SOLVED (again): "The Reason Sound"

[integerpoet]

From time to time I see someone refer to "The Reason Sound".

Lately, I've seen people poking fun at use of the term.

Not-so-lately, I saw people discussing it as if it were a legit thing.

Did such a thing ever exist? If so, what was it? Does it still?

[Lempface]

IMO and from recollection, the Reason sound simply is people with no understanding of mixing, and some of the limited number of effects in early days making a really flat sounding mix that sounds unprofessional. It's not a thing though, if you know what you're doing Reason sounds as good as anything.

[guitfnky]

Did such a thing ever exist? If so, what was it? Does it still?

1: no.
2: see answer to #1.
3: see answer to #2.

[joeyluck]

Not this

Technically before Reason had audio recording and any plugin support (RE or VST), it did have a sound; It was the sound characteristics of Subtractor, Malström, etc. It was the sound of familiar samples and REX loops. It was the sound of the built-in effects, EQ's, compressors, etc. Just the same as any other synth or effect has "a sound".

[Billy+]

Not this

Technically before Reason had audio recording and any plugin support (RE or VST), it did have a sound; It was the sound characteristics of Subtractor, Malström, etc. It was the sound of familiar samples and REX loops. It was the sound of the built-in effects, EQ's, compressors, etc. Just the same as any other synth or effect has "a sound".

That's exactly what I was thinking, it was the sound of all the synths that other DAW's didn't have......

[integerpoet]

IMO and from recollection, the Reason sound simply is people with no understanding of mixing, and some of the limited number of effects in early days making a really flat sounding mix that sounds unprofessional. It's not a thing though, if you know what you're doing Reason sounds as good as anything.

Oh, it being only an early days thing makes some sense.

Though reMIX and PEQ-2 and COMP-01 were there all along, I can see how even someone who knew how mix would find it … inconvenient.

And I certainly did not know how to mix then. (Disclaimer: It's not clear I do now! )

I am suddenly curious to hear what folks came up with for the recent Reason-1-devices-only contest.

[integerpoet]

Not this

Yeah. That's why I asked the way I did. I wasn't really paying attention to relevant folklore back then.

[BRIGGS]

Solve for "X"...

Reason sound = X

Hint:

X = noobs that don't do sound design, and use the same worn out factory patches song after song.

[integerpoet]

X = noobs that don't do sound design, and use the same worn out factory patches song after song.

I did once years ago hear on a major label release from somebody I respected a Malström patch I quite liked. So maybe I knew what "The Reason Sound" was all along and didn't know it.

But I have to say on my list of bad things, factory presets aren't near the top. For me, having a small music theory vocabulary is worse than having a small sound design vocabulary.

I mean, that seems a bit like rolling your eyes and saying "Oh, lord, violins again? This Vivaldi guy is a loser."

Granted, quirky presets can become attractive nuisances because quirkiness does wear out fast. But I have a feeling the public doesn't quickly tire of a good preset used in a good composition.

[BRIGGS]

X = noobs that don't do sound design, and use the same worn out factory patches song after song.

I did once years ago hear on a major label release from somebody I respected a Malström patch I quite liked. So maybe I knew what "The Reason Sound" was all along and didn't know it.

But I have to say on my list of bad things, factory presets aren't near the top. For me, having a small music theory vocabulary is worse than having a small sound design vocabulary.

I mean, that seems a bit like rolling your eyes and saying "Oh, lord, violins again? This Vivaldi guy is a loser."

Granted, quirky presets can become attractive nuisances because quirkiness does wear out fast. But I have a feeling the public doesn't quickly tire of a good preset used in a good composition.

Yeah, it's definitely a context thing.

[moneykube]

I have rairly use the sound banks... not that they are bad... just too much to choose from in my arsenal... I go for what is needed and often forget what came with the program> lost in racks and refills not fully explored. I doubt I have any kind of reason sound... the concept amuses me. Step OUTSIDE the box if you dare lol

[chimp_spanner]

I'm sure on some technical level there are differences in things like how DAWs pan, roll off frequencies, etc. But to the very best of my knowledge (and in my own personal experience) an audio file will play the same in basically all DAWs. I think a lot of it is psychological. I even convinced myself for a while that Live "sounded" better. Turns out it was just new and shiny and I was a bit enamoured. Init patch on Serum exported from Live and Reason at identical settings sounded...identical. And anyway I'm back in Reason now...

