Reason 13 Announced- Sequencer updated!

[Jac459]

Blamesoft

This misspelling is pure gold!

[Jac459]

I have a hard time to understand why they don't provide a free empty rack extension host.

If you buy Reason, it comes with an additional 'free' empty rack extension host. That is exactly what the RRP is: an empty rack extension host

Sorry, couldn't resist that one

Now for the actual 'free' part: The RRP is not really a stand-alone VST-plugin, it runs on top of the full DAW. It is basically just a front-end for the rack-part of the DAW. To develop that into a real stand-alone product would be very costly. And then giving it away for free means that RE-sales would not only have to pay for the development of the REs, but also for the development of this 'free' empty host. My guess is that the economics just aren't there. Besides all that, my estimate is that they have a VERY small development team, probably less than 10 devs. So they also just don't have the personnel resources.

Mmm I don't think you are right here.
If I understood well what you mean you are implying that they are loading the full daw behing the RRP. It is simply not the case. The RRP is a standalone product, a different executable distinct from the daw.
Creating one that suppress access to more RE doesn't seems to be difficult at all.

[kmonkey]

I am finding Viking-2 head and shoulders above the majority of instrument offerings in the RE shop. Much of it (apart from Synapse, EKSS, and ReasonStudios) is like a joke.

In fact Blamsoft and EKSS are the reason I never sold the Reason account (to which I invested more than 3000EUR).

[crimsonwarlock]

With a 3-screen setup, the workflow becomes incredible, as selecting a lane in the sequencer will move the corresponding mixer channel and rack devices into view on the other two screens

It's actually the same with a single screen (minus the need to keep turning your head ).

I know. But on a single screen, you don't have the same screen real estate of three screens. Take a look at the picture of my studio and see what's visible at once, and that's Reason running at 140% zoom level.

[crimsonwarlock]

Mmm I don't think you are right here.

If you think that, just copy the RRP VST-plugin, uninstall all of Reason, copy the RRP VST back in its place and see if it will run

The RRP is a standalone product, a different executable distinct from the daw.

You really think that all the stock (non RE) devices are actually embedded into the RRP VST-plugin? The VST-plugin is just over 32 Mb (for the R12 version), and the whole RRP installed folder is 44 Mb, but according to you, that contains ALL Reason's stock devices, all its cabling logic, and the Rack Extension hosting.

[Crossinger]

The VST-plugin is just over 32 Mb (for the R12 version), and the whole RRP installed folder is 44 Mb,

I assume that they heavily optimized the RRP for v12. Meaning: modularisation of the functionality. IIRC in the first incarnation of v11 RRP's were more or less the same size as the core DAW program (~400MB on a Mac).

[crimsonwarlock]

I assume that they heavily optimized the RRP for v12. Meaning: modularisation of the functionality. IIRC in the first incarnation of v11 RRP's were more or less the same size as the core DAW program (~400MB on a Mac).

That is a 90% reduction in size. You can't 'optimize' away 90% of a program that includes all the devices They probably had a lot of redundant code in there, that they could remove while optimizing the DAW-connection.

No matter which way you look at it, you can't fit all the Reason stock devices in a 44 Mb application. Reaper is a case in point, as it has a very small installation footprint, mainly because it doesn't include any serious virtual instruments, and most of its FX are basically external scripts running in an interpreter inside the DAW (meaning, not part of the executable).

In addition to that, having the RRP use the underlying DAW for at least the stock devices, makes perfect sense from a development perspective, as it largely minimizes the amount of code that must be maintained and updated (whenever Apple brings out a new computer ).

My challenge still stands: Uninstall the Reason DAW and see if the RRP still runs in another DAW.

[Jac459]

I assume that they heavily optimized the RRP for v12. Meaning: modularisation of the functionality. IIRC in the first incarnation of v11 RRP's were more or less the same size as the core DAW program (~400MB on a Mac).

That is a 90% reduction in size. You can't 'optimize' away 90% of a program that includes all the devices They probably had a lot of redundant code in there, that they could remove while optimizing the DAW-connection.

No matter which way you look at it, you can't fit all the Reason stock devices in a 44 Mb application. Reaper is a case in point, as it has a very small installation footprint, mainly because it doesn't include any serious virtual instruments, and most of its FX are basically external scripts running in an interpreter inside the DAW (meaning, not part of the executable).

In addition to that, having the RRP use the underlying DAW for at least the stock devices, makes perfect sense from a development perspective, as it largely minimizes the amount of code that must be maintained and updated (whenever Apple brings out a new computer ).

My challenge still stands: Uninstall the Reason DAW and see if the RRP still runs in another DAW.

No no but you can't prove it this way.

Reason runs with an executable (EXE) and attached libraries (DLLs). (That is for windows but equivalent concept is true for Mac).

What I am saying is that the RRP ISN'T using the same exe and all the same DLLs than the DAW.
But
Obviously it is using SOME of the same DLLs as the DAW....

