Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/index.php)
-   General Forum (read only) (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Rack Extension idea (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/showthread.php?t=166382)

Rhypht 2012-08-29 16:32

Rack Extension idea
 
Hello again everybody. Forgive me if this is a stupid question, or if it's been asked before. I am just getting back into Reason after a too-long break. I don't intend on being away from producing electronic music for that long ever again!

Anyway, just briefly reading up on this new Rack Extension thing in 6.5 (I'm downloading my update now), I noticed that they are user-made, meaning anyone can go and make a rack extension with the proper know-how and enough time to do so. So my question is, is there a way for someone to make a blank rack extension that loads up VSTs? Like, one of these rack extensions you see, except instead of having controls on the front for creating a sound, it just has a bank that you can load a VST plugin in, and then that rack extension module produces the sound for said VST?

Again, sorry if this is a stupid or already answered question. I personally have never been huge into the "VST support for Reason!" hype, I like it the way it is, but I think that if people had the option to, for an extra say, $45, buy an approved extension that allowed for full VST support, more people that are that way would consider getting into Reason, which is always a good thing.

Anyway, just a thought.

illogic2 2012-08-29 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhypht (Post 1124669)
So my question is, is there a way for someone to make a blank rack extension that loads up VSTs? Like, one of these rack extensions you see, except instead of having controls on the front for creating a sound, it just has a bank that you can load a VST plugin in, and then that rack extension module produces the sound for said VST?

That's something that I have been thinking about. I was hoping it, or a simple synth, would make a good first project for me to write using the rack extension SDK (software development kit). I'm still waiting to get approved as a rack extension developer despite having done everything they asked and signing their non-disclosure agreement in June.

If this process is any indication, you might have to wait until a big vendor creates the extension (and pay a lot for it) since it seems hobbyist programmers like me are being ignored.

Rhypht 2012-08-29 17:09

That's fine, I don't mind paying a lot for it. Having a VST module available in Reason would be worth it for me. Like I said, I'm fine with how it is now, but I think Reason would be pretty much 100% perfect if this was available.

I just hope someone hatches the idea soon and creates it.

Exowildebeest 2012-08-29 17:13

You've been out of the loop for a while, so I'll bring you the bad news: the overwhelming consensus is that a RE VST wrapper is not going to happen, for a lot of reasons, both technical and business strategy related.

Rhypht 2012-08-29 18:27

Ah I see, I figured that there may be some reason like that. That's a shame, I wish it could happen somehow.

guitfnky 2012-08-29 22:11

yeah, that would create a huge problem from the business standpoint; namely, if you have a Rack Extension that allows you to use whatever VST plugin you want, what point would there be for developers to create actual Rack Extensions? you'd only need one RE (to rule them all?), and developers would go back to programming VSTs.

aside from the loss of revenue, the other practical issue that I think Propellerhead would have with that is just that since they won't be able to control the software being used with their own platform, the stability that you've got with Reason now would (very likely) go out the window.

I think it's one of those ideas that is great in theory, but in practice, wouldn't really improve the Reason experience. it's a good thought though!

n0ahg 2012-08-29 22:17

It would also defeat the whole stability behind REs because VSTs can access any resources they want where as REs are sand boxed. You could do it the other way round though ;)

waveform 2012-08-29 23:56

^What n0ahg says.^

particlejunkie 2012-08-30 04:26

I would be willing to deal with instability if I used VSTs in Reason, just like I put up with it in Live. If you don't want the instability, don't use the VSTs. This has been the most overused and least compelling argument against VSTs in Reason.

The business reasons why this will never happen make a lot more sense.

joeyluck 2012-08-30 06:07

This is a picture of something I proposed before on the platform of "more flexible UI." My idea was that developers could keep their GUI (their vision without making compromises to great instruments) and in some fashion, still have the extra "bonus" that is the back panel.

I was merely thinking in terms of RE. However, if a VST could run inside the RE SDK, with some editing to allow for back panel connectivity, all the concepts of RE ("better inetgration," "undo," stability - not crashing the host" would still exist). Essentially, it would look like a rackmount, touch-screen like this... =)
http://i48.tinypic.com/350kn5y.jpg


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:30.