Soundpacks available to buy for non Reason+ users?

[Billy+]

I was under the impression that they included a reason song file that allowed you to see the content in use, but from what I'm reading that is not the case and actually all your getting is processed audio files? Along with the patches.

Some packs have project files included, others don't. We are still experimenting here and gathering feedback from users on the idea. Personally, I like the idea, but we need more feedback. To get the project file to see how the demo was constructed and get some insightful tips on how the sounds were created and used, feels interesting to me. That said, half of the user base are working in another DAW, so we'd need to find a way to make that a logical process.

I think that's the problem!

I understand getting people with a wide range of experience is essential but ultimately to truly support Reasons growth you have to put it first and that really should include the DAW not just RRP.

I'm sure if you truly wanted to it wouldn't be to difficult for the creators to use Reason standalone to create the project demos all the essential components are available.

For years I've wanted to see professional style based template project files included in refill, just like you can buy for Logic and Live.

[nickb523]

I would suggest that these packs should probably have separate designations. With type 1 being "Sound Packs" and type 2 being something like "Sound Expansions" or even just "Micro ReFill" - They are clearly very different in approach so could probably do with some indication of that. 

I really like this idea. Another "theme" or category we've been playing around with is purely pattern-based/player patches. Things like https://share.reasonstudios.com/pack/197. This pack is 80 Drum Sequencer patterns. Maybe that fits into "Sound Expansions" though, or could be it's own "Player Patterns" category.

Categorizing them in some way I feel is necessary and logical. A whole other category dedicated to utility player patches makes a ton of sense, granted there is some crossover into "Sound Expansions" but I think players are an obviously different beast that could also do with a bit of separation. FX could do with the same treatment as then as creators we could supply packs dedicated to mastering, distortion or stereo FX etc.

[aeox]

No Reason files
It's the separate wave of the demo used in the Demo Song
As well as the individual patches

That's different than when I posted with joey :- viewtopic.php?p=541957#p541957

I said way back then that the inclusion of the actual project files would be a good idea so that all the new users would be able to actually learn how to use Reason and the devices.

It's a shame that all that investment is going to waste on just rebranded refills. I was at least under the impression that the packs had more uses than new patches - being able to show new content in use would be a real incentive and including a project file that reproduce the demo song in full would really help new users understand the techniques used.

No Reason files? That's weird. I was planning on making some soundpacks with project files included for the demo track, but that's off putting to me if you can't add project files.

[Billy+]

It's unfortunate that the subscription service truly leaves people like my self outside its scope as I think you could benefit from the feedback potential that is on offer, but without a secondary machine to run even the trial I'm not even able to comment fully on how you could increase the content packs usefulness.

[Billy+]

No Reason files? That's weird. I was planning on making some soundpacks with project files included for the demo track, but that's off putting to me if you can't add project files.

So are you an official content creator?

I'm sure if you've got the project files for you pack then James is almost certainly going to want you to include them.

[aeox]

No Reason files? That's weird. I was planning on making some soundpacks with project files included for the demo track, but that's off putting to me if you can't add project files.

So are you an official content creator?

I'm sure if you've got the project files for you pack then James is almost certainly going to want you to include them.

Nope but i was making them anyway, i don't know if i've got the skills to do that but it's worth a try. i'll send them some packs and see what they say

[Billy+]

So are you an official content creator?

I'm sure if you've got the project files for you pack then James is almost certainly going to want you to include them.

Nope but i was making them anyway, i don't know if i've got the skills to do that but it's worth a try. i'll send them some packs and see what they say

Cool, what sort of genres are you doing?

[jamespember]

I really like this idea. Another "theme" or category we've been playing around with is purely pattern-based/player patches. Things like https://share.reasonstudios.com/pack/197. This pack is 80 Drum Sequencer patterns. Maybe that fits into "Sound Expansions" though, or could be it's own "Player Patterns" category.

Categorizing them in some way I feel is necessary and logical. A whole other category dedicated to utility player patches makes a ton of sense, granted there is some crossover into "Sound Expansions" but I think players are an obviously different beast that could also do with a bit of separation. FX could do with the same treatment as then as creators we could supply packs dedicated to mastering, distortion or stereo FX etc.

Absolutely. We have a few interesting Effect packs in the backlog which we're exciting to launch and test out. And yeah, I really feel like Players is a great opportunity here too.

[jamespember]

That's different than when I posted with joey :- viewtopic.php?p=541957#p541957

I said way back then that the inclusion of the actual project files would be a good idea so that all the new users would be able to actually learn how to use Reason and the devices.

It's a shame that all that investment is going to waste on just rebranded refills. I was at least under the impression that the packs had more uses than new patches - being able to show new content in use would be a real incentive and including a project file that reproduce the demo song in full would really help new users understand the techniques used.

No Reason files? That's weird. I was planning on making some soundpacks with project files included for the demo track, but that's off putting to me if you can't add project files.