...cos it sounds better

[mcatalao]

Did such a thing ever exist? If so, what was it? Does it still?

1: no.
2: see answer to #1.
3: see answer to #2.

I actually don't agree with this.

The correct answer is:

1 - Yes, but not for the reason you think...
2 - Lots of user's didn't invest in sound design or new sounds from refills. So the sounds were all the same no matter what people were doing.
3 - The amount of devices and sounds for reason, now that is a more mature daw, plus being able to load VST's give reason users'a 1000x wider sound pallete so this doesn't happen anymore IMHO.

Daws don't have a sound. Even reason with the "SSL mixer" doesn't have a sound (as in transforming the sound in a particular way, with limitations, saturation, etc), and imho it never had.

[plaingraywall]

From time to time I see someone refer to "The Reason Sound".

Lately, I've seen people poking fun at use of the term.

Not-so-lately, I saw people discussing it as if it were a legit thing.

Did such a thing ever exist? If so, what was it? Does it still?

The term 'The Reason Sound' was coined by lazy, talentless people using factory presets and then being annoyed their lame-o productions didn't sound more like reFX Nexus demo tracks out of the box...

[artotaku]

IMHO, from a software development perspective, it makes no sense that audio processing code on the floating point numbers inside the DAW (some might refer to this as "audio engine") changes the audio information data by adding or removing information except if it was caused by a defect or bug. You´d ensure that no audio information is unnecessarily altered.

Changing/manipulating the audio is the responsibility of effect devices, mixers or soft synths or if you export the internal audio data to another format where dithering, lossy compression or value rounding is involved by purpose.

As others pointed out, to me this was always either a psychological issue (you hear what you want to hear or louder is better) or it referred to songs that sounded in certain way because of the fixed set of FX or synth devices that were available in Reason at that time.
This changed dramatically with the introduction of rack extensions and VST availability in Reason.

[arnigretar]

Nope. Still have Reason 1.0 running on my Imac G3 and there is no difference in sound when you know what you are doing Maybe, like many other have suggested, it was labeled "Reason sound" because of the people who just used the same presets and refills and couldn't mix.

[guitfnky]

1: no.
2: see answer to #1.
3: see answer to #2.

I actually don't agree with this.

The correct answer is:

1 - Yes, but not for the reason you think...
2 - Lots of user's didn't invest in sound design or new sounds from refills. So the sounds were all the same no matter what people were doing.
3 - The amount of devices and sounds for reason, now that is a more mature daw, plus being able to load VST's give reason users'a 1000x wider sound pallete so this doesn't happen anymore IMHO.

Daws don't have a sound. Even reason with the "SSL mixer" doesn't have a sound (as in transforming the sound in a particular way, with limitations, saturation, etc), and imho it never had.

this response doesn’t agree with itself. “users didn’t invest in sound design...so the sounds were the same no matter what people were doing”... the sounds were the same because of what they were (not) doing; sound design.

there has never been a Reason sound, period, and the explanation for this perception is that there was a lazy user base. to put it another way, it’s not the software’s fault, it’s the musicians’ fault. calling it the “Reason sound” puts the blame in the wrong place.

[avasopht]

this response doesn’t agree with itself. “users didn’t invest in sound design...so the sounds were the same no matter what people were doing”... the sounds were the same because of what they were (not) doing; sound design.

there has never been a Reason sound, period, and the explanation for this perception is that there was a lazy user base. to put it another way, it’s not the software’s fault, it’s the musicians’ fault. calling it the “Reason sound” puts the blame in the wrong place.

It all depends on what the "Reason sound" is supposed to refer to.

