The bitter truth about all those discussions about what DAW is better

[Seckin]

You don't need any of those "superb" technical capabilities that some DAWs offer while others don't in order to make great sounding music.

Because, say, once you've written "Unchained Melody" you can't really go wrong with what device to route where, neither can you screw it just because you had Subtractor and not Massive. It will become a timeless hit no matter what.

Or say you're the guy who just wrote "We Will Rock You". Nope, there's no way the song will go unnoticed by millions because your DAW does not have a sampler with advanced scripting capabilities.

What I am saying is, whenever I see someone making a bitter statement about any DAW's capabilities, I say to myself "This person must not have any good material at his hand". This person cannot have been a good song writer nor can he be a mastering engineer who's just been given a superb song to work on. Otherwise we would be singing along to that song by now rather than listening to his complaints about how he can't make the song good enough because his tools are not on par with 1000x what the Beatles had. Like those people who take the time and effort to argue that Reason or any other DAW is not pro... I cannot convince myself to take their musicianship qualities seriously, unfortunately.

[Creativemind]

I agree with this and disagree with this at the same time.

You're talking about a decent song played on the guitar or piano and in that sense you're right. If you have all the live equipment to play it in, that can't really affect how it turns out. Everything is a real instrument. If that song is a decent song, it's a decent song.

The only thing left then, is getting the 'icing on the cake' production wise. It might be harder if you haven't got a decent recording studio with analogue gear or a decent mastering suite to use within your daw which you couldn't use in Reason as it isn't vst compatible and no mastering suites are available as Re's yet. Some of the great plug-ins that certain producers like or use are not there. You could get many Re's maybe (Flower Audio 4dyne, Cakewalk / Roland RE-2A Levelling Amp, Izotope O-Zone Maximizer etc) yeah and probably achieve a great finish but I certain plug-ins that do a specific thing may be missing. One I can think of is the full o-zone mastering suite, we just have the maximizer at present. Not that a great engineer couldn't probably get 'round this 'cause he has 20 years experience and could probably find ways to achieve his sound. A great workman doesn't blame his tools as they say.

As for dance music, some of the big layered sounds with unison voice spread make them phatter for clubs imo. The sounds on some vst's just sound amazing and big and other things that let down much more 'feature-less' daw's is ease of flow and time as you have to do things the long way instead of having a click and crack on method right at your fingertips.

5 examples in Reason that hinder my workflow are:-

1) No undo events list. So many times have I needed to undo something that I did say 20 events ago and don't want to undo all that I've done after. Having the ability to go to that particular event has annoyed me several times. It's usually something that I don't know how to fix manually or can't fix and has to be undone. No other way 'round it.

2) No 'Ganged Faders' on the main mixer. I've had tracks before where I've needed to make something louder in my mix and needed to turn the rest down and not that up (sometimes due to the fact that that sound is already as loud as it can get, the instrument / fader and gain knobs all the way up and for some reason is still quiet in my mix) and I had 10-15 tracks. You might not necessarily know how much you want to reduce the other tracks by, so it's tweak 9-14 faders by 1 or 2dB to realise you need to reduce further. Back to the start again. How long winded?

3) No 'Mute / Unmute' notes in the Midi Editor so when you're trying to put a bass piano part to an upper octave piano part together in the same clip (for a novice player like me) on a dance track. Sometimes it's just not working and I can't tell which part is out of time or wrong without being able to mute either part or certain notes within the clip. You resort to having to delete either part and then you can't undo it back if you've added notes. Argh!

4) Group Editing in Midi or Ghost Notes so when I'm trying to match a lead melody to bass line, you can see it visually as again, sometimes listening because they're complex melodies sometimes lets me down on occasion and I need to see where notes are hitting in the timeline of the song.

5) No vst or lack of an SDK update with sample loading etc so we don't have those big synths and effects like you get in VST world and also stops us getting a granular synth in Reason. Herad people say a granular synth is vital in dance music. Not sure in what sense they meant though.

Also, delay compensation is a big issue within Reason as in parallel processing, phasing becomes a real issue and can seriously muddy your track.

To sum it up 'More is Always Better' but I get what you're saying in essence, Comfortably Numb or Bohemian Rhapsody wouldn't automatically sound rubbish in Reason as opposed to Cubase.

