Reason 12 has arrived

[Aquila]

Easy oversight as I think many weren’t loading combis in the mix channels at all let alone with a controller. RS agreeing to some sort of fix for that is them acknowledging that as well.

I'll concede that it's a feature only a select few use, but once a feature is added it should always be accessible - even as a legacy option. I would have preferred that they checked their userbase properly.

The sad part is, I would have voiced my concerns quite concisely during the beta stage but I never received an invite.

[AttenuationHz]

no it does not give more controls because it is not the mixer but a combinator therefor you need to change the lock device to the combinator and lose control over the mixer. People that are not using controllers and only using the mouse might have more controls but us that have invested money on controllers did loose something and our workflow is broken. I however fully except that Reason is not developed for me alone, but saying that we lost nothing is a lie.

And as joeylock has stated there is coming a workaround so the first 4 knob and buttons are still remote mapped

I think the remote thing is a different argument, most of us didn’t think about it, but those reliant on controllers for that section of the mixer did in fact lose something. Easy oversight as I think many weren’t loading combis in the mix channels at all let alone with a controller. RS agreeing to some sort of fix for that is them acknowledging that as well.

That many is currently a silent majority, I certainly did lose that functionality so it is not a different argument at all. The two are the same issue. If the Mix Channel still had the combinator there would be no issue for both points. The ball was dropped and it impacts a lot of users. A coming workaround with an undetermined date is not good enough, the change should not have made it into a release.

[Stamatz]

No matter how I try, I can't seem to get used to the racks new interface if you will...maybe I need more time.
Why are there no gaps in the rack on mix and audio channels and gaps on everything else?
R11 never looked like that, everything was nice and clean looking, everything was the same size.

Is there a plan or way to fix this? Or was that intentional and that's the way it is? Why the change to begin with?

I don't seem to get it? What am I missing?

[joeyluck]

No matter how I try, I can't seem to get used to the racks new interface if you will...maybe I need more time.
Why are there no gaps in the rack on mix and audio channels and gaps on everything else?
R11 never looked like that, everything was nice and clean looking, everything was the same size.

Is there a plan or way to fix this? Or was that intentional and that's the way it is? Why the change to begin with?

I don't seem to get it? What am I missing?

This has been answered a few times. The Master Section and Audio/Mix channels are wider to now house Combinators.

[AttenuationHz]

No matter how I try, I can't seem to get used to the racks new interface if you will...maybe I need more time.
Why are there no gaps in the rack on mix and audio channels and gaps on everything else?
R11 never looked like that, everything was nice and clean looking, everything was the same size.

Is there a plan top fix that? Or was that intentional and that's the way it is? Why the change to begin with?

I don't seem to get it? What amn I missing?

The rack is wider. You don't lose device width but what you end up with is an untidy mess. This is another example of things not being thought out properly. Granted when you placed devices inside of a mix channel the border of the insert would cover the sides of the device but it was a long time like this and it is safe to say nobody had a problem with it. I've highlighted this already and I'm glad someone else see's the issue with it.

It's because a combinator can now go into a Mix Channel the border of the Mix Channel now has a double border when devices are in that combinator, the sides of the borders would leak into the UI of devices too much so the increased width was needed. The combinator and devices being the old width. All that could be needed is plates at the sides of devices to fill the gaps with the new width but instead the problem makes it into a release. Like I said standards and QA have really decreased here with this release.

[joeyluck]

That's one of the main reason I decided not to engage with the beta as I didn't want fallout.
Another is that I wouldn't call it beta testing, more like machine testing,
More often than not people's suggestion have been ignored so what's the point..

You only need to read through this public forum to see the comments and suggestions that have been ignored to realise that they RS didn't want beta testers they just wanted numbers.......

One of the things I always have a hard time understanding is seeing very active users, who say they can't be bothered to beta test, but also want beta testers to share info with them knowing they can't, who could join the beta to get answers to their questions, but then who jump on the software the day it is released and then point out bugs they encounter on their system...

One of the reasons I got into beta testing was not only because I wanted to try things out earlier, but because I want to be sure that the software I use often is working as best as it can on my own system and setup.

[joeyluck]

No matter how I try, I can't seem to get used to the racks new interface if you will...maybe I need more time.
Why are there no gaps in the rack on mix and audio channels and gaps on everything else?
R11 never looked like that, everything was nice and clean looking, everything was the same size.

Is there a plan top fix that? Or was that intentional and that's the way it is? Why the change to begin with?

I don't seem to get it? What amn I missing?

