Rack Extensions and Collaboration Templates
It would just be great to be able to collaborate with other Reason users. It's too bad we still can't do it properly ...
A project file with all the Self-Contained samples, instruments and Rack Extensions. The REs can't be used outside the project unless you already have them.
A project file with all the Self-Contained samples, instruments and Rack Extensions. The REs can't be used outside the project unless you already have them.
Last edited by owlymane on 25 Aug 2019, edited 1 time in total.
- diminished
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: 15 Dec 2018
And after you finished the song, you delete all instruments and start all over again. Voilà, free RE.
Of course there wasn't just one RE in the project, but all of your collaborators.
Yeah not gonna happen.
Of course there wasn't just one RE in the project, but all of your collaborators.
Yeah not gonna happen.
Most recent track: resentment (synthwave) || Others: on my YouTube channel •ᴗ•
- diminished
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: 15 Dec 2018
Also be careful what you wish for. A system that would allow for such "fluid" licensing is basically a subscription model.
Most recent track: resentment (synthwave) || Others: on my YouTube channel •ᴗ•
What exactly do you mean? I meant self-containing Rack Extensions in a sort of collaborative project so that people can work on 1 project distantly.
Mdiminished wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019And after you finished the song, you delete all instruments and start all over again. Voilà, free RE.
Of course there wasn't just one RE in the project, but all of your collaborators.
Yeah not gonna happen.
Maybe it can only be accessed online and not offline for more control and regulation. The project can't be opened unless both members accept.
Do it the old-fashioned way - bounce to audio.
wreaking havoc with since 2.5
https://soundcloud.com/nekujak-donnay/sets
https://soundcloud.com/nekujak-donnay/sets
Never mind "old-fashioned". It's always prudent to send audio stems in any collaboration. MIDI tracks and DAW projects should be included only as a secondary thing.
And, as above, I don't see how embedded REs could be protected against licence abusers.
Bounce in place actually works great for this. You can send a project to someone, without removing your REs... Bounce in place automatically mutes the instrument, and then there's placeholders for the missing REs, but the audio right below each.
Then after they add or make changes, you can get the project back and still continue working with your REs that are still in the project.
Then after they add or make changes, you can get the project back and still continue working with your REs that are still in the project.
Yeah...old-fashioned way...Propeller Heads always prefer their old-fashioned shell...
FL Studio users send their projects because it's just more convenient and they can work more precisely. And they learn more about each other's methods and techniques.
I don't know how, but there needs to be a way between Reason users to collaborate easier than the unprecise and shallow Bounce to Audio.
FL Studio users send their projects because it's just more convenient and they can work more precisely. And they learn more about each other's methods and techniques.
I don't know how, but there needs to be a way between Reason users to collaborate easier than the unprecise and shallow Bounce to Audio.
Yeah I mean that's pretty cool. It's just not flawless imojoeyluck wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019Bounce in place actually works great for this. You can send a project to someone, without removing your REs... Bounce in place automatically mutes the instrument, and then there's placeholders for the missing REs, but the audio right below each.
Then after they add or make changes, you can get the project back and still continue working with your REs that are still in the project.
What happens if both FL Studio users don't have the same VSTs? Same problem as REs. Both collaborators need the same plugins and the same DAW version for it to work the way you want.owlymane wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019Yeah...old-fashioned way...Propeller Heads always prefer their old-fashioned shell...
FL Studio users send their projects because it's just more convenient and they can work more precisely. And they learn more about each other's methods and techniques.
I don't know how, but there needs to be a way between Reason users to collaborate easier than the unprecise and shallow Bounce to Audio.
Yeah for sure but since REs are Reason User exclusives I thought it would be nice to think of a way of collaborating on the same project. Just because why not?! Let's team up!boingy wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019What happens if both FL Studio users don't have the same VSTs? Same problem as REs. Both collaborators need the same plugins and the same DAW version for it to work the way you want.owlymane wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019Yeah...old-fashioned way...Propeller Heads always prefer their old-fashioned shell...
