Record: New DAW from Propellerheads

[blank/diod]

I have to say: I tried the beta, and I was REALLY pumped about it, but man, is this an awkward program to use. The whole Reason-rack thing works fine for Reason, when it's a single vertical row, but seriously, a full-width rack for every single track?

Why would you need a rack for each track?!

If you want a vertical, single-column rack like in Reason then use it like that. The number of columns is totally up to you. Personally I use one column for each group of sounds... one for drums & loops, one for bass and monosynths, one for polysynths, one for audio tracks.

Keep in mind that about one billion trillion Reason users have screamed for a multi-column rack for nearly 10 years now. They would run you out of town with pitchforks and torches for suggesting that the single column was better.

Toggling between Mixer/Rack/Sequencer with F5/F6/F7 is the obvious way to go, but if you have a Mac I suggest using Spaces. I have six desktops enabled in Spaces and whenever I use Record, I put the three windows in three separate spaces, then I jump between them using Command + arrow keys, it's very elegant.

I agree that the mixer is huge, but it's still small in scale. If you happen to use Cubase you'll know that a fully expanded mixer (all section rows + as many channels as your monitor can handle) is huge there as well, *but* you're only seeing inserts OR sends OR EQ OR whatever the rest of the views are. You can't see sends and inserts at the same time unless you open two mixer windows, and then you'll get a redundant set of duplicate faders. I can see why Logic or Live users might be taken aback by the sheer size of the Record mixer, but Cubase users shouldn't complain... in order for Cubase to show *everything*, all sequencer tracks, mixer channels and sections, all instruments etc you'd need a wall of a dozen monitors. Record is much more compact. But if you're emulating an SSL mixer, you're emulating an SSL mixer... you can't skip parts of it to save pixels. There's just no way around it other than making everything as small as possible and making all sections collapsible, which is what they've done.

But hey...if they do wake-up and give Rewire and Reason a 64bit capability...it could change the equation...

why? what do you think that will change that's significant?

64-bit? RAM of course. With 32-bit you're limited to 4 GB of RAM. Since Reason loads all samples into RAM, I'd say it needs a 64-bit version more than any app that streams samples from disk. 4 GB was astronomical a few years ago, but it's becoming pretty much a standard configuration today and 8/12/16 GB is becoming commonplace. Naturally those users will go for the 64-bit version of Windows (OS X is moving on to full 64-bit with Snow Leopard in September). Also, VST hosts are moving over to 64-bit now, it's no longer an experimental thing... and without 64-bit ReWire there is no link between Reason/Record and the 64-bit host.

[Chrisma]

Not really worried about the size of the mixer because I'm hoping I can program a control surface to control the EQ/Dynamics and Sends for each strip as I selected. So far on my Keystation 88 Pro I has a lot things already mapped but I really want to click a strip be able to use all 24 knobs on the controller. I'm sure it can be done. Just haven't dug into it yet. I can override the mapping but it doesn't follow to the next strip. Anyone got any insights into this?

[v1o]

Record is actually not very easy to use and has quite a steep learning curve for newbies. Its not as simple as they made it out to be. I don't think the cluttered interface is that user friendly. And the rack & mixer have been 'over-complicated' it takes too many mouse clicks to get things done. In summary not enough highend features for power users and too difficult for amateurs. Its definitely no Garageband - not as simple or intuitive for quickly getting ideas recorded.

Should have just added recording to Reason and called it a day. Reason has a better work flow.

[5.1]

The "closed" beta has finished and anyone can now get a copy of RC4 at

http://www.recordyou.com/

It uses an online licensing system that will be valid until the official release in September.

I've found Record to be great fun to use and it's made me remember how much I like using Reason. I'd recommend it as an upgrade to any current Reason 4 user (though I'd have to agree that "Record" is basically "Reason 5").

If, however, you're looking for a DAW, I'd go for Reaper or any other editor. I think Record lacks too many audio editing features to be considered a competitor in the standalone DAW market.

Cheers,

Malcolm.

