Record: New DAW from Propellerheads

[fceramic]

Record/Reason all the way here. Everytime I open it I feel inspired and wanting to make music - and best of all there's nothing stopping me. No crashes, no hang-ups, no bugs and no worries about CPU etc. I can just go ahead and create as many effects and instruments I want. The only thing that can take abit are some really juicy pads on the might Thor, but still very efficient.

I love it. Introduced it to my brother who's been working with Logic for a decade. He was really sceptical at first, after three weeks he barely uses Logic anymore and actually considers selling it and buy Prop's bundle instead.
Only thing he do miss is notation and the IR reverb.

[gmstudio]

All this being said, I must admit the key/dongle thingy is kind of annoying. (Having managed to avoid them in my 10+ years of computer music making until now.) But the internet workaround is a great compromise. And, being one that always pays for my software, I do respect the Props' reasoning behind it.

[headquest]

No crashes, no hang-ups, no bugs and no worries about CPU etc. I can just go ahead and create as many effects and instruments I want. The only thing that can take abit are some really juicy pads on the might Thor, but still very efficient.

For real? I couldn't even playback the supplied demo song without my Core Duo processor seizing up after the first 20 seconds or so

[gmstudio]

For real? I couldn't even playback the supplied demo song without my Core Duo processor seizing up after the first 20 seconds or so

MBPro here...13" 2.53 Ghz 4 Gig RAM

The demo songs don't even get past the second little DSP dot...this thing is tight.

[headquest]

Hmmm.... perhaps it runs much better on the Mac platform. Although I also only have 2GB of RAM, so perhaps that's the difference. According to the Props it was because there was "bug code" built in at the point when I tested it - there was a whole pile of people complaining about the CPU usage, and Propellerhead seemed taken aback by the severity of the CPU issues. I've beta tested Reason 2.5, Reason 3.0 and Reason 4.0 full of bug code and never had any issue like that though. It's weird to ask customers to test something and then add code which is so heavy that it won't run properly on a standard computer - that created a very bad impression. Even the final beta version was still unusable here in terms of CPU. Anyway, I think it was more like "bugger off" code, and I just uninstalled the thing.

[headquest]

For me Record is Reason with a much better mixer. It has made Reason perfect and I can record some guitar in it now as well and import loops and audio recorded elsewhere. Absolutely loving it!

As one Reason user to another I can see how ReCord presents a good upgrade to Reason in that sense... but don't you find it annoying that the new "much better mixer" is seperate from the Rack?

If it had appeared as a device like any other the workflow would have been so much simpoler surely, and in line with the Props claims of making it easy to use. I found it annoying that there are now three different mixers, two types to use in the Rack and then the new one quite seperate. The fact this this now means needing to use an extra instrument or audio combinator device in the rack for every track in order to integrate into the big mixer... well I found that cluttered the Rack very quickly and was a PITA.... a real workflow killer imho.

[spaceman]

For me Record is Reason with a much better mixer. It has made Reason perfect and I can record some guitar in it now as well and import loops and audio recorded elsewhere. Absolutely loving it!

As one Reason user to another I can see how ReCord presents a good upgrade to Reason in that sense... but don't you find it annoying that the new "much better mixer" is seperate from the Rack?

If it had appeared as a device like any other the workflow would have been so much simpoler surely, and in line with the Props claims of making it easy to use. I found it annoying that there are now three different mixers, two types to use in the Rack and then the new one quite seperate. The fact this this now means needing to use an extra instrument or audio combinator device in the rack for every track in order to integrate into the big mixer... well I found that cluttered the Rack very quickly and was a PITA.... a real workflow killer imho.

I don't have a problem with the mixer being separate, as it were. You just need to change your way of thinking a bit.

The 14:2 has now become an inline mixer, like the small 6:2. I already heavily grouped things anyway, mixing groups before sending it to the mixer. So instead of having all those extra mixer channel objects in my rack I tend to have 14:2 or 6:2 mixers in combinators, and just mixer channel objects for those combinators. If the need arises during mixing to break up some of those groups, it's a small effort to do so and add an extra mixer channel object.

I find the Rack easy to navigate as well. I tend to keep mixer and mastering stuff in one rack, instruments in the next, etc. I can't really say it feels cluttered to me. And now I can even sort groups in different Racks, like drum stuff in one and other instruments in an other. So I actually find it easier to locate things.

[sensorium]

As one Reason user to another I can see how ReCord presents a good upgrade to Reason in that sense... but don't you find it annoying that the new "much better mixer" is seperate from the Rack?

I love Reason and was ready to hand over my money for Record, but after demoing it over a weekend, I have to say I agree with you completely. I found I was always switching screens, rack to mixer and back again. Very annoying.

If I used Record all the time I'm sure I'd get used to it, but it did stand out and was enough to make me save the money and stick with Reason.

[spaceman]

As one Reason user to another I can see how ReCord presents a good upgrade to Reason in that sense... but don't you find it annoying that the new "much better mixer" is seperate from the Rack?

I love Reason and was ready to hand over my money for Record, but after demoing it over a weekend, I have to say I agree with you completely. I found I was always switching screens, rack to mixer and back again. Very annoying.

If I used Record all the time I'm sure I'd get used to it, but it did stand out and was enough to make me save the money and stick with Reason.

I really don't understand the problem. You can still disconnect views if you want to, just like in Reason.. but instead of having to scroll up all the time to look at the mixer, you can now just hit the function key and view it immediately. How can that be more annoying than Reason?

[headquest]

@ spaceman - thanks for your feedback. I guess it is something you get used to, or even find a use for...

