What makes Reason a great “song finisher”?

[crimsonwarlock]

In response to the statement that Reason is more aimed at “song starting” and the topic that Selig started about what makes Reason a great “Idea Starter”, I was thinking about why I like mixing and final production more in Reason than any of the other DAWs I've used. So, here are a few things that make Reason come out on top for me:

Firstly, Reason DAW is the closest there is to be mixing on a big analog desk. Obviously, because it is one of the very few DAWs that models a complete analog desk. The benefit of this becomes clear when you see people loading SSL mixer-strip plugins on every channel in their DAW of choice. In Reason we have that as standard. This gets even better when you run it with a big screen dedicated to the mixer window and a multichannel control surface, which I do both.

Secondly, the SSL-mixer has real "multing" built-in. This is used on analog desks to quickly setup parallel channels, and Reason is afaik the only DAW that has this implemented like real parallel channels. Other DAWs can do it also, by setting sends to pre-fader, but this becomes unmanageable soon as those parallel channels are not visibly indicated as such. Besides that, most DAWs group sends and buses together, making it even harder to see what you are doing. Reason, on the other hand, clusters parallel tracks that share the same signal together, and marks them visually. I use this feature also instead of FX-sends, as it lets me process the signal going to the FX for each instrument/track individually, and because it gives me as many sends as I want. An example scenario: I have several lead-vocal tracks that go into a lead vocal group bus. This bus gets parallel channels for slapback delay, a vocal plate verb, delay throws, etc. The bus (with the "dry" vocals), together with its parallel channels, gets bussed together for the final processed lead vocals. I do similar things with backing vocals, drums, orchestration, basically anything and everything. Setting something like this up in another DAW gets convoluted pretty fast.

And third, having all the FX processing for each mixer channel visible as a rack is the biggest workflow enhancer during mixing. There is basically no way to have this with all the separate VST plugin windows. I have the rack running on another dedicated screen, and just hitting the rack button on a mixer channel automatically moves the specific rack into focus on that screen. This is also why I try to stay away from using VST plugins in Reason, as it breaks this workflow, and when I do use a VST it is inside a combinator wrapper that makes it behave like a rack unit (you can find the ones I made on the forum).

So, why is Reason a great song finisher for you?

[dioxide]

Blocks. And I like how the automation works.

[Heigen5]

Too keep it short enough:
Reason architecture is very good imo, so I feel like all the tools are all front of me, ready to use while in the lots of the other DAWs, I need to travel around and set up stuff a lot more of. The Reason's 'feel to it' is the best for me and as we can use any RE and Vst, we can all replace any device to desired ones. Automation is very easy and fast. Setting up audio recording is fast. And if we compare the preferences then in Reason you don't have any clutteted up setting nightmare mumbo-jumbos than in the lots of the other DAWs.

[crimsonwarlock]

Blocks. And I like how the automation works.

I use blocks all the time. But for me, that is more in the “song start” phase, i.e., composing and arranging. I do, however, use the blocks arrangement for quickly navigating the song during mixing. The option to set loop markers to a selected block (or clip) and start playback is my most used shortcut during mixing.

Automation is very easy and fast.

Oh yeah, automation is also very fast and intuitive, and a great workflow asset during mixing as well

[robussc]

Totally agree on having it all visible. I took the Recording Revolution mixing course and it was very helpful, but the amount of mental modeling required in ProTools was shocking. Just sending a channel to an fx bus required creating a send along with a bus (or something) and then all the FX settings were hidden inside VST UIs.

Reason absolutely got it right by keeping the UIs for devices always visible in the rack.

[groggy1]

Totally agree on having it all visible. I took the Recording Revolution mixing course and it was very helpful, but the amount of mental modeling required in ProTools was shocking. Just sending a channel to an fx bus required creating a send along with a bus (or something) and then all the FX settings were hidden inside VST UIs.

Reason absolutely got it right by keeping the UIs for devices always visible in the rack.