[bduffy]

Yeah, I'd agree. I think it takes Reason to the next level - and it will be hard to go back to just Reason after this - but I think most of us would be left a little wanting in the DAW department. The time-stretching is amazing, though.

[headquest]

I agree that the mixer is huge, but it's still small in scale. If you happen to use Cubase you'll know that a fully expanded mixer (all section rows + as many channels as your monitor can handle) is huge there as well, *but* you're only seeing inserts OR sends OR EQ OR whatever the rest of the views are. You can't see sends and inserts at the same time unless you open two mixer windows, and then you'll get a redundant set of duplicate faders. I can see why Logic or Live users might be taken aback by the sheer size of the Record mixer, but Cubase users shouldn't complain... in order for Cubase to show *everything*, all sequencer tracks, mixer channels and sections, all instruments etc you'd need a wall of a dozen monitors. Record is much more compact. But if you're emulating an SSL mixer, you're emulating an SSL mixer... you can't skip parts of it to save pixels. There's just no way around it other than making everything as small as possible and making all sections collapsible, which is what they've done.

As always you make some very good points, but just for once I don't agree entirely with your conclusions (regarding Cubase, which I also use). It's true that in *any* software set up using multiple screens is necessary in order to view all the elements of a huge project.

However, in Record it would be essential to either have three monitors (impractical for most of us, and anyone with a studio that size is probably using Pro Tools/etc, and is not the target market for Record), or incessantly flip between three windows using keystrokes. During the testing I found this constant flipping between windows got very annoying. As a user you have to make a lot of virtual connections in your head between each window, because you can't see them together in a meaningful way. As for the default screen showing all three interfaces (Rack, Sequencer, Mixer) this seems like a bad joke - you can't see enough of any of the three to make it useful (on my screen I get two sequencer tracks, the Rack's hardware interface thing, and about two-thirds of the length of the mix faders. Useless!

Contrast with Cubase, where it is easy to see all these elements simultaneaously in a single screen. I see your point about the Mix Console view, but in the main sequencer/project area you can see all or whichever elements of the mixer channel you want within the inspector, at the same time as seeing the sequencer lane in its project context, editing inline, and open up individual instrument interfaces as a floating window without a huge rack appearing. This is surely a LOT more useful and ergonomic, no?

[blank/diod]

Contrast with Cubase, where it is easy to see all these elements simultaneaously in a single screen.

But you can't see all those elements simultaneously on a single screen in Cubase, that's precisely my point. I have Cubase 5, I have a 30" 2560x1600 monitor which is the largest monitor that mortals can get their hands on, so you can't tell me Cubase is great at displaying the sequencer, the instruments and the mixer all at once because it simply isn't true. The default view is the sequencer only. If you want to start opening up instrument panels or the mixer they will quickly pile up to the point where you no longer see the sequencer. Once you open the mixer or some big ass VSTi interface your sequencer window is officially gone, you may see parts of it but you can't use it in any meaningful way until you close whatever is on top of it. And each window has its own title bar, whether it's the VSTi pane, a mixer, the performance meter, an FX plugin etc, which adds up to quite a waste of pixels. This is one of the reasons why I have one 20" monitor on either side of my 30" one, or else Cubase (and other pixel gluttony software) would drive me bonkers. Sequencer on the middle monitor, two mixers on the right monitor, instruments and plugins on the left monitor.

If you want Record to work Cubase-style, fine, detach the mixer and the rack and put them away, then place them over the sequencer whenever you want to mess with mixer or instrument settings. There's Cubase for you. Except, in Record you have all instruments and FX gathered in a single interface, and I'll take that any day over having to open a whole bunch of differently sized VST/VSTi interfaces and trying to arrange them in any layout that makes sense.

This is strictly psychological - it's the fact that Record *can* show all three areas in one window that enables people to be annoyed over clutter in the first place. If that particular view mode isn't working out for you then arrange it some other way... use F5/F6/F7 to see them one at a time, or detach the rack and put it on the side of the seq/mixer window.

