Reason 10.3 public beta is open!

[sleep1979]

When does 10.3 proper drop ? Its for intro also right ?

[reddust]

When does 10.3 proper drop ? Its for intro also right ?

"We are planning to release Reason 10.3 in April as a free auto-update to Reason 10"

https://www.propellerheads.com/blog/rea ... ow-in-beta

...but when in April we still don't know, I hope soon

[Gulale]

It seems like You want to know what my workflow is. I use the eight sends for parallel processing. The drum at least will have 2 to three of them. The bass will have just like that. The key, Guitar ,Vox, Just like that. Before I even dream of adding Delay with different time for Verse and Chorus plus Reverb. That 8 send is long dead.

Just let me give you a simple example to experiment, Put a Compressor of your choice on one of the eight slot of the send for parallel compression. lets say Distressor lets assume you are using two different one with different time setting attack and release. You can send your desired level of signal using that way into the compressor leaving the crush the the hi hat cymbols alone you can send your desired level to that compressor without any hustle. Now you can automate any send with a push of a button. On your desired place.

Now if I want to use Reason Parallel compression workflow it will become a mess.

Out of professional curiosity: any reason why you're not using parallel channels for parallel processing? You can even create a bus and create a parallel channel to that bus if you want to parallel process a group of tracks.

The Reason way is extremely annoying, Mattias. I have stated in my first post that every single drum kit will share the same compressor with no fuss. Now if I use your way, I will have to EQ Compress everything individually. Just go and gate your drum EQ, compress and right click and create parallel compression. You will see that none of the changes you have made will not apply to the parallel compressor you have created. It brings the whole untouched signal. Man the whole time that I spend making the drum sound clean and tight will go to waste. That goes to every single instrument. But my way is where Reason shines. It is not complicated either. You don't have to recreate your original track or tap it using a mix channel using a splitter even if you want to have your own parrallel that way and save the 8 sends. It's just there to play with it. All you have to do is insert your desired compressor and send whatever track you want for compression. Kick and snare can be shared with the same compressor and based on the taste immediately you can also check if the hihat works with a push of a button if you send it to the same compressor. I hope you know what I'm talking about. To do that if I use other DAWs it is easy as the click of a button. But in Reason it is only 8.

[selig]

The Reason way is extremely annoying…

Why are you trying to use Reason this way?
It’s not that it’s annoying, it’s that you’re using the wrong tool for the job, like trying to drive a nail with a pair of pliers - you can do it but it IS rather annoying.

It’s horses for courses IMO. Personally, making a great mix is difficult enough without the level of complexity you seek, but to each their own - there is no right way or wrong way. That said, you cannot “hyper-mix” on a console designed more to mix traditionally. FWIW, you could not mix on an analog console with this approach either.

Reason has far more sends than a traditional SSL mixer, used to mix countless hits. If that’s not for you, and you don’t enjoy being annoyed, maybe just mix using a different DAW?



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[esselfortium]

If you want your parallel channels to include the same effects, you can plug those effects directly into the instrument output (before the mixer) instead of using the dedicated inserts section in the mixer.

[seqoi]

Reason has far more sends than a traditional SSL mixer, used to mix countless hits. If that’s not for you, and you don’t enjoy being annoyed, maybe just mix using a different DAW?

This above 1++

[QVprod]

It seems like You want to know what my workflow is. I use the eight sends for parallel processing. The drum at least will have 2 to three of them. The bass will have just like that. The key, Guitar ,Vox, Just like that. Before I even dream of adding Delay with different time for Verse and Chorus plus Reverb. That 8 send is long dead.

Just let me give you a simple example to experiment, Put a Compressor of your choice on one of the eight slot of the send for parallel compression. lets say Distressor lets assume you are using two different one with different time setting attack and release. You can send your desired level of signal using that way into the compressor leaving the crush the the hi hat cymbols alone you can send your desired level to that compressor without any hustle. Now you can automate any send with a push of a button. On your desired place.

Now if I want to use Reason Parallel compression workflow it will become a mess.

You have a very unique workflow. I'm not so sure if parallel processing everything is beneficial, but if it works for you then cool. For me, parallel processing is more of an as needed thing, but agreed that if you want to process a bus and have control of the level of individual signals that go to that bus (like I'm assuming you'd want to for drums), using a send is the easiest way to do it. For everything else mentioned I think Reason's parallel tracks would work fine seeing as you still have control of input gain (which can automated) if you want to automate input into a compressor, but workflow right? Nonetheless, in Reason I still think 8 sends is enough for the more typical use of sends.

