So, are props convincing you yet?

[dreampolice]

Why would you not use Apple products?

PH also should make their toys for Android!

All those talks about "pirating" & latency I won't even consider, if they want to suck only Crapple balls then ok, but I'd go for Google as well, Props!

P.S. You can "pirate" any app from the Crapple store as well as from Android one!

Pirating is SUBSTANTIALLY easier on the Android side, and the latency problem was not solved until just recently on Android. Lets not even talk about android fragmentation and what a mess it is for developers.

[Ronin]

The tutorial on tempo mapping was nice and informative, but the concept can be used on any audio file, so still no need to use discover...
And I still have no desire to use the collab system, so.....

ps. Mattias mentioned on shitebook that stems and/or reason file format is high on their to do list. These may possibly help, although once again, im still not that interested. You can find any number of samples (free or bought) on the internet, i dont need to rely on peoples noisey poorly recorded with a mobile phone samples.
Plus, the kind of music that i make is very niche, so its almost impossible to find useful samples unless i go to a sample pack seller and buy genre specific stuff.

TLDR: Nope.

[kloeckno]

Absolutely, I make many things to save money. If I had unlimited funds I wouldn't try making a MIDI ribbon controller, I'd get the Doepfer one for $400!

[pushedbutton]

I think the fundamental issue is this;
I have an ipad 2. It's good for watching youtube. If I remember to plug it in I usually use it as an alarm clock and then listen to internet radio on it in the shower. I take it to work and sometimes show the people I work with a video on youtube or use it to keep track of my email.
I have Figure and Take on my ipad but whenever I actually have a chance to use them I am usually sat at home using Reason.
I like other peoples sounds, but most of my passion about using Reason comes from learning how something was achieved and developing the skills to replicate and adapt those techniques.
At the moment Discover doesn't scratch this unspoken itch that most of the vocal minority have. Considering how deeply under the hood Reason users are used to going, having bounced audio seems a little superficial, even with the tempo matching functionality.
Now if somebody sang into Take and it extracted a midi to guide the melody that would be nice, or if it just did what warranted 'working music' in the video automatically and then quickly identified the key that would be useful too. If figure pumped out the midi too then I'd feel a little more supportive of the discovery idea but at the moment I'm just not that into it. I gave it a go, it lost momentum, now I am sad.

[ScuzzyEye]

I use a simple audio recorder on Android to make note of song ideas. I would love to be able to use Take instead, and Drop it to Reason 8.1. All my music making friends (except one) have Android devices. I would totally use Drop to share stuff back and forth with them, but not random strangers. But because Android isn't supported, there's nothing motivating me to upgrade from 7.1.

Seriously, I'm convinced. If Take was on Android, I would pay for the Reason upgrade.

[Gaja]

Why would you not use Apple products?

PH also should make their toys for Android!

All those talks about "pirating" & latency I won't even consider, if they want to suck only Crapple balls then ok, but I'd go for Google as well, Props!

P.S. You can "pirate" any app from the Crapple store as well as from Android one!

I think you're not being entirely fair. Would you really go through the difficulties of pirating a free app? I don't think pirating is much of an issue regarding take, and pirating figure would probably still be dumb, considering it's 79cents...
Actually I am really happy that apple devices exist.
PC doesn't groove with me at all, and the whole interna of a pc are so boring to that I fall asleep only trying to think about it. A PC in my care would last about 6 months, while my 2005 ibook still works (not very well, but it does). So for me there is no question about what I'd buy. But if someone wants to use different technology I don't care. If I weren't so dumb when it comes to computer tech, I'd probably use windows or linux, but I am, so I'm happy with apple.

[Janvier]

Discover could be great ! But right now I hate it ! 

Yesterday, I picked a loop and tried to do something with it.  So, 
I will probably use it for exercising me to use weird material and come with something. 

But seriously, Discover miss a lot of feature. It could be both amateur and professional. But seems to be purely amateurism
oriented. I really see Discover as the tools to bring new customer to try Reason and buy it (since you have the TRY REASON button
below each loop). 

Actually the great feature of Discover is, TRY REASON button lol

New customer = more incomes = more development ressources = better Reason/RE SDK (except if put too much energy in iPhone/iPad apps)

[Vesterager]

Great tips in the vid for general Reason use, not just Discover. The song is reminiscent of something. "Led" something :s0959:

Not making me go out and get an iPhone though.