My only complaints are that the buttons for toggling mixer sections on/off are too small and fiddly, and that the detached rack has a redundant transport bar which dictates the minimum width of the window. I only need one transport bar, thanks. Also, there should be buttons that duplicate the F5/F6/F7 functionality because Apple have stolen most of the F keys for crap like iTunes controls, Dashboard, backlight adjustment etc.

[fgimian]

Record is actually not very easy to use and has quite a steep learning curve for newbies. Its not as simple as they made it out to be. I don't think the cluttered interface is that user friendly. And the rack & mixer have been 'over-complicated' it takes too many mouse clicks to get things done. In summary not enough highend features for power users and too difficult for amateurs. Its definitely no Garageband - not as simple or intuitive for quickly getting ideas recorded.

Should have just added recording to Reason and called it a day. Reason has a better work flow.

Now that beta is over, I can give add some comments here too. I completely agree with your statement.

Record actually is one of the hardest DAWs I have used (and I have tried them all). The mixer view is simply impractical and I personally didn't really think too much of the SSL emulation either (Sonalksis plugins are in another league in comparison). The audio editing is insanely limited, timestretch sounds good but is very limited in use. The rack has now simply become a burden in Record, while in Reason it was still somewhat practical.

I was a die-hard Reason 4 user up until several months ago when I bought my Virus TI, and I have always supported and loved Propellerheads products, but honestly, I simply don't like Record at all I simply don't understand what the producers at the conference where ooing and ahhing about.

I'll give it another try when the final is released.

On the other hand, something like Presonus Studio One looks to be a significantly better design and entry into the DAW market. The way channels can open horizontally in the mixer, the excellent GUI and drag/drop browser. I can't wait for the demo of that.

[koolkeys]

I think that headquest was saying that Cubase lets you see all those mixer elements for each track all in the one arrange window. And you can. Cubase is laid out VERY well.

Don't lose perspective here though. Record lets you view all instruments and effects in one window, yes. But it's ASTRONOMICALLY limited in how many elements are available compared to Cubase. Everything is designed for that window, and you have to use what is included. Of course you aren't going to get 10 different full plugins viewable on one screen in Cubase. That doesn't mean that it's workflow is worse than Record.

Personally, I think that Record fails in many areas, and ergonomics is one of those areas. Sure, you can switch views. Sure, you can customize what shows on the mixer(but not per track, unfortunately). But to be honest, the interface is a mess compared to a well laid out sequencer like Cubase. A lot of jumping around, a lot of scrolling, difficult manipulation of track zooming(no way to drag a track to the size of your choice), etc. Record is made for simple recording and very simple audio manipulation. And it does some things well. But the interface really is a mess if you decide you do want to see more than one of the views at once. It LOOKS great when it comes to graphics. It's beautiful, in fact. But ergonomically speaking, it could definitely be better.

I think Reason was done very well, and it remains a great app for quick song creation. But I think, at least from the time I've spent with it, that Record is trying too hard. It's trying to do things that just don't translate well to the computer screen, IMO. It may succeed in some areas, but other areas are lacking.

All IMO, of course.

Brent

[headquest]

But you can't see all those elements simultaneously on a single screen in Cubase, that's precisely my point. I have Cubase 5, I have a 30" 2560x1600 monitor which is the largest monitor that mortals can get their hands on, so you can't tell me Cubase is great at displaying the sequencer, the instruments and the mixer all at once because it simply isn't true. .

I think you misunderstand my point - certainly you can't open the mixer console plus the sequencer and several VST interfaces, as you say. That way it ends up as cluttered as Record. I was talking about using the Track Inspector for mixer channels instead of using the full console. And I was talking about dealing on a track by track basis (a way I have worked ever since learning music tech with the late great Tracktion sequencer).

Try that in Record and you have a problem though. You can't open an individual instrument or effect without the whole Rack being there - i.e. loads of other instruments/effects that you are not presently interested in editing. The Mixer Console meanwhile needs a full screen to itself even without opening up all the sections. It's huge. For me personally that makes the workflow awkward, but certainly YMMV, and its clear from your points that you would rather work differently, which is cool.

