To Screw or Not to Screw…

[crimsonwarlock]

A rack is a rack, with screws or without Take a look at Yoad Nevo's studio

racks2_nevosound_studio_london.jpg

[Ahornberg]

What specifically can you identify as contributing to Reason’s “fun factor” for you?

• On creating, there are the Players. Players are unique. I haven't found something similar in other DAWs.

• I also like Blocks for sketching songs.

• Timestretching audio and built-in pitch-edit are great fun.

• On mixing, it's the fact that I can drive the mixer using the Console 1 controller - see viewtopic.php?p=242431#p242431

• Parsec is my additive synth to go.

[jappe]

They said: 'Reason is the rack'. And one mounts the stuff on the rack by fixing it in some way, and the most obvious way is screws. I really like Objekt's design and obviously a skeuomorphic structure like his doesn't make sense for it to have screws, however other instruments and effects that have all the appearance of a rack device should have screws or some kind of visible attachment. I am also very sorry to see that in the back the power cables have long since disappeared.

Reason is the only skeuomorphic software that works visually and has also made a name for itself by virtue of its emulation (also visual) of a real rack. I don't understand the shift towards a more anonymous style which, quoting Mattias in the Combi 2 livestream, 'breaks the illusion'. Fortunately talented designers like Ekss continue with screws and power cords. I wish RS would also retrace their steps in this regard.

I like the illusion.
Years ago we discussed bold feature requests improving the illusion by going 3D, with virtual racks in an open world environment, making 3-D sense of our own racks and also being able to discover co-Reasoners racks. Second Life was mentioned.

In this era of AI, I'd like an option to have a custom designed AI audio engineer to mount & unmount devices. And just be there, available for questions, and giving suggestions.

[SebAudio]

Thoughts? What specifically can you identify as contributing to Reason’s “fun factor” for you?

As a Reason user for more than 20 years, I can say that the design, the colours, the font used for the name and knob labels, the back with fans, heatsinks, power cords, QC stickers and serial numbers make each of the Reason devices (especially those from the first 10 years) true icons with TONS of personality. As Selig rightly said, in other DAWs the stock devices are anonymous and all the same. Whereas in Reason they are tangible, recognisable, unmistakable presences. For me this is a huge fun factor: sometimes I open the rack just to look at the devices. From my point of view, they are rock stars. A t-shirt with Thor's logo or a cap with ReDrum's logo have a wearability that no other DAW can boast. And that's something RS should capitalise on, beyond the pack of goodies for Reason's 20, which I've been using for self-produced merchandise.

I totally agree with both of you. Starting with Reason 1 and then go with Live suite at a time I wasn’t anymore in love with Propellerhead choices. I can say native Live devices are great sounding but boring to use / program. Even Wavetable with its extended view. Boring. Except for great VST such as Repro or Reaktor Racks, I’m all with Reason devices (via RRP since v12, thanks to HD). Since now we are spoiled with synths and FXs, I only use / buy devices which have great skeuomorphic UI and adopt the « HW illusion ». I can’t make mine a device overwise

[joeyluck]

Objekt-mounted.png

[Loque]

Objekt-mounted.png

Already too much used or did the resonators cracked the cover?

[Timmy Crowne]

I love the screws (and the vents, and the fans and serial numbers), but as my projects have grown in size I’ve begun to feel the weight of unused screen real estate. The skeuomorphism is warm and welcoming but it doesn’t scale very well IMO.

[visheshl]

IMO the Reason Rack is mostly about eye-candy (the same goes for VCV Rack). When I compare both to Ableton stock devices or Bitwig Grid, I really enjoy the look of Reason (and VCV) Rack.

On the other hand, I feel that systems with non-skeuomorphic designs (like Ableton and Bitwig) are easier to understand in the first place.

But my eyes want to have fun, so I enjoy the Reason Rack (and of course VCV).

Well i think Ableton and RRP is a match made in heaven.
I don't want skeuomorphism in my DAW, and prefer a unified look and feel, but i love it on the rack devices and instruments.
And the cables work very well too, and useful, when connecting multiple devices.

So i think its perfect that way.
Now i just want vsts in RRP.
Because vst synths and vst fx need to be in the rack.

[QVprod]

Honestly would’ve never noticed if it hadn’t been pointed out. I care more about what the device does than whether it’s realistically “mounted properly” as Selig mentioned, many of the instruments wouldn’t be rack devices in real life anyway.

[EnochLight]

A rack is a rack, with screws or without Take a look at Yoad Nevo's studio

racks2_nevosound_studio_london.jpg

♥ ♥ ♥

#GOALS

[SebAudio]

Objekt-mounted.png

It looks much better with rack rails ! Even without the screws. I wonder why they went with the « void » option

[_andreypetr_]

Objekt-mounted.png

I wonder why they went with the « void » option

Synthesize reality

[crimsonwarlock]

♥ ♥ ♥

#GOALS

Yoad Nevo is a regular guest on the SonicState podcast. If you Google for the rest of his studio, it gets even better

[selig]

I love the screws (and the vents, and the fans and serial numbers), but as my projects have grown in size I’ve begun to feel the weight of unused screen real estate. The skeuomorphism is warm and welcoming but it doesn’t scale very well IMO.

