Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/index.php)
-   Feature Suggestion Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Freeze (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/showthread.php?t=179151)

deepndark 2013-03-26 08:06

Freeze
 
Hey, as we already can render a mix channel to audio, now there only needs to be "turning the instruments and effects OFF" = Freeze

Reason 7.5 should introduce it to us, thank you!

charlycharlzz 2013-03-26 17:45

the only way I know to low some dsp the way it is now is to mute the track but not on the track from the mixer chanel (that dont change dsp) but to mute the track directly in the sequencer side mute on the left !

I think grouping will open new ways in this but I have no idears ;)

normen 2013-03-26 17:51

Theres an option to do that automatically in the bounce window

Monkatron 2013-03-26 20:49

There is the obvious work arounds . All of witch lead to one thing ( wanting a real freeze function) I've posted about this for years ... It's something I have wanted for a long long time.

It's a shame we won't see it in this next release .

My work flow is really awesome when I don't have to render or step away from creating .. Work arounds do one thing ... Kill the creative flow in the studio . C'MON PROPS!! give us what we need already ....

WhiteWolf22 2013-03-27 01:03

Agreed
 
I just wanted to ask for a freeze track function myself, of course I looked for an existing thread first (and stumbled across this one).

I have a relatively old CPU now and with the introduction of Rack Extensions, a few very good, but CPU hungry algorithms made their way into the Reason universe. Let's take the TSAR-1 as an example. It sounds really, really good, but it *eats* my processor. If I had a one-click freeze function, I could easily make real use of it for all tracks I like.

Today I made a little experiment with a Uhbik G and a TSAR-1. Placed behind an already complex synth, this combo leaves no more room for anything else. It would be so much better, if I just could freeze it and wouldn't have to worry anymore about performance.

Here's how far I came, if you're interested: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gb3ujihk7a...a%20(WIP).flac

Of course, I could bounce it to a new track. But the process to do so is a little clunky, compared to clicking one simple button. And then, making adjustments or changes... it's just not a good workflow for cases like this without a proper freeze function. Technically, you should have everything required already built into the software.

moofi 2013-05-05 07:26

Yes, since RackExtension are here I hardly can build a complete song because I often reach the CPU limit with only one or two sounds. Yes, I like building complex sounddesigns :)

selig 2013-05-05 18:16

Of course I agree a freeze function could be useful, but there are other features that are needed and could provide similar results, while a freeze function only does the one thing. And by freeze function I mean the whole feature, not just the freezing part because we can already freeze it just takes a few more button pushes. But without the function that TOTALLY removes the CPU load of the frozen device, the freeze function itself isn't much more than we already have and doesn't provide the vital CPU saving feature. But if you could simply remove the frozen elements from the song, and the instantly be able to get them back (like other platforms allow), you would have a feature that has multiple uses.

I'm thinking of the ideas for track import/export/Versions that have come up (including mine) here. If you could save a separate version of the song that could be referred back to when needed, you could delete tracks that have been rendered/frozen from the current version. With the import/export feature you could easily get that original track right back where it was quite quickly. Hope I'm making sense.

The reason I mention this is if the developers are looking at two features to decide which one to add, it would make more sense to add the one that allows the most flexibility and covers the other features reasonably well. Just a thought… :-)

moofi 2013-05-06 05:26

When I think of a freeze function I understand a rendering of the track, replacing the devices by an audiofile and taking the devices completely out of the processing line.
If I unfreeze a track the devices are put back in charge, while the audiofile is either deleted (in case of changes to the devices parameters) or being kept in storage until that changing happens.
I actually don´t see any possibility doing anything like that atm. Besides the awful handling - yes, I could bounce the track and play the bounced audio while bypassing the devices instead but the devices still are into CPU usage even if they are bypassed. Had the example, where I had 3 bars of CPU active though everything was bypassed.
Versions sound sort of alright, though it´s seems quite a bit of extra handling compared to simply selecting all tracks that should be freezed and clicking freeze/successive unfreeze from my point of view.

shtunot 2013-05-28 03:17

+1 for a freeze function... Either that or give me support for the UAD Plugins in reason. Either or both. This is too important to not add in 7.5...

michal22 2013-08-14 19:41

Freezing channels with one click. Necessity. I'm waiting.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:46.