[chk071]

You don't need any of those "superb" technical capabilities that some DAWs offer while others don't in order to make great sounding music.

Because, say, once you've written "Unchained Melody" you can't really go wrong with what device to route where, neither can you screw it just because you had Subtractor and not Massive. It will become a timeless hit no matter what.

Or say you're the guy who just wrote "We Will Rock You". Nope, there's no way the song will go unnoticed by millions because your DAW does not have a sampler with advanced scripting capabilities.

What I am saying is, whenever I see someone making a bitter statement about any DAW's capabilities, I say to myself "This person must not have any good material at his hand". This person cannot have been a good song writer nor can he be a mastering engineer who's just been given a superb song to work on. Otherwise we would be singing along to that song by now rather than listening to his complaints about how he can't make the song good enough because his tools are not on par with 1000x what the Beatles had. Like those people who take the time and effort to argue that Reason or any other DAW is not pro... I cannot convince myself to take their musicianship qualities seriously, unfortunately.

The tools you use can be a big source of creativity though, and ease of use will mean that you're not held back by ostacles in the form of cumbersome workflow in your way. Ultimately, if Queen would record "We will rock you" today, the production would be much better than it was back in the days. No matter what stick-in-the-muds will claim.

[kuhliloach]

I agree with this post. My iPad is more than powerful enough to complete an entire record at this point. Good material doesn't require much more than a basic recorder.

I met him in a swamp down in Dagoba
Where it bubbles all the time like a giant carbonated soda
S-O-D-A, soda

I saw the little runt sitting there on a log
I asked him his name and in a raspy voice he said "yoda"
Y-O-D-A, Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Well, I've been around, but I ain't never seen
A guy who looks like a muppet, but he's wrinkled and green
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Well, I'm not dumb, but I can't understand
How he can lift me in the air just by raising his hand
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Well, I left home just a week before
And I've never ever been a Jedi before
But Obi Wan, he set me straight, of course
He said, "Go to Yoda and he'll show you the Force"

Well I'm not the kind that would argue with Ben
So it looks like I'm gonna start all over again
With my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo
Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo
Yoda

Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo
Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo
Yoda

So I used the Force
I picked up a box
I lifted some rocks
While I stood on my head
Well, I won't forget what Yoda said

He said, "Luke, stay away from the darker side
And if you start to go astray, let the Force be your guide"
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

"I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed
But remember, if you kill him, then you'll be unemployed"
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Well, I heard my friends really got in a mess
So I'm gonna have to leave Yoda, I guess
But I know that I'll be coming back some day
I'll be playing this part 'till I'm old and grey

The long-term contract that I had to sign
Says I'll be making these movies till the end of time
With my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

[kitekrazy]

Still can drag and drop a midi file on a track without opening an instrument you don't want. Can't change an instrument on a track. These are simple things every DAW has. That kinda blows your "I say to myself "This person must not have any good material at his hand" theory. Work flow and feature are what people with good material want. It's the same with instruments. Most people who write for form use Cubase because of it's features than using Magix Music Maker Deluxe. I do get the DAW argument but your reasoning is not solid. Don't fall into the trap of being a "Daw apologist".

[Olivier]

Can't change an instrument on a track.

Just drop another instrument on top of the one you want replaced, or drop a patch for another synth on it. The synth gets replaced with the rest of the track in tact.

[Chizmata]

wait, i thought the only thing between me and world domination was fucking reason?

[Creativemind]

Can't change an instrument on a track.

Just drop another instrument on top of the one you want replaced, or drop a patch for another synth on it. The synth gets replaced with the rest of the track in tact.

Took the text right out my fingers there mate!

[SA Studio]

I can't do an auto-scan on the audio to heal clips, clicks, and pops while preparing said audio for a professional, international release with Reason.

I can't surgically edit that same audio for anything else that might need done before an industry standard, label approved release can happen.

Maybe not having those options is ok for posting to SoundCloud. It's probably fine for that.

There's simply a higher tier, my friend

But for the feels, I guess there's merit in mentioning the beat or music in that same audio clip/song/production I'm talking about could have easily been done in Reason. It's just not the final destination, in many cases.

[EdGrip]

I tend to think of Reason as an earlier stage in the process. It's a simulated room full of hardware toys where you can play and be creative. If you're in the business of editing audio for international releases, you're going to be using Pro Tools, so that's the start and the end of that line of thinking. Pro Tools is not where most people go to play and be creative.

For higher-tier vocal and audio edits, inc. #1 piano ballads and international releases, there's Pro Tools.
For everything else, and national releases (because they are a different matter), there's Reason.

[busystreetstudio]

The best DAW is the one you want to use everyday. For me that's Reason. Yes I'll use others for tasks but I always have fun in reason.

[8cros]

I tend to think of Reason as an earlier stage in the process. It's a simulated room full of hardware toys where you can play and be creative. If you're in the business of editing audio for international releases, you're going to be using Pro Tools, so that's the start and the end of that line of thinking. Pro Tools is not where most people go to play and be creative.

For higher-tier vocal and audio edits, inc. #1 piano ballads and international releases, there's Pro Tools.
For everything else, and national releases (because they are a different matter), there's Reason.

Many people are advised not to use the processing on the master before being stored in the audio. Because it has to do engineer. I think it's a myth. We have many serious equipment used in the work. It would be foolish to deny it. Mastering in the Pro Tools will be no better than some of the works in the Reason that does this. IMHO (I will not give examples)

The Reason that does this, there are different tools for mixing and mastering.
Those people who work every day in Reason's since the release of the first version, able to turn work with the EQ or compressor in the present Art. They hardly need to engineer for the release.

I did not do more than one international release. Not because it is bad work from the master compressor.

[HepCat]

I think the whole topic hinges on:

- Your existing workflow (what you want done and how you do it)
- The possible workflows
- How much more you're willing to learn (unwillingness to learn isn't a bad thing at all, you may just not have time, and the learning curve may be too steep etc., l'm just saying, this is a factor)

Too many variables which vary from time to time. But then, there is consensus, and l hope more ppl are waking to the fact that live non guitar music is a thing (Seems all DAWs expect you to play rock guitar for live music, and make glitch techno for non-live stuff) (that last line was a joke btw)

[submonsterz]

Because, say, once you've written "Unchained Melody" you can't really go wrong with what device to route where, neither can you screw it just because you had Subtractor and not Massive. It will become a timeless hit no matter what.

Or say you're the guy who just wrote "We Will Rock You". Nope, there's no way the song will go unnoticed by millions because your DAW does not have a sampler with advanced scripting capabilities.

Lol okkkkkk you ever heard either as a general midi file ?.
Lol thread debunked carry on ......

[HepCat]

Even though Unchained Melody and We Will Rock You were not made on DAWs, l think that bolsters the point of the OP

[avasopht]

Even though Unchained Melody and We Will Rock You were not made on DAWs, l think that bolsters the point of the OP

I think we know what the OP is actually talking about .. come on now

[QVprod]

I tend to think of Reason as an earlier stage in the process. It's a simulated room full of hardware toys where you can play and be creative. If you're in the business of editing audio for international releases, you're going to be using Pro Tools, so that's the start and the end of that line of thinking. Pro Tools is not where most people go to play and be creative.

For higher-tier vocal and audio edits, inc. #1 piano ballads and international releases, there's Pro Tools.
For everything else, and national releases (because they are a different matter), there's Reason.

Many people are advised not to use the processing on the master before being stored in the audio. Because it has to do engineer. I think it's a myth. We have many serious equipment used in the work. It would be foolish to deny it. Mastering in the Pro Tools will be no better than some of the works in the Reason that does this. IMHO (I will not give examples)

The Reason that does this, there are different tools for mixing and mastering.
Those people who work every day in Reason's since the release of the first version, able to turn work with the EQ or compressor in the present Art. They hardly need to engineer for the release.

I did not do more than one international release. Not because it is bad work from the master compressor.

I don't think he was talking about mixing and mastering in Pro Tools vs. Reason. What he says is true, in the fact that Pro Tools is still an industry standard as far as large studios are concerned so Pro Tools sessions are more likely to be shared than Reason files if being worked on internationally. Also Reason is terrible for audio editing in comparison to not just Pro Tools but pretty much everything else. It's usable, but just not the best tool for the job.

Also worth noting that major releases that were created in Reason were generally mixed in some other DAW, probably Pro Tools, especially if it was made with a Reason version prior to 6.5 simply because better tools were available to other platforms. Rack Extensions has leveled this playing field a bit, but I still find recording and mixing audio in Reason to be a pain. I avoid it when possible. I'll happily compose/produce with it though.