[Ecopro]

Why would you not use Apple products?

P.S. You can "pirate" any app from the Crapple store as well as from Android one!

- We do not condone nor accept posts pertaining to illegal activities such as hacking, cracking, warez, or spam.

C'mon George!  :nono:  just refrain from speaking about it. I'm pretty sure people know this already.

[mcatalao]

You know...

They didn't convinced me about discover but this Tempo Mapping technique is amazing!

Kudos for that!!!

[Julibee]

I can't say that they've convinced me-- mostly because I haven't visited their site since they closed the forum. Ok... Once. To see the new layout. But I didn't actually read anything. What kept me coming back and hanging out in their space was the forum. Now, I'll only visit if I NEED something. Which, I haven't.

[EnochLight]

 That said, the tempo mapping technique was very cool

but wouldn't it be possible to do this automatically?

Like timestretch, quantize etc.

Sometimes, but not always with a wandering tempo, as demonstrated in the video.  Just quantizing the audio can sometimes mess up the timing and "feel" of the performance.

Ryan's method in the video solves that.

[selig]

 That said, the tempo mapping technique was very cool

but wouldn't it be possible to do this automatically?

Like timestretch, quantize etc.

Sometimes, but not always with a

wandering tempo

, as demonstrated in the video.  Just quantizing the audio can sometimes mess up the timing and "feel" of the performance.

Ryan's method in the video solves that.

The song Ryan used does not have a wandering tempo - it's exactly 55 BPM. The performance wanders, but Ryans method (like quantization) removes the feel and puts it more on the beat (depending on how careful you are placing the tempo markers).

In fact, it's worth nothing that Ryan's method IS quantization, and is as likely to mess up timing and feel as quantization as the goal with both is to put the performance on a grid. 

Here's a response video I made showing how to do the same thing (get the performance locked to a static tempo) in about 30 seconds!

[EnochLight]

The song Ryan used does not have a wandering tempo - it's exactly 55 BPM. The performance wanders,

I define the wandering of a performance and a wandering tempo as one in the same.

but Ryans method (like quantization) removes the feel and puts it more on the beat (depending on how careful you are placing the tempo markers).

Yes - but this is the key. By manually placing the tempo markers, as Ryan demonstrated, you are afforded much deeper control and can accomodate for that human feel in a performance.

In fact, it's worth nothing that Ryan's method IS quantization, and is as likely to mess up timing and feel as quantization as the goal with both is to put the performance on a grid. 

Here's a response video I made showing how to do the same thing (get the performance locked to a static tempo) in about 30 seconds!

I saw your video response. The thing is, I have varying results with just quantizing audio. If the content is heavily rhythmic and transients can be detected easily, just using quantize (as you demonstrated) may get you satisfying results. But often - especially if the content isn't that rhythmic or transients are lost in the mix, Ryan's method is far more superior (though time consuming).

Of course, one must first know the (relative) tempo to get started, and tap tempo with stretch disabled is the only way for both of your approaches to my knowledge.

[Theo.M]

that's a good video, actually great, and I appreciate the tempo mapping tutorial as although we all knew about tempo track how many of us knew that it would write the data in permanently to the audio file using the method shown? Not as elegant as Cubase/Logic tempo mapping but reason's time stretch is far superior to both of those so the end result *sounds* better anyway.

Quite excited about doing some remixing now... 

If Props sort out proper copyright issues would love to use discover a bit more (The licensing issues are basically the only thing stopping me.. does anyone else feel that way?)

Oh one note, you will need to bypass or remove (in softube's case) plugins with latency to accurately do tempo mapping (cause the playhead is out otherwise). Probably best to always just do it with an empty project.

Cheers and thanks for the video link zeebot!

[mcatalao]

If Props sort out proper copyright issues would love to use discover a bit more (The licensing issues are basically the only thing stopping me.. does anyone else feel that way?)

Yep... 

[xDJDroidx]

are props convincing you yet

The only thing they are convincing me of, is that they haven't a clue what message they are sending......

One minute you've got the CEO saying in a blog that it's not for professional music production.
Then you've got vids like this, portraying it to be something different...................

Wish they'd make their minds up who they're actually marketing this service to.