The rack is wider. You don't lose device width but what you end up with is an untidy mess. This is another example of things not being thought out properly. Granted when you placed devices inside of a mix channel the border of the insert would cover the sides of the device but it was a long time like this and it is safe to say nobody had a problem with it. I've highlighted this already and I'm glad someone else see's the issue with it.

It's because a combinator can now go into a Mix Channel the border of the Mix Channel now has a double border when devices are in that combinator, the sides of the borders would leak into the UI of devices too much so the increased width was needed. The combinator and devices being the old width. All that could be needed is plates at the sides of devices to fill the gaps with the new width but instead the problem makes it into a release. Like I said standards and QA have really decreased here with this release.

Here were a couple of my suggestions:

First, just making only the insert containers wider and making the wood thicker to accommodate. Then the inserts would just pop-out from that. In a world where devices can fold and these containers even exist, I think it would be fine to have it pop-out from the rack.

insert suggestion.jpg (334.97 KiB) Viewed 37794 times

The other suggestion would be filling the gaps along the line of what you mention.

On the left, an example of just making the rail wider. And on the right, an example of some other graphical thing, like venting, to fill space:

rack rail suggestion.png (191.35 KiB) Viewed 37794 times

The gaps bothered me, but it wasn't an issue for a majority of the testers. It didn't really come up. I've gotten used to it now I guess.

[EnochLight]

The sad part is, I would have voiced my concerns quite concisely during the beta stage but I never received an invite.

Voicing your concerns during beta state is useless, because alpha stage is the only point where features are solidified. Literally the only purposed behind beta testing is to find bugs and fix them before release, and that's it. Trust me - you didn't miss much during the beta test. It was pretty boring.

That's one of the main reason I decided not to engage with the beta as I didn't want fallout.
Another is that I wouldn't call it beta testing, more like machine testing,
More often than not people's suggestion have been ignored so what's the point..

You only need to read through this public forum to see the comments and suggestions that have been ignored to realize that RS didn't want beta testers they just wanted numbers.......

One of the things I always have a hard time understanding is seeing very active users, who say they can't be bothered to beta test, but also want beta testers to share info with them knowing they can't, who could join the beta to get answers to their questions, but then who jump on the software the day it is released and then point out bugs they encounter on their system...

One of the reasons I got into beta testing was not only because I wanted to try things out earlier, but because I want to be sure that the software I use often is working as best as it can on my own system and setup.

^^ THIS ^^

Beta testing has been a thing for decades - why in the hell would anyone think that "wanting numbers" (as in, bug reports) is unusual for beta testing software???!

[alipi]

1. The cost is the same - you buy RRP and get a free DAW; you buy Reason DAW and you get free RRP. You can use either, or both. No big deal.
2. For the millionth time, Reason DAW is neither abandoned nor a relic. Jesus Christ, man.

I'm happy to have updated to get the HD graphics for the DAW (although disappointed that they released it unfinished). Going forward if they want more of my money they have to announce and improve the DAW. Otherwise I'll have to change to another DAW platform and will probably never update Reason. To me, the current bundled pricing and what they have decided to focus on is confusing, either the DAW is worthless and abandoned or the plugin is overpriced. If people think that's no big deal and will pay for stuff they don't use, good for them, not sure what the argument is.

[Pepin]

I also noticed the "Send Error Reports and Statistics" toggle has been removed from the Advanced preferences. Uncertain whether that means we can't opt out or if that functionality has simply been removed. I can understand it being hidden during beta testing, so possibly an oversight?

Reason 11:
R11.png

Reason 12:
R12.png

Interesting point. It would be illegal in EU to record that info without permission.

I heard back from support about this, and they confirmed it's no longer possible to opt out. I wasn't paying too much attention during installation, but I would guess it was disclosed somewhere. It's not a dealbreaker for me, but worth noting for anyone who cares about this kind of thing.

[jam-s]

Interesting point. It would be illegal in EU to record that info without permission.

I heard back from support about this, and they confirmed it's no longer possible to opt out. I wasn't paying too much attention during installation, but I would guess it was disclosed somewhere. It's not a dealbreaker for me, but worth noting for anyone who cares about this kind of thing.

Looks like RS didn't get the memo from the shitstorm that happened over at audacity and their attempt to introduce telemetry.

[avasopht]

I'm happy to have updated to get the HD graphics for the DAW (although disappointed that they released it unfinished). Going forward if they want more of my money they have to announce and improve the DAW. Otherwise I'll have to change to another DAW platform and will probably never update Reason. To me, the current bundled pricing and what they have decided to focus on is confusing, either the DAW is worthless and abandoned or the plugin is overpriced. If people think that's no big deal and will pay for stuff they don't use, good for them, not sure what the argument is.

