Just downloaded Reason 6.5 plus a couple of RE's from the shop...

[marcusze]

Hi!

Reason devices typically don't add any latency. You can chain a lot of Reason devices without introducing any latency.

But some devices do introduce latency and Reason does not yet compensate for this. Of all of the Reason 6 devices, I think only the maximizer, Neptune and the vocoder (in FFT-mode) introduce latency.

We have design the RE API to support latency compensation and want to start doing the compensation in Reason in the future. It's pretty tricky since you have free cabling of audio, CV/gate etc.

[memyselfandus]

They need to make purchasing of RE's for offline computers possible.. Buy on your laptop for a instal on a offline computer. I'm sure they will soon.

[Anosou]

Hi!

Reason devices typically don't add any latency. You can chain a lot of Reason devices without introducing any latency.

But some devices do introduce latency and Reason does not yet compensate for this. Of all of the Reason 6 devices, I think only the maximizer, Neptune and the vocoder (in FFT-mode) introduce latency.

We have design the RE API to support latency compensation and want to start doing the compensation in Reason in the future. It's pretty tricky since you have free cabling of audio, CV/gate etc.

Just thought I'd point out that Marcus is one of the three founders of Propellerhead and our CTO. So you know who's talking.

[billcarroll]

(I don't like Rack Extensions)

(I don't like Rack Extensions)

Duly noted. There's no need to keep reminding us of your opinions.

I never said I didn't like Rack Extensions or Reason for that matter. I think the implementation is poor. Some of us are voicing our opinions so the devs can hear what we think. Perhaps customers can change a closed ecosystem into something more open.

These forums are for opinions and discussion, and you'll find things here you don't agree with and can't control. Enjoy.

[festeringheap]

Hi!

Reason devices typically don't add any latency. You can chain a lot of Reason devices without introducing any latency.

But some devices do introduce latency and Reason does not yet compensate for this. Of all of the Reason 6 devices, I think only the maximizer, Neptune and the vocoder (in FFT-mode) introduce latency.

We have design the RE API to support latency compensation and want to start doing the compensation in Reason in the future. It's pretty tricky since you have free cabling of audio, CV/gate etc.

Just thought I'd point out that Marcus is one of the three founders of Propellerhead and our CTO. So you know who's talking.

Thanks for that. I thought someone just came off the street and posted here No clue what he was talking about.
I made a combinator a while ago that was meant for parallel compression, and the dry and the wet didn't quite line up as I recall. I'll have to see if I stuck in a maximizer (one of the 3 he mentions that introduce latency) when I get back to my computer, but I don't think so...

[Winstontaneous]

It seems quite likely that Propellerhead can see RE as a cash cow moving forward, and that development of the core software is unlikely from a business point of view to take priority. Very sad.

I'd say it's the opposite. I think that we will see a more focused development of Reason as a platform in the following updates. RE imho was made so that props can focus on actual workflow and other core features in Reason rather than to be 'locked up' by developing new devices for each release. So I'm on the contrary quite hopeful to see what Reason 7 and the following versions will bring...

That's my take, too.

I imagine the Props recognized that all the time/energy they've spent adding audio/blocks/core features in recent years was distracting them from instrument development.
RE seems like a sensible way to address that.

[headquest]

In some respects I think that's a pity. Reason has been around for more than a decade now, but it's the rack devices, the instruments/effects that I think have had the big impact on computer music making - not so much the sequencer/environment/platform itself.

What we see these days is that a lot of companies produce software instruments and effects that hark back to hardware, in the way that Propellerhead in particular pioneered. But nobody else is copying their idea of modelling the hardware studio in terms of the overall platform. On the contrary, Tracktion, Ableton, etc have been the pioneers that have helped to shape the direction that audio recording and MIDI sequencing have developed, and Steinberg, Apple, Avid etc have followed suit. Ease of use and a single-window that encompasses most of the core features (rather than the three windows of Reason) are very much the order of the day, and the Reason approach is very dated in this respect (though unique and fun for some of course - mostly those who remember the analogue studio days).

I think that Propellerhead, perhaps more than any other developer, proved that the virtual studio is a possibility, and that is what I would prefer to see them continue to champion. The "platform" though is really not the proof. Rather the quality instruments and effects are the thing that ultimately makes or breaks the concept of working inside the box. Why not focus on getting that right, and allow their instruments and effects to work more easily within better software hosts?? Would it hurt so much to concede that others have nailed the host market ahead of them?

[Amberience]

In some respects I think that's a pity. Reason has been around for more than a decade now, but it's the rack devices, especially the instruments that I think have had the big impact on computer music making - not so much the sequencer/environment/platform itself.

