About Improving Reason's Internal DAW

[zoidkirb]

Many of my requests are improvements to the rack itself.
So using rrp in another DAW isn't going to help.

As for the seven sequencer improvements for r11: that was basic stuff but essential. If only RS had just kept up that level of slow and steady sequencer improvements into r12.

Rack improvements won't help the Reason RACK Plug-In. Have you used it? not sure I follow your logic, no pun intended.

I was replying to the original post, which stated if you don't like Reason's sequencer/daw features then why not simply use the RRP in another DAW?
My response was, as someone who sees a need for improving the rack itself, the solution of 'just use the RRP' doesn't solve any issues.

[Creativemind]

the 'if they add those features, they're just copying another DAW' argument is about as weird as it gets. I'm dating myself here, but nobody complained that car companies were copying others when their newest models have finally gotten power windows. it improves the experience--why would anyone oppose that?

I don't think "oppose" is quite the right word.

Software designers are often besieged by shrill demands for specific changes. Bad designers merely quiet the demands by making the specific changes. Good designers tease out the wants and needs behind the demands and address them in the best way they can think of. Sometimes, the best way they can think of doesn't closely resemble the specific demands.

But I suspect that's not what's going on in this thread anyway. Individual features probably aren't the issue; the list of capabilities probably is. People want to feel the DAW is advancing, that the list of capabilities is growing, that their ongoing emotional investment in the DAW is justified… and there isn't a ton of recent/ongoing evidence of that. And people find that disquieting.

I don't think Reason Studio's want to improve the workflow. They show no interest in it at all. I know they've added workflow features the past few years but it always feels like "they cave in" after years of badgering.

[guitfnky]

what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

It's sloppy looking.

looks less sloppy to me, and it’s also completely pointless in informal communication. but do continue to waste brain cells going on about it.

[Pepin]

Ehhh, Reason 11 added multiple sequencer improvements. That's not ancient history, despite some the sentiments here.

All's I can do is laugh at that comment. Sorry.

I'm not saying the improvements in Reason 11 were huge or anything, and I'm not defending the pace of development. My point is simply that it's needless catastrophizing to act as if the sequencer will never again be improved, just because there were no improvements in R12.

The current roadmap is focused mostly on bug fixes and compatibility stuff (M1, VST3). We really don't know what features are planned going forward beyond one effect device.

And for perspective, we went how many years without any Combinator improvements? That device felt more stagnant than the sequencer ever did.

[Pepin]

I'm sure Reason Studios can figure out how to make a hardware sequencer or groove box in software that could be fun and easy to use. Reason has known to do that. The DX7 was a pain to program, but Reason managed to create Algoritm that makes FM synthesis more fun, modern and powerful at the same time. So your argument doesn't hold.

As for the rest of you whining about Reason not being more like other DAWs, Reason answered that with RRP. No other music production software company is as generous or plays as nicely with their so-called competition as Reason Studios.

Just saying that there's no need for Reason to copycat what other DAWs are doing. They should do something different and unique. Let the whiners move on to other DAWs and force them to stop being so cheap and petty.

Whether it's an interesting idea or not, I'm doubtful there's an audience for this type of redesign.
Users of other DAWs would just continue using RRP.
And many longterm users of Reason standalone would just feel alienated by the changes, after requesting various smaller improvements for so many years.

I would also say, there's a fine line between focusing on innovation and originality and succumbing to hubris and not-invented-here syndrome. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from others in the field, as long as it's synthesized and integrated nicely.

[plasticfractal]

Well the problem is that Reason is more than just the rack. Another deal breaker is that the RRP can't host VSTs. I don't really have a desire to use a gimped version of the Reason rack in another DAW. I use VSTs in Reason, heavily. Reason's overall approach is why I like it so much. There is nothing wrong with wanting feature improvements. I have Bitwig and it is pretty cool, but Reason is the DAW that I'm comfortable with.

[vacuum_collapse]

I think the sequencer / DAW does have some pretty cool features already, like the pitch editing, basic audio editing in the timeline, ReGroove. But I miss the midi channel support for VST's as I use Maschine a lot, and also there could be many workflow improvements like note joining, right click note delete, track grouping, track freezing, better browser (that doesn't reset the scroll everytime), scale highlighting, default curves to paste into automation lanes, etc.

[selig]

Well, in Reason you can remove everything between the markers and everything else will slide over to fill the gap. So theres that…

But ripple editing is far more than that.