+1
When I used to use Sonar, 50% of what I'd do was accessed through menus or shortcuts. And in Reason, I feel like everything is very visual, and clear where it lives.
There's one task in Reason I do often, which remind me of Sonar: Occasionally, when I have to do a custom quantization (e.g. 80% strength), I have to bring up that "tools" window that Reason has. And it always reminds me of working in Sonar, as it doesn't feel like it's "part of the regular workflow". Luckily, I only do this once a month or so, but it always makes me thankful that pretty much every other action I take in Reason is front-and-center in the rack or sequencer.

[crimsonwarlock]

the amount of mental modeling required in ProTools was shocking.

I hear you. Same with masterclasses from Produce Like A Pro, where they use Protools. The number of channels, groups, and buses they need to setup for a basic aux and bus scenario is mind-boggling

I've seen no other DAW that can setup something like this as simple as in Reason:

multing.png (80.11 KiB) Viewed 818 times

[robussc]

+1
When I used to use Sonar, 50% of what I'd do was accessed through menus or shortcuts. And in Reason, I feel like everything is very visual, and clear where it lives.
There's one task in Reason I do often, which remind me of Sonar: Occasionally, when I have to do a custom quantization (e.g. 80% strength), I have to bring up that "tools" window that Reason has. And it always reminds me of working in Sonar, as it doesn't feel like it's "part of the regular workflow". Luckily, I only do this once a month or so, but it always makes me thankful that pretty much every other action I take in Reason is front-and-center in the rack or sequencer.

The tools window is the worst aspect of the work flow, fortunately it’s not used much when finishing a song

[DaveyG]

+1
When I used to use Sonar, 50% of what I'd do was accessed through menus or shortcuts. And in Reason, I feel like everything is very visual, and clear where it lives.
There's one task in Reason I do often, which remind me of Sonar: Occasionally, when I have to do a custom quantization (e.g. 80% strength), I have to bring up that "tools" window that Reason has. And it always reminds me of working in Sonar, as it doesn't feel like it's "part of the regular workflow". Luckily, I only do this once a month or so, but it always makes me thankful that pretty much every other action I take in Reason is front-and-center in the rack or sequencer.

The tools window is the worst aspect of the work flow, fortunately it’s not used much when finishing a song

Aw. Don't get me started on the F8 window. A truly dreadful design decision.

[crimsonwarlock]

The tools window is the worst aspect of the work flow, fortunately it’s not used much when finishing a song

Aw. Don't get me started on the F8 window. A truly dreadful design decision.

It's definitely not a fluid workflow thing. But the alternative, as stated before, is menus and submenus. As I used Reaper for over a decade, I think the menu/submenu thing is the absolute worst way of doing these things. Then there's the idea of putting everything on the screen as buttons and such, and then you get an interface like current Cakewalk. Also not preferable for me.

[DaveyG]

The tools window is the worst aspect of the work flow, fortunately it’s not used much when finishing a song

Aw. Don't get me started on the F8 window. A truly dreadful design decision.

It's definitely not a fluid workflow thing. But the alternative, as stated before, is menus and submenus. As I used Reaper for over a decade, I think the menu/submenu thing is the absolute worst way of doing these things. Then there's the idea of putting everything on the screen as buttons and such, and then you get an interface like current Cakewalk. Also not preferable for me.

See, you've started me now. Take a look along the top of the sequencer window. Shedloads of blank space that could accommodate all of the F8 functionality and all the groove settings belong in the groove mixer.

[crimsonwarlock]

See, you've started me now.

Take a look along the top of the sequencer window. Shedloads of blank space that could accommodate all of the F8 functionality and all the groove settings belong in the groove mixer.

Yep, especially on my 2K screen that I have the sequencer window on. However, not so much on a laptop screen, which many users run Reason on. Even less space now with the zoom option

[deigm]

It's definitely not a fluid workflow thing. But the alternative, as stated before, is menus and submenus. As I used Reaper for over a decade, I think the menu/submenu thing is the absolute worst way of doing these things. Then there's the idea of putting everything on the screen as buttons and such, and then you get an interface like current Cakewalk. Also not preferable for me.

See, you've started me now. Take a look along the top of the sequencer window. Shedloads of blank space that could accommodate all of the F8 functionality and all the groove settings belong in the groove mixer.

I always thought F8 should pop out a side bar on the right, exactly like F3 does on the left with the browser. That way they could keep it more or less the same, just stylized. Bam, no more pop-up window. Would be easy to expand upon the features over time that way too, as there's no risk of running out of space.

