RE format future

[PurpleMonkeyDishes]

The Vst is in a floating window, Im using reaktor 6 / Dune II & FM8 right now in 9.5

Honestly I hope RE thrives.
But it is worth saying after reading some comments here, Developers are getting the best out of the sdk, to go on one better, propellerhead has to improve the sdk, that is not a developer issue.

RE will become a boutique developer market because no big name will even bother putting resources into it now. It is up to the communityto support these developers who stick with it, because ultimately if they loose customers to pirate bay vsts, the prop shop is dead...

[joeyluck]

Really? I thought it stayed in the rack. Maybe I'll watch the video again.

Yeah. The cable interfacing is in the rack. Everything else is accessed via a floating window. VST's aren't Rack Extensions after all. I see myself investing in the great sample library instruments; things that are mostly where I browse presets/patches. Which could be some synths. But as far as most synths and programming, I seem to have far less interest in purchasing them and simply still wanting a RE in it's place.

[ejanuska]

I would rather have them in the rack somehow, but not a big deal.

[chimp_spanner]

If that is the case I'm not digging that. I don't like floating VST windows

I can't really think how else it would work. The actual "presence" of the instrument is denoted by a Player-esque looking rack device which serves as the bridge between the rack and the VST. So when you're not editing it, it's discreet and fits nicely into the rack. Everything looks as it should.

IMO a pop out window was the only viable solution. If it was in the rack and constrained to its proportions, just try and imagine how something like Reaktor blocks would work. Some of those patches can be the width of an entire screen at 1080. I can't really imagine anyone would want to drag around that in the rack, right?

Honestly, wait until you try it. It feels surprisingly natural. Certainly no more clumsy than just about any other VST host ever made.

[joeyluck]

If that is the case I'm not digging that. I don't like floating VST windows

I can't really think how else it would work. The actual "presence" of the instrument is denoted by a Player-esque looking rack device which serves as the bridge between the rack and the VST. So when you're not editing it, it's discreet and fits nicely into the rack. Everything looks as it should.

IMO a pop out window was the only viable solution. If it was in the rack and constrained to its proportions, just try and imagine how something like Reaktor blocks would work. Some of those patches can be the width of an entire screen at 1080. I can't really imagine anyone would want to drag around that in the rack, right?

Honestly, wait until you try it. It feels surprisingly natural. Certainly no more clumsy than just about any other VST host ever made.

I'd prefer anything over a pop-out window. Even dragging around the interface in a fold-out section (as an option) would be preferable. Some VSTs could still zoom out far enough to show the whole interface and some even at their largest would still fit. But being able to have a focus on each plugin without obscuring anything would be great IMO. But maybe this simply remains a plus for Rack Extensions.

[ejanuska]

I suppose they possibly could have modified the rack somehow to fit the VSTs. Maybe, maybe not. Nothing Alt-Tab can't fix.

[Oquasec]

That musta took all of reason 8 to make

[davidvilla]

For someone like myself, who has built a solid collection of VST synths and effects over the years, and who uses Reason primarily for composition, I honestly don't see myself purchasing another RE anytime soon, if ever again. What for??? I'm not a tweaker, I'm not a CVer either - don't use CV nor do I have any CV devices, not even the free ones. There might be a cool RE-only synth that might intrigue me every once in a while, but even then I have everything I need and more in my VST arsenal. I used to base my RE purchasing choices on devices to fill Reason's holes. Now I get to fill Reason's holes (ha) with the likes of Omnisphere and Serum and Sylenth and Zebra and Kontakt and the Valhalla reverbs and all things Slate AND FINALLY A HIGH QUALITY PIANO IN THE RACK GODDAMMIT (Garritan CFX)....

Maybe this will challenge RE developers to come up with truly innovative Reason-exclusive devices. Good luck to them.

[pjeudy]

If that is the case I'm not digging that. I don't like floating VST windows

Understand .....Propellerhead said that "they are delivering on there number one user request" it's not something that they wanted to implement in REASON the way they would normally want to do it...you know in the RE way...

So don't look at this development like a new feature implemented deep into REASON like Reason's Players....instead look at it as not having to jump through hoops to get VST's in REASON and guaranteeing the ability to now get VST Dynamic devices also slightly better integrated then having the right sound card/interface downloading third party software to get VST into REASON ..the only way you can right now etc....

So try to meet Props half way with this...if you are interested in getting any types of VST devices into REASON then this FREE way to do it is now available, that might help with the short comings that you are feeling.

