Reason 12 has arrived

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
Arrant
Posts: 517
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021
The release of Reason 12 feels somewhat muted.
Yeah it feels kind of quiet over here compared to earlier release days.
I think the R+ early access to most of the new features spread the hype out over time, leaving most of the focus on release day on things that weren't fixed as expected before the full release.

User avatar
DaveyG
Posts: 1930
Joined: 03 May 2020

Post 03 Sep 2021

RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021
The release of Reason 12 feels somewhat muted.
Yeah, definitely. I guess it's because the release was trickled out with the early access stuff. On the up side there is no real rage about it either. I don't think anyone has claimed to have been slapped in the face by it. :lol:

User avatar
RoryM0
Posts: 390
Joined: 21 Jun 2017

Post 03 Sep 2021

Yeah it feels kind of quiet over here compared to earlier release days.
I think the R+ early access to most of the new features spread the hype out over time, leaving most of the focus on release day on things that weren't fixed as expected before the full release.
Yeah, definitely. I guess it's because the release was trickled out with the early access stuff. On the up side there is no real rage about it either. I don't think anyone has claimed to have been slapped in the face by it. :lol:
Yes agree with these. Also feels like RS staff haven't been here that much either - is there going to be any more livestreams? Combi2 livestream?

Tenbrink
Posts: 11
Joined: 07 Jul 2017

Post 03 Sep 2021

ProfessaKaos wrote:
02 Sep 2021
Tenbrink wrote:
02 Sep 2021
I upgraded to R11 from 9.5 within the grace period so got R12 yesterday.
Is it to be expected that R12 uses more CPU than R11 for the exact same song? I saw huge performance improvements when going from 9.5 to 11 so it's a pity to see these gains diminished. R12 is better than R9, but still worse than R11 performance wise.

Edit: on further examination I find that while it still uses more CPU than R11 I'm happy to see that my fourth CPU core finally does something instead of just idling and that also my GPU does some graphical lifting! I didn't expect GPU graphics to be in the first stable. However I would've expected that the CPU usage would go down a little when handling over some of the graphical workload to the GPU plus also that the fourth core now does some work, but that is not what I'm seeing on a core by core basis.
Is hyperthreading enabled in R12? This is on set to on by default when R12 has been installed, in most (if not all) cases hyperthreading enabled results in higher CPU. usage.
No, HT doesn't work well with any of my CPU's, they support it but it decreases performance instead of the opposite, so I always disable HT in Reason.

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 3557
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021
The release of Reason 12 feels somewhat muted.
Maybe it's because everyone's busy making kick ass beatz with it ;)
---

User avatar
Noplan
Posts: 725
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Cologne, Germany

Post 03 Sep 2021

stratatonic wrote:
02 Sep 2021
Noplan wrote:
02 Sep 2021


Oh dear, that doesn't seem to be finished yet. But at least the foundation has been laid. ;)
It’s pretty awful. :(
well, the hard work is done under the hood. Now it just needs to be polished. It would be nice if you could zoom in independently on all levels. And even more important for me is that you can zoom out very far with CTRL + mouse wheel to cursor. That would make everything a lot easier for me in the rack. (as an alternative to "show rack device")

User avatar
RoryM0
Posts: 390
Joined: 21 Jun 2017

Post 03 Sep 2021

avasopht wrote:
03 Sep 2021
RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021
The release of Reason 12 feels somewhat muted.
Maybe it's because everyone's busy making kick ass beatz with it ;)
That must be it :D

helmutson
Posts: 207
Joined: 30 Mar 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

chaosroyale wrote:
01 Sep 2021
Trialed it, impressions:

Rack layout is ugly. Different-width devices, gaps..it looks like a pile of Jenga now, not unified like before. Lots of thick borders and wasted space. Putting a combinator inside a mix channel gives you 3 thick borders (wooden rack border, mix channel border, combinator border) before you get to the actual devices. The heavy shadows look really ugly and fake. Dragging devices around in the rack is clunkier than in R11 and the UI tries to limit where you can put things. Very "flickery" when dragging things around. Some buggy looking devices (things not lining up correctly).

Combinator 2 does almost everything I wanted it to, function-wise. Really cool potential.

Automation Labels - they finally work!

Mimic - just another sampler, rather like "simpler".

Performance - Opening devices felt a little slower?? CPU when playing tracks was about the same, but when it hit the limit, it broke down much worse than R11. Instead of manageable clicks and stutters, it glitched and froze for a long time.

Groove mixer - looks exactly like Ableton Live. Very Freudian. I never use it anyway but I thought it was funny.

and...That's it, right? That's literally all there is. No sequencer or workflow improvements.