You're always "paying for stuff you don't use" when you think of it like that.

It's a very unrealistic way of thinking about things.

You buy a ford car. Some of that money went into research and development of another car and vice versa.

That being said, you can only ever pay for the software package on offer, not how they developed it.

It's a pretty pointless way of looking at things because it doesn't make any real difference.

Either the software is worth buying or not. The fact they spent most of their time playing StarCraft doesn't mean I'm paying for their game playing. I'm still paying for the features in offer that interest me.

If you don't think RRP is worth the price then you don't have to upgrade or buy RRP.

[Billy+]

One of the things I always have a hard time understanding is seeing very active users, who say they can't be bothered to beta test, but also want beta testers to share info with them knowing they can't, who could join the beta to get answers to their questions, but then who jump on the software the day it is released and then point out bugs they encounter on their system...

One of the reasons I got into beta testing was not only because I wanted to try things out earlier, but because I want to be sure that the software I use often is working as best as it can on my own system and setup.

Well thanks to cheap subscription I've been able to access R12 without any commitment so instead of being reliant on 3rd party posts I have been able to test the release for myself.

If beta testing worked then I'm assuming that the bugs could have been fixed before release and I would have nothing to point out.

I don't believe I have encouraged beta tester to break the NDA and although some people have decided to and I along with others have been able to access information early via YouTube etc I still agreed with you not to post comments or discussion with others until official release days.

I'm glad that you advised that some of the issues I've posted about are choices by the developer with known consequences (gaps between devices and rack for example) this has allowed me and others to at least understand what the reasoning behind this is.

I have also posted a number of positive comments about hires and the combinator given a balanced approach to using the current version along with information to assist with windows upgrades and helped community members who are having issues

so yes I'm very active but by no means am I here just to point out failure.

[Billy+]

No matter how I try, I can't seem to get used to the racks new interface if you will...maybe I need more time.
Why are there no gaps in the rack on mix and audio channels and gaps on everything else?
R11 never looked like that, everything was nice and clean looking, everything was the same size.

Is there a plan or way to fix this? Or was that intentional and that's the way it is? Why the change to begin with?

I don't seem to get it? What am I missing?

The gap is intentional.

[Billy+]

Interesting point. It would be illegal in EU to record that info without permission.

I heard back from support about this, and they confirmed it's no longer possible to opt out. I wasn't paying too much attention during installation, but I would guess it was disclosed somewhere. It's not a dealbreaker for me, but worth noting for anyone who cares about this kind of thing.

I've always opted out of stats / usage and error reporting does anyone know what data is going through the system and the destination location (assuming that it's a separate service) ?

I've been meaning to setup a dedicated device for network filtering for sometime now possible pi-hole https://pi-hole.net

[avasopht]

I've always opted out of stats / usage and error reporting does anyone know what data is going through the system and the destination location (assuming that it's a separate service) ?

I've been meaning to setup a dedicated device for network filtering for sometime now possible pi-hole https://pi-hole.net

It's anonymised metric data, e.g:
1. User clicked File Menu, then Open while dragging the mouse slowly and hovering over menu items before committing to clicking
2. User spent 1-minute scrolling through drop-down menus instead of using the hotkey
3. User renamed mixer channel, then later renamed device connected to the mixer channel and clearing the mixer channel label so that it mirrors the device. The user then made a change to the device label before changing it back (indicating they were checking the change was reflected in the mixer channel)

And so on.

By analysing the hundred or so thousand users together, they can spot patterns in how the software is used.

This is how they work out how well their UI works, what features people actually use, and where people are using features inefficiently (indicating they could better communicate how to better use the software).

There's no personal data. If they were capturing personally identifiable information, it would be covered by GDPR (with massive fees) but it's all anonymised.

Nothing to make a big deal about, unless you're worried that the order you create devices and stuff (even when not directly linked to you) is going to genuinely affect you in some way (like, maybe Reason Studios steals your workflow and turns it into a single button click).

[Billy+]

I would definitely question that,

If I enter text into the software and that gets sent back to a server then that's definitely personal data being recorded?

Audiotrack1, title =drum stem for client xyz.
Etc...

Not that I personally care to much about this sort of thing but I do always opt out, and definitely would argue that everyone should have the option to

[guitfnky]

I would definitely question that,

If I enter text into the software and that gets sent back to a server then that's definitely personal data being recorded?

this makes zero sense. how is typing a word 'personal data'?

fun.

^does that word tell you anything about me personally? no.

