Rack Extensions and Collaboration Templates

Have any feature requests? No promise they'll get to Reason Studios, but you can still discuss them here.
User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 4408
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

25 Aug 2019

WillyOD wrote:
25 Aug 2019
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’m not sure how it is in other DAW forums/communities, but it seems like the culture of the Reason community has some weird kind of compulsion to talk about workarounds. it seems like nearly every time someone posts about a feature request, you get several people responding with unsolicited “advice” about how you can work around the problem, and a couple more who question why you need to be able to do it in the first place. neither are helpful.

this thread is a great example.
I write good music for good people

https://slowrobot.bandcamp.com/

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

25 Aug 2019

owlymane wrote:
24 Aug 2019

That's interesting. The idea behind it being "locked" to the point where the other member can't tweak its settings is limiting.
But that's the whole point - if it's not limited in some way, then you're getting it for free - so the point is to find limits that interfere the least.

For example, what if I used a saturation plugin after a synth and before a reverb. And what if you didn't have the saturation plugin, but had the other two?

One alternate solution is to bounce to audio - but then you loose the ability to adjust the plugins you DO own.

Or what if it's a reverb on a send that you're missing - how do you "bounce in place" THAT? Sure, you can bounce the results of the reverb. But what if you then mute one channel and it's reverb is still heard? So next you mute the reverb, but you also mute all other channels feeding the reverb? So it's as good as gone at that point. Wouldn't you prefer to have the reverb but not be able to tweak it?

And with this solution, you can STILL bounce all you want, so it's giving you MORE options rather than fewer.

Plus, you don't need to go through the song file and figure out which REs you're missing, then go to the store and rent or trial the missing REs, and finally go back and re-launch Reason. Would it not be more seamless to simply open the song you receive, possibly wait to download the missing RE data, and get on with your work?
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

25 Aug 2019

joeyluck wrote:
24 Aug 2019
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).
As I've already mentioned, a bounce in place won't work well in every situation, a reverb on a send being the example I used (but there are others).

And with my suggestion, you can still bounce, rent, subscribe, etc. if you prefer - but you also have an advantage over other platforms that will keep collaboration along similar lines to what it's always been with Reason. And that 's one of the unique features of Reason, historically speaking, and what I'm saying is that I assumed the Props would liked to have continued that tradition with the introduction of REs.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

25 Aug 2019

Many suggestions for bouncing down. My reasons for suggesting a locked RE approach have advantages.

First and foremost - you can still bounce if you prefer!

Second, imagine a few examples:
•Using a send FX RE, and needing to solo/mute channels in the mixer - can't do that with bounced audio.
•Needing to bounce before sending to collaborator - either you bounce EVERYTHING, or you have to know which REs each person has and keep track of this as you exchange files (and bounce accordingly).
•Bounced audio songs are bigger and take longer to up/down load.
•With a locked synth, you can still edit MIDI notes, add new parts, mess with controller data, add Players, etc. This gives a HUGE advantage over bounced audio.
•No need to keep track of which REs your collaborators have/don't have. Just exchange files and go.
•If at some point your collaborator decides to purchase/rent the missing RE, all data is already in place - just make the purchase, and re-open the song and you're immediately up and running!

With bouncing, when the original creator gets the files back from the collaborator, they will need to copy/paste to get everything back in the original file. I guess you could keep all the original tracks in place in the song file, next to the bounced tracks, but there are workflow issues with that as well since they will still eat some CPU and will clutter the UI with tracks you can't access - not a deal breaker, just more work than with what I'm suggesting.

I realize this is all talk, because it's unlikely this would ever happen at this point. But if there's ANY chance it would happen, it would be a big advantage over other workflows IMO.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

25 Aug 2019

guitfnky wrote:
25 Aug 2019

I’m not sure how it is in other DAW forums/communities, but it seems like the culture of the Reason community has some weird kind of compulsion to talk about workarounds. it seems like nearly every time someone posts about a feature request, you get several people responding with unsolicited “advice” about how you can work around the problem, and a couple more who question why you need to be able to do it in the first place. neither are helpful.

this thread is a great example.
I totally disagree - workarounds are 100% necessary. How else do you deal with missing features, just not use the app?

Also, workarounds are human nature, it's creative, it's thinking outside the box. It's what you do while you wait for a "more perfect" situation. It's not only what we do when features are missing, but also when you don't have the money for something, or don't have the man power, or don't have the specific talent.

Have you not heard: necessity is the mother of invention? That's speaking to the power of workarounds.

I agree the "advice" is "unsolicited", but totally disagree it's unhelpful. Sometimes the workarounds have saved my ass, so I thank all those you disagree with for at least trying to make lemonade from lemons. Maybe it's a perspective difference, that some see the "glass half empty" and others the "glass half full"?
Selig Audio, LLC

owlymane
Posts: 197
Joined: 27 Feb 2019

25 Aug 2019

selig wrote:
25 Aug 2019
owlymane wrote:
24 Aug 2019

That's interesting. The idea behind it being "locked" to the point where the other member can't tweak its settings is limiting.
But that's the whole point - if it's not limited in some way, then you're getting it for free - so the point is to find limits that interfere the least.

For example, what if I used a saturation plugin after a synth and before a reverb. And what if you didn't have the saturation plugin, but had the other two?

One alternate solution is to bounce to audio - but then you loose the ability to adjust the plugins you DO own.

Or what if it's a reverb on a send that you're missing - how do you "bounce in place" THAT? Sure, you can bounce the results of the reverb. But what if you then mute one channel and it's reverb is still heard? So next you mute the reverb, but you also mute all other channels feeding the reverb? So it's as good as gone at that point. Wouldn't you prefer to have the reverb but not be able to tweak it?

