Reason sound doesn't sell is not true

[Flandersh]

DAWs sounds different. Perception is a qualitative experience and may not be mixed up with the technical descriptions of sound. Afterall, The science of sound is only a possible way to explain the reality of sound and it may be wrong. As such the experience of sound may be a better way to handle sound than science. If Reason does not sound as good as another DAW in ones ears, then it is a valid experience and may be used as a guide.

[goldenanalog]

Seriously: Reason sounds too digital whereas all the rest sound more analog.

Do I win a cookie?

[Davias]

I have to agree with the OP. Just load a sample in a Redrum or a Sampler with everything else disabled and hear the difference. of course all materials will not show same perceived differences (if any, I guess it depends of our brain also).

Then if like me you think you're crazy and this is BS, why would it sound different there is no reason (sorry for the pun). A/B test it and see that the sound is changed.

Now is it better or worse ? I'll let you judge but for me it was enough to never want to invest in Reason in the first place. I tried almost any daw around and only Reason gave me that bad feeling. Now it is sad because it was a fine piece of software and great ideas inside.

The fact is that in Reason I had to struggle to make it sound good, and any other daw was sounding good from the start (of course the sources had to be good too). And this not about mixing skills, because the muffled sound was there from the start. I tried a demo of Reason when it went 64 bits, and I instantly heard the same problem as before, so I had to admit that PH will never correct this problem coz it is inherent part of their sound engine that was so CPU efficient before (I heard it broke with RE but I never tried so I'm not sure).

So my experience here stops with Reason 6 I think. My friend who had Reason all along has now upgraded to the last version and never use it because of the same problem.

Now call me a PH hater or whatever but I have no hidden agenda, this is just my own experience and I'm stunned since years that no more people complain about this.

EDIT : I will even add something that shows even better my feeling about this. I used to be a Reason fanboy actually. So my perception was biased toward Reason at the time. I already told this story somewhere else on the forum but it is the perfect place. At the time (something like ten years before), I was with my friend using Reason and loving it (came from a DOS tracker, we were amazed by the gorgeous sound of Reason washed in FX and the lively synths comparing to dry pitched samples). Some day, just out of curiosity we tried FL Studio demo (Fruity Loops at the time), and at first glance were not impressed at all, ugly GUI, toyish feeling, the synths GUI were not appealing (we were young ). But as soon as we wrote a 4 bar beat with a stupid synthesized bassline (a saw and a filter) and it was sounding so full, so gorgeous comparing to our countless hours projects in Reason ^^

It took many more years for us to get rid of Reason but it came from that day. A true revelation. We couldn't believe it, and kept not believing it and kept using reason.

[chk071]

Nope, I tried Fruity loops and in Reason it doesn't sounds the same. I tried Reaper and the sound of the effects doesn't sound the same. Cubase doesn't sound like Reason either. Here WE GO AGAIN! Vivala Estonia!

What do you mean? Music made with the same instruments? Like, you record guitar, bass and drums into your DAW, and then playback them dry, with no effects used, and then you hear a difference?

[goldenanalog]

But if you were to apply double-blind listening tests under null-set conditions...

[budweiser]

Windows or Mac?

Lol. Best comment so far. Obviously if a same sample do not sound the same in reason and another daw, it probably do not sound the same in reason pc and reason mac.

[goldenanalog]

...even if Reason was (worse-case) just using 'proprietary' data compression algos and basic bare-a$$ summing code coupled w/stripped DSP (prolly opposite of Harrison mixbus thinking) the old paradigm is null and void starting with ver 6.5 - intro of third party studioware (PH's own vst format) - meaning that the compiling is quite a bit more complex, and subject to the whims (ears!) of external dev's...

[goldenanalog]

Just buy a new computer, that should fix yer Reason.

Next.

[filtafreq]

Every daw sounds the same, maybe it's just the workflow, gui, or stock plugins/samples that give you that "different sound".

Rubbish Cubase sound far superior

[goldenanalog]

Samplitude my fav.

[xalama qo]

Also, bear hugs are great. When not performed by a bear.

LOL!!!
Some fetishists may disagree.

[xalama qo]

...totally irrational I might add.

[IncarnateX]

But if you were to apply double-blind listening tests under null-set conditions...

Every time i search "nulltest and daws" I always end up with instructions to perform a null test or diversive user reports on different forums and not links to scientific articles. Are there none or am I just a bad searcher?

Personally I believe -and would really prefer- a DAW not to sound like anything without effects (and in principle it shouldn't from a mathematical point of view) but I do think it is a tiny bit unfair to the yes sayers just to refer to the nulltest as a way to suggest science has already confirmed the nay sayer's position and not link the evidence. So could someone plz link to some well conducted research and results on the matter?

[BMoore]

A DAW is a DAW, just like an EQ is an EQ.

[goldenanalog]

But if you were to apply double-blind listening tests under null-set conditions...

Every time i search "nulltest and daws" I always end up with instructions to perform a null test or diversive user reports on different forums and not links to scientific articles. Are there none or am I just a bad searcher?

Personally I believe -and would really prefer- a DAW not to sound like anything without effects (and in principle it shouldn't from a mathematical point of view) but I do think it is a tiny bit unfair to the yes sayers just to refer to the nulltest as a way to suggest science has already confirmed the nay sayer's position and not link the evidence. So could someone plz link to some well conducted research and results on the matter?

It may be as simple as there is plenty of industry weight against it; and that indeed there are audio mt softs that are mandated to sound a certain way. I used Harrison Mixbus as an example of a mixing soft that constantly (in it's current iteration, anyway) is running DSP to emulate their namesake's signature desk.

An actual set of double blind tests get quite specific and time-consuming as audio engineers chase down all of the parameters that need to be nulled in order to objectify the tests and create a valid data set - not trivial. Take that into account with the flood of audio software, computer considerations, a proper controlled environment to conduct such tests and the funding to support the work, it's no wonder that there is a lack of actual reporting 'out there

Then there was a famous case fought and won against Consumer Reports by Bose because of what CR had printed about their 901 speakers....

Regardless: excellent question, IncarnateX!