”Shut the fuck up and use the software. It's great.”

[selig]

As the owner of multiple DAWs I can say with confidence none of them are perfect.

This recently occurred to me, it definitely applies to my recent experiences:

If you want to find out what you really love about your current DAW, use a different DAW.
If you want to find out what you hate about your current DAW, use your current DAW (especially if you rely on it).

[RobC]

I didn't! In this thread, I originally jokingly mentioned a feature I really would like <-> although it's not like the lack of it hinders us from music making.

But I'm stressed this week, so can't really focus much, or get all funny and stuff. Sorry!

Once you feel better you may enjoy reading up on the negative aspects of higher sample rates if you’re wondering why they are not implemented…

All I could read for in the box processing was:

- sample rate compatibility, and forced upsampling when running a DAW at higher sample rates
- higher memory usage or HDD/SSD/Memory card space needed
- higher CPU usage
- ultra, and oddly, infra frequencies generated

That said, they also say, it's doable for rendered material. My uses are exactly that, not for a huge project. Mainly just sound design.

But let's see a basic synth, like Subtractor. 1 at 768 kHz, needs as much processing power as about 18 at 44.1 kHz.
So yes, it can get heavy before we know it. But what if I'm efficient? I generate a wave cycle, then render it. Then start shaping, and render each process that changes the sound?
Not really suitable for later tweakings, but I totally can make a draft and experiment at 44.1 kHz first, and then recreate the sound at 768 kHz with the rendering steps.
Then again, virtual analog type synthesis and samplers aren't all that heavy.
And while now and then a new type of CPU hungry synthesis or effect appears, I'm usually not convinced/impressed by what they are capable of.

There are a lot of times, where I only want to render a 1 shot sample anyway, and not a different one for each note.

Anyway, I wonder what other negative aspects are there? Rack Device compatibility issues?
Why did Reaper implement it?

I'm curious if I miss something... Does it damage the sound?

Otherwise, I can take reality check: if my ideas and thoughts in general are dumb/useless, then I won't get into plugin/RE development.

[selig]

All I could read for in the box processing was:

- sample rate compatibility, and forced upsampling when running a DAW at higher sample rates
- higher memory usage or HDD/SSD/Memory card space needed
- higher CPU usage
- ultra, and oddly, infra frequencies generated

That said, they also say, it's doable for rendered material. My uses are exactly that, not for a huge project. Mainly just sound design.

But let's see a basic synth, like Subtractor. 1 at 768 kHz, needs as much processing power as about 18 at 44.1 kHz.
So yes, it can get heavy before we know it. But what if I'm efficient? I generate a wave cycle, then render it. Then start shaping, and render each process that changes the sound?
Not really suitable for later tweakings, but I totally can make a draft and experiment at 44.1 kHz first, and then recreate the sound at 768 kHz with the rendering steps.
Then again, virtual analog type synthesis and samplers aren't all that heavy.
And while now and then a new type of CPU hungry synthesis or effect appears, I'm usually not convinced/impressed by what they are capable of.

There are a lot of times, where I only want to render a 1 shot sample anyway, and not a different one for each note.

Anyway, I wonder what other negative aspects are there? Rack Device compatibility issues?
Why did Reaper implement it?

I'm curious if I miss something... Does it damage the sound?

Otherwise, I can take reality check: if my ideas and thoughts in general are dumb/useless, then I won't get into plugin/RE development.

https://sonicscoop.com/the-science-of-s ... n-it-isnt/
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/ ... ml#toc_1ch
https://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sam ... und-worse/

These are just the first three that I found googling (and have read before).

[Jac459]

[https://sonicscoop.com/the-science-of-s ... n-it-isnt/
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/ ... ml#toc_1ch
https://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sam ... und-worse/

These are just the first three that I found googling (and have read before).

Extremely interesting links! Thanks.

[RobC]

https://sonicscoop.com/the-science-of-s ... n-it-isnt/
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/ ... ml#toc_1ch
https://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sam ... und-worse/

These are just the first three that I found googling (and have read before).

EDIT!!! I grasped it (I think) in a later comment.

[artmessiah]

Wait for it...