We definitely are open to including project files, a bunch of the packs that are out now include them. It's just not a hard and fast rule that they must be included, at this point.

[jamespember]

Some packs have project files included, others don't. We are still experimenting here and gathering feedback from users on the idea. Personally, I like the idea, but we need more feedback. To get the project file to see how the demo was constructed and get some insightful tips on how the sounds were created and used, feels interesting to me. That said, half of the user base are working in another DAW, so we'd need to find a way to make that a logical process.

I'm sure if you truly wanted to it wouldn't be to difficult for the creators to use Reason standalone to create the project demos all the essential components are available.

I mean, it's not about the creators in my mind, they can absolutely create the projects in Reason as you say. It's more about the users on the other side and giving them what they want/need.

Perhaps it should be dynamic? A Reason user could get a Reason project inside the pack. A Logic user could get a Logic project in the pack.

[Billy+]

I'm sure if you truly wanted to it wouldn't be to difficult for the creators to use Reason standalone to create the project demos all the essential components are available.

I mean, it's not about the creators in my mind, they can absolutely create the projects in Reason as you say. It's more about the users on the other side and giving them what they want/need.

Perhaps it should be dynamic? A Reason user could get a Reason project inside the pack. A Logic user could get a Logic project in the pack.

I guess it's your baby,

but I would caution pushing other DAW's that's only going to feed into the fears that we are loosing ours

[aeox]

No Reason files? That's weird. I was planning on making some soundpacks with project files included for the demo track, but that's off putting to me if you can't add project files.

We definitely are open to including project files, a bunch of the packs that are out now include them. It's just not a hard and fast rule that they must be included, at this point.

That's good! Thanks for the clarification.

[nickb523]

Perhaps it should be dynamic? A Reason user could get a Reason project inside the pack. A Logic user could get a Logic project in the pack.

If that was somehow possible without creators making packs compatible with every possible DAW then it would be an awesome addition.

However, I can't help but think that anyone using the RRP is already a more advanced user so probably isn't all that interested in the project files. Hell, even if for some reason they wanted to open the project files they always can as the core app and RRP are shipped as one product anyway.

[jamespember]

Perhaps it should be dynamic? A Reason user could get a Reason project inside the pack. A Logic user could get a Logic project in the pack.

If that was somehow possible without creators making packs compatible with every possible DAW then it would be an awesome addition.

However, I can't help but think that anyone using the RRP is already a more advanced user so probably isn't all that interested in the project files. Hell, even if for some reason they wanted to open the project files they always can as the core app and RRP are shipped as one product anyway.

Right, that's a great point regarding how advanced a user is. And yeah, we'd need to find an efficient way to create multiple project files. Something to ponder and explore for sure!

[aeox]

If that was somehow possible without creators making packs compatible with every possible DAW then it would be an awesome addition.

However, I can't help but think that anyone using the RRP is already a more advanced user so probably isn't all that interested in the project files. Hell, even if for some reason they wanted to open the project files they always can as the core app and RRP are shipped as one product anyway.

Right, that's a great point regarding how advanced a user is. And yeah, we'd need to find an efficient way to create multiple project files. Something to ponder and explore for sure!

If they are advanced then they don't need it but it's good to have it there for certain scenarios. If I was trying to make a soundpack for a particular genre that is heavily based upon modulation via the automation lanes, then a project file would be very beneficial for people trying to learn. There is only so much you can accomplish with patches and combinators (although pushing boundaries is fun)

Maybe some users will deeply appreciate project files included, and others won't care.

[DaveyG]

I don't see much point in trying to supply demo files for other DAWs. I DO see a lot of point in supplying a demo Reason project with every soundpack.

Users who only use the rack plugin are free to ignore the project but also have the ability to fire up the standalone to explore the project. It's crazy if content providers are supplying a WAV/MP3 of a demo song produced in Reason but not supplying the matching Reason project.

[Ottostrom]

Is there still no easy way to preview the soundspacks without one of those "share" links? Like, I wanna see what's being offered to a Reason+ subscriber but right now I can't find an easy way without subscribing myself. I really don't get it from a marketing perspective cause how am I supposed to get temped by the product if I can't even see it?

[Billy+]

Is there still no easy way to preview the soundspacks without one of those "share" links? Like, I wanna see what's being offered to a Reason+ subscriber but right now I can't find an easy way without subscribing myself. I really don't get it from a marketing perspective cause how am I supposed to get temped by the product if I can't even see it?

You can see the current crop here :- https://share.reasonstudios.com

[Ottostrom]

You can see the current crop here :- https://share.reasonstudios.com

Yeah I saw your earlier comment with that link. I just want an easy way to see ALL of them, and not just this weeks new packs.

[Billy+]

You can see the current crop here :- https://share.reasonstudios.com

Yeah I saw your earlier comment with that link. I just want an easy way to see ALL of them, and not just this weeks new packs.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to view them all.