For me, one of the real beauties of Reason is the fact that it replicates a real world studio setup. All the routing/etc mirrors what is typically done in actual studios with hardware, and in that sense the hardware emulation paradigm makes plenty of sense. It is easy to learn for those who are used to hardware, and for those that aren't it's the perfect teaching tool so that when faced with a full-on studio you know what to do.

The problem I have with Record's routing paradigm is that it doesn't replicate that real world. It's kinda in it's own world, removed from reality. In a simple hardware recording studio setup you don't create a full rack/combinator type device to sort out the routing everytime you want to plug something into the main mix desk. And each Rack of equipment doesn't need its own routing matrix and submixer desk. That would be a nightmare, right?

The point is - at least in my view anyway - that Propellerhead took it to another stage of complexity, and departed from proper hardware emulation in the process. Record does not behave like a proper studio. The whole routing in it feels very weird to me, and unlike you I don't really think that is something I could get used to. But interesting to hear how you have though

[spaceman]

For me, one of the real beauties of Reason is the fact that it replicates a real world studio setup. All the routing/etc mirrors what is typically done in actual studios with hardware, and in that sense the hardware emulation paradigm makes plenty of sense. It is easy to learn for those who are used to hardware, and for those that aren't it's the perfect teaching tool so that when faced with a full-on studio you know what to do.

The problem I have with Record's routing paradigm is that it doesn't replicate that real world. It's kinda in it's own world, removed from reality. In a simple hardware recording studio setup you don't create a full rack/combinator type device to sort out the routing everytime you want to plug something into the main mix desk. And each Rack of equipment doesn't need its own routing matrix and submixer desk. That would be a nightmare, right?

But it isn't a real desk, it's software. I don't see the point of hanging on to this closed paradigm and then refusing to accept anything that doesn't fit into it perfectly. If it were a real desk you'd have faulty cables, overheating components and limited channels. And following your reasoning you would have to complain about the unlimited track and object count then as well.

But to be honest, if you really want to view everything in the 'real life' analogy, I would still say that Record follows it quite nicely. A real desk has inputs and outputs per channel. Records mixer objects are just that, the only difference is that you can move them around. If you're that keen on making it all look real ten just stack all your mixer channel on top of each other. It will resemble the back of a desk that way.

[headquest]

But it isn't a real desk, it's software.

Well the point that software theoretically can provide far more flexibility is certainly a good one. Unfortunately I don't see that Record capitalises effectively on the strength of being software. Having three different mixers and the ability to unplug virtual cables is all well and good, but for most users a DAW needs also to be able to interact with hardware anyway. in the case of Record you can plug in audio inputs, but not outputs to an external effect processor, for example. And there's no MIDI output cabling. So for all its modular flexibility, I find it is neither easy to use, nor genuinely flexible...

I don't see the point of hanging on to this closed paradigm and then refusing to accept anything that doesn't fit into it perfectly. If it were a real desk you'd have faulty cables, overheating components and limited channels.

And following your reasoning you would have to complain about the unlimited track and object count then as well.

They are limited by CPU, which for the vast majority of users will limit track count to less tracks than a hardware mixer.

But to be honest, if you really want to view everything in the 'real life' analogy, I would still say that Record follows it quite nicely. A real desk has inputs and outputs per channel.

...including routing to outboard...

...including bus routing...

Records mixer objects are just that, the only difference is that you can move them around.

How is this useful? I find the interface confusing enough without moving the rack input combinators into a different order from the one on the mixer

If you're that keen on making it all look real ten just stack all your mixer channel on top of each other. It will resemble the back of a desk that way.

To some extent I'm playing devils advocate of course... but I do genuinely think the closed environment concept works with Reason because of its context. For an audio recording programme masquerading as a proper DAW I'm sure that the closed paradigm is a mistake that imposes unacceptable limitations. Real world musical equipment (e.g. my keyboards) needs full audio and MIDI input and output capability in order to use it fully.

[sensorium]

I really don't understand the problem. You can still disconnect views if you want to, just like in Reason.. but instead of having to scroll up all the time to look at the mixer, you can now just hit the function key and view it immediately. How can that be more annoying than Reason?

I can see what you're saying, but it did annoy me. I don't mind scrolling up and down the Reason rack so much. Flicking to a new screen it took me a second to reorient myself. That's what I found, anyway, YMMV.

[spaceman]

@ headquest

Fair point about the audio out and midi out. It is, however, how Reason is too, so in a way they stuck closely to your beloved Reason paradigm

By adding the new mixer they obviously had to compromise. If they had approached it like the old mixer then it would have become an unworkable, unmanageable monstrosity of a mixer and people would complain about how unyielding it is and how much time they lose finding their way around it. (just imagine all the cables running in and out of it!!!) The way they did it, at least you have the choice to make it as simple or as complicated as you like. And they kept the object paradigm in there with which people who use Reason are familiar, as it extends the combinator idea in a way.

I think they did a great job making it usable, even for people on laptops.

[spaceman]

I really don't understand the problem. You can still disconnect views if you want to, just like in Reason.. but instead of having to scroll up all the time to look at the mixer, you can now just hit the function key and view it immediately. How can that be more annoying than Reason?

I can see what you're saying, but it did annoy me. I don't mind scrolling up and down the Reason rack so much. Flicking to a new screen it took me a second to reorient myself. That's what I found, anyway, YMMV.

Yeah, don't get me wrong.. it was my first complaint as well when I first opened the beta. I didn't like it. As always, it's hard to change your ways and at first we resist