[crimsonwarlock]

What I am saying is that the RRP ISN'T using the same exe and all the same DLLs than the DAW.

I didn't say the RRP is using the Reason DAW exe (which is also just 44 Mb btw), I said the RRP is using parts of the actual DAW. I thought it obvious that this is regardless of how these parts are implemented.

But
Obviously it is using SOME of the same DLLs as the DAW....

Yep, you just made my point

[Jac459]

What I am saying is that the RRP ISN'T using the same exe and all the same DLLs than the DAW.

I didn't say the RRP is using the Reason DAW exe (which is also just 44 Mb btw), I said the RRP is using parts of the actual DAW. I thought it obvious that this is regardless of how these parts are implemented.

But
Obviously it is using SOME of the same DLLs as the DAW....

Yep, you just made my point

Well the discussion started because maybe I misunderstood this from you: “Now for the actual 'free' part: The RRP is not really a stand-alone VST-plugin, it runs on top of the full DAW. It is basically just a front-end for the rack-part of the DAW."

Reading this I thought you were not aware of how a program like reason is actually modular.

But if you are clear then we agree since the beginning .

But then, I don't see how it can be complex to bundle the rack part configured to be standalone without bundled rack extensions.

If their code is more or less well organized (which I am sure it is), we are talking about a recompile with little to no refactoring.

And NO double maintenance.

[jens]

With a 3-screen setup, the workflow becomes incredible, as selecting a lane in the sequencer will move the corresponding mixer channel and rack devices into view on the other two screens

It's actually the same with a single screen (minus the need to keep turning your head ).

I know. But on a single screen, you don't have the same screen real estate of three screens.

Well, I of course meant switching between the three maximized windows, so it's the same screen-estate, just not at the same time.
But personally I never need to see the arrangement when I'm mixing and I don't need to see the rack while I'm arranging and so forth. So prefer to quickly switch windows to having to turn my head to another screen (which also means my eyes have to keep readjusting themselves to a different screen) - but that's just me.
Neither way of working is objectively better than the other of course.

[crimsonwarlock]

Well, I of course meant switching between the three maximized windows, so it's the same screen-estate, just not at the same time.

This means that, for example, when you have the sequencer window maximized, after hitting a sequencer track you still have to switch to either the rack or the mixer window, to see the related devices or mixer channels. With three separate screens, everything moves to the right place visibly.

But personally I never need to see the arrangement when I'm mixing and I don't need to see the rack while I'm arranging and so forth.

When I'm mixing, I mainly work from the mixer, but I want to see the rack for each channel that I'm working on. At the same time, I have the sequencer/tracks window open to quickly navigate the project's timeline. This makes for a very fast workflow, especially with the addition of a tablet running TouchPortal (also visible in my picture) with a dedicated Reason template.

Neither way of working is objectively better than the other of course.

I disagree. With my current setup, I couldn't go back to a single screen workflow. But you have to experience it to know what it means. Most people that went to run Reason on a three screen setup, will tell you the same.

[aMUSEd]

I miss the inline MIDI editor. I guess the expanded version is better for power MIDI tweakers but I don't do that much MIDI editing and never create music with the piano roll, so prefer to edit the MIDI where I can see it in the context of the tracks. Don't see why they couldn't have kept that and had a separate editor for people who need it.

[jens]

This means that, for example, when you have the sequencer window maximized, after hitting a sequencer track you still have to switch to either the rack or the mixer window, to see the related devices or mixer channels.´

Yes, just as you have to switch your head and your eyes to a different monitor that is physically different and sits in a physically different place. All I have to do is to hit a shortcut.
And I already said which I prefer. And my way of doing it is certainly faster beecause I promise you that my fingers move a whole lot quicker than your neck.

When I'm mixing, I mainly work from the mixer, but I want to see the rack for each channel that I'm working on.

hooray, more neck-movement - in case I needed that, I would just swiftly press the same shortcut again and look, there it is - the rack in all its glory - and guess what - I was faster again.

Neither way of working is objectively better than the other of course.

I disagree. With my current setup, I couldn't go back to a single screen workflow.

Yes, of course you would say that as first of all you spent good money on your redundant additonal screens - plus, of course, they physically clutter up your workspace

But you have to experience it to know what it means. Most people that went to run Reason on a three screen setup, will tell you the same.

Lol... the sheer condescension - how do you know I never worked with multiple screens, son?

[crimsonwarlock]

I disagree. With my current setup, I couldn't go back to a single screen workflow.

Yes, of course you would say that as first of all you spent good money on your redundant additonal screens - plus, of course, they physically clutter up your workspace

Gaslighting much? It's rather impressive how people like you think they can demand how other people should perceive their reality

...son?

Who's condescending here? I'm definitely not your son, and I'll bet I'm quite a bit older than you

But as you clearly want to turn this into some pissing contest, I'm sorry, but I won't play. Have a nice day.