[Creativemind]

I enjoy recording guitar and vocals in Reason but I am a novice really. It probably isn't as advanced as Cubase, Logic or Pro Tools in that department by a long chalk.

I do find though on many levels Reason frustrates me when simple features aren't there. Some of which I listed above. I ain't a programmer or coder though so I don't know how hard they would be to implement but sometimes it baffles me when we're on about the 17th version of Reason aren't we if you include point updates and we still can't mute notes in the midi editor or read volume related things in dB sometimes. It does sometimes make me think:-

A) Are the Props milking it?
B) Not gonna implement these things?

Are we still gonna be waiting for ganged faders on the main mixer or mute / unmute of notes in the midi editor in Reason 11?

EDIT - Just seen it on the Reasonistas site. We're on the 30th version of Reason.

Reason 1.0
Reason 1.0.1
Reason 2.0
Reason 2.0.1
Reason 2.5
Reason 3.0
Reason 3.0.3
Reason 3.0.4
Reason 3.0.5
Reason 4.0
Reason 4.0.1
Reason 5.0
Reason 5.0.1
Reason 6.0
Reason 6.5
Reason 6.5.1
Reason 6.5.2
Reason 6.5.3
Reason 7.0
Reason 7.0.1
Reason 7.1
Reason 7.1.1
Reason 7.1.2
Reason 8.0
Reason 8.1
Reason 8.2
Reason 8.3
Reason 8.3.1
Reason 8.3.2
Reason 9

[bitley]

Whenever my music sucks, I don't blame Reason — I blame myself.

[pjeudy]

complaints about how he can't make the song good enough because his tools are not on par with 1000x what the Beatles had.

When you can .....can you provide a few quotes from people saying exactlty that (there music isn't any good because of the lack of features in REASON!?)

I think this whole notion of people saying they can't make good music because of REASON is actually what people hear when they read people asking/complaining about lack of features in REASON. But I could be wrong , maybe you can provide some easy quotes from those people.

[SA Studio]

Whenever my music sucks, I don't blame Reason — I blame myself.

I blame the ReFills I bought and those who made them, specifically ~ *Shakes fist wildy

I'm kidding. I blame myself too

[bitley]

I wish the combinator had a randomize button for those moments And it should do wonders!

[QVprod]

complaints about how he can't make the song good enough because his tools are not on par with 1000x what the Beatles had.

When you can .....can you provide a few quotes from people saying exactlty that (there music isn't any good because of the lack of features in REASON!?)

I think this whole notion of people saying they can't make good music because of REASON is actually what people hear when they read people asking/complaining about lack of features in REASON. But I could be wrong , maybe you can provide some easy quotes from those people.

Truth. I think I can only name 2 or 3 people, even going back to the PUF days when I joined circa 2011, who have ever said this. And they were pretty much all trolls. Oh, and the obligatory "Reason Sound" threads that somehow still seem to pop up now and then.

On the other hand there are those occasional folk who complain too much instead of just using another DAW that has the capabilities they want/need alongside Reason. Even still I don't see that happening too much here.

[avasopht]

The Beatles were recording in a music studio with a full band and a hot pair of ears. Occasionally they would hire a string section.

At the same you just might not get away with that recording sound today. If you watch the James Brown biopic, you immediately hear how muffled the early music is compared to later in the film.

Anyway, differences between DAWs (not including Reason) are going to be workflow and stock SOUNDS and effects. Some people just for better with a certain workflow, and certain tools are just important, like being able to delay and advance an audio or instrument channel by samples at the convenient twist of a knob.

Yes, props will say, you can do this X-minute workaround, but maybe that takes you out of FLOW and dampens your mojo.

The available synths will make a difference too. Yes a basic subtractive synth was all Mr and Miss Amazing needed for their 1980s debut, but that basic subtractive synth just may not cut it for the type of sound you're going for.

Some samplers are just more intuitive to use or in line with a style of sampling than others are. Sometimes FLStudio looks AWKWARD compared to nn19, and sometimes vice versa depending on the task at hand.

So sure, in theory you could get the same result eventually but one environment might throw you off, thus affecting the process and final output.

[Creativemind]

Well said, agreed avasopht!