a lot of opinions flying around here with people attempting to pass them off as fact. here is a perfect example;
I don't need audio editing in my production software.
if reason works well for
you that doesn't necessarily mean it is the best product. people have a habit of viewing their favourite DAW as an extension of their manhood. they don't like hearing bad things about it. they'd rather believe that what they're using is the best. when comparing software we should try to remain objective as our personal needs and wants are not universal. the software developers aren't developing their software for one person after all!!
price wise reason is 450euro compared to flstudio at 200euro.
if you want to go totally propellerheads then the reason/record combo is 535 plus 230euro which equals 665euro.
the fl studio signature bundle is 300euro in comparison.
so there is a noticable difference in price.
if you wanted you could purchase the flstudio signature bundle, a couple of VSTs and still have some money left over. remember there are also a whole host of freeware plugins out there that are compatible with flstudio. you can build up a nice little collection of high quality and free plugins if you know what you're after. some of these easily compare to what is compared natively in flstudio and reason.
as for the in-built sound library reason has flstudio beat. now
i personally don't use the in-built library in any program that much because i have my own samples that i would
rather use but as previously stated my
personal preference has no relevance to the wider audience.
i personally love propellerheads as a company and believe they have been one of the most innovative music software companies of the past 15 years (rebirth, recycle and reason were all hugely innovative products for their time) but i believe that music software is moving, and has been moving, in a direction that isn't congruent with their view of a totally self-enclosed virtual studio.
but think back to the start of this decade. music software, and the idea of it, was very different back then. people were just really starting to consider coming around to the idea of working totally within and software environment and it was becoming a viable alternative not only to a lot of amateurs but to a lot of professional musicians as well.
computers weren't as powerful then as they are now and so the idea of a music software program that was extremely stable and low on CPU was not only highly appealing, it was an idea that made a huge amount of sense.
the idea of letting third party companies develop software to be used in conjunction with your product obviously creates some stability issues so it is understandable that propellerheads chose to not allow plugins with reason.
but that was a long time ago. we're at the end of the decade now. as i've said before i remember when i used to go on this site and people used to hate on all software producers. hardware was the only way to go if you wanted to be a "serious producer". you would apparently get laughed at in the studio if you only used software. things have changed a bit now.
then as software became more widely used i remember there were the "big dogs" of cubase, pro tools, etc.. and then the more "beat creation" centric programs such as reason, fl studio, etc...
as deranged has pointed out fl studio (or fruity loops
) was a lot more widely used, well cracked versions anyway, back then. i always used to enjoy reading the endless reason versus fruity loops threads that used to spring up on every production forum i visited. a lot of the time these were greeted by calls of "not this again" or "this discussion has been done to death". but i've always loved these sort of threads. i'm fully aware that it's been discussed to death but i'm also aware that the both pieces of software continue to evolve. therefore a thread about fl studio versus reason that was posted 2 years ago might not be that relevant today. remember that technology moves at a fast pace.
where does that leave us now?
fruity loops may have started out as inferior to reason, as that was
generally seen as the case on many production forums, but times have changed since it's evolved into fl studio. like deranged said there were a lot of fl studio users around before who then migrated to reason because it was "apparently" more professional.
but like i said before the music software market has moved in a way that is not in keeping with propellerheads vision. before when computers weren't as powerful or stable a self-contained, stable, all in one program would be very appealing and that is what made reason so popular amongst home users. but in 2009 now it is simply different. it's not propellerheads fault, it's just the way the market has naturally evolved.
system stability isn't really an issue anymore and as computers are getting cheaper the CPU issue isn't that big of a deal anymore. for example i run Massive, FM8 and Circle pretty easily on my laptop which is around 18 months old now and cost me around 600euro.
i also use renoise as my main sequencer and i don't think i've had a single crash. although granted renoise is known to be extremely stable.
if you go to any production forum now the general consensus, in regards to flstudio versus reason, seems to be if you're starting out don't get reason as it severely lacking when compared to flstudio, and other daws for that matter.
don't believe me? remember when record was released and propellerheads released a statement saying how they didn't want record referred to as a daw? instead it was a new and innovate way to record music. basically it looks like a daw and acts like a daw (sans plugin support) so yeah it's a daw. the reason that propellerheads don't want their products labelled as a daw but as something different is because they would then end up bottom on the totem pole of DAWs. straight from the horses mouth as they say. propellerheads are for all intents and purposes admitting that their product is inferior to the competitors on the market.
my fear for propellerheads is that they will now turn into a company that will begin to target themselves more and more at beginners instead of serious musicians. i think this was first seen in the way they marketed reason 4 as an instrument instead of a fully fledged sequencer and now it is continuing with the way they handled the release of record. the product, by itself, has a huge price and the main selling point is an SSL modeled board (and they didn't even get to use the license) and ease of use. looking at the thing as a standalone product and it looks as if it's aimed at people who want an easy way to record instruments and vocals without being overwhelmed with a wealth of options that they may not need. a basic "record"ing program if you will, although with a huge price.
i am very curious as to the direction that propellerheads go with reason 5. some of the modules in reason are rather dated when compared to counterparts that can be purchased as plugins so they will obviously have to add new stuff. they can't alter the already existing modules for backwards comparability issues, or will they just throw that completely out the window and update everything? although the true strength of reason is as a whole, i would probably only grab the malstrom if individual reason modules were offered for sale.
my fear for propellerheads is that they will just accept their fate as developers of a program that will lose relevance amongst "serious" musicians and will instead attempt to market their "stable, all-in-one, studio in a box" at beginners.
while some reason users might take that as an insult just take a look at the situation for a second. the use of plugins has become standard nowadays amongst software producers. it is fact that propellerheads cannot keep up with the quality and variety offered by third party companies developing plugins, especially at the rate that propellerheads update at!!
saying that you can rewire reason into another host and then use plugins is a moot point because at that point you are making reason the slave application and you are bypassing the use of it's sequencer and have just relegated it to a sound module. if that's the case there are softsynths and softsamplers out there that can replace what reason offers. the strength of reason is when you use it as a standalone enclosed application.
when i use reason, something i've being doing a lot more lately, that's how i use it. i don't rewire it into another program. i use it by itself. the workflow offered by reason is unique and the ease of use of the routing system makes it really enjoyable to use.
regardless people should use whatever they are comfortable and like working with. at the end of the day great music has been made using both tools, and a lot less for that matter!! saying you can only make good music on this or that is ridiculous. remember these sort of discussions are only relevant to the technical details and possibilities of each program. nobody is questioning the musicianship of anybody here just because they use a different program.