About Improving Reason's Internal DAW

[integerpoet]

Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

I don't think you are, at least not on this forum of course, but there are those who suggest one should make a clean irrevocable break with creation before mixing. It's less to do with tools and more to do with psychology. The claim is this mind game focuses and galvanizes.

The idea appeals to me because like everybody else I often get stuck in that 8 or 16 -bar loop until I hate it or don't have the enthusiasm to make anything more of it.

I am not in a position to criticize or recommend the idea, but I've been trying it lately and so far it does not suck. One thing I've noticed is that it encourages better creative choices about the frequency spectrum (instruments and the notes they're given) because otherwise, of course, you get mush. And while that is a kind of mixing, it's merely the kind one has been able to do since before studio tools existed.

[Creativemind]

Oh well I've not used it myself especially but sure it would come in handy at some point haha!

Never found a use for that. I'm guessing it might have more use if mastering an album as you can move around songs but I generally do not like any auto feature to move clips as I would be nervous the timing would get messed up.

Useful if you had a guitar track with no bridge and wanted to insert (ripple record) a bridge into it.

[Benedict]

The idea appeals to me because like everybody else I often get stuck in that 8 or 16 -bar loop until I hate it or don't have the enthusiasm to make anything more of it.

I have talked about this a lot but oddly enough, most people seem to go straight back to Loop Hell. Odd. I guess it is like an addicted person, other people see that it is not the only way, yet it is the only path/reality they see. It is hard to watch as I am such a finisher and so driven to help others gt their Stories Finished & Published.

I considered offering courses on this but reality seems to say that while people will sign up, most will be gone after the first or second week

Anyway, back to how/why Reason lacking feature x.y.265.7549 is cause for dismay. I have music to make.

[DaveyG]

Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

And that right there is both the strength and the weakness of modern DAWs. They allow and even encourage you to fiddle with every element of a song even at the mastering stage if you choose. We'd all finish more songs if we could adopt a stricter separation of the tracking -> mixing -> mastering sequence but maybe it would be less fun.

I get better results if I bounce all tracks to audio for the final mixing and mastering. It focusses the mind and and it's handy to have everything as audio for archiving anyway, especially if you think you might want to revisit the song in a few years time when the DAW, the plugins and probably the PC/Mac have all been changed/updated.

[Benedict]

While I get (and applaud that solution) I would still rather have that option to fix the mix rather than to have to redo a whole pile of work.

I have learned to choose my battles so do not allow myself to endlessly tinker. Do what you can in the next 5 mins the move along.

[Marc64]

I don't want to buy another daw just for the sequencer. It's better to "improve" the sequencer in reason.
Also not everone wants to run stuff as plugns.

[rootwheel]

Cubase seems more like Reason but with more features. I remember someone saying a long time ago, Reasons sequencer was like a lighter version of Cubase which back in 2003 was a compliment. That said back then there was no audio tracks, VSTs, external midi so a basic sequencer wasn't a big issue but Reason IMO started to outgrow it's sequencer. And I'm guessing Cubase in 2003 was less featured than Cubase today.

I used to use Cubase back in 2003. Used it up until about 2009 then moved completely to Reason. The Cubase sequencer of back then is still better than the Reason sequencer of now. It had more features for batch modifying MIDI notes, it had built-in step sequencing, easier to navigate between tracks, in-line MIDI editing, folders... I could go on.

That being said I don't really mind Reason's sequencer with all its limitations. I can still get the job done in it.

Cubase SX 2's MIDI sequencer featureset would be a good place for Reason Studios to start to see just how many now 'industry standard' MIDI editing features their software is still lacking.

[Eddi-16]

Can someone of the MODs start a DAW-Update petition that will be send in the end to RS?

[selig]

Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

I don't think you are, at least not on this forum of course, but there are those who suggest one should make a clean irrevocable break with creation before mixing. It's less to do with tools and more to do with psychology. The claim is this mind game focuses and galvanizes.

The idea appeals to me because like everybody else I often get stuck in that 8 or 16 -bar loop until I hate it or don't have the enthusiasm to make anything more of it.

I am not in a position to criticize or recommend the idea, but I've been trying it lately and so far it does not suck. One thing I've noticed is that it encourages better creative choices about the frequency spectrum (instruments and the notes they're given) because otherwise, of course, you get mush. And while that is a kind of mixing, it's merely the kind one has been able to do since before studio tools existed.