So finally - I really want to like the customizable Combinator 2, but Reason 12 feels clunky and unfinished overall. I think Reason 11 with the Combinator 2 would be more usable than R12...I'd buy it as an RE (!!!). And the sequencer / DAW side of Reason has obviously been abandoned, but that's not a surprise to anyone. Anyway, time to uninstall.
Another perfect description ! Same here , uninstall completed ...

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 10381
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021
avasopht wrote:
03 Sep 2021


Maybe it's because everyone's busy making kick ass beatz with it ;)
That must be it :D
We are still trying to find something we could complain about.
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 4255
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

Loque wrote:
03 Sep 2021
RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021


That must be it :D
We are still trying to find something we could complain about.
oh there’s plenty to complain about. would you like me to start us off? :lol:
I write good music for good people

https://slow-robot.com/
https://slowrobot.bandcamp.com/

User avatar
Dunderpatrullen
Posts: 2
Joined: 01 Sep 2021

Post 03 Sep 2021

EnochLight wrote:
01 Sep 2021
Michaellos wrote:
01 Sep 2021


I have Nvidia as well, where can I do that ?
Open your Nvidia Control Panel. Are you running GeForce Experience in your taskbar? If so, right-click on it and select Control Panel. If not, right-click on your desktop and select it. Once it opens, select the "Manage 3D Settings" from the menu on the left, and then the "Program Settings" tab on the right. Wait for your list to populate with all software it can read, and then from the 'Select a Program to Customize' drop down, find your Reason exe in the Reason 12 folder and select it to add. I did it for Companion as well, but I doubt that would take advantage of your GPU:


threeee-deeeeee.JPG
Michaellos wrote:
01 Sep 2021
Does anyone know - if I have already Reason 12 license written on my dongle, will I have any problems downgrading to Reason 11 ? The more I test Reason 12, the more I miss Reason 11 :(
Your dongle? You mean Computer Authorization? Reason doesn't support USB Ignition Key dongles anymore. Anyway, if you bought Reason 11 and Reason 12, you still have access to both. No biggie.
Thanks for the tip! I tried it and it does not make any difference i am afraid. I tried my latest project and now it just freezes. Not like the .exe hangs but it's so slow that the "grab hand" icon is still there cause i tried to scroll my seq.
I was running R12 before in the beta stage and did not get these problems back then. Are RS aware of this?

Tenbrink
Posts: 11
Joined: 07 Jul 2017

Post 03 Sep 2021

Another issue, Reason 12 very often won't close properly so I have to force close it by ending the process through the task manager (Windows).

User avatar
AttenuationHz
Posts: 2048
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Location: Back of the Rack-1

Post 03 Sep 2021

The more I use Mimic the more frustrating it becomes to use, each of the 8 slots/channels doesn't have individual gate and cv inputs so it won't work well with propulsion, it's not as if there wasn't room to add the proper gate and cv inputs per channel - less cv is something that has become a pattern with new native devices. If you want to use it as a straight up sampler you can't because of the lack of gate triggers. Other times it is really powerful as a sampler, but it falls way short of the mark for me.

We have a rack that is no longer seamless, we are left looking at massive gaps at the sides most of the time. Not all devices go in a combinator but when they do yes they should look like they belong in there, but no that look should not be the default view. When the ability to place combinators inside combinators is turned on does this mean that devices will be sunk further into the rack.

What was the thought process to getting rid of the built in combinator in a mix channel? Was it lack of ability to place a combinator inside a mix channel to begin with. Was it that the built in combinator on a mix channel just wasn't used by the majority of users who happen to have analytics still turned on? Was it that if there was a combinator inside a mix channel then you don't really need to control anything from the mixer?
Whatever the issue there is a solution that has been overlooked here: the option for both features.
  • You call the new combinator something different and keep the old one which can't be placed inside a mix channel and patches from the old can work with the new or not and just replace the combinator but keep the mix channels built in combi
  • The new combinator can only control device inside it. The mix channel can control up to 8 parameters on the new combinator that is inside of it or the devices that are outside of the new combinator inside the mix channel.
  • You add a trimmed down version of the new combinator to the mix channel where the 4 buttons can switched out for 4 knobs individually (gaining features)
Insert fx will still work outside of a mix channel you just won't be able to program them and in turn lose the control you have with them on the Mixer. You now have very little control on those inserts because of the removal of the controls on the mix channel and in turn from the Mixer. How bad is removing buttons and knobs you can program from the mix channel, extremely if it is an EQ band not available on the EQ channels on the mixer or some other utility insert to allow you to mix while at the Mixer you no longer have control and have to search for a combinator in the rack. Not only has the removal been a feature lost it is also a hindrance on workflow something that is in need of much attention - one step forward 2 steps back!

