Reason - should all of it's built in effects being replaced?

[Heigen5]

All the effects in Reason, should they be replaced? As a Reason user since 2.0 I've always been dealing with these built-in effects and how they sound. I've pretty much like always disliked their sound they produce.
So the filters inside the samplers, the M-class EQ, etc always produces a sound, that causes the sound to "dip" and sounds like it's waving etc. As example, the Grain and Proton are both grain samplers, but Proton as a 3rd party RE Grain manipulator, offers a lot better sound in comparison. What do the Props do to make all their effects sounding unpleasant then?

[Aquila]

Pretty much every single effect HAS been replaced. Have a look around here: https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/

Seriously though, the original effects are unlikely to ever be fully replaced due to backwards compatibility.

[Heigen5]

Pretty much every single effect HAS been replaced. Have a look around here: https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/

But that means one should be able to replace the stock effects in the samplers and other stocks too which you CAN'T!

Seriously though, the original effects are unlikely to ever be fully replaced due to backwards compatibility.

You could always make a "switch" button to do that and still remain having a backwards compatibility too.

[Oquasec]

I'd rather they just keep the legacy devices and let RE be the extra bells and whistles.

[pushedbutton]

None of the stock devices are broken.
Most of them have RE alternatives if you don't like them.
Rather than making a special 'Switch' why don't you just, Oh I don't know, Not use them?
As to why you find them unpleasant sounding, well you're the one using them.

[dioxide]

The newest Reason sampler is still the NN-XT though. You could argue that a bunch on NN19s in Combinator are more flexible though. These are both very old devices now.

[bxbrkrz]

They are not old. They are classic and vintage.

[Heigen5]

They are not old. They are classic and vintage.

But classic and vintage ARE old if you reckon it right.

[guitfnky]

no.

[Heigen5]

no.

It's just a simple logic that vintage wasn't the latest technology to get it to the max really.

[guitfnky]

no.

It's just a simple logic that vintage wasn't the latest technology to get it to the max really.

to the max? I don’t even know what that means.

the point is, there’s no need. like, none whatsoever. they have more important things they should be focused on.

[bxbrkrz]

They are not old. They are classic and vintage.

But classic and vintage ARE old if you reckon it right.

Old + Classic + Vintage. When they smashed into each other perfectly, they collapse into a singularity of infinite discoveries, with an event horizon of FX awesomeness.

[Heigen5]

to the max? I don’t even know what that means.

The DSP got brilliant in the more later years when it even got possible to code CPU demandive DSP.

the point is, there’s no need. like, none whatsoever. they have more important things they should be focused on.

No, Reason DSP should have zero bottlenecks in it's chain to make it possible to sound as good as possible.

[selig]

They are not old. They are classic and vintage.

But classic and vintage ARE old if you reckon it right.

Can I just add that there are fantastic records made using 50 year old gear (and 50 year old designs with new gear/software), both today AND 50 years ago. Age has nothing to do with quality IMO. Sure we can all get bored with our current toolset from time to time, and a new toy can certainly get the juices flowing again. But that doesn't mean its quality or value has changed - only that it is currently (maybe temporarily) not inspiring our creativity.
There are no "good" and "bad" sounding FX, but there ARE FX that sound good to YOU and bad to YOU - problem is, they may or may not be the same ones that sound "good" or "bad" to me!

And I'm happy to hear you like the way Proton sounds over Grain!!!

[Heigen5]

But classic and vintage ARE old if you reckon it right.

Can I just add that there are fantastic records made using 50 year old gear (and 50 year old designs with new gear/software), both today AND 50 years ago. Age has nothing to do with quality IMO. Sure we can all get bored with our current toolset from time to time, and a new toy can certainly get the juices flowing again. But that doesn't mean its quality or value has changed - only that it is currently (maybe temporarily) not inspiring our creativity.
There are no "good" and "bad" sounding FX, but there ARE FX that sound good to YOU and bad to YOU - problem is, they may or may not be the same ones that sound "good" or "bad" to me!

And I'm happy to hear you like the way Proton sounds over Grain!!!

While good recordings still sound good sometimes, it shouldn't come an excuse as in the 50's there was no PC's either and hardware didn't depend on the CPU yet either. But the more precise DSP = the more CPU power is required. And by ear the Reason filters as example are very poor in the sound-quality.