If it's referring to the FSB sounds from eLab, then it's no different to the Korg Triton. Roland JP/XV sound, or Miroslav Orchestra sound. There was a choice of microphones, instruments, playing, and patch design. Some patches use no filtering whatsoever. Some respond to velocity, aftertouch and the modulation wheel. Some use effects (which all have their own chosen character).

So yes, there can be a sound associated with a sound library or digital instrument.

And then there are people who make reference to a perceived difference in the non-existent "sound engine" due to misconceptions spread by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I've met people who outright believed they could tell whether you've played back a drum sound in Reason, Cubase or Logic. They've never done a double-blind. But they're convinced there's some magic involved in the process. Granted, there can be audible differences when resampling involved if there is no anti-aliasing filter (or a poor one with a "characteristic" sound).

What's funny to me is that around 10 years ago I dug my heels into figuring out how to use really old sounds and making them new and fresh. It took years of study and trial and error before I was able to do this.

Now, I can use pretty much any sound I'm given. It's like being gifted with an unending supply of workstation sounds.

[guitfnky]

this response doesn’t agree with itself. “users didn’t invest in sound design...so the sounds were the same no matter what people were doing”... the sounds were the same because of what they were (not) doing; sound design.

there has never been a Reason sound, period, and the explanation for this perception is that there was a lazy user base. to put it another way, it’s not the software’s fault, it’s the musicians’ fault. calling it the “Reason sound” puts the blame in the wrong place.

It all depends on what the "Reason sound" is supposed to refer to.

If it's referring to the FSB sounds from eLab, then it's no different to the Korg Triton. Roland JP/XV sound, or Miroslav Orchestra sound. There was a choice of microphones, instruments, playing, and patch design. Some patches use no filtering whatsoever. Some respond to velocity, aftertouch and the modulation wheel. Some use effects (which all have their own chosen character).

So yes, there can be a sound associated with a sound library or digital instrument.

And then there are people who make reference to a perceived difference in the non-existent "sound engine" due to misconceptions spread by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I've met people who outright believed they could tell whether you've played back a drum sound in Reason, Cubase or Logic. They've never done a double-blind. But they're convinced there's some magic involved in the process. Granted, there can be audible differences when resampling involved if there is no anti-aliasing filter (or a poor one with a "characteristic" sound).

What's funny to me is that around 10 years ago I dug my heels into figuring out how to use really old sounds and making them new and fresh. It took years of study and trial and error before I was able to do this.

Now, I can use pretty much any sound I'm given. It's like being gifted with an unending supply of workstation sounds.

I agree with the substance, 100%—I just think if we’re talking about the “Reason sound”, then by definition, we’re referring to a sound being imparted by the workstation/DAW, and not on any one (or multiple) instruments that are included. yes, the instruments have their own sound limitations (just as my guitars have their own, a flute has its own, etc.). but it’s not the “Redrum sound” or “Subtractor sound” that gets thrown around.

[selig]

]
I agree with the substance, 100%—I just think if we’re talking about the “Reason sound”, then by definition, we’re referring to a sound being imparted by the workstation/DAW, and not on any one (or multiple) instruments that are included. yes, the instruments have their own sound limitations (just as my guitars have their own, a flute has its own, etc.). but it’s not the “Redrum sound” or “Subtractor sound” that gets thrown around.

BUT... at the time the “Reason Sound” was a thing, there was only one way to make a sound in Reason: with the reason instruments, aka ReDrum/Subtractor etc. Without those instruments you couldn’t make a sound in Reason, or am I missing something?

[mcatalao]

this response doesn’t agree with itself. “users didn’t invest in sound design...so the sounds were the same no matter what people were doing”... the sounds were the same because of what they were (not) doing; sound design.

there has never been a Reason sound, period, and the explanation for this perception is that there was a lazy user base. to put it another way, it’s not the software’s fault, it’s the musicians’ fault. calling it the “Reason sound” puts the blame in the wrong place.

I was referring to a specific part of the userbase specifically. The ones that complained about the reason sound, were a lot of times, the ones that didn't do their own sound design and didn't invest on designing their sounds (or buying new refills).

