Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (
-   Feature Suggestion Forum (
-   -   Chanel EQ bypass (

sleeper0013 2012-10-07 20:31

Chanel EQ bypass
With the introduction of the trident a-range dynamic EQ, the standard channel Eq is redundant, It would be nice to gut and switch up the standard mixer eq, by placing the rack extension EQ in the mix channel fx insert space. after the insert is dropped the mixer console would now control the EQ rack mount. It should be optional how ever to use either both EQs or just the rack extension.

clip 2012-10-07 21:19

You cant do that with real hardware lol. You dont have to use the mix channel eq. Just dont press the on button.

sleeper0013 2012-10-08 05:39

Actualy older mixing stations from when the trident was moslty used were modular, i just want to control my Trident from the mixing console.

JakTheStripper 2012-10-10 23:54

To expand on the idea, imagine if you could choose between a bunch of EQs and compressors on each channel. Don't want to use the SSL EQ or compressor, switch it out for a Neve, API, or Trident. Turn Reason into a modular mixing console. Probably won't ever happen, but I can dream.

Drulian 2012-10-11 04:08

...That's what the rack is: Reason's modular mixing console.

What you're asking is for the Rack and the Mixer to be combined into the Mixer form factor, because after all, even the Subtractor, Thor and Malstrom can be used as effects units, as can super REs like the Etch Red and the PolySix.

This largely defeats the purpose of having a rack, meaning you'll be having to deal with majorly long mixing strips to mix your tracks. I'm not sold on the practicality of this suggestion.

JakTheStripper 2012-10-13 00:25

I would disagree. It wouldn't defeat the purpose of the rack at all. The rack is Reason's virtual rack, and the mixer is Reason's virtual mixing console. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a analog studio that doesn't have both a rack, and a mixing console (and some consoles are modular in what preamps/EQs they had). And it wouldn't make the mixer any larger than it already is. There would still be only 1 EQ per channel, & 1 compressor per channel, only you get to decide which flavor of EQ and compressor to use. The only difference between how Reason is now, and what I have in mind would be, instead of having a virtual SSL, you get a virtual whatever console your prefer.

Drulian 2012-10-13 02:55

Saying "The rack is Reason's virtual rack, and the mixer is Reason's virtual mixing console" is not clarifying anything. You're just saying a rose is a rose because it's a rose. It's also false: You can mix completely within the Rack and bypass the main Mixer completely. Reason has been able to do this since at least version 3.

Here's the key point: Rack,mixers, sequencers, combinators... These things don't exist. What they are is representational paradigms: symbolic constructs used to help us understand what they do and use them easily. It's the interface: sectioned-off, related toolsets that we're able to deal with easily. It's entirley possible to make a Subtractor without the front-facing plate and just enter values into several web-like form fields and have a synth make some awesome sounds.

It's just impractical to do.

The purpose of the rack, indeed the three general work areas of Reason, is to compartmentalise the way we think about making music. Create and stylise here (Rack). Arrange there (Sequencer). Unite here (Mixer).

Now... Let's address the look of the Mixer with swappable, modular EQs.

Let's say the 'flavour' I want is a 32-band EQ, because the sound I'm mixing is a live recording that suffers from complex interference waves from an untreated environment. The challenge would be to build that EQ that not only fits into the Modular EQ space, but is still easy to use, and has some frequency shift options to cater for the mic shifting location in the performance space. Now, the most logical practical answer here would be "Dude: that stuff isn't done at the desk-level: you need that in the rack", and I'd agree personally. But the point is, it's a 'flavour' of EQ I want, and it will need more space than the current on-board EQ.

Let's go the other way. What I want is a new thing called a sidechain EQ. It uses the frequency responses of one instrument to determine the EQ of another. It's just a 3-band EQ, but it has a couple of other buttons for tailoring purposes. Where will these buttons fit in the current EQ strip?

I think what I'm missing here is a look on how you think something that has the functionality of Reason's BV512 or a Uhbik Q will still have meaning or be easy to use in the mixer.

Reason's central paradigm is to be easy to make music. This suggestion seems to be about designing audio engineering studios that will require soundies to re-learn Reason for every installation they come across. It also means third party developers would have to cram their unique sound processing tools into two form factors: rack and mixer. Seems a waste.

JakTheStripper 2012-10-13 04:27

I was referring specifically to console EQ's and compressors, not every EQ and compressor. That's why I said Neve, API, and Trident. They are all console components. I'm not trying to cram everything from the rack into the mixer like 32 band monitor EQ's and synths. That's just ridiculous. Put the rack gear on the rack, and the console components on the mixer.

I think it is awesome that Reason has a virtual SSL, and thought it would be awesome to have other consoles as well. That's all.

LastAlternative 2012-10-16 01:26

I have noticed when you cut with the SSL EQ there is a drastic loss of volume, even only cutting a small amount, but when you boost you barely hear a difference and I have good studio monitors too! Also, I wish the SSL compressor had a make up gain.

clip 2012-10-16 01:42

There is a gain knob at the top of the mixer

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:06.