[CloudsOfSound]

Out of professional curiosity: any reason why you're not using parallel channels for parallel processing? You can even create a bus and create a parallel channel to that bus if you want to parallel process a group of tracks.

I have no professional mixing / mastering experience whatsoever and was kinda wondering the same thing.
Just finished a basic Reason Mixing course, and this is almost exactly the method that was demonstrated as an example of parallel processing...
Just saying. This sounds like criticism of something you don't even know how to use properly...

Doing something differently from what you do in Reaper or whatever doesn't make it a bad way of doing things.

Kinda like criticizing a car with manual transmission for not going past 30mph because you don't know how to switch gears...

[mcatalao]

Out of professional curiosity: any reason why you're not using parallel channels for parallel processing? You can even create a bus and create a parallel channel to that bus if you want to parallel process a group of tracks.

The Reason way is extremely annoying, Mattias. I have stated in my first post that every single drum kit will share the same compressor with no fuss. Now if I use your way, I will have to EQ Compress everything individually. Just go and gate your drum EQ, compress and right click and create parallel compression. You will see that none of the changes you have made will not apply to the parallel compressor you have created. It brings the whole untouched signal. Man the whole time that I spend making the drum sound clean and tight will go to waste. That goes to every single instrument. But my way is where Reason shines. It is not complicated either. You don't have to recreate your original track or tap it using a mix channel using a splitter even if you want to have your own parrallel that way and save the 8 sends. It's just there to play with it. All you have to do is insert your desired compressor and send whatever track you want for compression. Kick and snare can be shared with the same compressor and based on the taste immediately you can also check if the hihat works with a push of a button if you send it to the same compressor. I hope you know what I'm talking about. To do that if I use other DAWs it is easy as the click of a button. But in Reason it is only 8.

Man... I was watering my bougainvilleas and was thinking about this.

What you're missing here is you need to create your paralel over the bus. So various drums to bus drum (put your processor) then parallel the bus. But there's an issue this parallel is always pre fader and pre inserts because of the where the direct outs tap the mixer. But you can use a "writting" bus (bus of a bus) then create the parallel on this bus turning the parallel post fader in relation to the first grouping bus.

Then you can use the sends for what they were made...

But if you still need more than 8 sends you can create additional sends with the previous idea. If you need them to be post fader, route your tracks trough a writting bus like before. You'll need one parallel for each send, and route it to the send bus. Now this works and you've never left the ssl and reason did all the cabling for you.

It would be nice though that the ssl mixer allowed you to define the parallel tap before or after faders/inserts.

Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk

[CloudsOfSound]

I'm on thin ice here, but, isn't the pre/post fader problem what these options on the mixer channels are made to solve?
Insert Pre or Post fader? Like in ProTools and Logic?

[mcatalao]

I'm on thin ice here, but, isn't the pre/post fader problem what these options on the mixer channels are made to solve?
Insert Pre or Post fader? Like in ProTools and Logic?

Well, no because the parallel is always pre-out (if you look at the connections on the back it says Pre out at the side of the paralel outputs).

Think of the paralel like an audio splitter between the gain and the rest of the channel. Now there could be another way to do it (get the inserts). You could put a spider spliter in the inserts section after your inserts, but it would still be pre fader.

Anyway... I wouldn't use this for sends,it works, but its messy because the mixer will have a huge load of buses and parallels - maybe doable if you manage your mixer well, but without channel and track folders, it turns your project into a mess ... But for Gulale's difficulty of having a post inserts, post fader paralels, it works (just tested it). Just by adding a "write down" group. Either of these solutions would work if you were able to say that the paralel was post fader. Just creating a "paralels Post Fader" button in the mixer (wich Sends are already automatic).

Oh, on my previous answer i wanted to say paralel out instead direct out. Direct outs are different things. Meaning, they route somewhere outside the mixer, and don't to any group (not even to the main group). And at the side of the direct out in the mixer channel it says "breaks internal mixer routing". Pretty neat. The channel will route to stuff on the rack (or even to a direct output on your audiocard) be processed there and then you can bring it wherever you want! Some examples of usage, Imagine using your voice as a vocoder or fm FM carrier in a synth and never have it getting into the mixer again as sound.

Anyway, I'm trying to think of a real need for all this, when there's even an additional option (and probably the one i'd use in the first place) that is simply instead of using a parallel and have a huge processor hit with doubling plugins or such thing, just commit the processed track to audio (creating a stemmed parallel of the already processed track then unmuting the original if you used bounce to track) and apply the parallel effects on the generated track.

People just over complicate stuff that is simple...