And something Pro Tools had since the early 1990s, which I used exactly rarely. Useful when sequencing a final album, since you don’t want empty space in the playlist in that case (as opposed to multi-track audio which routinely has silent sections).
i answered the exact scenario the OP said was not possible to do in Reason, to say it Is possible and it’s simple to do.
Maybe Im misunderstanding - What exactly can you not do in Reason that this feature would allow?

[Creativemind]

But ripple editing is far more than that.

And something Pro Tools had since the early 1990s, which I used exactly rarely. Useful when sequencing a final album, since you don’t want empty space in the playlist in that case (as opposed to multi-track audio which routinely has silent sections).
i answered the exact scenario the OP said was not possible to do in Reason, to say it Is possible and it’s simple to do.
Maybe I4m misunderstanding - What exactly can you not do in Reason that this feature would allow?

As shown in a Kenny Gioia video here using Reaper:-

Insert clips in between clips and it nudges the others out the way for one. There's also Ripple Recording in Reaper too.

[selig]

And something Pro Tools had since the early 1990s, which I used exactly rarely. Useful when sequencing a final album, since you don’t want empty space in the playlist in that case (as opposed to multi-track audio which routinely has silent sections).
i answered the exact scenario the OP said was not possible to do in Reason, to say it Is possible and it’s simple to do.
Maybe I4m misunderstanding - What exactly can you not do in Reason that this feature would allow?

As shown in a Kenny Gioia video here using Reaper:-

Insert clips in between clips and it nudges the others out the way for one. There's also Ripple Recording in Reaper too.

I get it, it’s been available to me for 30 years and I never use it because I don't ever want downstream audio to moving multitrack production. i was asking about what YOU want to do with this feature, as I already understand its function myself. Thoughts?

[DaveyG]

The only time I've ever used ripple edit is for spoken word and very occasionally for matching audio to picture. It's not an every day thing for me but when I do it it's always in Studio One. Years ago I used to do it in a normal audio editor. I can't remember the name but I'm pretty sure it wasn't called ripple edit but it did the same thing.

[rootwheel]

People want to feel the DAW is advancing,

Spot on. Just give the DAW some love now and again.

This is a fair enough, I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently - i.e. which DAW's featureset would Reason Studios be advised to look at as a starting point when revisiting development on their own sequencer!

I'm not talking about slavishly copying something else without giving it a Reason twist first! However, at the same time, I don't really feel like sequencers are the best part of a DAW suitable for paradigm-shifting innovation.

Am I right in thinking most people see Live and Cubase as having the best MIDI sequencers going currently?

[DaveyG]

I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently

You'll get as many answers to that as there are DAWs. For me Studio One just shades it over Cubase. I own them both and also Live and FL Studio. Pretty much everything I do ends up in Studio One but along the way you might find me in Live's Session View, in FL Studio's somewhat chaotic but excellent piano roll driving those superb synths and, of course, in Reason, but usually as a plugin to Studio One. The only time you'll find me in Cubase is on the very rare occasions I want to score to picture or when a collaborator is using Cubase (but I've converted most of my "regulars" to Studio One!)

So to answer your question, for me, Studio One is the best sequencer and overall DAW (unless you want you buy me a Mac and a copy of Logic when I might need to think again...).

But lots of the regular Reason sequencer requests are in many other DAWs: Track Freeze, Track Folders, Chord Track, Arranger Track etc.
The biggest sequencing surprises to newcomers to Reason are that step sequencing happens in the rack rather than in the sequencer and that you can't record multiple MIDI takes in a loop without using a kludge. Quite why they haven't updated the MIDI recording to match the audio recording workflow remains a mystery.

But I don't think RS are ever going to do any major overhauling of the DAW side of things. The best we can hope for are a few additions and tweaks here and there.

[guitfnky]

Spot on. Just give the DAW some love now and again.

This is a fair enough, I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently - i.e. which DAW's featureset would Reason Studios be advised to look at as a starting point when revisiting development on their own sequencer!

I'm not talking about slavishly copying something else without giving it a Reason twist first! However, at the same time, I don't really feel like sequencers are the best part of a DAW suitable for paradigm-shifting innovation.

