Guest dannnnnnnnne Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 Hello! i'm wonderin if some one can tell me what it is that makes the soundquality in reason BAD?? is it some way to work around it?? thanks! DANIEL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 The problem of Reason's not best quality is that, the Subtractor and other synths do not use true realtime generated waveforms - these are only samples (that's why Reason is so fast). Also effect like reverb and flanger do not use the best algorithms. There is also a "secret" fault not many people pay attention to: Reason adds some DC offset to every sound it creates (even to samples loaded to sampler). I think there are some other faults I've missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llazi Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 As far as I know the reason substractor is a native synth. From propellerheads web : Subtractor is an analog type polyphonic synthesizer based on subtractive synthesis, the method used in analog synthesizers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 >As far as I know the reason substractor is a native synth. ---- And? I think it's plain marketing catch when they are saying Reason uses true synthesis. The proof it doesn't: play sawtooth oscilator at the lowest note - it's not sharp anymore, it's blurred instead. Degradation of quality starts many notes higher. Besides, if you think that oscilators like waveform 23, 32, etc. are possible to get with standard subtractive synthesis, you're wrong (you would need FM synthesis to get most of these). Maelstrom's wavetables are even worse quality. The parametric eq is horrible quality. Reason has quite good filters though and nice pitching algorithms, that's why the bad quality is well hidden. I think it's better not to use Reason as bassline synth. And it's better to use it via rewire in Cubase or Sonar, so every track can be joined with hi quality vst of dx plugin, so they can improve quality of Reason's track, or at least hide their faults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Faxanadu Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 E.T. - Do you know of any other sequencers with similar problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 >E.T. - Do you know of any other sequencers with similar problems? ---- Ohh... I wasn't talking about Reason's sequencer, but synthesis, answering Daniel's question. Sequencer is quite different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Faxanadu Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 ET - i meant synthesis.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord of Destiny Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 :| you make it sound like reason has the worst sound quality ever! it isn't thát bad is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 It's not that bad, because of good pitching (interpolation) algorithms. Some softsynths that produce true synthesis have worse dithering methods for high frequency tones, so they might sound worse. The quality of synth is checked not only at low tones, but very high also tell a lot about quality. I use Reason a lot, but trying to avoid its obvious faults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BrainStorm Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 1) what do you compare its sound too? 2) what quality you wish to reach with Reason? 3) who told you it produces bad quality? see my topic.. "DIFFERENT TRANCE" check "Bio Scream" - its done with Reason 2.0 without any further processing, mastering.. and i dont think Subtraktor uses samples.. hey what samples you are talking about - if you run subtraktor, you dont need any samples for that - all you need is patch file which takes 1k you dont point to any sound sample (i.e. wav, aif, whatever..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BrainStorm Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 and its not truth about DC offsets as well.. wth )))))))) hey man, i think the only problem of Reason's quality is people's laziness to work their asses and to study how to get clear and crisp sound off Reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 BrainStorm: >1) what do you compare its sound too? ----- I'll give you a comparison to other synths I've used: Pentagon - true sythesis (though I'm not sure of that), much better quality than Reason, great filter quality, acurate dithering, good parametric EQ. On the other side a lot of CPU usage. ReasonAS1 - true synthesis but quality is worse than Reason's, due to very bad filters and horrible dithering. EQ and other inserts also poor. On the other side: very little CPU power usage. >2) what quality you wish to reach with Reason? ----- Weird question. You should specify yourself. >3) who told you it produces bad quality? ------ Now I'm irritated. Do you need anyone to TELL you something you will believe in? You know, there is a word called OWN EXPERIENCE, but you don't seem to be familiar with it, if you ask me such a question. >check "Bio Scream" - its done with Reason 2.0 without any further processing, mastering.. ------ I've heard many songs made with Reason, I also made few trax made only with Reason, which have got very nice feedback. But if I were you, I wouldn't use my own songs as a proof of how good some things are, because you can easly make a fool of yourself. You're wrong, if you whink you'll surprise me with this track - I do not say it's good or bad, but it WOULD need some postmastering, because it lacks of low frequencies and it's not maximised. >what