Originally Posted by mac0123
lol wtf !! hmmm if you realy want to prove the reason sound etc then you cant use sample based stuff thats been pre processed else where !! And did you master soley in the reason enviroment to ? If you had done a track using nothing but reason devices and also recorded the vocals yourself into reason and processed and masterd then this is valid yes? To me if you want to kill the reason sound argument thats ran for centurys is to use reason only to make and create using reason devices only. :).
And sorry if that sounds a little strong but if you want to go to war you must follow the rules of engagement :).
Vocals horns and strings were the only thing that weren't mine actually, and the vocals were a completely dry stem, so I did all the processing on them, barring what sounded like ProTools-esque volume automation to even the levels, or a ludicrously transparent compressor.
You need to listen to the original track to see just how much has been added to it really.
The mix and mastering was completely in Reason too :)
Without wanting to sound like a complete dick though, I'll say this. The origin of the Reason sound argument, was actually that various trolls kept on saying that the "Reason Engine" wasn't capable of delivering quality tracks, i.e. you could put a full track in to an NN-19, and it would somehow sound deficient when bounced. Or let's say you stuck a whole bunch of stems into an NN-XT and just hit play; there was an argument that Reason's mix bus couldn't handle things the way Cubase/Logic/PT could (this argument started before Ableton even existed), so the argument wasn't about the quality of Reason's devices, it was a suggestion that Reason couldn't do the mix sums properly.
Oh man, that takes me back down memory lane :)