Am I right in thinking most people see Live and Cubase as having the best MIDI sequencers going currently?

they shouldn’t look at one DAW’s features. they should look at ALL DAWs’ features. I don’t think most of the people who want DAW improvements are asking for “paradigm shifting innovation” there—we just want industry-standard quality of life features that every other mature (and often immature) DAW has standard. markers, track folders, auto punch, and a hundred other small, easy tweaks would make Reason a dream to work in. they don’t need to do any of those things in some super clever way, either. Reason is already full of innovative, inspirational stuff—it just needs to grow the hell up and get the weak parts of the program out of our way, so we can get to the important stuff—making music—as efficiently as possible.

[nooomy]

Spot on. Just give the DAW some love now and again.

This is a fair enough, I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently - i.e. which DAW's featureset would Reason Studios be advised to look at as a starting point when revisiting development on their own sequencer!

I'm not talking about slavishly copying something else without giving it a Reason twist first! However, at the same time, I don't really feel like sequencers are the best part of a DAW suitable for paradigm-shifting innovation.

Am I right in thinking most people see Live and Cubase as having the best MIDI sequencers going currently?

What is better in the ableton and cubase sequencer?

I have used ableton a lot and I think the Reason sequencer is superior.

[guitfnky]

This is a fair enough, I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently - i.e. which DAW's featureset would Reason Studios be advised to look at as a starting point when revisiting development on their own sequencer!

I'm not talking about slavishly copying something else without giving it a Reason twist first! However, at the same time, I don't really feel like sequencers are the best part of a DAW suitable for paradigm-shifting innovation.

Am I right in thinking most people see Live and Cubase as having the best MIDI sequencers going currently?

What is better in the ableton and cubase sequencer?

I have used ableton a lot and I think the Reason sequencer is superior.

Reason’s is easier to grasp at first, but in my experience, Live has a more intuitive workflow once you understand the basics. I can’t even point to the ways in which it’s better for me—I suspect because of many very small differences. I’ve found myself trying a number of things that just intuitively make sense, doubting they would work, but they often did. I wish I had some concrete examples to give.

one thing that’s just head and shoulders beyond Reason is how automation is handled in Live. it’s so much more intuitive and made me realize I don’t actually hate automation as much as I thought I did.

[bxbrkrz]

Still lots of Reason users who want a better Reason DAW or better workflow enhancements. I still say for those folks, they should identify the DAW out there that already does what you want and run RRP in it.

But if RS Inc. ever decided to improve the DAW, I say do something radically different and make something unique and very controversial. Maybe start with a hardware/groovebox sequencer paradigm and build on it from there. Would love to see a software version of the Yamaha RS7000 or a Roland groovebox but taking that idea into the 21st century somehow, controlling every track in Reason, but blurring the lines between composition, sound design and live performance but somehow different from Ableton Live.

Just an idea...just don't want to see what's already been done in other DAWs.

The Yamaha RS7000 sounds very good. I love how the YT algo is pushing suggestions to us. I was all over the RS7000 yesterday.

If you want to guess when major sequencing improvements will happen in Reason, I'm still waiting for a simple option I had on my Atari/Pro 24/Cubase in the late 80's: auto punch IN and punch OUT

[selig]

This is a fair enough, I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently - i.e. which DAW's featureset would Reason Studios be advised to look at as a starting point when revisiting development on their own sequencer!

I'm not talking about slavishly copying something else without giving it a Reason twist first! However, at the same time, I don't really feel like sequencers are the best part of a DAW suitable for paradigm-shifting innovation.

Am I right in thinking most people see Live and Cubase as having the best MIDI sequencers going currently?

What is better in the ableton and cubase sequencer?

I have used ableton a lot and I think the Reason sequencer is superior.

My experience has been that I start most of my songs in Reason, but find if there's any weakness it's in finishing them. I've been doing this "music thing" for a long time and would LOVE to find an all in one solution. I'm tech savvy to be sure, but when you can get in the flow with one application it's better IMO.
I would think Reason is closer to being an all in one if just because it's the only DAW I'm inspired to create in. The final process of mixing/mastering is more technical, which is why the "less inspiring" DAWs can excel in those tasks even as they fail to inspire in others.
I would advocate towards the "all in one" solution because these days it's more often the SAME person starting and finishing a song. If you have the time and $$ to spend on separate apps or in paying folks to take care of each stage for you, that's great.
So basically, IF there was a decent all in one package it would allow the creator more time to create and less time to learn additional apps, export/import (repeat if you make changes), etc, and more time to learn the fine art of crafting music.
Sadly I don't see others thinking this way, at least those in a position to do something about it. Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

[integerpoet]

Pee pee is for children.