[guitfnky]

]
I agree with the substance, 100%—I just think if we’re talking about the “Reason sound”, then by definition, we’re referring to a sound being imparted by the workstation/DAW, and not on any one (or multiple) instruments that are included. yes, the instruments have their own sound limitations (just as my guitars have their own, a flute has its own, etc.). but it’s not the “Redrum sound” or “Subtractor sound” that gets thrown around.

BUT... at the time the “Reason Sound” was a thing, there was only one way to make a sound in Reason: with the reason instruments, aka ReDrum/Subtractor etc. Without those instruments you couldn’t make a sound in Reason, or am I missing something?

I came in at Reason 5+Record Duo, so I’m not entirely sure what was available as of 1.0—but I have to imagine there were EQs, compressors, and other effects included. between that, and the incredible tweakability of even the earliest software instruments, it’s impossible for me to believe people couldn’t create unique, professional sounds, even then.

to go back to my guitar analogy, I can still come up with a great sound of my own with just the guitar, a half-decent amp, and maybe a pedal or two. if I can’t, it’s not the amp’s fault.

[guitfnky]

this response doesn’t agree with itself. “users didn’t invest in sound design...so the sounds were the same no matter what people were doing”... the sounds were the same because of what they were (not) doing; sound design.

there has never been a Reason sound, period, and the explanation for this perception is that there was a lazy user base. to put it another way, it’s not the software’s fault, it’s the musicians’ fault. calling it the “Reason sound” puts the blame in the wrong place.

I was referring to a specific part off the userbase specifically. The ones that complained about the reason sound, were a lot of times, the ones that didn't do their own sound design and didn't invest on designing their sounds (or buying new refills).

agree with that, 100%.

[plaingraywall]

The Reason Sound is the sound of the default Redrum kits, default Dr. Rex loops, default Subtractor patches and the half-rack devices.

Having said that, even with Reason 1.0, one could easily create something that didn't sound typically like Reason. Simply importing different user made samples into NN19, Redrum or making REX loops out of external gear and importing them into Dr.Rex via ReCycle would be enough.

[selig]

BUT... at the time the “Reason Sound” was a thing, there was only one way to make a sound in Reason: with the reason instruments, aka ReDrum/Subtractor etc. Without those instruments you couldn’t make a sound in Reason, or am I missing something?

I came in at Reason 5+Record Duo, so I’m not entirely sure what was available as of 1.0—but I have to imagine there were EQs, compressors, and other effects included. between that, and the incredible tweakability of even the earliest software instruments, it’s impossible for me to believe people couldn’t create unique, professional sounds, even then.

to go back to my guitar analogy, I can still come up with a great sound of my own with just the guitar, a half-decent amp, and maybe a pedal or two. if I can’t, it’s not the amp’s fault.

Of course folks created great sounding tracks with Reason, that's the whole reason the "Reason Sound" argument is silly, right?

But what I'm suggesting is the "sound" that we're talking about here isn't coming from any DAW aspects, it's the instruments and the recognizable presents that SOME folks used that contributed IMO to the critique. As for the FX, one could even argue that it was the lack of functionality of the early FX that likely wasn't able to alter the factory sounds enough to overcome the recognizable "Reason" quality of the built in sounds. Also concerning FX, it was also the very limited options that helped to identify a "Reason" track IMO - if you only have one EQ and one reverb and one compressor to work with, it gets easy to identify the sound of everything using that exact same palette of sounds.

And finally, as for the 14:2 mixer, it's 100% transparent (as is the Reason "sound engine"), meaning, that input = output. Translation: "Reason" doesn't have a sound, but it's instruments do. And early on, the limited FSB and devices (that DID have a sound) meant it was easy to identify a "Reason" track. Conversely, identifying a Pro Tools or a Cubase track was impossible because you could use literally ANY source available.

And I'd add it was the ability to identify some early Reason tracks using FSB presets etc that created the "Reason Sound" myth. Just because you can recognize a source doesn't automatically make it "bad"…

The whole issue for me is folks say "Reason Sound" like it's a bad thing.