The decision to remove the built in combinator from mix channels really was a terrible one, why would you want to remove features that are used??

I'm not too sure how it is called a built in "mixer" inside the combinator it is not a mixer... All it does is monitor and badly too.

When you drag and drop a combinator patch it creates a new device rather than being able to be placed on an already created combinator, how that went unnoticed is another head scratcher - but as I recall this was sometimes an issue with the old combinator with some patches. Patch browsing from a created combinator added from the context menu returns no results from the browser. Standards have really slipped from what I see.

HD graphics, I have always seen as low priority, I really couldn't care less about them. There is plenty of other things that should have higher priority and in need of attention first from my own point of view. Some users have been fairly vocal on the matter if only they could put that energy into actual useful features. I just don't need to have my face pressed up against a screen to make music but others obviously do. Zoom just doesn't work.. You would expect it to be in a working order for a release. Here's what happens when I use zoom:

Default view
ZoomDefault.png
110%
Zoom110.png
160%
Zoom160.png


Terrible!
not useful one bit. Maybe I should go buy a 65" monitor to accommodate the scale. Most things don't align properly either like knobs and faders on devices. Some graphics have jagged edges on different zoom levels. How exactly am I supposed to use the mixer when it gets pushed off the screen?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is not too much of an ask for people or things to be the best version of itself!

User avatar
jjpscott01
Posts: 86
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: USA

Post 03 Sep 2021

I bought the upgrade on release day. I'm actually really happy with this release thus far. It looks great on my screen, I'm having a lot of fun with the new combinator and though I havent seen a lot of talk about performance improvements, its running better for me than version 11. Im on windows 10 for what thats worth but everything feels quicker for me. It definitely loads much quicker for me than version 11 which took forever. I havent messed around with Mimic much but I intend on giving it some attention this weekend. For me, the new combinator update is worth the upgrade alone and the browser improvements are more than welcome. I never had a problem with the way Reason looked but it being hd will make it more future proof. I understand the amount of work it mustve taken to make this happen. Well done guys
| REASON 12 | BITWIG 4 | SAMPLITUDE PRO X5 | BALANCE | AUDIENT ID4 | ERIS E5 MONITORS | ESP LTD TE-212 | MXL MICS | LES PAUL TRADITIONAL PRO II | NEKTAR T4 |[/color] :reason: :re: :PUF_balance: :refill:

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3335
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

AttenuationHz wrote:
03 Sep 2021
What was the thought process to getting rid of the built in combinator in a mix channel? Was it lack of ability to place a combinator inside a mix channel to begin with. Was it that the built in combinator on a mix channel just wasn't used by the majority of users who happen to have analytics still turned on? Was it that if there was a combinator inside a mix channel then you don't really need to control anything from the mixer?
Whatever the issue there is a solution that has been overlooked here: the option for both features.
  • You call the new combinator something different and keep the old one which can't be placed inside a mix channel and patches from the old can work with the new or not and just replace the combinator but keep the mix channels built in combi
  • The new combinator can only control device inside it. The mix channel can control up to 8 parameters on the new combinator that is inside of it or the devices that are outside of the new combinator inside the mix channel.
  • You add a trimmed down version of the new combinator to the mix channel where the 4 buttons can switched out for 4 knobs individually (gaining features)
Insert fx will still work outside of a mix channel you just won't be able to program them and in turn lose the control you have with them on the Mixer. You now have very little control on those inserts because of the removal of the controls on the mix channel and in turn from the Mixer. How bad is removing buttons and knobs you can program from the mix channel, extremely if it is an EQ band not available on the EQ channels on the mixer or some other utility insert to allow you to mix while at the Mixer you no longer have control and have to search for a combinator in the rack. Not only has the removal been a feature lost it is also a hindrance on workflow something that is in need of much attention - one step forward 2 steps back!

The decision to remove the built in combinator from mix channels really was a terrible one, why would you want to remove features that are used??
I think your solution would actually cause more confusion. 2 different combinator where 1 can be used in a mix channel and the other not is just complicated. One device is just a cleaner way to handle it. As far as combinators in the mix channels, you barely had control over much to begin with. Anything in depth had to be done from the rack anyway, so no real loss there aside from those who relied on remote mappings (which are said to be returning in some form with choice of parameters). You don’t have to search for the combinator in the rack, there’s a button in the mixer now that takes you directly there.

