Are you pissed off at Reason?

[V0RT3X]

*edit*

[PB2000]

The pay what you want thing, for me, was a way to support the next generation move aimed to be a win win situation, and how dare people claming to be "all for Reason cause" paid a freacking $1 for this is beyond me, but it end up to be an invitation to partecipate in the Reason new Saga. The RE was supposed to be a way to get third party VST into the reason system. But now the PH have found the way to sell their own rack module to the reason users rather than being part of a natural upgrade.
But wait! There is the catch! You paid only a Dollar for going to 6! Well dear long term user.... Just to show you what a dollar can buy, now you will pay $170 for a so called Piano and an effect. But wait! Your next upgrade fee may only get you what we were supposed to give you long ago and if you need more synths and effects from us you are welcome to shop at the RE section.

LS,
I'm really trying to understand your point but it just isn't there. You're wanting to promote a rationale as fact and it's just an opinion jaded by a conspiracy theory. In your mind, Re's were supposed to be only VST technology transferred to Reason? Re's and Re technology not only allows developers to utilize what they may already have but, wait for it....., create something that is new that they don't have or couldn't have in VST world. I know, I know all of you VST guys keep saying everything that what Reason does can be done somehow, in some manner but using VST's for those features will not be comparable in ease of use. To each their own, however.

And somehow, selling their own development for money is frowned upon even though you only paid little to nothing for that upgrade. Your rationale is just simply unsound. I get it that you have been conditioned for years of new devices in Reason in every upgrade but you were never given a choice of what it is that you wanted to pay for. You either paid the full upgrade price or you didn't upgrade. Now, you have a choice. You can still upgrade but you don't have to pay for what you won't use. If you THINK you'll use the device, you buy it. That is no different in VST world.

And where is it written that they owe you anything? I do believe I may be starting to see your point. Money. You're angry because it costs you money to buy a product. Tell you what, send me your next receipt of any non-free VST that has marketing angles wrapped into the free giveaway. Let me know how you acquired that VST without paying money.

Is the upgrade path and options new to Reason 6, yes. Is the availability of options on what you pay for a considerable upgrade to past practices, HELL YES!
I don't care to pay for things I won't use and that goes for everything in life, not just recording software. Yes, being a Reason user will cost more money for me than it did before but that is only logical as it offers a lot more than it did before. And if I don't want it to be more, it doesn't have to because I DECIDE what I'm purchasing, not what they tell me what I have to pay for.

You speak as if purchasing Radical Piano and Polar are requirements to upgrade. I'm on the latest release and have yet to purchase either one. So I went from 6 to 6.5.1 for $0 AND they threw in Pulsar and the Saturation Knob for free! That is what you can expect. Low to no upgrade cost if significant changes aren't made to other aspects. What constitutes significant is up to you.

The only attribute of Re's that even remotely makes sense to be angry about is the purchase of a non-transferable software product. I'm on board with that argument.

[headquest]

So you use a version of Reason that you are happy with but complain about an option in an upgrade you in principle do not need to buy? That doesn't make sense.

Sorry, I didn't include the whole picture, hence your confusion. The missing info here is that I also bought "Record for Reason Users" which I now really regret. I was attracted to the new benefits it bought, but only later found out the disadvantages of Record, realising too late that the negative factors far outweighed the positive ones.

Specifically:
+ the massively increased CPU hit, which has now transferred to Reason 6
+ the three window paradigm broke hardware emulation (I used it before in education, and it was a great way to teach hardware studio concepts... less so now, as other educationalists will agree)
+ the three window paradigm broke ease of use and added clutter, including the need for additional rack devices and routing
+ copy protection became and remains far more confusing and erratic
+ the poor dongle drivers caused BSOD crashes on my computer hardware

To be balanced about this, Record brought some significant and brilliant advantages.

...BUT the disadvantages, for me at least, significantly outweighed the advantages and in particular the more complex workflow stopped Record from being the fun that Reason had been.

To make it worse, I can't now sell Record because:
+ it's a dead/discontinued product
+ it was a "Record for Reason" package and I still want Reason 5
+ It offers no upgrade path to Reason 6 (the upgrade to Reason 6 is now the same for those who bought Record as for those who didn't).

So it was a waste of money which I really regret.

But then again I remember another of your complaints being just as wierd, namely that you do not like the implementation of audio tracks either because they represent "u-turns" in the policy of PE.

The implementation of audio tracks is something I welcomed at the time, until I realised all the annoyances that were introduced as a result. But in principal I am in favour of Reason having audio tracks.

I think the point you are "remembering" is that I have said adding audio tracks represented a change of direction for the programme, which has made it less useful to me. And secondly, it has seemed from then on that PH aren't themselves sure about what direction they are taking - the "Record" saga illustrates that perfectly well. In the past it was impossible to predict what amazing device PH would add in the next version of Reason. These days it is impossible to predict which product they will suddenly jetison or which of their previous claims over the years they will double-back on. Obviously companies need to change - I understand that excellent point that many have made - but having changed their vision for Reason beyond recognition in the last couple of years, there's bound to be a few old-timers like me who are left behind and not coming forward with them now.