[The_G]

Said this in the other thread, I think it's going to become a platform for indie devs--like PSN for games. VST may kill off the possibilities of seeing big devs do RE versions of their software but there will still be lots of interesting stuff from indie devs. And frankly, already half of the REs I use regularly are by devs working exclusively in RE format.

[CephaloPod]

I have spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on REs. I doubt I will buy another one now. RE developers are going to have to be pretty darn clever now to offer something worth the $$$.

[deepndark]

Actually I feel like REs got even more respect from me after this. But I think I want few things from VST world too, like Reaktor, Omnisphere and other VST-monsters.
But by no means I start buying more stuff yet. My goal will be making music with what I already have - then after selling millions of copies of music I can buy whatever I want, - including a personal chopper.

[Oquasec]

I've never used reaktor often, even when I used vst only daws like fl studio. Just never got use period, and I felt like it was a waste of my $$$ compared to synthedit & reason.

However, sylenth, zebra 2, omnisphere [got omni in 2012 for 500$] were awesome to me for sound designing.
Using those, in a combinator...with parsec...man, and without using the 15 other methods I was talking about earlier.
Reminds me, need to spend more time in my fuckin manual.

[Gulale]

I tried to defend Re but now I must say Re is going to die. Small painful death like an archive. Man look at how much they cost in Re some effect which they don't even cost a dime in VST. Who wants to buy it Re while the VST is available for free. I'm sorry I thought so in the first place but I have changed my mind. Nobody even Reason CV heads are not going to buy that.

[SebAudio]

Do you think there would have been Expanse has VST support been there at the time ? I don't think so.
So any RE trying to mimick à VST is not worth developping.
And then the specific ones : CV RE. Do they really sell well ? When you look at PH offerings in the RÉ store, and they know the sales figures... I think CV RE are cool but don't interest à lot of people.
So who is gonna make money with RE ?

[joeyluck]

I tried to defend Re but now I must say Re is going to die. Small painful death like an archive. Man look at how much they cost in Re some effect which they don't even cost a dime in VST. Who wants to buy it Re while the VST is available for free. I'm sorry I thought so in the first place but I have changed my mind. Nobody even Reason CV heads are not going to buy that.

The benefit of REs is far greater than CV connectivity. And I think that becomes apparent when you start using them side-by-side. All the things that Propellerhead said were beneficial about the format 5 years ago is still the same today.

As a Reason user, I will always buy a RE first where a RE is available. I will certainly end up with some VSTs, but not many.

Easily syncing to different computers to continue working on projects at different locations is a huge factor for me. Shoot, just easily installing and uninstalling is huge. Dealing with pop-out windows is annoying and breaks the workflow and going and using a RE interface in the Reason rack after using a VST is refreshing. And remember all the people who were upset about future-compatibility with Line 6? You can look at that as a practice run. Sure, now we can use other Line 6 products as VSTs, but there's also nothing future-proofing individual VSTs. If a VST you use isn't updated in the future while everything else progresses (Reason and your OS) your VST won't work and your project will be missing that VST and be different. Not every VST supports undo (but maybe people can compile a list of those that do, because I'm not interested in ones that don't).

There's still so many reasons I would want a RE over a VST. There will be exceptions to make here and there, but I need to practice restraint in what VSTs I work with, because it certainly is not optimal for many reasons. I'm very interested in big Kontakt libraries. But many things that could be Rack Extensions, the developer actually needs to do more to win me over to make that sacrifice to workflow.

[centomila]

I've read the VST SDK, and obviously the RE one.

Other than the GUI limitations for REs, I vastly prefer the format. Without talking too much about the internals, the way it receives and sends data from and to Reason is very nice. Also I happily give the Prop's a percent of every sale, because I don't have to run a store worrying about processing payments, and taxes, and all that money crap. Also I don't need to run a server to host the files. Plus, I don't need to buy copy protection software, that requires the user to learn another way to authorize my program.

So I'll continue working on REs, and have no plan to do VST development.

totally agree... Also from a user, point of view, i really prefer the RE updates and installation. In the VST world, I've had many plugins that i stopped to use just because i was annoyed by the installation or activation process. Sometimes I've preferred the cracked version because the licensing system was easier.

[Marco Raaphorst]

I thought for many years that the Props could develop more modulair tools for Reason and a better Combinator so you can create you're own instruments and effects in Reason in a more simple way than to code. Anyone is doing that in the Combinator but using full rack devices is a little strange, although it does work. But this can be improved by creating many half rack units for one purpose. And combine these devices into a Combinator MKII.