While yes, you could still use insert fx outside of the insert fx slot I’m not complaining about the tidiness of things be able to be in a designated collapsible spot. Without being able to place combis inside of each other I think changing the mix channel so that it’s no longer a combi was an ok compromise though the one thing I’d wish was possible is being able to save and load and fx chain that contains combinators. Otherwise most of the old functionality is still there and there’s far more flexibility.

shropshirelad
Posts: 77
Joined: 24 Jun 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

RoryM0 wrote:
01 Sep 2021
Transport160.png

R12 Transport bar at 160% application zoom... what am I missing here?
I just purchased the upgrade and I'm really very disappointed - half the the damn thing is still in 'fuzzy vision'. Is this going to be rectified?

User avatar
RoryM0
Posts: 390
Joined: 21 Jun 2017

Post 03 Sep 2021

shropshirelad wrote:
03 Sep 2021
RoryM0 wrote:
01 Sep 2021
Transport160.png

R12 Transport bar at 160% application zoom... what am I missing here?
I just purchased the upgrade and I'm really very disappointed - half the the damn thing is still in 'fuzzy vision'. Is this going to be rectified?
Mattias made a blog post on release day that states that they are currently working on making all the elements that aren't HD yet into HD. Also they are working on adding new stuff to the new combinator.

shropshirelad
Posts: 77
Joined: 24 Jun 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

RoryM0 wrote:
03 Sep 2021
shropshirelad wrote:
03 Sep 2021


I just purchased the upgrade and I'm really very disappointed - half the the damn thing is still in 'fuzzy vision'. Is this going to be rectified?
Mattias made a blog post on release day that states that they are currently working on making all the elements that aren't HD yet into HD. Also they are working on adding new stuff to the new combinator.
Ah, I missed that blog, thanks for the update. Just trying out the rack in Cubase and it's a huge improvement with the zoom function.

elMisse
Posts: 135
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

I'm just happy for the small things, like names on all rotary-automationlanes under the combi.
I honestly feel this sequencer just got a lot better :lol:
R12.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 10381
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

elMisse wrote:
03 Sep 2021
I'm just happy for the small things, like names on all rotary-automationlanes under the combi.
I honestly feel this sequencer just got a lot better :lol:

R12.jpg
Totally agree. This is pretty cool. Even in the Matrix Programmer.
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
AttenuationHz
Posts: 2048
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Location: Back of the Rack-1

Post 03 Sep 2021

QVprod wrote:
03 Sep 2021
AttenuationHz wrote:
03 Sep 2021
What was the thought process to getting rid of the built in combinator in a mix channel? Was it lack of ability to place a combinator inside a mix channel to begin with. Was it that the built in combinator on a mix channel just wasn't used by the majority of users who happen to have analytics still turned on? Was it that if there was a combinator inside a mix channel then you don't really need to control anything from the mixer?
Whatever the issue there is a solution that has been overlooked here: the option for both features.
  • You call the new combinator something different and keep the old one which can't be placed inside a mix channel and patches from the old can work with the new or not and just replace the combinator but keep the mix channels built in combi
  • The new combinator can only control device inside it. The mix channel can control up to 8 parameters on the new combinator that is inside of it or the devices that are outside of the new combinator inside the mix channel.
  • You add a trimmed down version of the new combinator to the mix channel where the 4 buttons can switched out for 4 knobs individually (gaining features)
Insert fx will still work outside of a mix channel you just won't be able to program them and in turn lose the control you have with them on the Mixer. You now have very little control on those inserts because of the removal of the controls on the mix channel and in turn from the Mixer. How bad is removing buttons and knobs you can program from the mix channel, extremely if it is an EQ band not available on the EQ channels on the mixer or some other utility insert to allow you to mix while at the Mixer you no longer have control and have to search for a combinator in the rack. Not only has the removal been a feature lost it is also a hindrance on workflow something that is in need of much attention - one step forward 2 steps back!

The decision to remove the built in combinator from mix channels really was a terrible one, why would you want to remove features that are used??
I think your solution would actually cause more confusion. 2 different combinator where 1 can be used in a mix channel and the other not is just complicated. One device is just a cleaner way to handle it. As far as combinators in the mix channels, you barely had control over much to begin with. Anything in depth had to be done from the rack anyway, so no real loss there aside from those who relied on remote mappings (which are said to be returning in some form with choice of parameters). You don’t have to search for the combinator in the rack, there’s a button in the mixer now that takes you directly there.