samples you are talking about - if you run subtraktor, you dont need any samples for that - all you need is patch file which takes 1k you dont point to any sound sample ------- You actually haven't understood what I was talking about, don't you?... >and its not truth about DC offsets as well.. wth )))))))) ------- Yes, it's fixed in Reason2, but Reason1 has this problem. >hey man, i think the only problem of Reason's quality is people's laziness to work their asses and to study how to get clear and crisp sound off Reason ------- I'm also irritated when I hear people saying: "Reason is shit, etc". I agree with you that plain ignorance leads some people to such statements. But there are two sides: rookies who praise their new soft, because they have not enough experience and knowledge about sound theory; The second side are conservative pro's, who stood still in their hardware world, and who cannot see anything more than peak of their pile of toys. Sorry to say that, but your attitude and previous statements force me to put you into the first group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BrainStorm Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 1) what do you compare its sound too? ----- I'll give you a comparison to other synths I've used: Pentagon - true sythesis (though I'm not sure of that), much better quality than Reason, great filter quality, acurate dithering, good parametric EQ. On the other side a lot of CPU usage. ReasonAS1 - true synthesis but quality is worse than Reason's, due to very bad filters and horrible dithering. EQ and other inserts also poor. On the other side: very little CPU power usage. >>>>> i never had any kind of experience with those.. sorry, have nothing to say >2) what quality you wish to reach with Reason? ----- Weird question. You should specify yourself. >>>>> nothing is weird, i cant specify quality for you or anybody else, i know what sound i wish to reach with it and i reach it. >3) who told you it produces bad quality? ------ Now I'm irritated. Do you need anyone to TELL you something you will believe in? You know, there is a word called OWN EXPERIENCE, but you don't seem to be familiar with it, if you ask me such a question. >>>>> well, by my own experience i can tell you it does produces better quality then MOST of nowadays software synthesizers, including VSTis, Kontakt, Stylus... but i am ready to compromise for worth quality of Reason's Effects - all of them isnt decent. >check "Bio Scream" - its done with Reason 2.0 without any further processing, mastering.. ------ I've heard many songs made with Reason, I also made few trax made only with Reason, which have got very nice feedback. But if I were you, I wouldn't use my own songs as a proof of how good some things are, because you can easly make a fool of yourself. You're wrong, if you whink you'll surprise me with this track - I do not say it's good or bad, but it WOULD need some postmastering, because it lacks of low frequencies and it's not maximised. >>>>> i dont mean to surprise anybody with anything. its not good, neither bad - it doesnt misses anything man. Its either your sound system eq settings, or maybe 192 kbps mp3 i passed to sound mastering studio with this release - they gave up with saying "nothing we got to do here".. like they can improve it a bit, but it will stay almost the same, so it doesnt worth their efforts and my money >what samples you are talking about - if you run subtraktor, you dont need any samples for that - all you need is patch file which takes 1k you dont point to any sound sample ------- You actually haven't understood what I was talking about, don't you?... >>>>> well maybe i didnt understand what you mean, but i thought you mean actual samples.. what do you mean its not real time waveforms? You mean when i tweak the knob on subtraktor, it uses kind of "pre-made" sample to change the wave or what? >and its not truth about DC offsets as well.. wth )))))))) ------- Yes, it's fixed in Reason2, but Reason1 has this problem. >hey man, i think the only problem of Reason's quality is people's laziness to work their asses and to study how to get clear and crisp sound off Reason ------- I'm also irritated when I hear people saying: "Reason is shit, etc". I agree with you that plain ignorance leads some people to such statements. But there are two sides: rookies who praise their new soft, because they have not enough experience and knowledge about sound theory; The second side are conservative pro's, who stood still in their hardware world, and who cannot see anything more than peak of their pile of toys. Sorry to say that, but your attitude and previous statements force me to put >>>>> well, I am happy with Reason 2.0 and i am not looking for any other software... i work with it 2 years, but you are correct - i am not a sound engineer - i make music, i dont edit it anyways, i didnt mean to offend you with my post.. i just dont think somebody can say that Reason's sound quality isnt good show me your works, man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 BrainStorm: >>>>> nothing is weird, i cant specify quality for you or anybody else, i know what sound i wish to reach with it and i reach it. ----- Ok then. Basing on your estimating system, I can tell you that I expect better quality of Reason than it is. Is that satisfying? >>>>> i dont mean to surprise anybody with anything. its not good, neither bad - it doesnt misses anything man. Its either your sound system eq settings, or maybe 192 kbps mp3 i passed to sound mastering studio with this release - they gave up with saying "nothing we got to do here".. -------- I was comparing it other proffesional tunes (which I was listening to on the same sound system), and I can say it's exactly the way I said. Forgot to mention it's almost mono, too. You cannot use Reason to perform a proper, accurate placement of the tracks in sound panorama, because it doesn't have suitable tools for doing that. As well the compressor of Reason is pretty poor, the same to parametric EQ. No matter what you will do, Reason's tunes will always lack of these processes. >like they can improve it a bit, but it will stay almost the same, so it doesnt worth their efforts and my money ------- You're right here The quality we can get is sometimes good enough to resign from really expensive additional tools. There are many famous producers who do not use any mastering processes at all. >>>>>> well maybe i didnt understand what you mean, but i thought you mean actual samples.. what do you mean its not real time waveforms? You mean when i tweak the knob on subtraktor, it uses kind of "pre-made" sample to change the wave or what? ------- There are samples of sine wave, saw, square, etc. which are repeated just like loops in sampler. Of course there is no way to use own samples, as I would be in contradiction to Propellerheads marketing strategy. What bussiness they have in confessing they are liers, and their product isn't as good as they claim it to be? All I say is my own presumtion, very probable though. Still I cannot be sure, as I haven't seen programmers working. >>>>> well, I am happy with Reason 2.0 and i am not looking for any other software... i work with it 2 years, but you are correct - i am not a sound engineer - i make music, i dont edit it ----- You should start to, if you want to make psytrance. In this music experiment with sound is a basis. As I have guessed, you use samples, do not make them, aren't you? >anyways, i didnt mean to offend you with my post.. i just dont think somebody can say that Reason's sound quality isnt good ------ I don't say it's bad, it's just average. It was awesome, when R1 hit the market, but it was 2-3 years ago. Today's synths are much more advanced, and Reason2 has been only added two new modules, without changing the quality. >show me your works, man... ------- Ok, but take into account I don't think I make a good trance (I usually make different style of music). Don't try to compare it to anything. Giving you a link only for your request: www.mp3.com/psigen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BrainStorm Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 nope, man i DO NOT use samples.. neither loops, thats the whole fun about my tracks i use only a few guitar samples and some fx, the rest done by myself with Reason im going to listen to your tracks, will let you know what i think later btw.. about mono - its not mono, its panned demo the actual cd sounds pretty different i posted few more links to other new tracks from the same album.. try it, see you be sure its made with Reason if you dont know for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest E.T. Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 nope, man i DO NOT use samples.. neither loops, thats the whole fun about my tracks i use only a few guitar samples and some fx, the rest done by myself with Reason ------- I didn't mean that you're using bass samples, synth samples, etc. I was thinking about drum samples: do you upload drum samples to redrum or you program subtractor to get them? And are these guitar and FX samples made by you, or you have got them on CD or from internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BrainStorm Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 drums: partially i use ReDrum with uploaded samples, partially i work with subtraktor - which is pretty good for creating all kinds of flanging percussion but i really hate to spend my time on producing "new" drums sounds, because finally.. its all the same - kick about guitar - no i dont make any guitars, all is taken from somewhere, but as you can hear - guitars isnt the thing that really matters in the track i use about 20 different traktorsmalmstroms in each song FX: partially i take it from Refills or Akais, partially i produce them with traktor Synths: i never take pre-made loops, all do with traktor/malmsrom by myself basslines: same as synths BrainStorm http://www.mp3.com/whoracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest natty Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 i think with the above statement about subtractor using samples it is true.... but it is also true of many famous synths like the PPG wave & waldorf microwave (i don't think anyone can argue that a microwave is'nt fat sounding) so it's not too bad to use samples as long as the filters make up for it.... i'd say that the samples are actually written into the program or some type of data file that can't be changed or accessed (unless u were a really clued on programmer with access to the source code) many synths use wavetables as sources, doesn't sound quite as good as a digitally modeled oscillator, but then again a digital model doesn't sound half as good as the orginal analog oscillator, but most big producers make do with nordleads/virus's etc...(or even reaktor) comparing subtractor to kontakt is a bit weird cos' kontakt is a sampler, & i think u would be hard pressed to say that reason sounds better than any native instruments product.... (the best quality in my opinion) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.