[mon]

8 sends are usually enough for me but there were few cases when they were not. For example we could use the sends not only the most trivial way but also to route(share) a multichannel plugin to few of send/returns simultaneously, for example. If such plugin eat 3-4 of the sends and then we use 3 different reverbs, and want to share 2 delays... you get the idea.
Again, I like and use mainly Reason now but I see the good points in the other DAWs that I know well too. No need to attack every feature that we don’t have or is different in Reason. It is a great program but the way it’s doing the things is not the one and only valid way. Why hating the different? We could learn something from the other apps also. Cheers

[CloudsOfSound]

As a beginner Reason user, this goes a bit over my head, but wouldn't it be possible to just use the Mixer 14:2 Rack Devices to overcome this "limitation"?

I mean, they each have 4 stereo sends each and can be chained and combined in various creative ways.
If you then route these to the sends of the Master Mixer wouldn't this basically give you 4 extra sends for each of the 8 master send effects?

I'm just trying to learn, not educate in any way, so criticisms of my proposals are encouraged!

[mcatalao]

From my experience (and mind that i'm using the word my, because people mix differently and that's ok...) sends is a kind of paralel routing option for effects, that were used for 2 things. First on the context of live audio, they were used as aux sends, where the Back of stage engineer would create a sub mix of the original instruments for monitoring. In essence he would "remix" the audio as much times as musicians in the stage.

At the front desk and studios, sends are mostly used for time based effects (not for grouping and neither for parallel pre/post processing). And by time based effects, i mean reverbs, delays, echoes, shimmers, choruses and unisons.

But with all due respect, can you name a multi channel in and out effect, time based, that you't put in the context of a send? I'm just trying to be pragmatic as we already established the usage scenario talked back there is at least odd. In reality it would have to be a 6 or 8 in/out device because sends are stereo.

[mon]

I can’t understand how I could use the 8 knobs on the SSL to send to 12 different send busses.

[mon]

From my experience (and mind that i'm using the word my, because people mix differently and that's ok...) sends is a kind of paralel routing option for effects, that were used for 2 things. First on the context of live audio, they were used as aux sends, where the Back of stage engineer would create a sub mix of the original instruments for monitoring. In essence he would "remix" the audio as much times as musicians in the stage.

At the front desk and studios, sends are mostly used for time based effects (not for grouping and neither for parallel pre/post processing). And by time based effects, i mean reverbs, delays, echoes, shimmers, choruses and unisons.

But with all due respect, can you name a multi channel in and out effect, time based, that you't put in the context of a send? I'm just trying to be pragmatic as we already established the usage scenario talked back there is at least odd. In reality it would have to be a 6 or 8 in/out device because sends are stereo.

I did this with “optic” for quick comparison of tracks against each other but nothing stops me to experiment with other devices also. Every device with multiple inputs and outputs could be a possible candidate.

[mcatalao]

As a beginner Reason user, this goes a bit over my head, but wouldn't it be possible to just use the Mixer 14:2 Rack Devices to overcome this "limitation"?

I mean, they each have 4 stereo sends each and can be chained and combined in various creative ways.
If you then route these to the sends of the Master Mixer wouldn't this basically give you 4 extra sends for each of the 8 master send effects?

I'm just trying to learn, not educate in any way, so criticisms of my proposals are encouraged!

No... Send needs the send on the side of each track. That's the concept of the send. Send from track, to effect, return to master bus. You could do what you're saying without using the mix. but on the context of what mon is saying (well his example is feaseable in reason. Imagine a 4 band stereo reverb with side chaining. That would be 8 inserts for the whole thing) you have to level the send out at each track. If you don't need that distribution then you're better off with a grouped parallel, a group with a device that you can use wet/dry, and so on.

[mcatalao]

I did this with “optic” for quick comparison of tracks against each other but nothing stops me to experiment with other devices also. Every device with multiple inputs and outputs could be a possible candidate.

I'm sorry, you said:

8 sends are usually enough for me but there were few cases when they were not. For example (...)

So I'm confused. If this example was in those few cases, i would like to know what is the device.

I'm going to rest this as follows: If it's such a needed functionality (8+ sends) then propellerheads should implement it. But to my knowledge, they have been doing inquiries to the users, and that issue didn't arise to an amount that they consider it worth it (at least for now).

I have the opinion based on MY experience (mind the MY and opinion) that if someone is using more than 8 sends he is not using them right or the granularity of the sends is too much and could be done with groups and parallels, or even other types of routing.

It's just an opinion.

[mcatalao]

I can’t understand how I could use the 8 knobs on the SSL to send to 12 different send busses.

You can use the 8 knobs to send to 12 effects (or as many as you wish), but at some point you'd have to split the sends. If these effects are pairable, then everything is possible.

Interesting thing, you can transform 8 stereo sends in 16 mono. But again the pairs would have similar gains.