I learned to mix separately since that was the only option at the time! But I also appreciate how "mix as you go" can allow you to find issues sooner in the process, such as avoiding frequency overlaps in the first place rather than piling a bunch of stuff on and sorting it out at the mix stage.
Both ways work great for me, so consider this: if you mix as you go some of the time, you must stay in the same app to do so. Once you learn that app, even mixing as a totally separate process will be faster if using the app you already know.
When I mix for clients, obviously I am mixing as a separate process, but why not use the tools I already know to do so.

IMO, there are pros and cons to mixing as you go, as there are with mixing as a separate task. Neither is "right", neither is "better" in all cases. My approach as been to learn both, and see which one works best in each scenario. For my own songs I always mix as I go, BUT if I'm not happy I have the option to copy to a new file and start over. Best of both worlds IMO!

[selig]

Never found a use for that. I'm guessing it might have more use if mastering an album as you can move around songs but I generally do not like any auto feature to move clips as I would be nervous the timing would get messed up.

Useful if you had a guitar track with no bridge and wanted to insert (ripple record) a bridge into it.

I have done this in Reason a few times, super easy!
Sticking with ripple edit (what I thought we were talking about), you can do insert space in Reason and record into it so as to get the same exact results in the end, for those few times you actually need to do this.

[selig]

Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

And that right there is both the strength and the weakness of modern DAWs. They allow and even encourage you to fiddle with every element of a song even at the mastering stage if you choose. We'd all finish more songs if we could adopt a stricter separation of the tracking -> mixing -> mastering sequence but maybe it would be less fun.

I get better results if I bounce all tracks to audio for the final mixing and mastering. It focusses the mind and and it's handy to have everything as audio for archiving anyway, especially if you think you might want to revisit the song in a few years time when the DAW, the plugins and probably the PC/Mac have all been changed/updated.

We are all different, so I of course disagree with "we ALL finish more songs if…" statement because it's not true for everyone.

When I started, there wasn't an option to tweak into the mix/master stage. But these days, using Reason (which DOES have this ability to some degree), I am MORE productive. But that could simply be I already have the discipline to finish things, which is a totally different thing than what we're discussing (DAW features) and something everyone can learn - but not if they don't practice!

This idea that options reduce productivity comes up in many forms, like folks always quantizing (because they can), or always recording to a click (because they can), and of course folks endlessly tweaking - because they can. If you practice NOT doing this as a matter of course, and only doing it when needed, you can improve all around IMO. But I only say that because it's what worked for me.

Finally, this does not contradict what I said earlier about wanting to do it all in one DAW - it matters not if you do it in one file or spread it to multiple. You could even take if further and separate tracking and overdubbing as was done in the past, IF it helps you get better results in the end.

This reminds me of my idea for a new DAW that allows doing what you do without needing a separate bounce stage, keeping it all in one file but separating the processes as you've suggested - but that's for another topic!
So if drawing a hard line gives you the discipline you lack when there are soft lines, more power to you - do what works, as always IMO.

[Creativemind]

Useful if you had a guitar track with no bridge and wanted to insert (ripple record) a bridge into it.

I have done this in Reason a few times, super easy!
Sticking with ripple edit (what I thought we were talking about), you can do insert space in Reason and record into it so as to get the same exact results in the end, for those few times you actually need to do this.

You can but it isn't ripple editing / recording but fair enough, no biggy. Another good use of it is in changing the order / structure of a song quickly without rearranging manually (just slip the clip in between and it will nudge out the way) and I'm sure there are many other uses for it but as I say, not extensively used it but ripple editing / recording would be way down my list of features I'd like to see for Reason along with video editing.

[kitekrazy]

I still want to offload the 15gb of instruments off my OS drive without having to resort a different way of doing it. Some DAWs allow you to audition midi files in the browser. At one time you could audition patches in Reason in the browser.

[crimsonwarlock]

At one time you could audition patches in Reason in the browser.

Maybe this is not what you mean, but you can (somewhat) audition patches in the browser. When you focus an instruments patch-loader, moving over patches in the browser will load these patches. Not only that, but when you scan a refill with patches for different instruments this way, Reason will actually load the related instrument for that patch in place of the instrument you use for auditioning. Pretty much the same way as it will load the combinator in place of the instrument when hitting a combi patch in the browser.

I'm now in the process of reorganizing all my patches into folders by type instead of instrument, as I can then audition (for example) my strings patches regardless of the instrument they belong to. Reason will switch to the appropriate instrument in place. I really liked the possibility in NI Kontrol to audition patches regardless of the plugin they belong to, but now I've found that Reason comes pretty close to this.

