Reason 3.0 demo impressions

[braj]

I think the combinator is a necessary addition to reason. But it really doesn't seem enough to base Reason 3 around it - it seems sort of like a support feature rather than a main feature. I think alot more of us would be pumped if we got combinator along with either:
1. 50 new graintables for malstrom
2. Subtractor 2.0 (featurewise something like Albino)
3. A new synth, FM or additive etc.
or all of the above!

THEN there would be some all-new, cool sound-design possibilities. As it stands, the Combinator seems like a feature that should have been in Reason 2.5 rather than headlining 3.0

I agree with that.

[da adidas 12]

I want to know if Reason 2.5 or 3.0 is a 16 bit sound engine becuase that would be pretty disgraceful audio quality. Someone please clarify this misunderstanding here. 24 bit audio seems to be the standard.

[drez]

drez... I don't disagree with your statements regarding the value of the Combinator. What I am questioning is the impression that some Reason users have (or or trying to give) that the Combinator will somehow be capable of creating all new sounds that connot be created with 2.5. I maintain that this isn't the case. Certainly the Combinator makes it more practical, convenient and playable but it's only adding a better control interface to the already existing sound generating devices.

I gotcha. I do see your point.

All I can say is that I'm sitting here right now creating combinator patches that I can NOT feasibly do with sequncing because of all the changes I can effect in real time with my controller. I used to do cool things like route the CV's to other synths and modules and I still do that within the combinator, but I can make some outlandishly freaky sound movements with the tweak of a finger that I would NOT have been able to do at one time. It would take me forever and by then I would have forgotten what song I was working on or seriously got sick of listening to it over and over while I tweak those automation parameters...Heaven forbid I would then need to make a change to all of them.

Honestly, I would NEVER have tweaked the sequencer as much as it would take to make these combinator patches. And I could NEVER have done it in real time. It just wasn't possible and whoever claims different is full of it because you can't control all of the parameters in real time on bunches of modules. Therefore, I am indeed making soundscapes I could NEVER have done in 2.5.

Its kinda like if an infinite number of monkeys had an infinite number of shotguns, then they could EVENTUALLY shoot enough roadsigns to create all of the works of Shakespeare in braille...but would they ever do it?

God, I hope not

[John Vulich]

Oh, and I sort of disagree with you here. Follow my logic.

Your tools enable you to create sound. One tool has newer features than an older version. These newer features directly affect the sound. The resultant sound CAN be one that wouldn't be possible with the old tool.

What features then? Well how about the ability to assign ONE knob to multiple parameters on different synths and effects, and then set limits for them as to how much they effect the parameter.

That in itself provides the ability to create new sounds that would be nearly impossible in R2.5.

I'm not denying that the Combinator makes it far more practical, convenient and playable. That's not the issue, with me at least. I'm just saying it doesn't offer any new sound generating capabilites.

Ok... so lets put it to a test. What type of sound can you now create that was impossible before? Not more convenient or playable but impossible.

[FaX]

I want to know if Reason 2.5 or 3.0 is a 16 bit sound engine becuase that would be pretty disgraceful audio quality. Someone please clarify this misunderstanding here. 24 bit audio seems to be the standard.

I run it in 24/48 here and NNXT etc can use 24 bit files also as does the new drum refill ....well actually it gives you the option of 16 or 24 bit kits so it basically does both - the engine itself is not a 16 bit engine I hasten to add.

[neverwhere2012]

I think the combinator is a necessary addition to reason. But it really doesn't seem enough to base Reason 3 around it - it seems sort of like a support feature rather than a main feature. I think alot more of us would be pumped if we got combinator along with either:
1. 50 new graintables for malstrom
2. Subtractor 2.0 (featurewise something like Albino)
3. A new synth, FM or additive etc.
or all of the above!

THEN there would be some all-new, cool sound-design possibilities. As it stands, the Combinator seems like a feature that should have been in Reason 2.5 rather than headlining 3.0

might be possible when they release reason 3.5... which will most likely be a free upgrade for 3.0 owners...

as far as reason 3 is concerned, the "mastering" suite i found to be pretty cool, especially the fact that the program now has a useful EQ and compressor in that. i'll eventually buy the upgrade, and i'll keep reason around even though i don't use it anymore. if for nothing else but the prospect that i may have to collaborate with someone working with reason at some point.

as for the sound, i started playing with 2.5 again recently on my new imac, mainly as a timekiller during my breaks at several long location recording gigs. i honestly don't know how that program ever impressed me with it's sound. for drum programming it isn't bad, but the synths just sound so dull and lifeless. in fact, i also started playing with garageband 2 and so far have been able to get infinitely better sounds out of the preset GB instruments and loops than i've ever gotten with reason...

[FaX]

Oh, and I sort of disagree with you here. Follow my logic.

Your tools enable you to create sound. One tool has newer features than an older version. These newer features directly affect the sound. The resultant sound CAN be one that wouldn't be possible with the old tool.

What features then? Well how about the ability to assign ONE knob to multiple parameters on different synths and effects, and then set limits for them as to how much they effect the parameter.

That in itself provides the ability to create new sounds that would be nearly impossible in R2.5.

I'm not denying that the Combinator makes it far more practical, convenient and playable. That's not the issue, with me at least. I'm just saying it doesn't offer any new sound generating capabilites.

Ok... so lets put it to a test. What type of sound can you now create that was impossible before? Not more convenient or playable but impossible.

Well hey I gave you an example last page and I've done some vector Combi's you can't patch in Reason.
You keep forgetting the Mod Matrix in the Combinator is on top of all the previous patching paths in 2.5.
It's been designed to control parameters like wavefrom type / pattern number and alot of other exotic little extra's that 2.5 can't (ie: basically any parameter on any module by anything else or a combi control knob) ........