While yes, you could still use insert fx outside of the insert fx slot I’m not complaining about the tidiness of things be able to be in a designated collapsible spot. Without being able to place combis inside of each other I think changing the mix channel so that it’s no longer a combi was an ok compromise though the one thing I’d wish was possible is being able to save and load and fx chain that contains combinators. Otherwise most of the old functionality is still there and there’s far more flexibility.
There's an or between those options. Your okay compromise is the lose of ability to save effects chains?? :thumbup:
Thanks for pointing that out, there shouldn't have been any compromise.

Removal of functionality is what is confusing here. Maybe they should just remove the EQ and Dynamics sections from the Mixer and just leave Aux and Mixer Fader then if that is the case as those are devices, they can be gotten to by clicking the button on the mixer. While they're at it they can just remove the Fader and Mute/Solo/Pan on the Mix Channel on the Rack as well. That is on the Mixer, how would that sit with users.

When you're mixing you should not be going to the rack to change something that is what the programmable knobs and buttons on the Mix Channel was for. You then have to go back to the mixer and possible interchange between rack and mixer while mixing, worst possible scenario. Anything in depth had to be done from the sequencer but that is completely irrelevant.

I'm really not not sure how you think you barely had any control over the combinator on a Mix Channel, they are the exact same device the only difference with the new combinator is that you can program more buttons. There was the same control and functionality to what you were able to program with a combinator. Not now though, as I already pointed out removal of the Mix Channel with a built in combinator which does or does not have the ability to swap the 4 buttons for knobs and vice versa should have been the only solution considered as you would have nested control to give you even more in depth functions.

How is it tidy, it is a complete mess. Adding any device will force any sane user to place it either inside a mix channel or into a combinator. As I already pointed out all devices don't need to be inside either one. The most tidy thing to do would have been for devices outside to be seamless and devices inside to have the current view they have. If my eye's could vomit they would.
It is not too much of an ask for people or things to be the best version of itself!

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8058
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

Post 03 Sep 2021

Carambo wrote:
03 Sep 2021
The new M1 MacBook Pro range will come in few weeks and from there, there will be no other chips on Macs available, it will be the new standard, all editors have been releasing their update for M1 chips in the last 12 months and will have to speed up with this major new release of MacBook Pro. Release expected very soon.
Of course Windows has the biggest market share by far, think about all the companies in the world using windows, but for Music/Design/Video it's not the same story, I wouldn't say it's the "standard of musician" but it has a bigger market share in this segment compare to the entire market, probably 40%.
Right, I see that the M1's are certainly Apple's way forward. But for bedroom "producers" (which - let's be honest - represents the vast majority of the DAW market in general) - Windows is still tops. Apple is still considered luxury goods in most markets, and when a cheap Windows laptop can be had for under $500 USD, you don't need to be a mathematician to realize that most kids these days have them.

Granted, I couldn't care less which platform people think is better to create on - there's pros/cons for both, and each can get the job done just fine.

But I digress - didn't mean to get things off topic.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 10249
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 03 Sep 2021

AttenuationHz wrote:
03 Sep 2021
Your okay compromise is the lose of ability to save effects chains?? :thumbup:
Thanks for pointing that out, there shouldn't have been any compromise.
We don't lose anything in that regard. Whatever fx chains that existed before, that were saved in an insert, were combinator patches. Combinators now load inside insert containers. If you want to load an fx chain, or any number of them, you load any number of Combinators now (as opposed to only being able to load one combi patch before into an insert programmer). What he is suggesting is being able to save an fx chain of multiple combis, which would be something new.

User avatar
Billy+
Posts: 4030
Joined: 09 Dec 2016

Post 03 Sep 2021

guitfnky wrote:
03 Sep 2021

oh there’s plenty to complain about. would you like me to start us off? :lol:
Are you running version 12 now?

I finally upgraded the laptop I'm testing subscription on to windows 10 and installed version 12 yesterday and actually it's working quite well.

I wouldn't say that I would buy it or recommend it to anyone but for a work in progress the difference is interesting, although I think that the hires feature would definitely benefit from options that include setting a custom dpi for each zoom level and an option / button / menu item to rescale now that rescales all your devices etc at once especially for higher dpi and resolutions that way you know what's going on so you can leave it to the task.
Freedom of expression does not exist in this dojo ;)

Reason V1 -- V11 suite, now I'm enjoying Live 11 suite and using Reason as a plugin RRPv11
R12 just still isn't worth it..... #justbuylive #sequencerfeatues #fixthebugs #aplanisnotapromis

User avatar
fullforce
Posts: 748
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 03 Sep 2021

First thought I had.

You call the new combinator something different and keep the old one which can't be placed inside a mix channel and patches from the old can work with the new or not and just replace the combinator but keep the mix channels built in combi

They are breaking shit that we've been using forever. That is not cool. Not cool at all.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests