Talk:Reason (software)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Description[edit]

This is a planned layout description of the Reason Wikipedia page. Anybody is free to pick and choose what to write about or what is needed to be written.

History[edit]

Rebirth
Explain how Reason was the obvious evolution from their previous software Rebirth.

Revision history
List all version histories from 1.0 to 2.5 and what each update contained.

Technologies[edit]

Refills
Information on how they work, what their purpose is and what the major 'cranks' users have with it.

Rewire
Explain the technology, list a couple of applicatons that Reason can Rewire to.

Rack and cables
Tell that Reason has no limitations to the amount of machines it can use except the computing power of the users computer. Also give information about the cable-system Reason use and how it's important to how Reason works.

No plugins
Reason does not support additonal effects, synths and samplers through plugins. Only through using samples or Refills.

Machines[edit]

Dr. Rex
Describing the machine and how it differs from other machines since it's meant for using Recycle loops. Also explain that any rex loop doubles a drum kit, and that changing the tempo of a song does not change the pitch of the loop.

Malström
Explain how it's different from regular granular synthesizers and wavetable synthesizers by the fact it's a merge between the two, aptly dubbed 'graintable synthesis'. Explain that you can't add your own waveforms to it.

Subtractor
A basic subtractive synth.

Redrum
A sample playing step-based drum machine.

NN-19
A basic sampler. Explain that for what the NN-19 lacks in features versus the NN-XT it gains in the feature of automation.

NN-XT
An advanced sampler that allows layering, velocity crossfade, and multiple sample key zones.

Matrix
Analog step sequencer. Most of its power is in that you can use it to control many functions of other devices through CV cables.

Effects[edit]

Spider Audio Merger and Splitter

CV Merger and Splitter

RV7000

BV512
How it's vocoding works with the 512-band and how it can be used as an EQ.

Scream 4
How it's much more than just a distortion unit, list it's different effects.

UN-16 Unison
'the fattener'

Those other units that nobody use anymore, :)

I use them.  :( Junjk 02:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the devices all deserve their own pages with info, usage and screenshots. I've created a couple more and even done a navigation template for the pages. Although I've only added the main devices in it, I think everything, including effects and crap like Spider (which I love anyway) need a page. There's a lot to say about Reason, the pitiful corner of Wikipedia is has it pathetic. - Ferretgames 15:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I'll try to start on those at the top first. Mastgrr

I'm going to try and really improve this page. I've been working hard on Propellerhead Software but the powers that be don't seem to think they're worthy of having an article on here. I'm starting by condensing all the headings into smaller sections, reducing the size of the contents page and giving the article a better layout. I then plan to do the history section which has been mentioned but never written. I also try and find some sources to give the article credibility.--Mrtombullen 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reduced all of those device headings into a small number of headings by device type - instruments, mixers, effects and other devices. The contents page looks a lot better now, as well as improving the flow of the article. My next plan is to make each device description nice and concise by removing redundant and repeated information.--Mrtombullen 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit of the "Overview" section, correcting a previously incorrect date, based on the company's timeline. For full disclosure, I want to make it known that this edit is on behalf of Propellerhead Software, for who I do freelance work on a regular basis. I will refrain from making any non-minor edits to this or related pages, based on the suggestions in the "Fix it yourself" section on the Factual error (from enterprise) page. -- Alimony (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate[edit]

This article has a dublicate: see Reason (synthesizer) --130.243.79.252 15:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote merge. Much as I love Reason, the sequencer hardly deserves its own article.

Also, we should delete that bit in the other article about The Prodigy using it as their main production tool - it isn't true. Many ideas for the album were sketched out on Reason, and Liam Howlett has praised the software many times, but one listen to the album tells you it wasn't the main tool. illWill 21:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, if you listen to their latest you can hear the use of the Scream 4 Distortion-unit all over it. Mastgrr 21:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howlett has publicly said it was the main tool. And anyway I hardly ever listen to a good song made with Reason and can recognise it as such, it's too versatile for that. - Ferret 03:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Advantages of Reason[edit]

Is it really accurate to say that Reason has "No hidden usage layers, every state of all used elements are visible at all times"? The remote-programmer panel on the RV-7000 reverb unit has pages for reverb, EQ, and gate which can't be viewed simultaneously. If I'm missing something, let me know; otherwise I'm going to delete. (User:Gabriel Roth)

Hi, I wrote this. Upon closer inspection, you're kind of right. Also in the NN-19 and NN-XT you have modality in the sense that you select a certain sample (of a multisampled patch) and have a view of only those settings. But I think that the amount of "usage layers" is lower than in most other applications. How about if we change the paragraph to "Few hidden usage layers, most states of the used elements are always visible"? Peter S. 15:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter. At first your revision seemed accurate, but on reflection I don't think it is. In any Reason song containing more than a couple of instruments, some or most of the devices will either be folded up or below the bottom of the screen. In other words, most controls and state indicators are invisible most of the time. The rack/device interface may be more intuitive than a multi-page interface such as, say, Absynth's, but it doesn't allow Reason to fit any more controls on the screen than any other method -- fewer, in fact, since Reason's controls are typically fairly large.

The whole "advantages and disadvantages" section seems to have outgrown its bullet-point format. I might try to turn it into paragraphs at some point, if no one objects. Also, I think we could use a better description of what makes Reason unique -- the intuitive and enjoyable interface. Gabriel Roth 08:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabriel, yes you are right: most of the settings are hidden outside the current window location. But I think that "just a scroll away" is somewhat easier than "buried inside several screens". Yes I think the section could be written better, but I love bullet points - they're faster to scan through. Could you expand the section but leave it bullet-point-style? Peter S. 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that, but I couldn't make it work. Take a look at what's there. I think it could be expanded a bit. Gabriel Roth 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's kinda ok, but I really miss the old paragraph that Propellerhead Software is essentially contracticting itself by proclaiming Reason is great for styles such as Metal and Hip Hop on their webpage [1], and then not offering enough tools to actually create those styles. Have you dropped this paragraph for a certain reason? Peter S. 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed soapboxy to me -- going into way too much detail about one very specific criticism of the program. I've seen a lot of reviews and messageboard comments saying that Reason should have audio in, so that's appropriate to mention in a Wikipedia article about the program, but I've never seen that Propellerhead-is-contradicting-itself-about-metal-and-hip-hop point anywhere except on this page. (Also, that 'Replace Hardware' page is from an old campaign, no longer linked from the main Propellerhead page.) Gabriel Roth 06:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that it's a opinion and a quite original point. I may have been raised in some forums, though. How about if we add it back in a npov'd version? On the whole paragraph: I don't think it needs to be expanded more, maybe just more organized, like combining paragraph 2 + 3? Peter S. 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a quite original point ... may have been raised in some forums, though" isn't sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, no matter how neutrally presented. Go ahead and combine paragraphs as you see fit. Gabriel Roth 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna trample on your virtual feet here, but, your linked article actually states "advocacy [...] - Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.". So it looks like the guidelines actually allow the inclusion of that stuff, not making it dependent on prominence. Peter S. 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better citation would have been this one: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is: [snip] it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Gabriel Roth 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also streamlined the existing section a bit, take a look :-) Peter S. 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes are fine. But saying that "the same article also argued that support for VST plugins could compromise Reason's stability and efficiency" is misleading. The authors of the article didn't make that argument; rather, they quoted a Propellerhead spokesperson making it. I agree that it's cumbersome introducing another speaker right there, but I can't see another way to include the Propellerhead response, properly sourced. If you can find another fix, go ahead; otherwise I think that attribution should be reverted. Gabriel Roth 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the line "The self-contained nature of Reason allows songs to be taken from one computer to another and played back as the original author intended," because it isn't true. For songs to be transferable like that, both computers would have to contain the same Refills and samples. Making the song "self-contained" doesn't get around this problem when it comes to Refills. Gabriel Roth 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't make it completely untrue, re-adding the line but making sure you add that "However, songs that are dependant on outside refills and not included with the song file will be missing the sounds contained in the aformented refills." This does apply to self-contained samples though. - Ferret 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages[edit]

'No MIDI out, enabling users to control hardware or software instruments from Reason's sequencer.' -- are you sure about that? I always thought they had MIDI out, but I am not 100% positive, maybe someone should validate or invalidate this fact. Molten tar 15:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct -- Reason has never allowed MIDI out.Gabriel Roth 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism should be listed as a different topic, NOT part of disadvantages. While no audio out is a disadvantage (arguably) Proprietary license as a disadvantage is highly subjective and hardly a disadvantage over its competitors.

edit, march 2013: Reason version 7 will include midi out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.184.44 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Features' vs. 'Devices'[edit]

I changed the section header from "Features of Reason 3.0" to "Reason devices." It seems wrong to call, say, the NN-XT Advanced Sampler a "feature," because it's a virtual device that contains numerous "features" such as velocity layering, modulation grouping, etc. A reader who was unfamiliar with Reason and wanted to know what features the program offers wouldn't gain much from the list of device names. Gabriel Roth 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason devices[edit]

The old formatting, with bold, italics, and underlines to indicate version numbers, was really ugly and hard to read. I've put everything in plain text and added version numbers after devices where relevant. I've also changed the order to reflect the program's Create menu as much as possible (although I think it still makes sense to have instruments first, then effects, then the rest), since organizing by version number is largely of historical rather than practical interest.

I've also added brief descriptions of the instruments and a couple other devices (where the device's function isn't apparent from the name). It seems like a good idea to provide more information on the main Reason page, instead of just a list of cryptically-named devices with links to (mostly stubby) pages. Gabriel Roth 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes, thanks! :-) Peter S. 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest moving Pulsar, Polar, and Radical Piano to a Rack Extensions article, because these devices are not part of Reason, they have to be bought separately charon (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Link[edit]

I don't think that Berklee requiring reason is enough for a link to it. That's a pretty vauge connection.--Jbachman 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 3[edit]

Can someone please have "Reason 3" direct to "Reason (program)? Thanks. - MSTCrow 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

someone vandalized and i deleted it, fyi

Merge from RV-7 Digital Reverb et al[edit]

Please merge relevant content, if any, from RV-7 Digital Reverb et al per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reason components. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 01:34Z


I thought there was something to merge, so I reworked the old article and pasted it in. Hope you like. --Hector 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Reason[edit]

Template:Reason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Betaeleven 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rex section[edit]

I added a bit, hope the info is pertinent to the article. --Hector 04:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name: Douglas Adams[edit]

I was under the impression (from every single article I have ever read that touched on the subject, although I'd be pressed to name one now) that Reason was named for the software of the same name in Douglas Adams' novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Gorman 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial: VST[edit]

I added the following section and someone who is a better wiki markup guy than me is welcome to make it more readable. This lack of VST support is a major controversy. There are a lot of user reviews in blogs and some magazine articles too, i used one of each. The cite web template has been used:


Some users have complained about the lack of VST support, citation: "Upgrade to 7 (ableton) or Buy Reason 4?". Retrieved 2007-11-18.. In comparisons with DAWs and other MIDI synthesizer software, it has been stated that Propellerhead Reason is unusual in that it doesn't support VST or DirectX plug-in effects and instruments, see citation Ben Pitt (Aug 2005). "Product Reviews Multimedia Software Propellerhead Reason 3". PCPRO. Retrieved 2007-11-18.. As of Reason 2 and up to version Reason 4, it still offered it's own "Rewire" protocol which can be used to remotely control other software and instruments networking interfaces. Gert4gt (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wkm upld.png[edit]

Image:Wkm upld.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Reason4 screenshot.jpg[edit]

Image:Reason4 screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Reason-Software-Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Reason-Software-Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable classes[edit]

I could not find a reference on the Berklee site for the following statement:

"It is offered as a bundle, along with a laptop computer and other music production equipment, to new students at the Berklee College of Music."

They do offer courses on Reason but is it really notable? Other colleges also offer them and we can't list them all. StereoDevil (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem notable if you can't verify it. Name one other college. Hyacinth (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No picture?[edit]

A snapshot of the software is kinda missing from here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.63.170 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism: professional[edit]

That software is intended for professionals is not a criticism in and of itself. "Professional" is usually a compliment. Hyacinth (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sequencer[edit]

There is no real mention of Reason's extensive sequencing capabilities--Slippage (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then start writing about it. --Mperry (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maelstrom[edit]

Maelstrom is the "most popular" of reasons instruments?

1. This is trivial. 2. Where is the proof of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.83.176 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to import MP3s?[edit]

I know you can't record audio, but what about importing audio from another source? ESachs (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Reason or Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the sampler to load a wav or aiff file. Put it on a key, and make a corresponding MIDI note in the sequencer when you want it to be played. With the version 6, recording should be possible. Cheers 62.178.219.169 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable users[edit]

This section needs cleanup. As with many wiki lists, this can balloon up with many not so notable or necessary users. Kcoutu (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Hyacinth (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

The "advert" template was added with the claim that this article is "loaded with weasel words and marketingspeak". For example? Hyacinth (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the overuse of the word, 'unique' comes to mind....159.83.54.2 (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of this article becoming less interesting may be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reason_%28software%29&curid=334132&diff=309023220&oldid=308766573 apparently. Hyacinth (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Less interesting? How about more factual? The 'before' version isn't more interesting. It's more hyperbolic. Wow, it makes Reason sound like a tool for making sounds to give one a headache. Not everyone wants to make electronic music that will pulverize one's brain. I think the software is more versatile than that, don't you?159.83.54.2 (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any blatant weasel words in the article at this point and will remove the tag. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on "Official ReFills", someone might take a moment to describe what a "ReFill" is. I assume that this is a marketing buzzword for what most other companies would call "add-ons" or "plugins", but someone who understands the product better needs to write a proper explanation. Timrprobocom (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content[edit]

There are 22 non-free uses in this article, nearly all of which fail one or more of the WP:NFCC criteria. Apart from overuse (WP:NFCC#3a), we do not need images of every component in order to understand how they work (WP:NFCC#8), and that's before we look at guidelines like WP:NFLISTS. The images should really just be removed, but I have left the tag for a short time in case an interested editor wishes to cut the number down themselves. However, I doubt if it will be possible to justify more than a couple of these non-free uses. Black Kite 15:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?[edit]

Would it be advantageous to move this article to Propellerhead Reason? Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 19:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Why might it be? Hyacinth (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flip the rack over[edit]

And it's as difficult as hitting "tab" on the computer keyboard: "although it can appear intimidating to novice users". A citation needed tag was added to the intimidating claim, and I simply removed it, because I don't know why hitting a button would be difficult. Nor do I know why a graphic interface that models real world physical equipment would be more difficult for novices (in fact it was designed for novices). Hyacinth (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Reason (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reason_(software)&oldid=1209984976"