FL Studio users send their projects because it's just more convenient and they can work more precisely. And they learn more about each other's methods and techniques.
I don't know how, but there needs to be a way between Reason users to collaborate easier than the unprecise and shallow Bounce to Audio.
Exactly this. Reason users can collaborate just as easily as FL (or any other DAW) users if you use the native devices. REs and VSTs are third-party (mostly) paid add-ons, and there should be no expectation of freely sharing them with users who don't own them.boingy wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019What happens if both FL Studio users don't have the same VSTs? Same problem as REs. Both collaborators need the same plugins and the same DAW version for it to work the way you want.owlymane wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019Yeah...old-fashioned way...Propeller Heads always prefer their old-fashioned shell...
FL Studio users send their projects because it's just more convenient and they can work more precisely. And they learn more about each other's methods and techniques.
I don't know how, but there needs to be a way between Reason users to collaborate easier than the unprecise and shallow Bounce to Audio.
wreaking havoc with since 2.5
https://soundcloud.com/nekujak-donnay/sets
https://soundcloud.com/nekujak-donnay/sets
This has come up a few times before. The idea is that any RE you don't own/rent would be "locked", and would appear as it does when it's missing (cardboard panel, etc.).
So you could't copy it, disconnect/reconnect it, or otherwise interact with it - but it would continue to function as it did when it was created by the original owner.
So yes, you'd have to be online and you'd not be able to make any changes whatsoever.
I'm not sure how this would work from a technical standpoint, or if I'm missing anything, but I've requested this (as have others) pretty much from day one, and all but expected it to be the way it worked when REs were first announced.
Selig Audio, LLC
That's interesting. The idea behind it being "locked" to the point where the other member can't tweak its settings is limiting. But at least it would be a step forward to a more concrete form of project sharing, and definitely better than the current state..selig wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019This has come up a few times before. The idea is that any RE you don't own/rent would be "locked", and would appear as it does when it's missing (cardboard panel, etc.).
So you could't copy it, disconnect/reconnect it, or otherwise interact with it - but it would continue to function as it did when it was created by the original owner.
So yes, you'd have to be online and you'd not be able to make any changes whatsoever.
I'm not sure how this would work from a technical standpoint, or if I'm missing anything, but I've requested this (as have others) pretty much from day one, and all but expected it to be the way it worked when REs were first announced.
Just a thought. REs need to have a competitive advantage besides being it exclusive to Reason. I understand the license agreement but it would be beneficial to give this freedom to people who own the license to share, in some way, the REs with other people so that it can potentially gain new customers.
Maybe, for example, if say we both work on a project and have different REs. In order to activate the REs an email is sent to both of us to type our passwords for RE activation on the template (everytime we close and open the project again)
I really don't know how much coding and time this needs, but in anyway I believe Props should start having the spirit of collaboration. Because it's beneficial in every way.
Maybe, for example, if say we both work on a project and have different REs. In order to activate the REs an email is sent to both of us to type our passwords for RE activation on the template (everytime we close and open the project again)
I really don't know how much coding and time this needs, but in anyway I believe Props should start having the spirit of collaboration. Because it's beneficial in every way.
Maybe they consider the rent option as their preferred way of allowing people to use REs they don't own... Not sure...owlymane wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019Just a thought. REs need to have a competitive advantage besides being it exclusive to Reason. I understand the license agreement but it would be beneficial to give this freedom to people who own the license to share, in some way, the REs with other people so that it can potentially gain new customers.
Maybe, for example, if say we both work on a project and have different REs. In order to activate the REs an email is sent to both of us to type our passwords for RE activation on the template (everytime we close and open the project again)
I really don't know how much coding and time this needs, but in anyway I believe Props should start having the spirit of collaboration. Because it's beneficial in every way.
D.
Love what selig just said. This would make my life so much easier. And I'm collaborating with just one person. Adding shared RE functionally would probably double my collabs
Time for Props to step up?
Time for Props to step up?