[mon]

The device that I was using was “OPTIC”. I use send mostly for reverbs and delays but please don’t try to tell me how I should use them. This is up to my needs. I studied and I am working as mixing engineer so I know how to use a mixer. I also like to experiment and be creative when I work on my music. I value your opinion but please consider that the others opinions also could have some value.

[CloudsOfSound]

As a beginner Reason user, this goes a bit over my head, but wouldn't it be possible to just use the Mixer 14:2 Rack Devices to overcome this "limitation"?

I mean, they each have 4 stereo sends each and can be chained and combined in various creative ways.
If you then route these to the sends of the Master Mixer wouldn't this basically give you 4 extra sends for each of the 8 master send effects?

I'm just trying to learn, not educate in any way, so criticisms of my proposals are encouraged!

No... Send needs the send on the side of each track. That's the concept of the send. Send from track, to effect, return to master bus. You could do what you're saying without using the mix. but on the context of what mon is saying (well his example is feaseable in reason. Imagine a 4 band stereo reverb with side chaining. That would be 8 inserts for the whole thing) you have to level the send out at each track. If you don't need that distribution then you're better off with a grouped parallel, a group with a device that you can use wet/dry, and so on.

Ok. As I said, I'm really not knowledgeable enough to fathom the need for such a scenario.

I just looked at how they've recorded and packaged the Reason Pianos ReFill, Reason Drum Kits and the likes, where they use internal mixers inside combinators to create send effects of varying degrees to the internal mixer channels, and then to the Master Output / Mix Track in the end.

I thought a similar setup could be used to instead route the final output to a track, maybe in a group bus, potentially adding a parallel channel for even more effects and control, then route the whole shebang to the Master Mixer after adding more effects if needed, and still have individual control over the sends internally in the mixer rack-devices and be able to adjust things in any way possible...

But. This is where I leave this discussion to the pros.
I doubt I'll experience any limitations with the possibilities that is present with grouping of tracks and using parallel channels + 8 send FXs anyway.

Somehow they've managed to create excellent productions using less than 8 send effects in real studios using SSL Consoles all around the world, so I guess it's good enough for me and my humble needs.

[mon]

Of course 8 send/returns are enough...
With today’s computers and the comfort of the plugins we could even do without sends at the cost of a little inconvenience and few more CPU cycles. My point was that we don’t need to attack the other DAWs decisions just to “prove” that Reason is the best. It’s great but it’s not the only one.

[Blast]

No... Send needs the send on the side of each track. That's the concept of the send. Send from track, to effect, return to master bus. You could do what you're saying without using the mix. but on the context of what mon is saying (well his example is feaseable in reason. Imagine a 4 band stereo reverb with side chaining. That would be 8 inserts for the whole thing) you have to level the send out at each track. If you don't need that distribution then you're better off with a grouped parallel, a group with a device that you can use wet/dry, and so on.

Ok. As I said, I'm really not knowledgeable enough to fathom the need for such a scenario.

I just looked at how they've recorded and packaged the Reason Pianos ReFill, Reason Drum Kits and the likes, where they use internal mixers inside combinators to create send effects of varying degrees to the internal mixer channels, and then to the Master Output / Mix Track in the end.

I thought a similar setup could be used to instead route the final output to a track, maybe in a group bus, potentially adding a parallel channel for even more effects and control, then route the whole shebang to the Master Mixer after adding more effects if needed, and still have individual control over the sends internally in the mixer rack-devices and be able to adjust things in any way possible...

But. This is where I leave this discussion to the pros.
I doubt I'll experience any limitations with the possibilities that is present with grouping of tracks and using parallel channels + 8 send FXs anyway.

Somehow they've managed to create excellent productions using less than 8 send effects in real studios using SSL Consoles all around the world, so I guess it's good enough for me and my humble needs.

Mix Engineer Andrew Schepps uses a lot of parallel processing (aux sends) in his mixes, and his mixes are BADASS. Attempting that style of mixing in Reason can get too cumbersome easily with only 8 sends, and or just using parallel channels, more so with no easy way to set up a template.I do understand the need for more aux sends(pre/post fader) on Reason's SSL channel which will make the work flow a lot easier for anyone who wants to persuit this style of mixing.

[Wobbleburger]

Well this post kinda went off the rails. I'm more curious to hear from the beta testers - what are your specs, what vst's have you tested? How's the update going for you?

[QVprod]

Well this post kinda went off the rails. I'm more curious to hear from the beta testers - what are your specs, what vst's have you tested? How's the update going for you?

Still in logging phase. we were asked not to share. Hence the thread being about everything else.