IDT I consider is really a bad designed format. So super limiting. CV in/out, only one channel of audio. Even a free VST will have much more CV and audio options than any IDT. Strange design.

[joeyluck]

I thought for many years that the Props could develop more modulair tools for Reason and a better Combinator so you can create you're own instruments and effects in Reason in a more simple way than to code. Anyone is doing that in the Combinator but using full rack devices is a little strange, although it does work. But this can be improved by creating many half rack units for one purpose. And combine these devices into a Combinator MKII.

IDT I consider is really a bad designed format. So super limiting. CV in/out, only one channel of audio. Even a free VST will have much more CV and audio options than any IDT. Strange design.

Well technically it's not CV in the same respect. You can use CV the same way with any RE built using the IDT by placing it in a Combinator. CV assigned this way (on the back of the VST device and via the Combinator) is more like automation vs. CV found on the backs of Reason/Rack Extension devices and how and what it can be used for. Does that make sense?

[Marco Raaphorst]

I thought for many years that the Props could develop more modulair tools for Reason and a better Combinator so you can create you're own instruments and effects in Reason in a more simple way than to code. Anyone is doing that in the Combinator but using full rack devices is a little strange, although it does work. But this can be improved by creating many half rack units for one purpose. And combine these devices into a Combinator MKII.

IDT I consider is really a bad designed format. So super limiting. CV in/out, only one channel of audio. Even a free VST will have much more CV and audio options than any IDT. Strange design.

Well technically it's not CV in the same respect. You can use CV the same way with any RE built using the IDT by placing it in a Combinator. CV assigned this way (on the back of the VST device and via the Combinator) is more like automation vs. CV found on the backs of Reason/Rack Extension devices and how and what it can be used for. Does that make sense?

CV on IDT is like MIDI. One thing the Props forgotten about when doing Reason 1. Would make sense to have MIDI, CV and audio...

[joeyluck]

I thought for many years that the Props could develop more modulair tools for Reason and a better Combinator so you can create you're own instruments and effects in Reason in a more simple way than to code. Anyone is doing that in the Combinator but using full rack devices is a little strange, although it does work. But this can be improved by creating many half rack units for one purpose. And combine these devices into a Combinator MKII.

IDT I consider is really a bad designed format. So super limiting. CV in/out, only one channel of audio. Even a free VST will have much more CV and audio options than any IDT. Strange design.

Well technically it's not CV in the same respect. You can use CV the same way with any RE built using the IDT by placing it in a Combinator. CV assigned this way (on the back of the VST device and via the Combinator) is more like automation vs. CV found on the backs of Reason/Rack Extension devices and how and what it can be used for. Does that make sense?

CV on IDT is like MIDI. One thing the Props forgotten about when doing Reason 1. Would make sense to have MIDI, CV and audio...

Well again, the CV found on the back of the VST device is more like what you get by using the CV routing of a Combinator (including a RE made with IDT). It's more like automation.

My guess of why RE's made with IDT omit audio inputs is because of the stock effects included for developers to use. Wouldn't want developers making the use of stock effects a selling point of their plugins. Somebody might buy a plugin thinking the use of it's chorus is a plus (or it's unique), when many other REs made with the IDT use the same chorus. That's just my guess.

[gullum]

I will always buy RE's they feel more natural inside Reason and then there is remote map that makes it easy to map any function to something on my controllers. Put a RE in the rack and my controller is ready to control it. However there are some VST that I like to try with reason like the Positive Grid amps and FX

[chimp_spanner]

...but I need to practice restraint in what VSTs I work with, because it certainly is not optimal for many reasons. I'm very interested in big Kontakt libraries. But many things that could be Rack Extensions, the developer actually needs to do more to win me over to make that sacrifice to workflow.

Totally feel you on this. Fact is we have had some great sounds in Reason up to this point, and they're not NOT great suddenly just because we have VST. Sometimes it's just having that one distinctive or super realistic sound in your song that can glue everything else together. And that's where Kontakt and the like fits in. Like I was mucking about with the Jackbox 808 and VK2, then put a super realistic Kontakt piano in and *everything* suddenly sounded better. It lifted the whole track. So yeah I don't think I'll be using VSTs super heavily, although it's an option. But just to compliment and enhance the sounds I've got already.

[Gulale]

I tried to defend Re but now I must say Re is going to die. Small painful death like an archive. Man look at how much they cost in Re some effect which they don't even cost a dime in VST. Who wants to buy it Re while the VST is available for free. I'm sorry I thought so in the first place but I have changed my mind. Nobody even Reason CV heads are not going to buy that.