I hope that makes more sense. Peace.

[headquest]

The mixer alone in Record set in-the-box mixing to a new level with ingenuity and ease of use. A mixer so complete in features and graphical intuitiveness yet fully available with little to no hassle depending on your setup.

I disagree with this bit though...

The Record mixer is very lacking compared to the mixers in most of the major software DAW programmes. In particular, the lack of mixer busses/groups for submixing is something that has frustrated a lot of users, and was a cause of contention with PH right back when we were beta testing Record. The SSL it is modelled on does have busses, and there is no obvious reason that PH decided to simply leave that out.

Also in terms of ease of use, I have found it the hardest software mixer to navigate, with some very fiddly graphics and a lot of scrolling. The fact that mixer strips can't be independently resized is another problem.

And as has been mentioned, delay compensation is an absolute must for mixing in the box. And Reason, alone among major software, has apparently overlooked this until it was recently drawn to their attention by forum users.

The core problem is that PH stuck with a paradigm of wanting to reproduce on a 15" laptop screen huge studio equipment, rather than designing a UI that is more appropriate for "in-the-box", with the ergonomics and flexibility that software alone brings.

There's some great things going on in the Record / Reason 6 mixer, especially that wonderful bus compressor which I love, but it certainly didn't take mixing in the box to a new level. I would say, on the contrary, that mixing in Reason still lags behind many others, such as pro Tools, Sonar X1, Logic, Cubase, etc.

[Dogboy73]

Christ there's a lot of bullshit in this thread!! Okay, enough with the call and response, going around in circles bollocks! Some of us think RE's are great, other not so (to put it mildly!).

So, let's all chill, have a cup of tea and answer the big question - if RE's are not a success is this the end for Reason? And if not where does it go from here?!

My two bobs worth - I really like where Proellerheads are going with Rack Extensions, I'm an avid Reason user and I really like to see RE's become a big success.

[IncarnateX]

http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?topic=1034.0

....
You were raking PH over the coal's for changing directions and supporting audio and plugins when you were claiming that they said they wouldn't.

NOW you are promoting a post from a Dev that admits he will change direction of the industry warrants it.

I guess you are agreeing with the Dev that VST/AU's are difficult to keep running on the many different Hosts and that Developers are free to change their minds based on the direction of the industry?

Dear Myrna
I will like to add a question to this that might seem a little off topic to you:

Your hair color.....is it blonde?

[PB2000]

I disagree with this bit though...

The Record mixer is very lacking compared to the mixers in most of the major software DAW programmes. In particular, the lack of mixer busses/groups for submixing is something that has frustrated a lot of users, and was a cause of contention with PH right back when we were beta testing Record. The SSL it is modelled on does have busses, and there is no obvious reason that PH decided to simply leave that out.

Also in terms of ease of use, I have found it the hardest software mixer to navigate, with some very fiddly graphics and a lot of scrolling. The fact that mixer strips can't be independently resized is another problem.

And as has been mentioned, delay compensation is an absolute must for mixing in the box. And Reason, alone among major software, has apparently overlooked this until it was recently drawn to their attention by forum users.

The core problem is that PH stuck with a paradigm of wanting to reproduce on a 15" laptop screen huge studio equipment, rather than designing a UI that is more appropriate for "in-the-box", with the ergonomics and flexibility that software alone brings.

There's some great things going on in the Record / Reason 6 mixer, especially that wonderful bus compressor which I love, but it certainly didn't take mixing in the box to a new level. I would say, on the contrary, that mixing in Reason still lags behind many others, such as pro Tools, Sonar X1, Logic, Cubase, etc.

HQ,

Fair enough. Did you have any analog mixer experiences in the past? If so, I can't comprehend how it would be so difficult as it is a near duplication in use minus mouse usage. So, for me, as I've had more than a decade on analog boards, the mixer was a Godsend in the digital world and to this day, no other product has the intuitiveness of that mixer....if you know mixers. As for the utilizing a laptop for it, I can't even imagine. I use it with two 27" monitors in portrait mode with the entire mix channel readily available for 20+ channels at all time on a dedicated combo screen. I use another 27" screen for the rack and sequencer with only having to hit F6 and F7. In that regard, there isn't any program that has that ease of use in the mixing world. The entire mixer is available every second without having to do anything but manipulate buttons and dials and with the Nektar Panarama, the mouse usage in the mixer will decrease by ~95%.

As for features and PDC, yeah, it's not perfect and no DAW is. I personally haven't had any PDC issues over the 12 years I've used the program. I know it exists, I've just never had it but I record a specific genre that may not introduce it because I don't use the devices in a manner that would introduce it.

Now, as much as I appreciate what Reason does, I did like Cubase and am really impressed with Studio One v.2 BUT, to me, what makes Reason so approachable and easy to use simply can't be simulated in the VST world. Too much time and 3x the menu and mouse usage to do a similar task. Maybe my setup makes it much more usable or less frustrating, I don't know but on the same system, VST world is much more time consuming having to click, click, click, click, click.

[headquest]

PB2000: thanks for those points - excellent post

My only experience with hardware mixers is with digital ones, generally with a PT software front end. A perfect marriage in a studio context. But I can see from your background (and given your drool-worthy monitor set up!!) that the Record/Reason 6 mixer would be much better suited to your needs and experience.

For me, the transition away from that began several years ago, with Tracktion (which didn't have a mixer at all!!) and then via a number of software programmes that I have tried, or needed to use in different contexts.

I wouldn't say I have found a perfect mixing environment, but I do respect those developers who try to adapt to the different possibilities that software offers, as well as to those like Digidesign, whose original Pro Tools hardware/software integration was a brilliant move at the time.

It's not just the mixer paradigm itself, but effects too. For example, I like more visual feedback in the software context, because stuff like spectrum analysis embedded in an EQ effect is (for me) a time saver. Obviously not a substitute to using my ears (as required using the EQ controls in the Reason mixer for example) but simply as an added benefit. Sometimes I have found frequency boosts outside the recognised audible range which I have then removed using a LP filter, for example... and the end result is audibly better even though I wouldn't have got to it using just my ears.

You are clearly a far more experienced mixer, and I'm sure you don't need such tools or tricks! Coming from that analogue mix background I can understand why the Reason mixer is to you something of a dream come true

[headquest]

By the way, always liked the 14:2 Remix in the Rack... great simplicity, loved being able to flip it to show students how to wire up a basic hardware mixer, etc. In fact I even enjoyed the EQ in it!

If they would have updated that, added the master bus compressor, etc... I think that would have kept the great Reason workflow intact, and probably I would be totally still on board.

[headquest]

So, let's all chill, have a cup of tea and answer the big question - if RE's are not a success is this the end for Reason? And if not where does it go from here?!

I'm sure Re will be a success, so this is a moot question.

From Propellerhead's point of view, they now make a cut on every Re sold, with minimal ongoing effort. So it's a winner for them. From developers points of view, some Re products will no doubt succeed more than others.

From the users' point of view though, there are two questions concerning the mid-term:

1. The Re shop lends itself to impulse purchases, and I suspect what somebody earlier called "Re Syndrome" will be common. Uers may end up with a bunch of Re devices they paid for but don't use, and can't sell (either because of the NFR policy or because the market may not sustain second-hand sales). Looking back on their investment two years from now, it will be interesting to see the customer response.

2. Re v.1 doesn't provide a platform suited to many of the VST ports users are keen to see, for example high end instruments like Alchemy/etc. Reason 7 might introduce Re v.2 with more options for developers, but at that point all the Re v.1 products already look old (but can't be sold). How will users respond to this, and for how long will they keep paying out for new stuff?

After some initial success for PH, I suspect we may very possibly see a serious backlash from users, perhaps in a year or two. At that point, let's put the kettle on and pull up a chair for another cup of tea and a chat. It will certainly be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

[myrna]

the main problem with REs is this: they become USELESS if you decide to give up with reason. In all these years i've changed platforms, daws and software, but the vsts i bought year by year always follow me. And it's lot of money. That is why a musician needs a standard format (like it was MIDI in the past with hardware gear). Unity is positive. REs etc. can be good for marketing or fanboys, not for dynamic musicians IMHO.

[saturdaysaint]

the main problem with REs is this: they become USELESS if you decide to give up with reason. In all these years i've changed platforms, daws and software, but the vsts i bought year by year always follow me. And it's lot of money. That is why a musician needs a standard format (like it was MIDI in the past with hardware gear). Unity is positive. REs etc. can be good for marketing or fanboys, not for dynamic musicians IMHO.

You really need to get your story straight - you've claimed that Propellerhead are so technically incompetent that they couldn't even implement a standard and that they're thieving bastards to boot. Why would you care about lock-in if you have no trust in the company's competence or character in the first place? Comical. *crosses arms, waits for prissy emoticon-fest*

[trimph1]

the main problem with REs is this: they become USELESS if you decide to give up with reason. In all these years i've changed platforms, daws and software, but the vsts i bought year by year always follow me. And it's lot of money. That is why a musician needs a standard format (like it was MIDI in the past with hardware gear). Unity is positive. REs etc. can be good for marketing or fanboys, not for dynamic musicians IMHO.

So do Sonar's PC extensions, and AAX from Cubase, and....

This constant whining of yours is really getting tiresome....

[myrna]

the main problem with REs is this: they become USELESS if you decide to give up with reason. In all these years i've changed platforms, daws and software, but the vsts i bought year by year always follow me. And it's lot of money. That is why a musician needs a standard format (like it was MIDI in the past with hardware gear). Unity is positive. REs etc. can be good for marketing or fanboys, not for dynamic musicians IMHO.

So do Sonar's PC extensions, and AAX from Cubase, and....

This constant whining of yours is really getting tiresome....

pc what? aax what?!

[Trakstar]

the main problem with REs is this: they become USELESS if you decide to give up with reason. In all these years i've changed platforms, daws and software, but the vsts i bought year by year always follow me. And it's lot of money. That is why a musician needs a standard format (like it was MIDI in the past with hardware gear). Unity is positive. REs etc. can be good for marketing or fanboys, not for dynamic musicians IMHO.