (same as always) that is sequenced using an antiquated poorly designed sequencer. No wonder they aren't drawing in new customers RRP or not - the tool just doesn't cut it when compared with other sequencers or even in some ways how their sequencer used to work.

But that's the whole point of this thread and me trying to - maybe wrongly, I'm open to that - interpret what Mattias said.

We all probably agree that Reason DAW's sequencer and mixer have their strengths & unique features, but - on the whole - they're way behind the 'average' not to mention 'top' implementation available out there.

But it's not like it's unsalvageable! If RS decided to commit adequate resources to it, they should be able to pretty quickly reap most of the low-hanging fruits (like they already did to some extent in 10.x and 11.x) and work on the deeper issues in the meantime. But instead it appears they're gonna drop Reason DAW altogether and pretty soon, despite official statements to the contrary.

That's how I interpret "rack is the product". They never said "rack is the hook product to attract new users to Reason DAW". No. It's "our included DAW", instead. Like the pair of throw-away crappy headphones you get in a box with your smartphone. I don't think they add them anymore, too. Which is where I see Reason going.

[DaveyG]

...Now it is a mass of devices (great) in a rack (same as always) that is sequenced using an antiquated poorly designed sequencer. No wonder they aren't drawing in new customers RRP or not - the tool just doesn't cut it when compared with other sequencers or even in some ways how their sequencer used to work.

But that's the whole point of this thread and me trying to - maybe wrongly, I'm open to that - interpret what Mattias said.

We all probably agree that Reason DAW's sequencer and mixer have their strengths & unique features, but - on the whole - they're way behind the 'average' not to mention 'top' implementation available out there.

But it's not like it's unsalvageable! If RS decided to commit adequate resources to it, they should be able to pretty quickly reap most of the low-hanging fruits (like they already did to some extent in 10.x and 11.x) and work on the deeper issues in the meantime. But instead it appears they're gonna drop Reason DAW altogether and pretty soon, despite official statements to the contrary.

That's how I interpret "rack is the product". They never said "rack is the hook product to attract new users to Reason DAW". No. It's "our included DAW", instead. Like the pair of throw-away crappy headphones you get in a box with your smartphone. I don't think they add them anymore, too. Which is where I see Reason going.

James has stated on here that the user base is now split about 50/50 between users of the plugin and users of the standalone. Given that the plugin did not exist before Reason 11 that's an astonishingly fast adoption rate. So I think in the very near future plugin users are going to outnumber standalone users by some margin and if you stand back and look at it in cold, hard business terms it makes perfect sense to focus development on the plugin.

Maybe the subscription service will lead to users demanding more instruments, effects and soundsets and we could even reach a point where standalone users dwindle far enough for RS to drop that part of the software completely. We're not there yet but it is definitely one possible future.

[zoidkirb]

That 50/50 split seems hard to believe.
Are they comparing Reason DAW users to people who fire up RRP Lite every now and then in Live and fool around with Subtractor for 5 minutes?
50/50 maybe be technically true although disingenuous, as it's more about actual time and usage of the software that counts.

[MrBlue]

... But instead it appears they're gonna drop Reason DAW altogether and pretty soon, despite official statements to the contrary...

If the strategy is that I stay with version 10, I do not want to change DAW, I use Reason since 2006 version 3. I do not plan to acquire another DAW... They’ll have no more money from me !

[sdst]

Reason is the subtractor

you can use it with its own sequencer. mixer, rack, effect and other instruments

[avasopht]

But that's the whole point of this thread and me trying to - maybe wrongly, I'm open to that - interpret what Mattias said.

This is the mistake you're making.

You're trying to interpret it to infer new information by using your own reasoning about the hidden meaning of the words he used.

That's always a recipe for disaster.

Language is messy and ambiguous. That's what allows us to approximate new ideas, or to still understand each other when we use the wrong words, or don't say the words in the right order.

It also doesn't help that you've only been using it for 4 years.

I've been using it for nearly 19 years now. That means that in my backup harddrive I have 19 years worth of material that can only be opened in reason standalone.

There is absolutely no conceivable way Reason Studios would be stupid enough to think they could push users like me onto RRP by doing what you've suggested. They'd lose them for good.