[Brosefski]

But if RS Inc. ever decided to improve the DAW, I say do something radically different and make something unique and very controversial. Maybe start with a hardware/groovebox sequencer paradigm and build on it from there. Would love to see a software version of the Yamaha RS7000 or a Roland groovebox but taking that idea into the 21st century somehow, controlling every track in Reason, but blurring the lines between composition, sound design and live performance but somehow different from Ableton Live.

I think the approach to figuring out a finer balance between compositional design and vamped live play is a tough haul for Reason (or any DAW) to undertake. I prefer Reason's compositional approach. I don't want to see that change, and if they're able to marry the 2 different approaches without sacrificing the compositional approach of Reason, I'm fine with that. Personally, trying to reinvent their GUI is a huge undertaking and a huge risk for them. They did something awesome with reason as a plugin in other DAWs. I'm in agreement with you though, that if one likes the live performance of another DAW, or aspects of another DAW over Reason, then just use the VST plugin then.

[jam-s]

When I started, there wasn't an option to tweak into the mix/master stage. But these days, using Reason (which DOES have this ability to some degree), I am MORE productive. But that could simply be I already have the discipline to finish things, which is a totally different thing than what we're discussing (DAW features) and something everyone can learn - but not if they don't practice!

This idea that options reduce productivity comes up in many forms, like folks always quantizing (because they can), or always recording to a click (because they can), and of course folks endlessly tweaking - because they can. If you practice NOT doing this as a matter of course, and only doing it when needed, you can improve all around IMO. But I only say that because it's what worked for me.

Finally, this does not contradict what I said earlier about wanting to do it all in one DAW - it matters not if you do it in one file or spread it to multiple. You could even take if further and separate tracking and overdubbing as was done in the past, IF it helps you get better results in the end.

This reminds me of my idea for a new DAW that allows doing what you do without needing a separate bounce stage, keeping it all in one file but separating the processes as you've suggested - but that's for another topic!
So if drawing a hard line gives you the discipline you lack when there are soft lines, more power to you - do what works, as always IMO.

I agree with you and imho the question of finishing songs really just comes down to the discipline you mentioned. More options and tools (like not working with stems) might distract you but only if you let it distract you. I find (external) deadlines (e.g. for competitions) a good way to get stuff finished as this forces you to work with a clear goal and not to endlessly tweak a single sound.

[integerpoet]

I learned to mix separately since that was the only option at the time! But I also appreciate how "mix as you go" can allow you to find issues sooner in the process, such as avoiding frequency overlaps in the first place rather than piling a bunch of stuff on and sorting it out at the mix stage.

As I understood it, the idea of avoiding studio-style mixing while creating is to create in mono and "mix" without any tool beyond rudimentary leveling of the sort you could do by making that guy stand farther back than everyone else. This doesn't rule out avoiding frequency overlaps in the first place, but does suggest doing it more with instruments and notes than anything else.

IMO, there are pros and cons to mixing as you go, as there are with mixing as a separate task. Neither is "right", neither is "better" in all cases. My approach as been to learn both, and see which one works best in each scenario. For my own songs I always mix as I go, BUT if I'm not happy I have the option to copy to a new file and start over. Best of both worlds IMO!

I agree in theory, and that's why I suspect you probably aren't in the minority. However, I also suspect your experience gives you a kind of inbuilt discipline I don't yet have. Hence my consideration of this mind game.

[Benedict]

inbuilt discipline

Sorry I seem to keep quoting you, but this is the pivotal thing: Discipline

Set some criteria, not externally driven like YooBoob 10 Tipz n Trix (made up) "Rules", but something like:

- I will have a track finished & published this week, regardless of how imperfect I think it is - finished is better than waiting to be perfect but non-existent.

- I will make a track using only Reason Stock units (or khs as I am doing right now to give me time in their version of the VSTiverse).

- I will make 4 tracks to form an EP about cleaning up the cat's litter box - or whatever you see as attractive.

And get it done, regardless of how imperfect I think it is - finished is better than waiting to be perfect but non-existent.

The greatest "trick" in learning a craft is doing, delivering, and doing again. The more times you go through this cycle whilst following your own muse the more you find your thing and amass a wealth of your own solutions that start to present themselves whenever you meet a thing that needs solving. 30 years on when mixing I listen to a thing and find myself reaching for a thing that even if I don't consciously understand why, turns out to be just the ticket. This is experience. The more you do, the more you can do.