The benefit of REs is far greater than CV connectivity. And I think that becomes apparent when you start using them side-by-side. All the things that Propellerhead said were beneficial about the format 5 years ago is still the same today.

As a Reason user, I will always buy a RE first where a RE is available. I will certainly end up with some VSTs, but not many.

Easily syncing to different computers to continue working on projects at different locations is a huge factor for me. Shoot, just easily installing and uninstalling is huge. Dealing with pop-out windows is annoying and breaks the workflow and going and using a RE interface in the Reason rack after using a VST is refreshing. And remember all the people who were upset about future-compatibility with Line 6? You can look at that as a practice run. Sure, now we can use other Line 6 products as VSTs, but there's also nothing future-proofing individual VSTs. If a VST you use isn't updated in the future while everything else progresses (Reason and your OS) your VST won't work and your project will be missing that VST and be different. Not every VST supports undo (but maybe people can compile a list of those that do, because I'm not interested in ones that don't).

There's still so many reasons I would want a RE over a VST. There will be exceptions to make here and there, but I need to practice restraint in what VSTs I work with, because it certainly is not optimal for many reasons. I'm very interested in big Kontakt libraries. But many things that could be Rack Extensions, the developer actually needs to do more to win me over to make that sacrifice to workflow.

Now I absolutely understood your point. It is all about preference. I was using Studio one continuously and I opend up Reason and start writing, mind you I'm on the sequencer side and I was keep double clicking the Kong drum designer for about 10 second to pop out the Rack. I wanted it to be in front of me the moment I needed it. That is an amazing workflow. I didn't want to leave the sequencer side but I wanted to change a tiny bit on Kong I shouldn't have to go too many steps to do that. all I need is a pop up screen tweak close. That is why I say it is all about preference.

About undo, I have to be honest with you I'm not making this up for the sake of argument. Even when I'm on Reaper it annoys me all the time but fortunately it is also VST like it is now in Reason. So, I can manage to undo it from the plugin if it has one. I don't like Reason undo system I like plugins undo system. When you want to undo something that you have done an hour ago, you will have to miss a lot of things in a time between if you are using Rack extensions. But the VST way you can go and undo from the source. I'm not dependent on undo stuff. The more I don't undo stuff the more I learn from my mistake.

I haven't run the beta If Reason VSt doesn't register a preset also I don't care cause I don't like presets in the first place. Where is the fun of mixing if I don't do it from ground up?

About cost effectiveness, Most VST which costs money in Re they are free in VST. New user do you think is going to invest in that while he can get them for free? from the way I understand it. The way they implemented the VST from the infomercial that I have seen is fabulous. If people enjoy working in Reason and managed to get so many users, the alternative is to make cash from upgrades.

[JiggeryPokery]

IDT I consider is really a bad designed format. So super limiting. CV in/out, only one channel of audio. Even a free VST will have much more CV and audio options than any IDT. Strange design.

While I have my criticisms of IDT too, there's criticism based on experience, and then there's misinformation based on untruths or at the very least based on a fundamental misunderstanding: so I must ask, what do you mean by it having "only one channel of audio"?

And I ask this because IDT has pretty much unlimited audio outs. As you know, all of my IDT instruments have a least a stereo output, not a single channel, and most have multiple audio outputs for specific groups of sounds, (e.g. X~705 Space Organ). I'm wondering now which IDT product does this, but if the specific IDT dev/s to whom you refer chose to only have a mono channel out that's hardly the fault of PH's IDT tool is it?

Also, "CV in/out". Now, my understanding here is more hazy, but I believe it does clearly support CV because at least one PH assumed-IDT instrument used it fairly extensively. PH have never released an IDT CV specification though, if it does exist, hence why the rest of us have never used it. If I could hazard a speculation as to why here, then mostly likely it would be to prevent the IDT wavetable swarm using them and making them totally indistiguishable from the actual software synthesizers: i.e. "if you want to produce cheap products, fine, but you don't get to play with the higher end functions like CV and sample-loading".

Lack of CV and audio in then, is likely a very good thing. If PH had added audio in, you'd have a twenty multi-fx devices in the Shop all using exactly the same effects modules.

The two biggest mistakes of IDT, imo, are poor group handling in regards to reverse samples and alt-hits, and including a super-saw oscillator. What a sampler needs a synth mod for I still fail to understand, and it's been used at least twice in the field: I feel sorry for anyone who bought the first because of it, then bought the second too because they thought it might be better. No, it's the exact same thing.