Sorry, it was the most rational thing I could think to add to this.

[scotward57]

I reread a lot of the replies on this thread, wondering if I was missing some bigger point. The topic of missing DAW features probably should have it's own thread and maybe some brave Reason User can create it and make some some Top 10 list out of it and bribe RS Inc. to work on it.

I wanted this thread to be about the future direction of Reason as a standalone product. I was one of those people who really did think that RRP addressed the needs of users who wanted more advanced DAW features, but based on the comments I see, there doesn't seem to be enough customers using RRP in the way Reason Studios intended. I'm sure they are as miffed as I am about why there are so many whiners of missing Reason DAW features when they already have other DAWs installed on their computer and are choosing not to use them.

Not suggesting RRP is a flop, far from it.

RRP is a hit when it comes to using Reason Players. Other DAWs have MIDI FX, but it's the way you can stack, customize and wire devices. It fills a niche and makes using MIDI FX fun in a way that other DAWs don't.

Can't say the same for Reason Instruments though. Not because Reason instruments don't compete, it's just that other users are so invested into their own DAW stock instruments or 3rd party plugins.

RRP would be exponentially more useful if it was somehow universally supported as an industry standard for creating patches that use any stock instrument or any VST/AU/AAX that was installed on my computer and that hybrid patch could be used in any DAW. That would set the music production world on fire.

But aside from that fantasy, Reason Studios does need to focus on it's future as a standalone product. Very few new customers are going to invest in the Reason platform for RRP alone and so the DAW itself needs to offer new customers something they can't already get from another DAW platform.

In a perfect world, Reason Studios Inc. would address all needs for every user all day every day. But let's be real. RRP isn't enough, R+ and spending $20 a month isn't enough, sound packs as a lure? Please don't kid yourself. The future of the DAW is the thing that is going to make or break this company in the long term.

Reason is at it's best when it acts as the fun, musical alternative to DAWs that are too computer-centric. They have done it over and over with rack devices. It only makes sense for them to create a hardware/groovebox sequencer device that interacts with the main sequencer, blocks, etc. Maybe they can also address the outdated Remote protocol by having this hardware sequencer device be the hub for all external hardware synths and controllers. Support of MIDI 2.0 perhaps? Maybe get one of the hardware controller companies build a hardware sequencer controller for real hands on control with great out of the box integration?

The analogy I would use is how many countries didn't try to compete with the telecommunications infrastructure of the United States by building analog telephone lines. They built cell towers and satellites instead. I'm asking Reason Studios to do the same. Don't play the game of DAW catchup. Leap frog over the competition with something new and radically different!!

[Benedict]

My experience has been that I start most of my songs in Reason, but find if there's any weakness it's in finishing them. I've been doing this "music thing" for a long time and would LOVE to find an all in one solution. I'm tech savvy to be sure, but when you can get in the flow with one application it's better IMO.
I would think Reason is closer to being an all in one if just because it's the only DAW I'm inspired to create in. The final process of mixing/mastering is more technical, which is why the "less inspiring" DAWs can excel in those tasks even as they fail to inspire in others.
I would advocate towards the "all in one" solution because these days it's more often the SAME person starting and finishing a song. If you have the time and $$ to spend on separate apps or in paying folks to take care of each stage for you, that's great.
So basically, IF there was a decent all in one package it would allow the creator more time to create and less time to learn additional apps, export/import (repeat if you make changes), etc, and more time to learn the fine art of crafting music.
Sadly I don't see others thinking this way, at least those in a position to do something about it. Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

I am this way too. Why use 78 tools for tiddling trivialities when I can use one tool for everything. The more time I spend with the one tool, the more we become one, or to be less "spiritual" the more my unconscious knows the answers to things seeing it has happened before.

[Creativemind]

As shown in a Kenny Gioia video here using Reaper:-

Insert clips in between clips and it nudges the others out the way for one. There's also Ripple Recording in Reaper too.

I get it, it’s been available to me for 30 years and I never use it because I don't ever want downstream audio to moving multitrack production. i was asking about what YOU want to do with this feature, as I already understand its function myself. Thoughts?

Oh well I've not used it myself especially but sure it would come in handy at some point haha!

[jlgrimes]

Spot on. Just give the DAW some love now and again.