[Billy+]

I would definitely question that,

If I enter text into the software and that gets sent back to a server then that's definitely personal data being recorded?

this makes zero sense. how is typing a word 'personal data'?

fun.

^does that word tell you anything about me personally? no.

Had you not removed it from the quote, the next line gave an example of including client information as part of the text!

I would definitely consider that private personal information

[Pepin]

I would guess that RS isn't sending any actual text entered into the software. But it's a good example of why one might prefer to opt out rather than trusting everything is anonymized properly with no bugs or oversights.

[EnochLight]

LMAO!!!! If Reason Studios are reading any text you type into Reason, then you lot just discovered a direct means of communication with the devs - forever. Congrats!

(I’m kidding, BTW - and I also don’t feel anonymized data is an issue at all)…

[guitfnky]

this makes zero sense. how is typing a word 'personal data'?

fun.

^does that word tell you anything about me personally? no.

Had you not removed it from the quote, the next line gave an example of including client information as part of the text!

I would definitely consider that private personal information

names are not private personal information.

[avasopht]

I would definitely question that,

If I enter text into the software and that gets sent back to a server then that's definitely personal data being recorded?

Audiotrack1, title =drum stem for client xyz.
Etc...

Not that I personally care to much about this sort of thing but I do always opt out, and definitely would argue that everyone should have the option to

They don't need to send that text back. It's trivial to track the changes users make without tracking text fields.

If you name your tracks with PII data, in the software they can just transmit the hash (or even the hash against a random salt for the session that is not retained but only used to further anonymise the data).

[avasopht]

this makes zero sense. how is typing a word 'personal data'?

fun.

^does that word tell you anything about me personally? no.

Had you not removed it from the quote, the next line gave an example of including client information as part of the text!

I would definitely consider that private personal information

Then that's on you.

Any platform that allows users to enter text are under no obligation prevent them from doing something stupid like tweeting their SSN, passport photo, fingerprint scans and key to their online password manager.

[AttenuationHz]

The rack is wider. You don't lose device width but what you end up with is an untidy mess. This is another example of things not being thought out properly. Granted when you placed devices inside of a mix channel the border of the insert would cover the sides of the device but it was a long time like this and it is safe to say nobody had a problem with it. I've highlighted this already and I'm glad someone else see's the issue with it.

It's because a combinator can now go into a Mix Channel the border of the Mix Channel now has a double border when devices are in that combinator, the sides of the borders would leak into the UI of devices too much so the increased width was needed. The combinator and devices being the old width. All that could be needed is plates at the sides of devices to fill the gaps with the new width but instead the problem makes it into a release. Like I said standards and QA have really decreased here with this release.

Here were a couple of my suggestions:

First, just making only the insert containers wider and making the wood thicker to accommodate. Then the inserts would just pop-out from that. In a world where devices can fold and these containers even exist, I think it would be fine to have it pop-out from the rack.


insert suggestion.jpg


The other suggestion would be filling the gaps along the line of what you mention.

On the left, an example of just making the rail wider. And on the right, an example of some other graphical thing, like venting, to fill space:


rack rail suggestion.png


The gaps bothered me, but it wasn't an issue for a majority of the testers. It didn't really come up. I've gotten used to it now I guess.

A border out past the wood would have been awful, vents at the sides don't really fix the increase width as they would still be dark enough to draw your eye. Plates at the sides probably wouldn't look any better. What really should have been a consideration was increasing the default zoom of the rack say 103% (arbitrary for the sake of example). Devices outside the inserts have the appearance of being larger, with zoom being a thing this would be an easy thing to do. When devices are then inside the combinator that is inside the insert the scale is reduced to 97% for those devices. Nothing lost.

Another solution would be either remove the mix channels border if there is a combinator inside or remove the combinators border or make both borders smaller by exactly half.

Basing it not being an issue for the majority of testers just because it didn't come up doesn't mean it wasn't or is an issue. You seemed to have had an issue with it as do I and others in this thread so it's definitely an issue. That's like saying some crash you come across wasn't reported by others therefor it doesn't need to be fixed because the majority of users who will not likely come across the crash are not affected by it. If they were not so strict with stability your crash would make it into a release.

The problem has a route cause though, so as soon as it was reported it really should have been back to the drawing board. If the combinator was not able to live inside the mix channel there would be no issues with gaps. All the new combi does is control programmed parameters which can be customised. Why these custom controls could not be added to a mix channel leaving its default 4 knobs and 4 buttons so it doesn't change the mixer is another overlooked solution. Nothing lost, everything gained.