There is, IMO, a fine line between “unused screen real estate” and “cluttered UIs”. Similarly there is a fine line between the idea of “white/negative space” and “wasted space” in any design.
Specifically I have to ask is it the skeuomorphism that doesn’t scale well, or the design/layout? Couldn’t there be “unused screen real estate” in ANY design?
One could argue that as projects become bigger (scale?), the unused space in all windows becomes progressively MORE used (less unused?). All to say this has never bothered (or even occurred to) me, so I’m curious what others thing here. I tend to see it as “future possibilities”!

What do you all feel about “unused real estate” in Reason?

[joeyluck]

Somewhat related to this, something I dislike about Kontakt is the size of some instrument GUIs in the Kontakt rack.

There is the 'regular' width that had been the standard for years, but then many instrument GUIs are much wider.

What you are left with when using instruments of different sizes is not only empty space, but then the Kontakt window can't be resized smaller than the widest width...

I wish they would make an option to restrict all instrument GUIs to the 'standard' width. What's even more annoying is that those instruments that use the extra large GUIs, they often have like a handful of controls. It's an awful waste of space.

Kontakt-instrument-width.jpg

But maybe there is some benefit to this for devs who actually make good use of extra space? There are VSTs with very nice interfaces that don't fit into the Reason rack dimensions.

I imagine the Reason rack could behave the same as Kontakt—whereas Reason Studios would do away with the metal rack rails and the individual rack width would be dictated by the widest device in that rack, just like it is in the Kontakt rack. Benefit of Reason is if you are very particular, you could always put any extra wide GUIs into their own racks to avoid empty space in other racks. And then there could be an option to 'restrict all GUIs to standard size', which might just mean that those wider GUIs will look out of proportion / small when doing so...

Another suggestion I have made a few times is pop-out windows for REs, which could also have the option for more flexibility in UI dimensions. So you would see the standard width in the rack, and could access that same UI in a window, but could also access a wider, maybe more advance UI in the pop-out window as well, which wouldn't be restricted by the rack's width.

[DaveyG]

I imagine the Reason rack could behave the same as Kontakt—whereas Reason Studios would do away with the metal rack rails and the individual rack width would be dictated by the widest device in that rack, just like it is in the Kontakt rack. Benefit of Reason is if you are very particular, you could always put any extra wide GUIs into their own racks to avoid empty space in other racks. And then there could be an option to 'restrict all GUIs to standard size', which might just mean that those wider GUIs will look out of proportion / small when doing so...

Another suggestion I have made a few times is pop-out windows for REs, which could also have the option for more flexibility in UI dimensions. So you would see the standard width in the rack, and could access that same UI in a window, but could also access a wider, maybe more advance UI in the pop-out window as well, which wouldn't be restricted by the rack's width.

Given the amount of time and pain that was involved in the recent HD update I can't imagine they'll be very keen to do any more graphics work for a while so I think they'll be staying with the rack pretty much forever!

But, yes, Kontakt can be a pain. It's probably the VST window that I manually resize the most often. It's the really tall ones that irritate me most. I like to have the keyboard displayed at the bottom so I can see the key zones and switches but that sometimes means you just can't fit the whole instrument above it.

[selig]

Somewhat related to this, something I dislike about Kontakt is the size of some instrument GUIs in the Kontakt rack.

There is the 'regular' width that had been the standard for years, but then many instrument GUIs are much wider.

I’ve used Kontakt for decades now and never seen this, but then realized I never liked running multiple instruments in one window for the most part. I guess that’s ONE way around eliminating unused space…

As for Reason, expandable Rack seems like my least favorite way to deal with the limitations of the rack unless there were only a few options (so you could sort the rack by those few options). Maybe just a 2x wide option instead of multiple additional widths would work?

[EDIT: as Davey G mentions above (posted while I was writing this post), it’s unlikely they will do another graphics overhaul any time soon, and I also realized there’s no easy way for existing devices to take advantage of additional space without a complete redesign of the front/back panel. BUT, the idea of a Pop-Out window looks even better in tis light because all you need to add to the original UI is a single button!]

Pop-out windows may be a better solution if one is needed, in that you would have no real limit on size, and the overall UI can be designed such that you don’t need the popup for regular use. I could see applications like the sample map editor for NNXT being a pop-out window, or ReDrum could have a pop-out window showing all 64 steps at once as a few examples that would make sense and be super helpful, while also not cluttering the main UI in any way.

[bxbrkrz]

Screwing things up.
When they started mixing up flat and 3D within each other was when the immersion was breaking apart for me. It's a visual confusion. I believe this 'liberty' started with the screws debacle. You break your own rules. Then anything goes. Tintin fighting with Dracula and Spiderman. “Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”

[Timmy Crowne]

Specifically I have to ask is it the skeuomorphism that doesn’t scale well, or the design/layout?