[Creativemind]

Pretty much every single effect HAS been replaced. Have a look around here: https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/

Seriously though, the original effects are unlikely to ever be fully replaced due to backwards compatibility.

Change replaced to updated. Nothing wrong with that. The Dr.Octo.Rex was updated from the Dr.Rex as was the RV-7000 with it's Mk II and they're backwards compatible. Adding features or functionality to a device as long as you keep the features previous versions have won't affect things going forward.

Isn't there an argument for updating the DDL-1 and RV7 (Not RV7000) as was mentioned in a previous thread (actually it was only the DDL-1) by Selig that it was mono. Wouldn't making it stereo for a start off be an advantage?

[guitfnky]

to the max? I don’t even know what that means.

The DSP got brilliant in the more later years when it even got possible to code CPU demandive DSP.

the point is, there’s no need. like, none whatsoever. they have more important things they should be focused on.

No, Reason DSP should have zero bottlenecks in it's chain to make it possible to sound as good as possible.

what bottlenecks? I’ve never had any performance issues with any of the older devices. they’re already way more efficient than many of their newer counterparts, as far as I understand.

it sounds like you’re conflating DSP performance with sound quality. they’re vastly different things.

[Heigen5]

The DSP got brilliant in the more later years when it even got possible to code CPU demandive DSP.



No, Reason DSP should have zero bottlenecks in it's chain to make it possible to sound as good as possible.

what bottlenecks? I’ve never had any performance issues with any of the older devices. they’re already way more efficient than many of their newer counterparts, as far as I understand.

it sounds like you’re conflating DSP performance with sound quality. they’re vastly different things.

Of course I meant sound-quality. I even didn't say any word about the performance here.

[xboix]

I think it would be a monumental waste of dev effort to revisit all of that stuff and they would not really benefit commercially from doing so. Much better to press ahead with improving the DAW and adding some of the stuff we all keep asking for.

[Heigen5]

I think it would be a monumental waste of dev effort to revisit all of that stuff and they would not really benefit commercially from doing so. Much better to press ahead with improving the DAW and adding some of the stuff we all keep asking for.

I think the player device list getting bigger and bigger is less important then the sound-quality thing. TBH the Reason's weakest sellpoint is the quality of their built-in effects.

[xboix]

I think it would be a monumental waste of dev effort to revisit all of that stuff and they would not really benefit commercially from doing so. Much better to press ahead with improving the DAW and adding some of the stuff we all keep asking for.

I think the player device list getting bigger and bigger is less important then the sound-quality thing. TBH the Reason's weakest sellpoint is the quality of their built-in effects.

But the sound quality is fine to me, and probably to others. I've never seen anyone name the built-in effects as a reason why they did not buy Reason.

[guitfnky]

what bottlenecks? I’ve never had any performance issues with any of the older devices. they’re already way more efficient than many of their newer counterparts, as far as I understand.

it sounds like you’re conflating DSP performance with sound quality. they’re vastly different things.

Of course I meant sound-quality. I even didn't say any word about the performance here.

this makes no sense. bottleneck implies a performance issue. talking about DSP usage implies performance.

[guitfnky]

I think it would be a monumental waste of dev effort to revisit all of that stuff and they would not really benefit commercially from doing so. Much better to press ahead with improving the DAW and adding some of the stuff we all keep asking for.

I think the player device list getting bigger and bigger is less important then the sound-quality thing. TBH the Reason's weakest sellpoint is the quality of their built-in effects.

this is absurd. their built in effects sound just as good as any other plugins (at worst), and sound incredible (at best). anything else is user error.

[Heigen5]

I think the player device list getting bigger and bigger is less important then the sound-quality thing. TBH the Reason's weakest sellpoint is the quality of their built-in effects.

But the sound quality is fine to me, and probably to others. I've never seen anyone name the built-in effects as a reason why they did not buy Reason.

It's ok but not certainly superb IMO.

[Heigen5]

I think the player device list getting bigger and bigger is less important then the sound-quality thing. TBH the Reason's weakest sellpoint is the quality of their built-in effects.

this is absurd. their built in effects sound just as good as any other plugins (at worst), and sound incredible (at best). anything else is user error.

No there certainly can always be bad ones, not every car is great either as example.