What we see these days is that a lot of companies produce software instruments and effects that hark back to hardware, in the way that Propellerhead in particular pioneered. But nobody else is copying their idea of modelling the hardware studio in terms of the overall platform. On the contrary, Tracktion, Ableton, etc have been the pioneers that have helped to shape the direction that audio recording and MIDI sequencing have developed, and Steinberg, Apple, Avid etc have followed suit. Ease of use and a single-window that encompasses most of the core features (rather than the three windows of Reason) are very much the order of the day, and the Reason approach is very dated in this respect (though unique and fun for some of course - mostly those who remember the analogue studio days).

I think that Propellerhead, perhaps more than any other developer, proved that the virtual studio is a possibility, and that is what I would prefer to see them continue to champion. The "platform" though is really not the proof. Rather the quality instruments and effects are the thing that ultimately makes or breaks the concept of working inside the box. Why not focus on getting that right, and allow their instruments and effects to work more easily within better software hosts??

To be frank, I really disagree.

Back in the early days there was this wonderful guy, if slightly a bit strange, called Doru Malaia. He made refills for Reason, using sounds from all sorts of soft-synths and other sources. People lapped them up, because at the time, Subtractor was not highly regarded - in fact, Subtractor still isn't regarded too well by most people. It's a stock synth, not particularly special. NNXT wasn't around at the time, and many non-Reason users disparaged the NN19 as "just an Akai clone" and Reason didn't have the M-Class effects then either.

But people still loved the software. It was totally about the environment. Totally about the way you could easily chain CV and Audio signals together, and make some crazy sounds very easily. In fact, version 1.0 was regarded as a toy - the users loved it, everyone else thought it sounded whack. Version 2.0 improved it somewhat, and the users were totally thrilled - but most other people didn't really respect it.

It wasn't until Reason 3.0 that the naysayers started to pay attention. Because tracks were coming out that were made in Reason almost entirely, and they sounded really good. The Prodigy had an interview where they claimed they did all of their latest album at the time, in Reason, which pushed Reason further into the consciousness of music makers.

I look at it like this: the best thing about reason is the rack environment. The way you can easily control a parameter on one unit, with a source coming from another unit... it's amazing. There is nothing else that does it as quickly and as easy as Reason does. And that is why Reason is well regarded. The high quality instruments and effects came later - much later.

[liquidsound]

Michael Kastrup did some great work in the Xsynth refills ( especially with the Combinator ) and still, listening to what he was able to do with just Zebra, lacking all Those "amazing cables and simplicity" etc., tells you a lot about the Myth of the Rack magic in creating things above other methods.
Urban Legend.

[Amberience]

Michael Kastrup did some great work in the Xsynth refills ( especially with the Combinator ) and still, listening to what he was able to do with just Zebra, lacking all Those "amazing cables and simplicity" etc., tells you a lot about the Myth of the Rack magic in creating things above other methods.
Urban Legend.

Try connecting an LFO from one VST to the volume or pan control of another VST on a completely different track.

IE: Good luck!

One guy managing to make decent stuff in multiple tools doesn't really say much other than he's a decent sound designer that knows how to use his tools.

There are some cons to the Reason approach. But don't act like there aren't any pro's, because there clearly are, and it is clearly demonstrable.

[liquidsound]

Michael Kastrup did some great work in the Xsynth refills ( especially with the Combinator ) and still, listening to what he was able to do with just Zebra, lacking all Those "amazing cables and simplicity" etc., tells you a lot about the Myth of the Rack magic in creating things above other methods.
Urban Legend.

Try connecting an LFO from one VST to the volume or pan control of another VST on a completely different track.

IE: Good luck!

One guy managing to make decent stuff in multiple tools doesn't really say much other than he's a decent sound designer that knows how to use his tools.

There are some cons to the Reason approach. But don't act like there aren't any pro's, because there clearly are, and it is clearly demonstrable.

Not a problem actually. MUX can do that and more on ANY DAW. Coming soon on a PC/ Mac near you.

[headquest]

To be frank, I really disagree.

Back in the early days there was this wonderful guy, if slightly a bit strange, called Doru Malaia. He made refills for Reason, using sounds from all sorts of soft-synths and other sources. People lapped them up, because at the time, Subtractor was not highly regarded - in fact, Subtractor still isn't regarded too well by most people. It's a stock synth, not particularly special. NNXT wasn't around at the time, and many non-Reason users disparaged the NN19 as "just an Akai clone" and Reason didn't have the M-Class effects then either.

But people still loved the software. It was totally about the environment. Totally about the way you could easily chain CV and Audio signals together, and make some crazy sounds very easily. In fact, version 1.0 was regarded as a toy - the users loved it, everyone else thought it sounded whack. Version 2.0 improved it somewhat, and the users were totally thrilled - but most other people didn't really respect it.

It wasn't until Reason 3.0 that the naysayers started to pay attention. Because tracks were coming out that were made in Reason almost entirely, and they sounded really good. The Prodigy had an interview where they claimed they did all of their latest album at the time, in Reason, which pushed Reason further into the consciousness of music makers.

I look at it like this: the best thing about reason is the rack environment. The way you can easily control a parameter on one unit, with a source coming from another unit... it's amazing. There is nothing else that does it as quickly and as easy as Reason does. And that is why Reason is well regarded. The high quality instruments and effects came later - much later.

Interesting points and excellent post. But to be more clear, by instruments/effects I am basically talking about the Rack as a single entity. Sorry if that wasn't so clear. As a long term user I have always seen the rack as the big focus, as a huge workstation replacement if you like (I'm a keyboard guy). Actually we are possibly saying much the same thing

By environment/platform/whatever I mean the lacklustre sequencer (sure, Blocks improved it a little, but still proved a whole lot less inspiring that Ableton's session view, for example), the new mixer in a separate third window, and the general ethos of keeping Reason closed off from the rest of the studio, such as no MIDI out or standard plugin support. Those are ideas that the Props still push, but which really haven't influenced others or taken off as successful ideas, which is why there are so many other successful alternatives. Not a single company has sought to follow the "lead" or example that Propellerhead gave, and there are compelling reasons for that.

Most musicians want to work in an environment that is fast and easy - hence the success of ACID when it came out, and subsequently Tracktion, Ableton and most recently Studio One. Also of course Pro Tools. And programmes such as Cubase, Sonar and Logic have all sought to achieve that elegant single window interface with all the main ingredients. When some have failed they have been seen as clunky and dated - just as Reason is actually seen by many (but don't tell the Props that!).

What I mean is that the consensus in music software design has for some time moved towards accepting the benefits of sometimes emulating hardware instrument and effect devices - as pioneered by Propellerhead more than anyone - but while making the overall programme environment software-centric, with a single window and ease of use paramount. Look at the software that has come along in the last five years, such as REAPER, S1 and Bitwig, and you see this trend growing from strength to strength - because it is widely recognised that this is what musicians generally want!

And unlike some here, I would far rather have a floating VST interface that I can see in conjunction with the sequencer/mixer, rather than have my screen divided into two or three separate (largely space wasting) sections, or completely separate windows viewed apart. It is in these ways that I think Reason in its latest form is a disappointment though ...

But the Rack... that will never disappoint. It is an inspiring a amazing working environment. Which is the main point I wanted to make (and I think we agree) - so it would be preferable in my view to see the full effort going into the rack and the rest of the programme abandoned or optional. The full Rack as a VST or Rewire client (without the bloat of the rest of Reason and it's CPU hit) would be preferable to me.

but, heck, I guess there are some who genuinely want their sequencer to be in multiple windows and follow an old fashioned hardware paradigm to the last letter, because Reason still has its circle of devotees (plus those that bought it because of the marketing hype I guess) so that's all good. It's a free world after all, haha!

[headquest]

One guy managing to make decent stuff in multiple tools doesn't really say much other than he's a decent sound designer that knows how to use his tools.

I don't think it matters how many tools are required - simply the quality of the outcome. That's the main thing I strive for in all my music, whether I'm using an acoustic piano, Reason or any other tool set. I don't think there is any inherant virtue or benefit in taking the long route, limiting your choices, or making life more difficult than it need be.

There are some cons to the Reason approach. But don't act like there aren't any pro's, because there clearly are, and it is clearly demonstrable.

Agreed, +1

[krucial]

Ease of use and a single-window that encompasses most of the core features (rather than the three windows of Reason) are very much the order of the day, and the Reason approach is very dated in this respect (though unique and fun for some of course - mostly those who remember the analogue studio days).

Single window is the order of the day? Dated because you say so? I did not come from the old analog studio days, never owned hardware synth, I didn't even know what CV was until I got into Reason 7 years ago. Reason works perfectly for me, I owned Live got rid of it. It was just not for me just didn't fit the way I work, it was difficult to use and very buggy. I have Logic here which just sits around collecting dust. I am not sure why some people simply can't accept the software for what it its. People will use whatever works for them and Reason has a thriving user community.

[Robert Randolph]

Michael Kastrup did some great work in the Xsynth refills ( especially with the Combinator ) and still, listening to what he was able to do with just Zebra, lacking all Those "amazing cables and simplicity" etc., tells you a lot about the Myth of the Rack magic in creating things above other methods.
Urban Legend.

Try connecting an LFO from one VST to the volume or pan control of another VST on a completely different track.

IE: Good luck!

You can do this and similar things in a few hosts... Reason is actually more limited in this regard than say, renoise or usine or bidule or mulab.