I believe that skeuomorphism and design/layout are intrinsically linked in Reason. In the case of ReBirth, the design was intuitive because all elements were conveniently placed on a single screen. During Reason's early years, the projects were manageable due to the limited device options and computing resources available at the time.

However, with the advancement of technology, we can now incorporate hundreds of devices into a project. This poses a challenge, particularly for those engaged in generative work like myself. It is not uncommon for me to require additional LFOs, envelope generators, or CV shapers, and the only solution is to add another device that occupies a significant portion of the rack, even when collapsed. Unfortunately, there is no option to completely hide these devices. The concept of half-rack devices was a step in the right direction, but I believe there is a missed opportunity in the form of quarter-rack devices for simpler functions as mentioned earlier.

I agree that the modern trend of Kontakt Instruments wasting screen space seems absurd, but at least they can be closed when not needed. All the unnecessary elements can be reduced to a single button on a channel strip. In fact, the ability to close the device might be the reason Kontakt developers can create such expansive backgrounds.

[wowhow]

I finally got it! You can actually unscrew the screws on the subtractor! lol
Such a neat feature. I'm definitely for screws and little features like that - including the fan on redrum.

[arnigretar]

This comment needs to be put on a poster and I agree 100%: "As a Reason user for more than 20 years, I can say that the design, the colours, the font used for the name and knob labels, the back with fans, heatsinks, power cords, QC stickers and serial numbers make each of the Reason devices (especially those from the first 10 years) true icons with TONS of personality. As Selig rightly said, in other DAWs the stock devices are anonymous and all the same. Whereas in Reason they are tangible, recognisable, unmistakable presences. For me this is a huge fun factor: sometimes I open the rack just to look at the devices. From my point of view, they are rock stars. A t-shirt with Thor's logo or a cap with ReDrum's logo have a wearability that no other DAW can boast. And that's something RS should capitalise on, beyond the pack of goodies for Reason's 20, which I've been using for self-produced merchandise."

I'm all for 'I Care About It' and wish they would have explanation about it as well. Reason is a virtual rack - but it's like they forget about it sometimes in design. Then to me it feels like 'they don't care' and then I get scared lol. Mattias is the product manager at Reason Studios so this must fall under him. He answers Q's here from time to time.

[arnigretar]

Screwing things up.
When they started mixing up flat and 3D within each other was when the immersion was breaking apart for me. It's a visual confusion. I believe this 'liberty' started with the screws debacle. You break your own rules. Then anything goes. Tintin fighting with Dracula and Spiderman. “Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”

This. That's why I'm glad I have PX7. But this will be maybe broken from time to time and again and again until the rack is Ableton Live.

[SebAudio]

Specifically I have to ask is it the skeuomorphism that doesn’t scale well, or the design/layout?

I believe that skeuomorphism and design/layout are intrinsically linked in Reason. In the case of ReBirth, the design was intuitive because all elements were conveniently placed on a single screen. During Reason's early years, the projects were manageable due to the limited device options and computing resources available at the time.

However, with the advancement of technology, we can now incorporate hundreds of devices into a project. This poses a challenge, particularly for those engaged in generative work like myself. It is not uncommon for me to require additional LFOs, envelope generators, or CV shapers, and the only solution is to add another device that occupies a significant portion of the rack, even when collapsed. Unfortunately, there is no option to completely hide these devices. The concept of half-rack devices was a step in the right direction, but I believe there is a missed opportunity in the form of quarter-rack devices for simpler functions as mentioned earlier..

In that respect, VCV is quite better and good at handling large projects. Too bad RS doesn’t provide RE devs multiple sizes. It’s been suggested here for years so it won’t see the light of the day before a long time if ever.

OTOH, since I use mainly RRP, I was at first very disappointed when seeing the rack is only 1 column wide. But after some use, I’ve found myself using RRP as a « vertical instrument rack », as opposed to the « horizontal instrument rack » that Live provides and enjoying it a lot. It’s quite a step backward as a Reason user but a great enhancement as a Live user : the Reason 1.0 experience with v7+ instruments and FXs which are much more sophisticated.

[arnigretar]

I'm also one of those that wish we would have virtual midi cables at the back or on the front. And if you would want you could hide them (like they are now). This is of great teaching value - since I teach electronic music - this would help a lot. Midi in-midi thru-midi out

[visheshl]

Ok so someone here commented that the projects are getting too big and unmanageable.

Well then use rrp, seperate racks on separate tracks for seperate sounds, which can have multiple instruments and devices.
The only drawback is multiple rrp instances cant talk to each other like reason standalone.
I think patchbays could enable this.
Where multiple rrp instances can send data and recieve data via one seperate global standalone patchbay thing.
Then basically you'd have the advantages of reason standalone. Which is anything in the project can connect to anything.
And also have a manageable and neatly organized project with seperate racks in seperate tracks.
In fact reason standalone itself can have the concept of seperate racks in seperate windows per sound if the standalone users are finding the racks getting too cluttered and unmanageable.