I even explained the psychology of spite in my last comment.

You're overthinking his comment and speculating yourself into oblivion.

Unless RRP brings in enough new to cover their costs 10 times over (because churn rates are a much higher risk with subscriptions for hobbies) doing what you've suggested will guarantee 100% that Reason Studios will be bankrupt the instant a strategy like that is attempted.

People don't like being nickel and dimed.

[danc]

All Reason Studios has to do now is license the "Rack" to another DAW producer and they build it into their DAW (rather than having to load it in as a plugin).
I can imagine it now... it would fit perfectly into say the Studio One eco-system so easily... and suddenly make S1 compete with the likes of Bitwig and any other modular minded platform.

Don't knock the idea before you think about it carefully - as it could be the most commercially savvy thing RS did for years.

[EdwardKiy]

All Reason Studios has to do now is license the "Rack" to another DAW producer and they build it into their DAW (rather than having to load it in as a plugin).
I can imagine it now... it would fit perfectly into say the Studio One eco-system so easily... and suddenly make S1 compete with the likes of Bitwig and any other modular minded platform.

Don't knock the idea before you think about it carefully - as it could be the most commercially savvy thing RS did for years.

It's not "Rack", it's "rack", and that's the problem I mentioned earlier. You can't license "a chair". You can only make a good and cheap enough chair for people to buy without thinking about making their own. The problem would be even further exacerbated by the fact this chair would be sold to another, bigger furniture manufacturer.

[danc]

All Reason Studios has to do now is license the "Rack" to another DAW producer and they build it into their DAW (rather than having to load it in as a plugin).
I can imagine it now... it would fit perfectly into say the Studio One eco-system so easily... and suddenly make S1 compete with the likes of Bitwig and any other modular minded platform.

Don't knock the idea before you think about it carefully - as it could be the most commercially savvy thing RS did for years.

It's not "Rack", it's "rack", and that's the problem I mentioned earlier. You can't license "a chair". You can only make a good and cheap enough chair for people to buy without thinking about making their own. The problem would be even further exacerbated by the fact this chair would be sold to another, bigger furniture manufacturer.

You can license a "Reason Rack" - where you can drop in combinators, and REs etc.

[Billy+]

You can't license "a chair". You can only make a good and cheap enough chair for people to buy without thinking about making their own. The problem would be even further exacerbated by the fact this chair would be sold to another, bigger furniture manufacturer.

Um.........

https://www.tmdn.org/tmdsview-web/welco ... duct=Chair

[Carpainter]

What bothers me more than Propellerhead's lack of interest in creating a better sequencer is the fact that there's a market for another DAW with a UI that emulates hardware like Reason, but nobody seems to be interested in tapping it. Instead, we have a couple dozen companies putting out their version of Cubase or Live or Fruity Loops, each with such minor differences that they aren't even worth mentioning.

Other than Reason, the only piece of music software that comes close to emulating a hardware interface is VCV Rack. Everything else looks and feels like a computer program, more or less.

[Billy+]

What bothers me more than Propellerhead's lack of interest in creating a better sequencer is the fact that there's a market for another DAW with a UI that emulates hardware like Reason, but nobody seems to be interested in tapping it. Instead, we have a couple dozen companies putting out their version of Cubase or Live or Fruity Loops, each with such minor differences that they aren't even worth mentioning.

Other than Reason, the only piece of music software that comes close to emulating a hardware interface is VCV Rack. Everything else looks and feels like a computer program, more or less.

Take a look at softube modular

Heartbeat is pretty cool as well

[danc]

What bothers me more than Propellerhead's lack of interest in creating a better sequencer is the fact that there's a market for another DAW with a UI that emulates hardware like Reason, but nobody seems to be interested in tapping it. Instead, we have a couple dozen companies putting out their version of Cubase or Live or Fruity Loops, each with such minor differences that they aren't even worth mentioning.

Other than Reason, the only piece of music software that comes close to emulating a hardware interface is VCV Rack. Everything else looks and feels like a computer program, more or less.