[John Vulich]

Ok prime example:


1.Have 2 Maelstrom's with waveshapers set too tempo sync - patch these in the combinator so that each waveshaper controls the pattern assignment parameter of each Redrum unit - ie: one could scan bank A (1-10) the 4th could scan all with min modulation being 1 and Max 40) etc etc alllowing the Shapers to scn the redrum pattern banks and trigger them in any realtime order you require with full input quanitise/sync and no glitching.

2.Disable midi input to the two Maeltsroms in the Combinator .

3.Set up 4 custom Redrums with sepreate kits and banks of totally different patterns in each .

4. Make sure patterns are of various lengths and some are say double time 1/32 / standard 16th's / and half time to master tempo ie : 1/8 gtid resolution.]

5.Assign a Mini Mixer with the Maelstroms filters as send and returns and assign this control too Combi knob 1. - acts as a realtime drum filter.

6.Assign Knob 2 and Knob 3 of Combi patch to Maelstrom Waveshaper type with full range setting.

7.Set Combi knob 4 too filter type.

8.Have combi patterns 1-4 switch to predefined tempo sync values for all Waveshapers in the Maelstrom.

9.Create an NNXT String synth patch upper keyboard registers and program splits with mod wheel controlling filter cutoff.

10.Add a Subtractor bass patch with a delay unit fed into the MClass compressor and eq patched back into the mini mixer have lfo and velocity modulate cut off and pitch bend modulate FM anmount.

Save as Combi patch - skin to taste.

Know hit run pattern devices play your bassline in one hand the strings in the other and have some one else jam like a mother fukker on a seperate controller dedicated to the combi patch.

Sounds an awful lot like something Reaktor would churn out trust me .

Oh and did I mention it gets recorded / automation and all to one MIDI track.

Now I'd like to see you pull that off in 2.5.

Lastly several people here obviously have not even given 3.0 a go .

The sound quality is uniformly improved and anyone saying other wise is blowing smoke out there asshole - it sounds 100% better than 2.5.

Secondly the combinator isn't just a fancy layering device- it's a bit like Reaktor lite for Reason.

You don't just get layering/keysplits/and the usual CV/GATE/SPIDER options you get a fully implemented mod matrix with routing options that are impossible to have in 2.5 .

For example you can use multiple matrix devices as wavesequencers and scan each one via a knob and have each one in turn scan the waveforms in a bank of Subtractors/Maelstroms or velocity layers in a Combi using NNXT's for vector style wavesequencing .

Knock it all you wan't it's just made 2/3rds of my VSTi environment obsolete and it easily sounds as good as any of them now.

These are certainly very interesting examples and shows that the Combinator does indeed have some very interesting tricks up it's sleeve. However, I still maintain that this type of "sound" can be achieved in 2.5.

Can it be done easily in 2.5? Probably not! It would take a lot hand drawing of automation. But it can be done.

Playable... certainly not! This is one area where the Combinator does indeed add a lot.

[Amberience]

John, if you'd stop thinking in terms of a sound being a "synth patch" and think in terms of spectral content, then its obvious that the Combinator will help to make new sounds. If you can control and morph sounds with the Combinator, then by definition it does help you make new sounds.

[John Vulich]

I gotcha. I do see your point.

All I can say is that I'm sitting here right now creating combinator patches that I can NOT feasibly do with sequncing because of all the changes I can effect in real time with my controller. I used to do cool things like route the CV's to other synths and modules and I still do that within the combinator, but I can make some outlandishly freaky sound movements with the tweak of a finger that I would NOT have been able to do at one time. It would take me forever and by then I would have forgotten what song I was working on or seriously got sick of listening to it over and over while I tweak those automation parameters...Heaven forbid I would then need to make a change to all of them.

Honestly, I would NEVER have tweaked the sequencer as much as it would take to make these combinator patches. And I could NEVER have done it in real time. It just wasn't possible and whoever claims different is full of it because you can't control all of the parameters in real time on bunches of modules. Therefore, I am indeed making soundscapes I could NEVER have done in 2.5.

I agreed with you till the last line. You COULD make these sounds in 2.5 but not easily and certainly not playable in any way whatsoever.

I think this really becoming more of a semantic argument that anything else.

[Amberience]

Its not semantics, you're just wrong!

Nah, seriously, new features will always bring new sounds, thats the way technology works. If the Beatles had had a 32 track studio with a big ass Doepher modular system, Pro Tools, and higher quality instruments, they would have made completely different music.

Technology will always dictate to some extent the way your music sounds.

My point is that oscillators and envelopes and filters don't make a sound, the control the human has over it makes the sound. Combinator gives more control, therefore more sounds are accessible.

[John Vulich]

[Amberience]

You can hit your head as hard as you want, doesn't change the fact that you're just expressing an opinion I disagree with - get over it, drink some milkshake, I'm gonna.

[Sicklecell666]

[drez]

I agree John. What you are saying is completely correct. Every single parameter is automatable from the sequencer, therefore You could, in FACT, sequence it all.

I, however, do not have the time, resources, or creative stamina to jack with any sequencer for that length of time. You can have at it and sequence that one song for the rest of your life.

You have made your point, and I concede.



Meanwhile, I'll stick to doing it with the combinator in, like, 10 mintues


I just don't think that keeping my 2.5 and "doing it by hand" is going to help my creativity or help me make songs that I wouldn't have been able to because I am not a machine, therefore I could not allocate enough "man years" to accomplish the same task as I could easily do with the combinator.

I have enough problems finishing a tune as it is