I certainly agree with the other ex-testers here who have said that Record is not an easy programme to get into for a beginner, too. After a couple of months with the thing, I don't think I still understand where Propellerhead exactly think they are going with this product.

[headquest]

The time-stretching is amazing, though.

Agreed - it's *awesome* as they say.

But this is once again HUGELY frustrating... because you can't actually do anything much with it. Considering they have made a programme with such a great timestretch built in, it's just bizarre that you can't import a loop and stretch it to fit the project tempo/key. Even cheap entry level software lets you do that, suchg as Garageband which any Mac owner has free, or Sequel, or the free version of ACID.

Most of us are used to doing far more than that anyway. Timing corrections/warping that are possible in Ableton Live, Cubase, Pro Tools, Sonar, etc are standard now. With Record having such a great timestretch it is ideal for this. But even having spent FIVE YEARS developing this product, it doesn't even have the basics in this area. Audio editing in general is simply non-existant. I wonder how many years it will be before Propellerhead commit to getting even basic stuff in place - I suspect it will be quite a long time coming.

A huge opportunity missed I think. It's rather unfortunate that because of marketing buzz a lot of people will fork out the rather high asking price for Record, and not get basic stuff that far cheaper programmes offer.

[headquest]

I'd recommend it as an upgrade to any current Reason 4 user (though I'd have to agree that "Record" is basically "Reason 5").

I think I would recommend it to anyone who *only* had Reason, and wanted audio recording. But many Reason users already have far superior audio software, and are happy using Reason as a rack of instruments/effects via Rewire. It's harder to recommend Record to those people I think.

The main thing I love about Reason is it's simplicity. I think that with Record they have actually lost that. Adding another layer of routing complexity by having the SSL console seperate from the Rack makes the whole thing far more fiddly, and the Rack itself gets full of "Mix" and "Audio" combinators in addition to everything else there. If you import a Reason song into Record, that Reason rack is assigned to a single stereo audio track on the SSL mixer. If you want to actually use the SSL console in Record to remix the Reason song then you have to MANUALLY RE-ROUTE EVERY DEVICE in Record. That's not really what I would call good integtration... and chances are for most tracks you will end up with two seperate mixers operating at different stages within the mix. Apart from being stupidly over-complex when you consider what is possible in software, this is equally not an emulation of what would happen in any decent (hardware) studio!

Ultimately, as a long-term Reason user, I think that Record has broken the great workflow. It's the update I rather hoped they would never attempt. For people like me then, Record is not a good Reason upgrade, in spite of some undeniably great features.

[SimSam]

I keep wondering what their reason is for only letting you import one audio file at a time? Thought I might like to try mixing in this, but after importing 20+ tracks one at a time I'm thinking of giving up.

[Breakpete]

I agree with headquest and koolkeys. While I like Reason and the way everything is structured around a rack, I think they went overboard with Record.

They could just as easily have upgraded the old mixer, added the master bus compressor as a new device, and brought the audio track/device and other sequencer improvements into Reason 5.

Record feels...cluttered. After listening to all the marketing material, I just can't see how this is a big improvement over e.g. Logic for recording audio.

I really want to like it, because it has most of what I need for programming beats and recording my bass guitar, but the workflow just kills it for me (also the Line 6 bass device sounds a bit naff compared to my copy of Ampeg Uno).

[ozmoz2008]

I agree with headquest and koolkeys. While I like Reason and the way everything is structured around a rack, I think they went overboard with Record.

They could just as easily have upgraded the old mixer, added the master bus compressor as a new device, and brought the audio track/device and other sequencer improvements into Reason 5...

And add 64bit to all this... I've also like Reason for it's ease of use for many years...but they will have to follow the trend and get on board with 64bit apps....just like NI is doing right now(I have to congradulate them on this )

So...wake-up Props!