I used to make music but now I just cry on these forums. @diippii.com
But wouldn't a collaborator appreciate more having a bounced-in-place track, which does them just as good as a locked device (that they would have to install, just to have the same thing they would have with a bounced track).selig wrote: ↑24 Aug 2019This has come up a few times before. The idea is that any RE you don't own/rent would be "locked", and would appear as it does when it's missing (cardboard panel, etc.).
So you could't copy it, disconnect/reconnect it, or otherwise interact with it - but it would continue to function as it did when it was created by the original owner.
So yes, you'd have to be online and you'd not be able to make any changes whatsoever.
I'm not sure how this would work from a technical standpoint, or if I'm missing anything, but I've requested this (as have others) pretty much from day one, and all but expected it to be the way it worked when REs were first announced.
I would suggest the subscription model for any collaborator who doesn't want to buy something, but wants to control it. And if they don't want to control it, leave the device in place and bounce in place.
I suggested this many years ago as well: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7491462
This would have one big benefit: A lot smaller .reason files compared to bouncing.
This would have one big benefit: A lot smaller .reason files compared to bouncing.
it would be a hugely welcome thing to be able to seamlessly share projects like that. like Selig said, many of us have called for that sort of functionality, and while the bounce in place workaround is fine, it’s not seamless.
Reason should be able to see that the user who opens the file doesn’t have a license, and when that happens, present the option to sync the RE for them, and it would then function as Selig described. that way the sender doesn’t have to necessarily remember to bounce every single track that has an RE on it (see why the bounce in place wouldn’t be ideal, now?).
and the “it’s the same way VSTs work” argument is sort of a straw man—we’re not talking about VSTs.
Reason should be able to see that the user who opens the file doesn’t have a license, and when that happens, present the option to sync the RE for them, and it would then function as Selig described. that way the sender doesn’t have to necessarily remember to bounce every single track that has an RE on it (see why the bounce in place wouldn’t be ideal, now?).
and the “it’s the same way VSTs work” argument is sort of a straw man—we’re not talking about VSTs.
- Creativemind
- Posts: 4875
- Joined: 17 Jan 2015
- Location: Stoke-On-Trent, England, UK
Was just gonna suggest this. Bounce any Re / VST tracks down.
Had to do it myself when one of my vst's wouldn't authorize on my desktop computer as opposed to my laptop. Couldn't tell any difference soundwise but obviously you can't adjust any parameters on the vst / Re.
Reason Studio's 11.3 / Cockos Reaper 6.82 / Cakewalk By Bandlab / Orion 8.6
http://soundcloud.com/creativemind75/iv ... soul-mix-3
- Creativemind
- Posts: 4875
- Joined: 17 Jan 2015
- Location: Stoke-On-Trent, England, UK
You can do this.
Both collaborators have the same Re or the other person who hasn't got that Re could trial it for the month while you collaborate. Considering they haven't already trialled it of course which would be a bummer.
The locking idea sounds great but if the other person can't change anything or (think this is what was being suggested) see the Re panel at all, apart from seeing which midi notes one used is no different than bouncing it down.
I suppose subscription would be a good idea.
Last edited by Creativemind on 25 Aug 2019, edited 1 time in total.
Reason Studio's 11.3 / Cockos Reaper 6.82 / Cakewalk By Bandlab / Orion 8.6
http://soundcloud.com/creativemind75/iv ... soul-mix-3
It would be different from bouncing down because then we wouldn't have to bounce down.
I mean do we want more features or workarounds for Reason? I know bounce down is how it's been always done, but hey, let's face it it, sometimes it's ok to try out new things, who knows they just might work out...
(When I'm talking about collabs in this thread I mean passing around my .reason project file...)
I mean do we want more features or workarounds for Reason? I know bounce down is how it's been always done, but hey, let's face it it, sometimes it's ok to try out new things, who knows they just might work out...
(When I'm talking about collabs in this thread I mean passing around my .reason project file...)
I used to make music but now I just cry on these forums. @diippii.com
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests