Any Reason users out there?

[Bassballjg]

Bassballjg wrote: I have no intention of starting a flame war.I am not saying that Sonar(or Cubase,Logic,etc)is better or worse than Tracktion;folks should use the tools that work for them,and let's just focus on the music,not the tools.However,I must say that we are kind of in the same boat in the sense that I find Tracktion to be the most incomprehensible thing I have ever seen in my life,period.And I don't just mean music software.I simply don't get it.I tried the demo,and could not figure out step one,how to record or import and play back a piece of audio.Is it possible that in trying to create a "new paradigm",Tracktion has gone so far from established ways of laying out the studio that it is in fact less and not more intuitive to some people who are grounded in the traditional studio?

I don't understand the problem you had with Tracktion but I take your point that it follows a different approach to that found in the studio.

I used to teach groups of students (age 12-17) using Cubase VST, which they mostly found difficult, particularly if they had never been in a studio environment. They particularly found it hard to visualise the links between the arange page, mixer, VST instruments, effects, MIDI mixer, wave editor, etc... Most of the sessions were spent explaining the technology, and little time actually making music.

I tried to teach the same course using Tracktion and found that students (so far) have all taken to it like fish to water ... all the questions I get asked in the sessions now relate to the music itself (how can I change this sound?... etc) instead of questions about where the synth has vanished to and why the programme has frozen.

But in spite of my enthusiasm for Tracktion I still have respect for programmes like Cubase, Sonar, Logic, etc, which have transformed music making for so many, and which are still a natural choice for musicians who have grown up in hardward based recording studio environment.

Good answer,very interesting.I guess that's kind of my point,that people have their own way of seeing things and working through problems.But let me focus in a little more precisely.Since I believe that it is the alienness of Tracktion that makes it thusfar impossible for me to grasp,what is it that makes it easier to understand for the ignorant(I use that word in the narrowest most literal and nonperjorative sense)?

I was 17 when I did my first studio date with my band at that time,and of course,I didn't understand at first.But I did catch on.I read,I talked to people,I watched during sessions.I see no reason why anyone would find a conventional studio any more confusing,as I said, than their stereo or live instrument or sr rig.

The hard part for me in switching to software was learning how to use a pc at all.I only got a computer last year to run music software.I got the idea of menus from working with synths and samplers,but just using a mouse was a struggle.Then I had to learn how the interface and menus were set up to do the recording stuff I already knew.Kind of the opposite of your teen Tracktioneers.

But the assumption underlying Tracktion,according to its marketing and the statements of some of its advocates is that the so-called "old paradigm" is innately confusing and obsolete,and the Tracktion way of doing things is innately intuitive and progressive.I am saying simply that it is merely different,not better or worse,works for some and not for others.I too once asked the question "how do you change the sound?".The answer was,"use the eq",or "patch something on an insert",Or "hook a box up to the aux send".And lots of trial and error.What's so hard about that?

So,what I'm trying to get at here is that since we should all be tolerant of each other's working methods at least(which your post certainly is,headquest),and learning from them ideally,I want to understand the mental world of someone who gets Tracktion but doesn't understand the traditional studio.My excuse is the shock of the new,so to speak.But I fail to see why the Tracktion paradigm should be considered,or actually is in some cases, easier to grasp for the novice than the traditional.

I am,of course,aware of the possibility that I am a blockhead.(However unlikely that might be )

[default]

I own tracktion, the others I have used as down loads , my problem with tracktion is simple, were is the f*cking manual?......I like the parts of the program that I can figure out how to use ! it's great! and cheep! I am having some trouble understanding the proceedures for getting things to happen.

FL studio is cool I hate the interface. my problem
I am looking for a stable system that will allow me to do the things that I want to on a P.C.
the time and energy that I have put into reason has yeilded amazing result well beyond the genre driven catgories, and m willing to put in the tme and energy into a stable ,reliable program. reason has shown me that this is a reasonable expectation from a software enviornment.
cost is not the issue , it's finding an interface that I like to work with ,
now if the props would get around to vsti's ,audio and midi ,....I'd use there program in a minute based on my experience with the code they write!

[headquest]

But the assumption underlying Tracktion,according to its marketing and the statements of some of its advocates is that the so-called "old paradigm" is innately confusing and obsolete,and the Tracktion way of doing things is innately intuitive and progressive.I am saying simply that it is merely different,not better or worse,works for some and not for others.I too once asked the question "how do you change the sound?".The answer was,"use the eq",or "patch something on an insert",Or "hook a box up to the aux send".And lots of trial and error.What's so hard about that?

So,what I'm trying to get at here is that since we should all be tolerant of each other's working methods at least(which your post certainly is,headquest),and learning from them ideally,I want to understand the mental world of someone who gets Tracktion but doesn't understand the traditional studio.My excuse is the shock of the new,so to speak.But I fail to see why the Tracktion paradigm should be considered,or actually is in some cases, easier to grasp for the novice than the traditional.

I am,of course,aware of the possibility that I am a blockhead.(However unlikely that might be )

I think the answer is that its easier to work with what you can actually SEE at any time.

As a 17 year old learning in a studio, you could pick up and look at the bits of gear you used, plug them all in and patch them together. You could work out what eack box of tricks actually did to the sound, and ask for help whenever you needed it.

I like Reason 2.5 as a teacher (and as a muso, mind ) for precisely this. You can look at each component, swivel round to see what cable goes where, and listen to the outcome! With a good set of preloaded patches and samples, you're up and running in no time and it's fairly easy to explain what is going on!

With Tracktion the same applies, because you get to see everything in one window. The so-called "linear" approach is visually clear to beginners (and why make things more complicated later if you dont need to!). Simply put, you drag your audio or MIDI input to the left of a track, hit record and go. Your track appears horizontally (as in any sequencer). Then to the right of each track you drag and drop your "filters" (i.e. insert effects, vst synths, samplers, rewire devices, etc). The volume fader, pan, mute and solo switches are all there too. At the bottom of that right hand column (like the total on a spreadsheet) you have the master fader and transport controls.

This might not resemble a hardware studio environment, but it isn't a world away from other types of software application (e.g. desktop publishing, spreadsheets, design software, web pages, etc). So kids who (unlike you and me) have grown up in the computer age feel right at home with the look and feel of Tracktion, and I think this is why they take to it quickly and get on with making music. It's a good thing, because they also learn loads about music production which they can later apply in other software should they choose to (but with its pro functions there's no immediate need unless they catch the bug!).

As for calling this a "new paradigm" I have no idea what one of them is! But perhaps the marketing guys get a little carried away sometimes!

Don't let this put you off having another look though...

[headquest]

I own tracktion, the others I have used as down loads , my problem with tracktion is simple, were is the f*cking manual?......I like the parts of the program that I can figure out how to use ! it's great! and cheep! I am having some trouble understanding the proceedures for getting things to happen.

FL studio is cool I hate the interface. my problem
I am looking for a stable system that will allow me to do the things that I want to on a P.C.
the time and energy that I have put into reason has yeilded amazing result well beyond the genre driven catgories, and m willing to put in the tme and energy into a stable ,reliable program. reason has shown me that this is a reasonable expectation from a software enviornment.
cost is not the issue , it's finding an interface that I like to work with ,
now if the props would get around to vsti's ,audio and midi ,....I'd use there program in a minute based on my experience with the code they write!

For the Tracktion manual simply hit the F12 key. The Getting Started guide appears in full technicolor, but more detailed manual entreis can be accessed from the left margin.

Keep exploring Tracktion because it probably offers all you needs, and works excellently as a Rewire host with Reason 2.5 The two programmes complement each other brilliantly - probably because they are SO different. Between them you get everything.

I run Tracktion on 7 computers (I am a teacher!) and it hasn't yet crashed a single time on any of them. For stability I have not come accross ANY other software (music or other) that can equal that track record!!

[default]

thanks headquest ,

again, I really like the program. the part that I can understand and like the idea of supporting the minor league players, that are as good as the majors.