[JC1]

So, why is Reason a great song finisher for you?

I don't really know a lot or even anything about what you guys are saying here, and hopefully in time I will kind of, but even though my opinion is considerably less valid being because I've never actually finished a song on Reason before, I can say this:

I've used other DAW's before and had some time with working out some of the intricacies of them, but I didn't really have a whole lot of fun with them. Reason is just fun to work on, and for many Reasons, of which others have described above, I just feel a lot more comfortable working within the 'architecture' (good word btw) of the program.

Also I think the visual cable connections behind the rack and the endless possibilities they give sets Reason on another plane compared to the others.

Reason's master sequencer is in a class of its own too imo.

Reason's just more fun. Ableton's a bore, Fruity Loops.....sucks, and I used Logic as well for a bit and almost threw it against the wall cos there was just no fun happening there. Haven't used Reaper or anything else. I stick with Reason cos it's the first DAW I used, and when used well, is an absolute cannon of a weapon.

Mind though that Reason is not perfect, it doesn't need to be, and I'm not using Reason for the same things as what you guys are, you's probably need some things that other DAW's give you the best of so as long as you all are having fun with it, then it's all good!

**Edit: just moments after submitting this message, there's another thread conversation about Reason's sequencer and why it's not included in some piece of hardware plugin extension thing and there's a few people calling out all it's downfalls and the like
**For me** I think it's in a class of its own, but I only use it for the basic things with tracking. Out of everything else I've used, R's sequencer was the most fun for me to use lol.

[challism]

What makes Reason a great song finisher? For those of you not yet on Reason 12, I'm sure the biggest motivator to finish your songs is that coming September offline authorization deadline.

[Eski]

For anyone who might want some inspiration on finishing tracks in Reason. I would like to recommend watching some of the Adam Fielding Twitter streams he did over the covid period. I personally found these an eye opener as to how quickly a decent sounding track can be laid down from start to finish. His spoken commentary on the process was also very useful.

[selig]

For me the main thing that makes it great to finish songs is all due to how great it is to start songs. It’s limitations in finishing songs can be partly mitigated by not having to move the song to a new DAW to finish.

[selig]

the amount of mental modeling required in ProTools was shocking.

I hear you. Same with masterclasses from Produce Like A Pro, where they use Protools. The number of channels, groups, and buses they need to setup for a basic aux and bus scenario is mind-boggling

I've seen no other DAW that can setup something like this as simple as in Reason:


multing.png

This is exactly how I’ve always used Pro Tools, and now use LUNA. In both DAWs it couldn’t be simpler! For example, in LUNA you just select the channels you want to bus, and create and name a new bus. In Reason you do the same but it requires an additional step to name the bus…Reason has many of these extra steps that bug me!

And after using LUNA for many months now I’d have to say it is the closest thing to mixing on an analog desk I’ve ever experienced, way beyond Reason in many respects such as the way it sums tracks, the way it handles adding tape saturation, and the way it handles (properly) automation.

[JC1]

I'm sure the biggest motivator to finish your songs is that coming September offline authorization deadline.

It's not motivating me just yet, as I've always been a leaving an assignment to the last minute kind of guy but that's where my best work comes from.
Nothing like running the gauntlet against the almighty pressure cooking guillotine of a deadline to really get those creative juices flowing.

Expect a DOUBLE double album from me dropped in here during that week then


But seriously, yeh I guess we better have a think about what to do with that very soon

[crimsonwarlock]

This is exactly how I’ve always used Pro Tools, and now use LUNA. In both DAWs it couldn’t be simpler!

I've seen many mixing masterclasses, almost all using Protools. I still have to see the first one where setting up auxes and/or buses was simple enough to actually follow what was going on.

For example, in LUNA you just select the channels you want to bus, and create and name a new bus. In Reason you do the same but it requires an additional step to name the bus…Reason has many of these extra steps that bug me!

That one mouse double-click is definitely not an issue for me If it would bother me, a simple AHK-script would take care of that anyway.

Besides that, LUNA looks great, but as long as it's linked to specific hardware, it is not an alternative option for many.