The Tools matter less and less in that you worry less about what they can't do as when you focused on one tool (or set in Reson or khs terms) the more you know about what you can do with them. (What others perceive they can't do is an eternal sadness but not actually relevant to you and your process).

[plaamook]

For a few years back when I was still working out how I wanted to make music and still working out how to finish songs I made audio Christmas cards for people. I would sit down on chrismas eve or day and finish a song right then and there, then send it off in whatever state it was in. The last one I did was actually an EP based around the four ghosts from a Christmas carol. (I actually didn’t hate that one).
No one cared. In fact only a few people even mentioned it in any way. But it was my first stab at enforcing a dead line and I really did learn a lot about pushing something to some end point.
Deadlines are great like that. Galvanising.

In the real world I still go through the same processes I laid down back then except I do it over multiple passes. Push like all hell, take a break, go back to listen and take notes, repeat until I’m happy. Or just sick of working on it.

And I don’t bounce to mix. I did at one point but I found I was going back in to make last minute changes so often I just gave up. But I do like the idea of bouncing stems for posterity as Davy G (I think) mentioned.
I’ll try n do that one day...

[chimp_spanner]

I'm almost definitely repeating myself but yeah, I mean nothing about Reason in its current form is a barrier to making music. Source: I've made lots of music with it So I'm not one to be dramatic. I get things done. I'm not *not* making music while I wait for dream feature #52362 to appear.

That said, as time drags on, it's getting harder and harder to justify (or even comprehend) why I can't play a MIDI note from anywhere but the note-on. Or why I don't have track folders. Or why there's no easy or reliable way to manage tempo definition of audio. Or why there's no punch in/out. No sensitivity slider for slices. Ya know, someone pointed out the other day that it'd be nice if imported audio inherited the filename as a clip label and I was like...yeah wait, what? Why *doesn't* it do that? Why, in all the years Reason has had audio, has no-one thought "wouldn't this make life easier"?

I think that's what it boils down to for me. It works, but it could be easier. There's a fine line between making music because of Reasons features, and making music despite its features. I don't want it to try and be a Live killer. I don't want it to be more like FL. Or Cubase. I just want Reason to be the best Reason it can be. It'd be easier if we were miles away because I could drop it and move to something else. It's the fact that most of the important QOL things I need are a point update away. I just don't know if or when it's coming. Maybe I should stop blueballing myself and just use RRP in something else...

[guitfnky]

that’s about as perfect a description as I’ve ever seen.

[integerpoet]

- I will make 4 tracks to form an EP about cleaning up the cat's litter box…

So if I can convince the wife to let me take over litter box cleaning duty it will make me a super-producer?

[Benedict]

- I will make 4 tracks to form an EP about cleaning up the cat's litter box…

So if I can convince the wife to let me take over litter box cleaning duty it will make me a super-producer?

Yes, clearly that was my whole argument. 199% Guaranteed to win you 34 Grammys and a kiss from Elton John.

[Creativemind]

Ripple editing
Reaper = you can turn this on to have Reaper move all subsequent clips, so you don't have to manually select the back half of your song when inserting/removing time. This can be enabled per-track, or globally.
Reason = doesn't have this feature, you gotta do it manually..

Well, in Reason you can remove everything between the markers and everything else will slide over to fill the gap. So theres that…

That's on every track though and not on a per track basis as Reaper is.

[Creativemind]

Workflow is key. Gadget is next gen. Feature-wise I believe Reason is ancient-level dead, and a total mess, and should learn to compete carefully with the leading DAWs which are Logic and Ableton. I think of a few devs in their own world, clueless, in a small room. Gems like pitch correction in Reason are rarely discussed or utilized I guess due to the DAW itself being shelved; I try to tell people there's a melodyne in there. With Logic as my main DAW the RRP lives and allows Reason to proceed in the modern world. Just get ready to freeze your RRP tracks if collaborating because NOBODY else has these plug-ins. They can all wonder where you got those cool sounds. I often reach for compressors, eq's, reverbs, Kuassa, and Noise Engineering stuff via RRP.

It's true, people will reign down on me here or get angry but when I was at uni doing music tech in 2016, not one single person used Reason as their main DAW out of about 100 students (not that I asked every one obviously) but a few and I mean a few used it sometimes or said they used to. The vast majority used Logic and some Pro Tools or Ableton. I knew a couple of people who used FL Studio but in a professional setting it's usually Logic.