This is a fair enough, I was just wondered who the community thinks has the best sequencer on the market currently - i.e. which DAW's featureset would Reason Studios be advised to look at as a starting point when revisiting development on their own sequencer!

I'm not talking about slavishly copying something else without giving it a Reason twist first! However, at the same time, I don't really feel like sequencers are the best part of a DAW suitable for paradigm-shifting innovation.

Am I right in thinking most people see Live and Cubase as having the best MIDI sequencers going currently?

These type of things are subjective.

I use Ableton but I doubt everyone would love it's sequencer. It is sort of like learning to drive a car.

Reasons sequencer has a lower learning curve. I think that's about the best compliment I can give to Reason's sequencer. My first few beats with 2.5, I pretty much knew how to use it and was making beats in no time. Can't say the same with Ableton. I remember reading the manual to get a feel on how things work. That said it is a friendly DAW overall but many of it's concepts are pretty foreign.

Cubase seems more like Reason but with more features. I remember someone saying a long time ago, Reasons sequencer was like a lighter version of Cubase which back in 2003 was a compliment. That said back then there was no audio tracks, VSTs, external midi so a basic sequencer wasn't a big issue but Reason IMO started to outgrow it's sequencer. And I'm guessing Cubase in 2003 was less featured than Cubase today.


IMO RS, choosing one DAW to study is a bad idea. They need to study all of them. All of them (including Reason) are great at some things and sucks at other things. Find the good things from all DAWS, find the flaws in all DAWS, and improve on those.

Make songs in Reason, find the tedious spots. Better yet find producers and get them to make tracks and find their tedious points.

[jlgrimes]

I get it, it’s been available to me for 30 years and I never use it because I don't ever want downstream audio to moving multitrack production. i was asking about what YOU want to do with this feature, as I already understand its function myself. Thoughts?

Oh well I've not used it myself especially but sure it would come in handy at some point haha!

Never found a use for that. I'm guessing it might have more use if mastering an album as you can move around songs but I generally do not like any auto feature to move clips as I would be nervous the timing would get messed up.

[QVprod]

What is better in the ableton and cubase sequencer?

I have used ableton a lot and I think the Reason sequencer is superior.

My experience has been that I start most of my songs in Reason, but find if there's any weakness it's in finishing them. I've been doing this "music thing" for a long time and would LOVE to find an all in one solution. I'm tech savvy to be sure, but when you can get in the flow with one application it's better IMO.
I would think Reason is closer to being an all in one if just because it's the only DAW I'm inspired to create in. The final process of mixing/mastering is more technical, which is why the "less inspiring" DAWs can excel in those tasks even as they fail to inspire in others.
I would advocate towards the "all in one" solution because these days it's more often the SAME person starting and finishing a song. If you have the time and $$ to spend on separate apps or in paying folks to take care of each stage for you, that's great.
So basically, IF there was a decent all in one package it would allow the creator more time to create and less time to learn additional apps, export/import (repeat if you make changes), etc, and more time to learn the fine art of crafting music.
Sadly I don't see others thinking this way, at least those in a position to do something about it. Or maybe I'm in the minority wanting to be able to still be able to tweak a synth during the final mix while still having the mixing tools that are on par with the creation tools in one app.

The one thing that keeps Reason from being the all in one for me is I don’t care for the mixing workflow which is unlikely to change. It’s great when primarily using the SSL to mix, but once you deviate from that and use more inserts it feels a little too ‘real’ I guess. It’s fairly manual. As you say, the less inspiring DAWs excel at that. But if I absolutely had to, Reason is sufficient enough. I more or less already see Reason as a groove box though and not as a DAW competitor. It’s more like a MPC or Machine minus the hardware. So that manages my expectations.

From there I think the different desires here will vary based on use. I play 95% (or more) of everything I do on a keyboard so midi is midi so a sequencer is a sequencer for the most part. They all record midi. I feel no different using Studio One’s sequencer as I do to using Reason’s despite how more “feature packed” it may be. The inspiration to create is more important to me than slight advantages. Those who need things like step input will of course have a differing perspective than me.

…And then we have people people desiring things they’ll probably never actually use… but you know, shiny toy that looks nice in another program means we absolutely must have it!

That aside, I think we should make a distinction that most people wanting Reason to improve the DAW are specifically talking about the sequencer. The rack is a major and inseparable part of the DAW experience in Reason. Relegating it to the just the plugin is a huge oversimplification IMO.