[TritoneAddiction]

Guys, not to be rude, but this thread really isn't about sample rates. Nothing wrong with talking about sample rates, but it's pretty much the opposite of what this thread is about.
Maybe start a new thread if that's a topic you want to discuss further?

[integerpoet]

As for the SSL, I don’t care if it’s an exact copy because I found early on that it behaves like all the real SSL console in that all my same SSL ‘tricks’ work just fine in Reason!

How does the pan knob work in a real SSL? Does it actually pan or does it just do the attenuation thing?

[integerpoet]

Laugh if you will, but this glaring deficiency is crippling sales of my premium Reason-tuned analog audio cables.

You're the 4th person teasing now. It gets boring.

I wasn't teasing. I genuinely thought you were joking in the spirit of the thread and I was just riffing on it.

[Jac459]

Only outstanding question from me is… what bourbon was it?

Shut the fuck-up and drink the bourbon, it's great!

[RobC]

You're the 4th person teasing now. It gets boring.

I wasn't teasing. I genuinely thought you were joking in the spirit of the thread and I was just riffing on it.

Nah, but I was wrong, including grasping the links, Selig shared.
But I think I get it now, and wrap it up:

We need nothing more than 44.1 kHz sample rate, when it comes to LISTENING, and how the DAC works.

When it comes to processing, (or temporarily rendering) it's the given Rack device's task to up/oversample, wherever needed, IF beneficial, and then afterwards downsample back to the sample rate, Reason is run at.

One thing that is unpleasant about Reason, is how fast the sequencer automation reacts at different sample rates. Most likely, a higher sample rate than 44.1 kHz might need an LPF at 20 kHz, to prevent intermodulation distortion.

I hope I got it right this time.

Now people can get back to shutting.. f...ing... etc. x D

[MuttReason]

I think you are now officially a RT Legend

Only outstanding question from me is… what bourbon was it?

Love me a good bourbon, usually rely on the posher end of the Jack Daniels range (special reserve something) as it’s easy to get hold of or a Kentucky bourbon like a Maker’s Mark if I can find it, but always interested in new names to try.

And yeah, Reason is great. So is pretty much everything in the hardware and software music production world, this stuff is fantasy level compared with what we used 30 years ago (or, um, 45+ years ago in my case…)

It was Makers Mark. That's my go-to.

Gentleman's Jack is also good if that is the Jack Daniels you were referring to. Unfortunately, I associate the flavor of Gentleman's Jack with a particularly depressing time in my life so I mostly avoid so as to not stir up the drunken sadness!

Maker’s Mark is a top choice. The Jack Daniels I’ve switched to (mostly) now is their Single Barrel Select. Only a bit more expensive than the basic stuff. OK I will stop now cos this is WELL into thread detail territory…

[MuttReason]

Only outstanding question from me is… what bourbon was it?

Shut the fuck-up and drink the bourbon, it's great!

Outstanding, congratulations you just won RT for the day!

[Jac459]

Shut the fuck-up and drink the bourbon, it's great!

Outstanding, congratulations you just won RT for the day!

Thank you !

Not everyday that you can say shut the fuck-up to people without being actually rude...

[TritoneAddiction]

TritoneAddiction - You are very welcome. I'm very happy that something good (and inspiring?) came from my bourbon fueled outburst. I was concerned it would just start a fight or lead to hostility. I'm very pleased that it has had the opposite effect. Watching everyone laugh about it and have a good time on here has been great.

Your sentiments are mine exactly. I'm old enough to remember how difficult it used to be to make the types of music and recordings we seem to take for granted now. I can do things with Reason in a few minutes that would have taken hours, or an entire day, in the 90s. The power astounds me....And yes, we all have way more than we need. There are still devices I have never even bothered to use in Reason and I'm been using it since version 2. I'm still regularly learning new stuff. It really is great.

Speaking of great...Your username is great. I have been admiring it for awhile now.

I'd say my last 2 tracks were powered by your comment. Both were written with only Transcendent 2000, a very simple synth. But they whole message of "don't get stuck in thinking more advanced gear is needed" helped fuel them into existens.

Thanks. The tritone interval played an important part in my musical development/appreciation. As a teen there were many tracks built around the tritone interval that really spoke to me. But at the time I didn't have a name for it. It was several years later that I learned what the interval was called.