And with this solution, you can STILL bounce all you want, so it's giving you MORE options rather than fewer.

Plus, you don't need to go through the song file and figure out which REs you're missing, then go to the store and rent or trial the missing REs, and finally go back and re-launch Reason. Would it not be more seamless to simply open the song you receive, possibly wait to download the missing RE data, and get on with your work?
Yes it's definitely better than the current state. But I feel like a simple email for RE activation for each member everytime they open the shared project would make things more flawless to the point where everything in the project can be tweaked and controlled by both members. You know, kind of like how annoyingly Youtube and Google hit my freakin phone and send me an email to accept and proceed with my login everytime I'm outside the house trying to log in..

I like your idea it makes sense, but if there's a way for both members to completely use and control the full project, It'd be more interesting :thumbs_up:
Last edited by owlymane on 25 Aug 2019, edited 1 time in total.

JunctionArsonist
Posts: 38
Joined: 23 Sep 2018

25 Aug 2019

I would love to see a couple of options in the save as dialog.

1 bounce all tracks
2 bounce all tracks not using stock devices.

What currently happens when you open a reason 10 file in reason 9?

User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

25 Aug 2019

owlymane wrote:
25 Aug 2019
I like your idea it makes sense, but if there's a way for both members to completely use and control the full project, I'd be more interested :thumbs_up:
Just to be clear: You want more than the one user who has paid for the plugin to be able to fully use it, yes?
I can clearly see why you'd want that. What I don't quite see why the Props or the creators of the plugin would want that too...
To them it would appear that each user should pay for the use of their products...

D.

owlymane
Posts: 197
Joined: 27 Feb 2019

25 Aug 2019

eusti wrote:
25 Aug 2019
Just to be clear: You want more than the one user who has paid for the plugin to be able to fully use it, yes?
Only inside the project and with the approved RE email activation for both members every time the project is closed and opened. Yes.
eusti wrote:
25 Aug 2019
I can clearly see why you'd want that. What I don't quite see why the Props or the creators of the plugin would want that too...
To them it would appear that each user should pay for the use of their products...

D.
It can give them more exposure.If there are REs that you have and I have enjoyed, It drives me to buy it. Kind of like the 30-day trial, only difference is in a collaboration project you can only use it when the other member approves and only inside the specific template.


And for those who are paranoid about people using the template and the other's REs for a personal project:

- There will always be an email activation for both members. Just like you Reason account, if you want to give your login credentials, that's your problem.

- Res are only activated inside a specific template, cannot be transferred or copied to another template.

- The template is online, and is activated by our licenses.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 4408
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

25 Aug 2019

selig wrote:
25 Aug 2019
guitfnky wrote:
25 Aug 2019

I’m not sure how it is in other DAW forums/communities, but it seems like the culture of the Reason community has some weird kind of compulsion to talk about workarounds. it seems like nearly every time someone posts about a feature request, you get several people responding with unsolicited “advice” about how you can work around the problem, and a couple more who question why you need to be able to do it in the first place. neither are helpful.

this thread is a great example.
I totally disagree - workarounds are 100% necessary. How else do you deal with missing features, just not use the app?

Also, workarounds are human nature, it's creative, it's thinking outside the box. It's what you do while you wait for a "more perfect" situation. It's not only what we do when features are missing, but also when you don't have the money for something, or don't have the man power, or don't have the specific talent.

Have you not heard: necessity is the mother of invention? That's speaking to the power of workarounds.

I agree the "advice" is "unsolicited", but totally disagree it's unhelpful. Sometimes the workarounds have saved my ass, so I thank all those you disagree with for at least trying to make lemonade from lemons. Maybe it's a perspective difference, that some see the "glass half empty" and others the "glass half full"?
as I stated in my post, I’m talking about feature requests, not people who are asking for help. yes, of course workarounds are necessary, but if you’re not asking for a way to do something, it’s awfully mansplain-y to “well, actually, you can already do that...” it’s not very respectful IMHO.

I bought a second Echo Dot a month or so ago and had to leave a one-star review because the bluetooth doesn’t stay connected for me on it. Amazon sent me an email telling me I can just use the Spotify skill right on the Echo Dot, as if that does anything to change the fact that it doesn’t work as advertised. they gave me a workaround that I have no interest in using, and didn’t ask for. that’s more of an insult to my intelligence than it is helpful.

I’m totally cool if people are clear that they’re offering a workaround knowing that it doesn’t solve the underlying weaknesses in the software—it just really irks me when people present workarounds as if they’re some sort of proper solution, and seem to imply a perfectly valid feature request isn’t really warranted.
I write good music for good people

https://slowrobot.bandcamp.com/

owlymane
Posts: 197
Joined: 27 Feb 2019

25 Aug 2019

Guys is there a way I can change the thread title ? It's true that it is ambiguous.

What I'm trying to suggest is an online shared template for collaborations, where REs from both members can be used under the conditions mentioned:

- There will always be an email activation for both members. Just like you Reason account, if you want to give your login credentials, that's your problem.

- Res are only activated inside a specific template, cannot be transferred or copied to another template.

- The template is online, and is activated by our licenses.


And, say you've been working by yourself, and at the end decide to collab on the project, there must be a way to convert the project template to a "shared template".

I think that's a clearer suggestion from my end.

User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

25 Aug 2019

owlymane wrote:
25 Aug 2019
Guys is there a way I can change the thread title ? It's true that it is ambiguous.
Yes, you can edit it in the first post you made.

D.

owlymane
Posts: 197
Joined: 27 Feb 2019

25 Aug 2019

eusti wrote:
25 Aug 2019
owlymane wrote:
25 Aug 2019
Guys is there a way I can change the thread title ? It's true that it is ambiguous.
Yes, you can edit it in the first post you made.

D.
Thank you

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests