Reason 11 announced!!!

[antic604]

There's no issue, other then a small group of users that demand a two decade old piece of software be totally overhauled in a short period of time. Expecting them to sift through and code millions of lines of code...

Is your middle name 'hyperbole'?

No. Quite a sizeable section of Reason users has been asking for it at least since 2017 and - as I said - lots of work has already been done in Reason's code which is evident from all the workflow additions added in 10.x and 11.x and engine optimisations in 10.2. I actually believe most of the work currently revolves around adding of GPU acceleration, as current renderer is CPU-based and - apparently - uses some very old libraries.

Anyway, @Ansou confirmed in last week 3 times (that I'm aware of) that they're working on it, so I'm not sure why you're getting your panties in a bunch?

[EnochLight]

There's a small group of people that seem to believe that their GUI and graphic needs outweigh all the improvements they've done and are continuing to do. I believe there is a breakdown in reality and rationality. This small group of people seem to think they own the copyrights on what's on the priority list and in what sequence.

Let's leave it to the experts... (things are done in order according to a roadmap, for a reason)

To be fair, if this was truly "a small group of people", you wouldn't have the Product Manager publically chiming in to say they're working on High DPI for an upcoming feature. This suggests that there were far more requests for such support than merely a small group.

I agree it's likely a massive undertaking, though. And surely, their experts will figure out a way to do it. The forward thinking requirements for the RE assets clearly has had them thinking about it for many years.

That said - I'm in total agreement that the features we have seen appear in Reason over the past 4-5 versions were far more important than High DPI assets.

[bmanic]

If the top feature request was "high DPI graphics and/or GPU acceleration", one can surmise that we would have seen it far sooner.

You can surmise whatever you want but that doesn't change the fact people have been asking for larger graphics in Reason since virtually the first iteration of the program.

As a dinosaur that has been using Reason since the first iteration of the program, I can say with confidence that you’re categorically wrong.

Well it's your dinosaur words against mine. I bought Reason 1.0 about a week after it's release. Had it until version 3 (if my memory serves me correctly). I'm definitely not the only one who has had issues with the tiny UI of the rack. Heck, I might be wrong on this point but I distinctly remember this very issue having been brought up in quite a few reviews at the time, even for version 1.0 (usually mentioned in tangent with ReBirth and it's rather cramped tiny UI) and it's DEFINITELY been mentioned as a bad thing for later versions.

So yeah, I don't agree at all with you nor does your reality represent mine. From my perspective you are the one with blinders and an obvious bias towards anything negative said about Reason in general (just read through your constant replies to anybody in this thread! Erm.. sliiiightly biased, no?).

[bmanic]

.. you only have to google "Propellerheads Reason size" and put a search target between 2002 - 2005 to get a ton of various forums and posts like this.

http://duc.avid.com/archive/index.php/t-137927.html


.. just saying.

[EnochLight]

Well it's your dinosaur words against mine. I bought Reason 1.0 about a week after it's release.

Reason 1 was released in November of 2000, and the average computer display resolution was 800x600 back then, with more premium displays coming in at 1024 × 768. Reason's rack appeared massive on those displays. Are you talking several years later as display resolution got bigger than 1024x768?

[bmanic]

Nope. It didn't. Had 1024x768 back then and not long after the next step up.. quite common in studios running CRT monitors at the time.

EDIT: Actually, this may be the disconnect. The people I was interacting with were running studios.. most of us ran CRT monitors. LCDs were not that common at the time and had bad resolutions. Could be we are talking from completely different experiences.

EDIT2: I even found the monitor I was running back then!

https://www.cnet.com/products/nec-multi ... 17-series/

I do however distinctly remember running it at 1024x768. Hmm, not sure why.. as this one seems to be capable of higher res.

But yeah, lets just agree to disagree.

My original point that you refuted is that people have been complaining about the UI size for a long time. You disagreed so I've shown evidence to the contrary.. but like I said, whatever. You are fully entitled to your opinion.

[EnochLight]

I'm in my office right now, so my widescreen display's native is 1920 x 1280, but here is Reason at 800 x 600 on this display (which clearly shows a classic device almost filling the screen up):

Reason_rack_800x600.jpg

And here it's bumped to 1024 x 768, which while the same devices obviously appear smaller on screen, they still are quite large - about as large as most default VST gui/ux:

Reason_rack_1024x768.jpg

So yeah, I'd say we have very different experiences with it. It wasn't until the late 2000's that driving desktop display resolutions starting becoming the norm above 1280 x 1024. I understand you had a CRT that hit that resolution natively, but most users didn't drive their desktop displays that high without high-end gaming video cards to display them back in the Reason 1.0/2.0 days. Usually they were ran at lower resolutions.

Regardless, nice to know we'll allegedly be able to display larger racks that isn't blurry at some point. Here's hoping that Reason Studios does it right.

[bmanic]

Ah, all that nice "black space", even on 1024x768. And you seriously don't think those mixer knobs are tiny?

I can see how it depends on how close to the monitor one is sitting but having the monitor to the side and slightly behind a mixing desk (perhaps 1.5 meters away?) does make it rather hard to operate.

Mind you, it wasn't the only software with these problems. I had FL Studio back then also (which was horribly tiny!), Pro Tools and Logic Audio (bless that old piece of software running on PCs!!) which had their own issues too. Still, that "wasted" space was such a chore.

[EnochLight]

Ah, all that nice "black space", even on 1024x768. And you seriously don't think those mixer knobs are tiny?

Back in the day when said 800 x 600 (or 1024 x 768) displays were 19"-20", it looked a lot larger, at least when it was sitting on a desk in front of you. That black space in the front was usually filled with other devices, though. The second shot - Reason didn't look like that back in those days with black on the side. I'm just using Reason 11 as the example.

I can see how it depends on how close to the monitor one is sitting but having the monitor to the side and slightly behind a mixing desk (perhaps 1.5 meters away?) does make it rather hard to operate.

Totally agree!

Mind you, it wasn't the only software with these problems. I had FL Studio back then also (which was horribly tiny!), Pro Tools and Logic Audio (bless that old piece of software running on PCs!!) which had their own issues too. Still, that "wasted" space was such a chore.

Progress is being made, for sure. I could never go back to working on those old displays - I'm all about 75" 4K screens these days. Lol!

[zoidkirb]

here is Reason at 800 x 600 on this display (which clearly shows a classic device almost filling the screen up):



Reason_rack_800x600.jpg

If I could get that view, but at 1900x1200 I'd be very happy. Single rack, almost full screen for working in depth on the front of the racks, and a zoomed out view, either 2 or 3 racks wide for more of an overview, especially while cabling racks together.

Also, some of those old racks like subtractor and Thor are always going to feel a bit fiddly and small regardless of size imo.

Modern re's like Europa, and the players really aren't too bad but would still benefit from higher res and more viewing options.

[antic604]

If I could get that view, but at 1900x1200 I'd be very happy. Single rack, almost full screen for working in depth on the front of the racks, and a zoomed out view, either 2 or 3 racks wide for more of an overview, especially while cabling racks together.

But that's the problem - you can by increasing Windows' scaling factor to say 150%, but it will look like blurry soup of pixels as Reason will be scaled up, but the textures don't have any detail to fill in the "gaps". That's why high-res assets are required, even if you're not using 4K screen.

[zoidkirb]

If I could get that view, but at 1900x1200 I'd be very happy. Single rack, almost full screen for working in depth on the front of the racks, and a zoomed out view, either 2 or 3 racks wide for more of an overview, especially while cabling racks together.

But that's the problem - you can by increasing Windows' scaling factor to say 150%, but it will look like blurry soup of pixels as Reason will be scaled up, but the textures don't have any detail to fill in the "gaps". That's why high-res assets are required, even if you're not using 4K screen.

Absolutely agree. I've tried scaling options on my 24" fhd and hated it for those reasons. 4k would be even worse.

I'm really glad they are going to address this, and going by the drips of info from management over the last year it seems like gui overhaul may not have been the most requested feature but was still fairly high.

[antic604]

Absolutely agree. I've tried scaling options on my 24" fhd and hated it for those reasons. 4k would be even worse.

In the meantime you should try changing the screen's resolution to say 1600x900 - it gives the size of approx. 125% scaling, but looks much, MUCH better.

[zoidkirb]

Absolutely agree. I've tried scaling options on my 24" fhd and hated it for those reasons. 4k would be even worse.

In the meantime you should try changing the screen's resolution to say 1600x900 - it gives the size of approx. 125% scaling, but looks much, MUCH better.

yes wow thank you, that is much closer to ideal! if i hide the browser i can fit two racks side by side, and with the browser up, it pushes rack 1 more towards the right of the screen, which with my two monitor setup means more towards the middle, which is nice.

[burnt circuit]

There's a small group of people that seem to believe that their GUI and graphic needs outweigh all the improvements they've done and are continuing to do. I believe there is a breakdown in reality and rationality. This small group of people seem to think they own the copyrights on what's on the priority list and in what sequence.

Let's leave it to the experts... (things are done in order according to a roadmap, for a reason)

To be fair, if this was truly "a small group of people", you wouldn't have the Product Manager publically chiming in to say they're working on High DPI for an upcoming feature. This suggests that there were far more requests for such support than merely a small group.

I agree it's likely a massive undertaking, though. And surely, their experts will figure out a way to do it. The forward thinking requirements for the RE assets clearly has had them thinking about it for many years.

That said - I'm in total agreement that the features we have seen appear in Reason over the past 4-5 versions were far more important than High DPI assets.

I'm pretty sure they've been working on it for quite some time now, but the problem is people don't understand how long these things can take. Meanwhile juggling a working and progressive product during the development and testing phases of other higher prioritized features.

The % of people that need high DPI to produce an audio product is probably lower then you might believe. They have other things that are much more important in the audio world to deal with. Things appear to be moving in the right direction though, a little patience is well deserved.