[demt]

tis great by far the prettiest daw and the most options and apps modules re,s does wonders for the workflow

[TritoneAddiction]

Sorry I just felt a strong urge to bump this old thread today. Some pointless thread made think of this excellent quote from stillifegaijin.
I still think it's a good reminder of what's important at the end of the day.
I'm gonna add it to my signature for a second time for a couple of days.

[robussc]

Still the best incarnation of “virtual studio technology” imho. Doubly so with VST support.

[selig]

As for the SSL, I don’t care if it’s an exact copy because I found early on that it behaves like all the real SSL console in that all my same SSL ‘tricks’ work just fine in Reason!

How does the pan knob work in a real SSL? Does it actually pan or does it just do the attenuation thing?

(Just seeing this)
The SSL E/G/J only has mono channels so only a single pan knob per channel. You use two channels for ‘stereo’, so two ‘mono’ pan knobs for stereo (which is why Selig Gain has two independent pan knobs!).

[integerpoet]

How does the pan knob work in a real SSL? Does it actually pan or does it just do the attenuation thing?

The SSL E/G/J only has mono channels so only a single pan knob per channel. You use two channels for ‘stereo’, so two ‘mono’ pan knobs for stereo (which is why Selig Gain has two independent pan knobs!).

It must have been an interesting user interface design challenge for RS, then. Stereo devices had become so prevalent that it would have been a mistake to ignore them.

But they could have done something like automatically allocate two mono channel strips for a stereo input, possibly with some affordance for pairing.

I guess they decided the "pan" knob we have now was the way to deal with the fact that the user might change her mind about whether the input to a given strip was mono or stereo.

Or maybe they could have given each strip two pan knobs whenever they give it two meters? I appreciate the space it takes to represent width visually, but honestly that is one thing for which I would have foregone visual feedback in exchange for space for a second pan knob.

And, apropos of very little, there's a perfect amount of space for a mono switch under the control room out level knob. Why isn't there one? That's just… odd. How many rack extensions have a mono switch as a result? At least a hundred, right?

[QVprod]

The SSL E/G/J only has mono channels so only a single pan knob per channel. You use two channels for ‘stereo’, so two ‘mono’ pan knobs for stereo (which is why Selig Gain has two independent pan knobs!).

It must have been an interesting user interface design challenge for RS, then. Stereo devices had become so prevalent that it would have been a mistake to ignore them.

But they could have done something like automatically allocate two mono channel strips for a stereo input, possibly with some affordance for pairing.

I guess they decided the "pan" knob we have now was the way to deal with the fact that the user might change her mind about whether the input to a given strip was mono or stereo.

Or maybe they could have given each strip two pan knobs whenever they give it two meters? I appreciate the space it takes to represent width visually, but honestly that is one thing for which I would have foregone visual feedback in exchange for space for a second pan knob.

And, apropos of very little, there's a perfect amount of space for a mono switch under the control room out level knob. Why isn't there one? That's just… odd. How many rack extensions have a mono switch as a result? At least a hundred, right?

For better or worse RS’s design philosophy is making things as simple as possible. Keep in mind Record was marketed as “for musicians not audio engineers .” That’s likely the reason. One pan knob is generally easier than 2. I think Pro Tools might be the only DAW with 2 pan knobs on stereo channels.

[selig]

It must have been an interesting user interface design challenge for RS, then. Stereo devices had become so prevalent that it would have been a mistake to ignore them.

But they could have done something like automatically allocate two mono channel strips for a stereo input, possibly with some affordance for pairing.

I guess they decided the "pan" knob we have now was the way to deal with the fact that the user might change her mind about whether the input to a given strip was mono or stereo.

Or maybe they could have given each strip two pan knobs whenever they give it two meters? I appreciate the space it takes to represent width visually, but honestly that is one thing for which I would have foregone visual feedback in exchange for space for a second pan knob.

And, apropos of very little, there's a perfect amount of space for a mono switch under the control room out level knob. Why isn't there one? That's just… odd. How many rack extensions have a mono switch as a result? At least a hundred, right?

For better or worse RS’s design philosophy is making things as simple as possible. Keep in mind Record was marketed as “for musicians not audio engineers .” That’s likely the reason. One pan knob is generally easier than 2. I think Pro Tools might be the only DAW with 2 pan knobs on stereo channels.