But it doesn't take a genius to change the numbers, start at one and go from there.

https://share.reasonstudios.com/pack/1
https://share.reasonstudios.com/pack/201

[joeyluck]

I think the greatest value has been in the patches; seeing different approaches to different sounds, being able to deconstruct Combinator patches, etc.

I don't see as much value in Reason files. For the ones that have been included, I guess it makes sense... You don't need a Reason file for a pack that focuses solely on a drum kit, or just bass sounds, or 808 kicks, etc. Maybe it's worthwhile sharing if there's something interesting to share? Otherwise, if it's just sequencing and automation, maybe a bit of mixing... is there always much to learn there?

The demo mp3s I haven't made use of either. But I do like chopping things up, so maybe that could be fun to explore? But I'd still much rather only download the patches. I appreciate that they have at least moved from wav to mp3 so the packs take up less room.

The sound pack demo songs are typically brief examples. They aren't like the full demo songs included with Reason, which everybody has access to if they want to dig in to explore.

And in any case, I guess I'd much rather see a walkthrough video if the pack creator feels there is something interesting to share with the pack or how the demo song was made.

[Billy+]

I think the greatest value has been in the patches; seeing different approaches to different sounds, being able to deconstruct Combinator patches, etc.

I don't see as much value in Reason files. For the ones that have been included, I guess it makes sense... You don't need a Reason file for a pack that focuses solely on a drum kit, or just bass sounds, or 808 kicks, etc. Maybe it's worthwhile sharing if there's something interesting to share? Otherwise, if it's just sequencing and automation, maybe a bit of mixing... is there always much to learn there?

The demo mp3s I haven't made use of either. But I do like chopping things up, so maybe that could be fun to explore? But I'd still much rather only download the patches. I appreciate that they have at least moved from wav to mp3 so the packs take up less room.

The sound pack demo songs are typically brief examples. They aren't like the full demo songs included with Reason, which everybody has access to if they want to dig in to explore.

And in any case, I guess I'd much rather see a walkthrough video if the pack creator feels there is something interesting to share with the pack or how the demo song was made.

Yeah but you're looking at it from the perspective of a long term user who has a good understanding of Reason standalone DAW. If Reason Studios want to encourage new cash into the ecosystem then they should be trying their hardest to show them how it works, sequencing automation eq compression etc....

[nickb523]

I think the greatest value has been in the patches; seeing different approaches to different sounds, being able to deconstruct Combinator patches, etc.

I don't see as much value in Reason files. For the ones that have been included, I guess it makes sense... You don't need a Reason file for a pack that focuses solely on a drum kit, or just bass sounds, or 808 kicks, etc. Maybe it's worthwhile sharing if there's something interesting to share? Otherwise, if it's just sequencing and automation, maybe a bit of mixing... is there always much to learn there?

The demo mp3s I haven't made use of either. But I do like chopping things up, so maybe that could be fun to explore? But I'd still much rather only download the patches. I appreciate that they have at least moved from wav to mp3 so the packs take up less room.

The sound pack demo songs are typically brief examples. They aren't like the full demo songs included with Reason, which everybody has access to if they want to dig in to explore.

And in any case, I guess I'd much rather see a walkthrough video if the pack creator feels there is something interesting to share with the pack or how the demo song was made.

Thing is that the packs need to be inspiring in some way and putting some effort into the demo track is a really easy way to do that. There is only so many 10 pack "808 Boomz" and "EDM Basses" you can have before things get really boring.... "Evolving Pads 29" anyone? - The approach to building these packs should surely be more creative than that?

Given the massive focus on new users, I think as creators we should be supplying everything we possibly can to inspire and hopefully educate in a fun and enjoyable way. Not lazily pumping out combinators as sound pack fodder for a quick buck.

[Billy+]

Thing is that the packs need to be inspiring in some way and putting some effort into the demo track is a really easy way to do that. There is only so many 10 pack "808 Boomz" and "EDM Basses" you could have before things get really boring.... "Evolving Pads 29" anyone? - The approach to building these packs should surely be more creative than that?

Given the massive focus on new users, I think as creators we should be supplying everything we possibly can to inspire and hopefully educate in a fun and enjoyable way. Not lazily pumping out combinators as sound pack fodder for a quick buck.

There is nothing worse than buying a preset pack based on a demo track only for the patches to not sound anything like they did in the demo.

Then you find out that they've been layered to fatten then sound within the tracks and run through an output chain that's saturated and maximised then to within 0.3db of clipping all while automating some macro that you didn't have any clue about.

[nickb523]

There is nothing worse than buying a preset pack based on a demo track only for the patches to not sound anything like they did in the demo.

Then you find out that they've been layered to fatten then sound within the tracks and run through an output chain that's saturated and maximised then to within 0.3db of clipping all while automating some macro that you didn't have any clue about.

Many of the Walmart style ReFill developers are guilty of this. Over produced demos mixed, remixed, mixed again and then mastered to the point they are pushing -3 LUFS. By that stage it's hard to even make out the patches as you are pretty much listening to white noise.