Reason layout compared to other DAWs

[deeplink]

Just out of interest, since I've only had expirence on Ableton and Reason.

What are the layout like on other DAWs?

Off the top of my head in Reason, you have;
Front of Rack
Back of Rack
The Mixer
The Sequencer (overview)
The Sequencer (edit mode)
The Sequencer (block view)


Now obviously I know you combine 2 or more of these into one window, but the usabability goes... Out the window. (Pun intended).

Whereas Ableton only has two views;
Clips
Sequencer
- everything else is handled either in pop ups (vsts) or pop up mounted windows.

Personally, I've resorted to ONLY viewing the sequencer screen. And I use it as my device navigator. Similar to Ableton.

The rack I treat as a small pop up window, so it behaves almost like others DAWs would when handlings VSTs.

The mixer I completely ignore until I'm at mixing stage. Even opting to use parallel channels as "sends" - just so I don't have to open the mixer.

This way I don't have to organise my rack. I only organise my sequencer. I don't have to cut back and forth from block view - because I don't use it. And I don't have to cut to a separate screen for mixing or send effects, as I don't use that either, resorting to parralel effect buses rather. I think it simplifies my workflow and the amount of screen content / real estate to worry about.

What I'm left with is something which I feel is similar to Ableton (or maybe every other DAW?).

Anyone have any meditations or thoughts after reading the above?

[guitfnky]

I tend to work a lot like what you describe. that might be why I finally gravitated Ableton. I like that when I click a track, it shows me the plugins for that track—very similar to what happens in Reason. and the way Live handles clip editing isn’t perfect, but it’s way more elegant than Reason (especially if there’s a lot of automation involved).

[demt]

Its incredibly difficult to judge when to use the effects in the mixer

[guitfnky]

Its incredibly difficult to judge when to use the effects in the mixer

in Reason? I kind of avoided them for a long time, but now I try to reach for them first. if I need an EQ, I use the SSL, and if that doesn't get me where I need to be, that's when I'll move to the rack. same with compression. it makes mixing faster (for me, at least), since I'm not hemming and hawing over which compressors and/or EQs to add to the rack on literally every single track, like I used to.

one thing I realized was keeping me away from using the mixer EQ was the spectrum EQ window. every time I open it (even now), I worry that I can't get a tight enough Q out of it--it's totally a visual thing, and takes me away from just using my ears. once I decided to avoid the spectrum window unless I absolutely needed it, I became much more confident using the SSL EQ, and I've enjoyed mixing a lot more.

[False Mirror]

I‘m using 3 monitors with the mixer on one (together with the spectrum analyzer), rack on the next on and the sequencer on the third. It really helps having the mixing levels always visible and being able to easily navigate back and forth between rack, sequencer and mixer.

[zoidkirb]

Ableton Live kinda has 4 views. Tab switches between Session and Arranger, and Alt-Tab will switch the Rack and Clip views under the Session and Arranger pages.
So you get 4 variations of views. It's a really common request to be able to undock the Clip and Rack segments.
Reason really does it better here IMO.
Cubase has even more views. You could have multiple different mixers, arranger page open at the same time as clip editor, and good docking options for one screen. I think you can even save different layouts and flip between them.

[gullum]

I use controllers so I 90% the time don't use the mouse in reason
I've tried it with other DAWs but just nothing is uniform and I get lost in windows popping up all over

IMG_8387.JPG (367.97 KiB) Viewed 2740 times

[Jackjackdaw]

I have everything in one window and use f keys to switch between the different views. I consider the Rack to be the 'main' view most of the time but I have no trouble navigating everything as a whole. The hotkeys for tool selection in the sequencer are really good too. I don't think Reason is well designed for laptop screens per se, but I have become very comfortable using it on one.

[Oquasec]

The closest one to reason in general is protools.

[deeplink]

I have everything in one window and use f keys to switch between the different views. I consider the Rack to be the 'main' view most of the time but I have no trouble navigating everything as a whole. The hotkeys for tool selection in the sequencer are really good too. I don't think Reason is well designed for laptop screens per se, but I have become very comfortable using it on one.

I guess it's all individual preferences. My interest in this basically comes from using Reason for years and years and yet still struggle sometimes getting 'lost in a project'.

It's most frustrating when, for example you have two instances of the same device on top of each other. However, the first instance is folded.
When you click on the relative sequencer track or mix channel for the device, you jump to the rack and start tweaking the device parameters that are in front of you - BUT actually you're tweaking the wrong instrument, and its the one that's hiding, folded at the top of the rack that you should be tweaking. After all these years I've never got the hang of it.