I would suggest "simple as possible" is traditional pan knobs. Why? Consistency (which makes things simpler IMO). Because currently when you have a mono channel, you have a pan knob. BUT when you have a stereo channel you have a Balance and Width control. I've never seen anyone ask how two pan knobs work with a stereo signal, but folks here routinely ask how the Width knob affects there stereo signal (does it make it wider like with the Stereo Imager?). Speaking of consistency, when you reduce Width to full mono, suddenly the Balance control acts like a Pan control.

That said, there's no reason you can't have a Pan/Width control that actually Pans, a few of us built a few Combinators not long ago showing how we imaged it SHOULD work in our humble opinion. The first time I realized it WASN'T working as I expected was a very WTF moment… So basically I'm thinking of the three possible ways to pan a stereo signal I'm aware of, they choose the least flexible and most un-pan-like possibility IMO!

As for other DAWs, a quick check reveals Live, Cubase Pro, Logic, Reaper, and Bigwig all offer a dual pan mode, but most/all default to a Balance control for stereo channels FWIW.

[crimsonwarlock]

I think Pro Tools might be the only DAW with 2 pan knobs on stereo channels.

Reaper has it as an option on stereo channels.

[QVprod]

For better or worse RS’s design philosophy is making things as simple as possible. Keep in mind Record was marketed as “for musicians not audio engineers .” That’s likely the reason. One pan knob is generally easier than 2. I think Pro Tools might be the only DAW with 2 pan knobs on stereo channels.

I would suggest "simple as possible" is traditional pan knobs. Why? Consistency (which makes things simpler IMO). Because currently when you have a mono channel, you have a pan knob. BUT when you have a stereo channel you have a Balance and Width control. I've never seen anyone ask how two pan knobs work with a stereo signal, but folks here routinely ask how the Width knob affects there stereo signal (does it make it wider like with the Stereo Imager?). Speaking of consistency, when you reduce Width to full mono, suddenly the Balance control acts like a Pan control.

That said, there's no reason you can't have a Pan/Width control that actually Pans, a few of us built a few Combinators not long ago showing how we imaged it SHOULD work in our humble opinion. The first time I realized it WASN'T working as I expected was a very WTF moment… So basically I'm thinking of the three possible ways to pan a stereo signal I'm aware of, they choose the least flexible and most un-pan-like possibility IMO!

As for other DAWs, a quick check reveals Live, Cubase Pro, Logic, Reaper, and Bigwig all offer a dual pan mode, but most/all default to a Balance control for stereo channels FWIW.

I think Pro Tools might be the only DAW with 2 pan knobs on stereo channels.

Reaper has it as an option on stereo channels.

Perhaps so. But I think maybe the thought is easy of use rather than ease of understanding. 1 knob shifting left to right I guess.


Seems I was mistaken on the other DAWs but it seems that’s because of what the default is as from what Selig mentioned.

[antic604]

”Shut the fuck up and use the software. It's great.”

This is a smug, selfish, pseudo virtue signaling position to have.

People who say/write that, are most likely on the newest version of the software, using new plugins, benefitting from recent workflow additions, etc. As we all are.

But they just can't be bothered - or don't have the knowledge and/or imagination - to consider what would improve their workflow further, what features would allow them to capture their ideas more easily, what could give new inspiration... Or maybe they have too much time on their hands and no responsibilities, so that laborious workarounds or having to jump between apps doesn't bother them? Otherwise, they'd still be on R6 because - following that logic - it had everything anyone would ever need!

I don't mind people pushing back against specific feature request, especially if they can substantiate that with a reasonable counterargument. But just going with "STFU & use the software" is disrespectful, condescending, uncalled for and is a clear result of that person feeling superior, smarter, more talented, etc.

How would you (collective "you", not you specifically) feel, if I started the topic topic calling people stupid for not wanting folder tracks, MIDI comping or editable keyboard shortcuts?

Because that's the equivalent of "STFU..."

Apparently words are violence and subjective feelings trump the truth, so can't you (disclaimer above applies) understand that? Or does it only work one way (yes, it's a rhetorical question)?