[Theo.M]

Hmm one thing I noticed which is interesting is that Logic and Cubase map the tempo the file rather than use any TS whatsoever. This means OTHER audio or midi you put alongside the object that has been tempo mapped will go in time to the tempo track to match the tempo mapping. So sure, if there is audio there and you are using flex time, that will automatically adapt to the tempo.. this means in the case of Logic and Cubase, you might be having to timestretch, at varying degrees in many tempo changes, say 31 other tracks if it's a 32 track audio project, rather than the ONE using the Reason method in the video here because of the way the data is written into the file and you can choose one project tempo after that. I don't think I have ever seen this way of doing it before, and reason TS absolutely poos on Cubase and is a bit better than the best logic flex modes (although logic's slicing is superb for drums).

So there you go. Who knew. Something I really love thanks to this video.

I must admit I have had some weird results before with reason TS with some drums that have a lot of info say shakers for example, but it's very rare that it fudges up (have that example saved somewhere i should post it actually).

[Gaja]

Hmm one thing I noticed which is interesting is that Logic and Cubase map the tempo the file rather than use any TS whatsoever. This means OTHER audio or midi you put alongside the object that has been tempo mapped will go in time to the tempo track to match the tempo mapping. So sure, if there is audio there and you are using flex time, that will automatically adapt to the tempo.. this means in the case of Logic and Cubase, you might be having to timestretch, at varying degrees in many tempo changes, say 31 other tracks if it's a 32 track audio project, rather than the ONE using the Reason method in the video here because of the way the data is written into the file and you can choose one project tempo after that. I don't think I have ever seen this way of doing it before, and reason TS absolutely poos on Cubase and is a bit better than the best logic flex modes (although logic's slicing is superb for drums).

So there you go. Who knew. Something I really love thanks to this video.

I must admit I have had some weird results before with reason TS with some drums that have a lot of info say shakers for example, but it's very rare that it fudges up (have that example saved somewhere i should post it actually).

The cool thing is, that with Reason you can have both approaches. Once you have the tempo mapped out, you can quantize the track and leave the tempo automation, then have all your midi and audio recordings follow the original agogics of the first recording.
Or am I messing something up here? I'm quite hung over, so my mind only functions half way...

[Theo.M]

Hmm one thing I noticed which is interesting is that Logic and Cubase map the tempo the file rather than use any TS whatsoever. This means OTHER audio or midi you put alongside the object that has been tempo mapped will go in time to the tempo track to match the tempo mapping. So sure, if there is audio there and you are using flex time, that will automatically adapt to the tempo.. this means in the case of Logic and Cubase, you might be having to timestretch, at varying degrees in many tempo changes, say 31 other tracks if it's a 32 track audio project, rather than the ONE using the Reason method in the video here because of the way the data is written into the file and you can choose one project tempo after that. I don't think I have ever seen this way of doing it before, and reason TS absolutely poos on Cubase and is a bit better than the best logic flex modes (although logic's slicing is superb for drums).

So there you go. Who knew. Something I really love thanks to this video.

I must admit I have had some weird results before with reason TS with some drums that have a lot of info say shakers for example, but it's very rare that it fudges up (have that example saved somewhere i should post it actually).

The cool thing is, that with Reason you can have both approaches. Once you have the tempo mapped out, you can quantize the track and leave the tempo automation, then have all your midi and audio recordings follow the original agogics of the first recording. Or am I messing something up here? I'm quite hung over, so my mind only functions half way...

of course you can do that but then the original file is stretched no? What tempo mapping in the other daws is doing is adjusting the tempo so everything falls on the grid but absolutely nothing is being done to the original file *at all*. 

Here's a vid you might find interesting. Notice the sensitivity for transients which is impossible in reason (they have to be manually done if they are wrong).

All you do in logic (and cubase) is simply drag the parts so that they are on the grid, then the tempo automatically adjusts but the original file is not being stretched.

What that means is you can write whatever you want around it and will fall in time.

The props method is just as valid cause it's only stretching the tempo mapped file, in logic for example, everything else will have to be stretched. In the case of midi it doesn't matter of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e38qM432Qbw

[Gaja]

Well we have a customer who needs to produce songs, but can't record on click, and he says the tempo changes are necessary for the songs to work. It was a true chore, to make four other musicians (who don't know the song before they come into the studio) fit to the grid. In Reason I could simply map out the tempo changes in his guide track, have all musicians (including the drummer) play on a mapped and tight version of his track and then reapply the tempo changes after the recording, and he wouldn't notice (or care) that the workload has gone from days to hours.
I think I should try that right now