The above also goes in hand with having a large instrument and small instrument on top of each other. It's jaring selecting say a Subcontractor, but half your screen is showing a Europa.

These are small gripes.

With that said though, I have 4 modifications that may assist the user experience - not just for me but for all;
1. When jumping to the rack, the viewer includes the mix channel for the device above.
2. When in the Rack, expanding the rack view to full screen expands the top and bottom of the view - meaning the device that you're looking at doesnt jump around.
3. In the sequencer, docked 'Edit Mode' screen at that jumps up from the bottom. Instead of a whole screen switch Overview View to Edit View. I think this would help the workflow, where you can just click once a clip and immediately make some changes to notes, click another clip and so on...
4. In all views, a more pronounced GUI highlighting which Instrument/Track/Mix Channel is currently selected.
5. When selecting device and jumping to the rack, if that device is folded it automatically unfolds.

[avasopht]

I use controllers so I 90% the time don't use the mouse in reason
I've tried it with other DAWs but just nothing is uniform and I get lost in windows popping up all over
IMG_8387.JPG

Oh, that's a nice setup!

[selig]

The mixer I completely ignore until I'm at mixing stage. Even opting to use parallel channels as "sends" - just so I don't have to open the mixer.

Parallel Channels are not sends, they are equivalent to "mults" in a patch bay. That means a parallel channel gets its signal directly from the source, totally unaffected by the main channel settings. Sends OTOH, get their signal from the OUTPUT of the main channel (assuming post fader), and thus are affected not only by every insert, but also the EQ, Filter, and Dynamics section. Pre fader sends only skip the fader section.

Thus, to get parallel channels to act like sends you'll need to do many extra things. For one, you'll need to copy the channel settings and inserts to the parallel channel (every time you make a change in the main channel, you'll need to copy to the parallel channel). If you change the fader level you'll need to scale the parallel fader accordingly. And if you mute the main channel, you'll also need to mute the parallel channel.
All to say, that's a TON of extra work and a potentially higher load on the CPU because of doubling the number of any inserts - and all this is assuming ONE parallel/send - if you want a second FX you'll be tripling the work/load.
And finally, if you wanted to use the same reverb across many channels fed by different amounts, things will get SUPER complicated fast.
Hopefully this makes sense…

[chimp_spanner]

The mixer I completely ignore until I'm at mixing stage. Even opting to use parallel channels as "sends" - just so I don't have to open the mixer.

Parallel Channels are not sends, they are equivalent to "mults" in a patch bay. That means a parallel channel gets its signal directly from the source, totally unaffected by the main channel settings. Sends OTOH, get their signal from the OUTPUT of the main channel (assuming post fader), and thus are affected not only by every insert, but also the EQ, Filter, and Dynamics section. Pre fader sends only skip the fader section.

Thus, to get parallel channels to act like sends you'll need to do many extra things. For one, you'll need to copy the channel settings and inserts to the parallel channel (every time you make a change in the main channel, you'll need to copy to the parallel channel). If you change the fader level you'll need to scale the parallel fader accordingly. And if you mute the main channel, you'll also need to mute the parallel channel.
All to say, that's a TON of extra work and a potentially higher load on the CPU because of doubling the number of any inserts - and all this is assuming ONE parallel/send - if you want a second FX you'll be tripling the work/load.
And finally, if you wanted to use the same reverb across many channels fed by different amounts, things will get SUPER complicated fast.
Hopefully this makes sense…

Yeah just to expand on that you could just put all your effects immediately after the instrument, instead of in the insert section. This would mean the full signal would be in the parallel channel but...I’d say you’re losing out if you do that. You can’t easily bypass effects or load new presets, for one. Also it makes the rack really messy. And I hate mess!

[deeplink]

The mixer I completely ignore until I'm at mixing stage. Even opting to use parallel channels as "sends" - just so I don't have to open the mixer.

Parallel Channels are not sends, they are equivalent to "mults" in a patch bay. That means a parallel channel gets its signal directly from the source, totally unaffected by the main channel settings. Sends OTOH, get their signal from the OUTPUT of the main channel (assuming post fader), and thus are affected not only by every insert, but also the EQ, Filter, and Dynamics section. Pre fader sends only skip the fader section.