It would be rather odd if my "computer program" word-processor had a feathered quill for a cursor, and a scroll for the background paper, just because in the past we had to use them to write a document. And taking that analogy into music making... DAWs these days don't generally have hardware containers as representations of audio equipment, even though 30 years ago we had to use hardware boxes to record music. Things move on.

[EnochLight]

But that's the whole point of this thread and me trying to - maybe wrongly, I'm open to that - interpret what Mattias said.

As has been pointed out (by both myself and others).. the crux of your issue is that you are interpreting what Mattias said as somehow being revolutionary and brand new. It is not. As stated earlier, Reason has always been available as a rack of gear to be used in other DAW since the day it launched 20 years ago. In fact, if you actually wanted to produce professional work with vocals - you know - like a band - you absolutely had to use it in another DAW. RRP is just another way to do it (that is arguably superior to the old ReWire method).

I get that people get salty sometimes that Properllerhead's go at attempting to make Reason a fully standalone DAW threw them a curveball - I'm actually one of those people! But I just don't see anything to worry about. Reason Studios have said it multiple times that they are not abandoning the standalone DAW portion of Reason, and I suspect we'll see new standalone DAW features in Reason 12, and I suspect that IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH FOR US WHO PREFER STANDALONE DAW REASON. Never. NEVER EVER.

My own personal take is that if RRP and Reason+ subs keep the money flowing and keep getting me core standalone Reason updates, then I'm good. Otherwise, no biggie - I'll take RRP to another DAW and move on.

[Carpainter]

It would be rather odd if my "computer program" word-processor had a feathered quill for a cursor, and a scroll for the background paper, just because in the past we had to use them to write a document. And taking that analogy into music making... DAWs these days don't generally have hardware containers as representations of audio equipment, even though 30 years ago we had to use hardware boxes to record music. Things move on.

Modern art programs actually do a pretty good job emulating what happens when you put a pen or pencil to paper, and I'd argue that Reason is closer to an art program than a word processor. The DAW industry is overflowing with 'word processors'. What it lacks is software that looks and feels like stuff you use in the real world.

[selig]

Yeah I just don't really agree with that. To me, the rack is everything that goes in it - all of Reason's instruments, effects, and utilities. Things that people have been using in other DAW via ReWire since Reason came out. We're arguing semantics, IMHO.

Actually, I’m just sharing my thoughts, not saying I’m right and you’re wrong (as in an “argument). Not trying to change your mind, just making sure you’re not trying to change mine either!

OK, so in Pro Tools you put instruments into mixer channels instead of a rack, but otherwise it’s no different, right? The mixer is the “a container” for instruments.
But my point/feeling is it the CABLES that makes Reason unique. Take away the cables and you basically have every other DAW, just arranged differently on the screen - what we call “the rack” in Reason is called “the mixer” in Pro Tools, etc. Sure, you can do very basic routing in Pro Tools, but nothing like what Reason can do because of its cable paradigm.
That’s what I mean when I say for me it’s the cables not the rack. You could have cables in Pro Tools too, but you don’t - and Pro Tools could also add a “rack” but not add cables, and you STILL a wouldn’t have the power of Reason IMO. That logic leads me to conclude the cables, not the rack, are the biggest part of the Reason experience for me. And that’s why I prefer Reason! Maybe for you and others, it;s not the cables but the wood and metal simulated rack rails and/or the vertical stacking of instruments (air something else) that allow you to do things you can’t do in other DAWs - that’s great, but it’s not how I feel, that’s all. To each their own!

[DaveyG]

Other than Reason, the only piece of music software that comes close to emulating a hardware interface is VCV Rack. Everything else looks and feels like a computer program, more or less.

That's because emulating the look of hardware is not necessarily the best approach on a computer screen. It looks great but interconnecting more than a few things can quickly become fiddly and error prone. When you return to a complicated project some months later it can be difficult to figure out exactly what you did and if you download someone else's project it can be even harder to understand the interconnections! A much better approach for interconnecting stuff is the Bitwig grid. It's essentially a block diagram of the system. Not as sexy to look at but a whole heap more understandable.

An excellent addition to Reason would be the ability to change the view between hardware rack and a new block diagram view.