Thus, to get parallel channels to act like sends you'll need to do many extra things. For one, you'll need to copy the channel settings and inserts to the parallel channel (every time you make a change in the main channel, you'll need to copy to the parallel channel). If you change the fader level you'll need to scale the parallel fader accordingly. And if you mute the main channel, you'll also need to mute the parallel channel.
All to say, that's a TON of extra work and a potentially higher load on the CPU because of doubling the number of any inserts - and all this is assuming ONE parallel/send - if you want a second FX you'll be tripling the work/load.
And finally, if you wanted to use the same reverb across many channels fed by different amounts, things will get SUPER complicated fast.
Hopefully this makes sense…

Apologies I should clarify, what I meant was:
I create parallel channel and then send the output of the p.channel to a bus.

The bus is where the Insert effect is.

That way, I essentially don't use the Mixer when I want to add a 'send', rather I create a p.channel and select the desired effect from the drop down list box.

Pro: some added control over sounds going into
Cons: waay more mix channels.

[ortxedys]

I use controllers so I 90% the time don't use the mouse in reason
I've tried it with other DAWs but just nothing is uniform and I get lost in windows popping up all over
IMG_8387.JPG

Love that setup. So you actually have all of those controls mapped? Didn't realize you could go that deep with controls.

[selig]

one thing I realized was keeping me away from using the mixer EQ was the spectrum EQ window. every time I open it (even now), I worry that I can't get a tight enough Q out of it--it's totally a visual thing, and takes me away from just using my ears. once I decided to avoid the spectrum window unless I absolutely needed it, I became much more confident using the SSL EQ, and I've enjoyed mixing a lot more.

Good point, same here - I try to use such displays to see something I'm hearing, not to "hear" something I'm seeing…

[selig]

Apologies I should clarify, what I meant was:
I create parallel channel and then send the output of the p.channel to a bus.

The bus is where the Insert effect is.

That way, I essentially don't use the Mixer when I want to add a 'send', rather I create a p.channel and select the desired effect from the drop down list box.

Pro: some added control over sounds going into
Cons: waay more mix channels.

Same thing, unless I'm missing something. If there is a parallel channel involved somewhere before the effects, you are feeding the "raw" (input) signal to the FX. A console "send" control feeds the OUTPUT of the channel to the FX, thus any filtering, EQ, Compression, Gating, or any inserts which are a part of the sound are included, plus it's post fader which means you won't have to remember to move two faders each time you want to change the level of the track…

BTW, you can also use a send and then return the signal on a Mix Channel which gives you similar amount of control over the FX.

[guitfnky]

one thing I realized was keeping me away from using the mixer EQ was the spectrum EQ window. every time I open it (even now), I worry that I can't get a tight enough Q out of it--it's totally a visual thing, and takes me away from just using my ears. once I decided to avoid the spectrum window unless I absolutely needed it, I became much more confident using the SSL EQ, and I've enjoyed mixing a lot more.

Good point, same here - I try to use such displays to see something I'm hearing, not to "hear" something I'm seeing…

exactly how I use it now. the sad thing is, I’ve known better, and for a very long time (and regularly preached that you’ve got to use your ears first). I hadn’t realized how much I’d strayed from that. it took watching some youtube videos of engineers who I respect, and an accidental realization that they use channel strip plugins 95% of the time (no visual feedback for the EQ), for a fresh slap across the face, to bring me back.

[gullum]

I use controllers so I 90% the time don't use the mouse in reason
I've tried it with other DAWs but just nothing is uniform and I get lost in windows popping up all over
IMG_8387.JPG

Love that setup. So you actually have all of those controls mapped? Didn't realize you could go that deep with controls.

Yes I even have one button mapped so all VU meter show input gain peak so I can set my gain stage without any device in the rack..
The Softube Console 1 is mapped so I can control Compressor Gate and EQ for shoosen device, The level of integration with reason is unbelievable but it takes a long time the get everything mapped as one likes, Now I only need to mapp new RE's I buy,

[ortxedys]

Love that setup. So you actually have all of those controls mapped? Didn't realize you could go that deep with controls.

Yes I even have one button mapped so all VU meter show input gain peak so I can set my gain stage without any device in the rack..
The Softube Console 1 is mapped so I can control Compressor Gate and EQ for shoosen device, The level of integration with reason is unbelievable but it takes a long time the get everything mapped as one likes, Now I only need to mapp new RE's I buy,

That's awesome. Appreciate the response. Its sparking up some ideas for me even.