Hi all,
I have a small problem. I want to add some tempo variations after the song is now already setup. Increasing pace is easy but to slow it further down is a problem, as I am only one step away from the magic 32 BPM. I can’t go below it ! Damn. Does someone know how to solve this problem ? Maybe there is an automatic way to stretch the whole song by doubling the total number of beats and lines but leaving the relative relations between notes untouched ?
Best regards,
Paul.
Decrease lpb?
Advanced Edit → select “Whole Song” → Expand
Or, as td6d said, you could decrease the lpb.
Decreasing lpb sounds like also decreasing resolution. And I used all the lines to make the song.
But Expansion sounds promising…I will try it later.
Thank you,
Paul.
Decreasing BPM also makes the lines scroll slower and thus also decreases resolution just as much as decreasing LPB will.
aside of the suggested workarounds, I would still like to see the 32 lower bound removed
Ok, now I am angry. Right now I tried the expand button. In the beginning I was happy. I doubled the bpm to get the same result as before until I reached the end of the first pattern and something strange happened. I thought that I had solved the minimum 32 bpm problem and now I discovered that something is missing and the reason seems to be THAT I NEED 638 lines now in this pattern. Double as before and I can set only 512 lines. The program doesn’t even warn me during expansion. I fought a number limit and just get another one ? Why 512 lines limit ? Are we back in a 9-bit computer world ? The composer decides how long his sections are not Renoise !
I guess that I have to shorten the pattern and create another one. This is so ugly !
Best regards from Aachen, where yesterday a nice symphonic concert took place presenting the 8th symphony of Gustav Mahler, the conductor gave such a heart-warming speech afterwards, because he is leaving to Nürnberg.
I sometimes don’t like the 512 line limit either, and sometimes I really hate the 64 line limit for edit step. But o well. You sir could’ve used delay column. If you want infinite precision and infinite length blocks (and better graphical representation?) you should try something else. Although with use of delay column and LPB on 16 renoise comes closest to infinite precision of any music production applications I have seen. It also helps kilos if you give an example of what you’re working on so people can actually see what is going wrong (you can clear the samples from the song if you want)…
You are obviously just finding out about this program and its workings, so whatever you do, don’t get so angry that you won’t allow yourself to learn in this program any further.
Also, I believe that anything slower than 32 bpm gets killed by snail slime tracks because it does not move. But please let’s hear some music that says otherwise - because I assure you it can be programmed into renoise. Just with a little difference in tpl, bpm, or lpb really. If anything needs to be on 31 bpm you could set bpm to 62 and clear every other line, right?
1)The delay column ? How could it possibly be of any help in that context ? I need some explanation please.
2)What do you mean by something else ? Good suggestions ?
3)Limits like 512 make somehow no sense to me. With almost unlimited memory and processing power of computer nowadays…why to put such low limits anyway ? If it would be 16384…I could understand it, since no one would like to handle such a long list.
4) I defined a beat to be half a note, which makes sense since the composer uses five-two meter. From this point of view, the piece is not that slow…anyway, using the bpm you can’t say how fast a song really is if you don’t know how a beat is defined and which note values are used. Knowing the limits now, I would have made other decisions.
5) You can clear lines only, if they are empty.
6) I know that I can reach my goals with Renoise. The question here is, to what degree Renoise dictates the way to the goal and how much extra time it takes me. And limits are not very helpful here.
Best regards,
Paul (btw 2:1 for Germany 
don’t get personal. don’t go flaming. it couldn’t solve your problem even if there was any. the only problem of course is probably that you’re crying about your incompetence and now your mommy can’t sleep. and now you are looking for someone to blame it on.
Apparently, you fail to realize, with help of your delay column your reso is like 256 * the resolution you think you have. Or maybe you used all lines, every posssible note column, and then also every delay column value? This gets back to, show the layout of what you have right now instead of going ranting in words that you assume everybody here will understand. If you want to fix your thing in this renoise version. Show me a composition that’s below 32 bpm that actually flows and I’ll tell you exactly how you are going to achieve it. Then you do as I command you and you’ll be happy. So you’re not quite right… you owe the forum an explanation. (like you just did by editing a little bit, invisibly, good work chap)
Aren’t you a pathetic little smalltime fella 
How bout, you keep making new user accounts to annoy pros 
Or maybe just post stuff like this in the Ideas section instead of going to war pathetically with whoever is good at giving you a positive idea. huh.
no thanks, there was no pleasure in educating you at all.
Well, I consider the LPB lowering still the best advise, when you do that, that’s where the delay column gets in if you still need that refined integrity (instantiate notes on spots in between two lines), it goes on the expense of note columns though.
Expanding the pattern size limit does not only involves expanding the amount of pattern lines, but also the automation time-line that goes along and perhaps also requires adjustments to the autoseek function used to pinpoint sample offset coordinations whenever an arbitrary point in the pattern is being played from. There is so much connected to these line positions. Regarding memory aspect perhaps not a big deal, but in technical aspect a lot of changes behind the curtains have to be made and counted in to remain compatible with older and current stuff, which is also a reason why old standards keep existing. Some can be changed to new standards by manually converting the old song to new standards (Push the convert song button in the song-section), but you have no guarantee that everything works as before.
Limits have always been there and there were some expanded in the past when possible but not with every upgrade and as far as that goes, only less than a handfull full of people complained about the 512 lines limit, you included. Besides, i don’t really understand these arguments at all for expansion on those limits. Notes on partitures are also limited to letter or A4 size paper. I have never seen an instrument player reading notes from toilet paper or the likes, but it would be a similar feature request.
I can understand the frustration of limits but there might be other ways around it instead of just expanding patterns.It depends on what you desire and i have the feeling that you are trying to accomplish some effect using an ineffective manner, but if you explain what you exactly try to achieve, we can assist you a lot better.
@Cas: There’s no need to be so damn insulting and hostile towards another user who is just asking some simple questions about how to improve his workflow. If you can’t make your point in a polite manner, I would suggest that you don’t bother replying at all. Let’s please try to keep things a bit more relaxed around here, ok?
There should be a warning.
I would like to join this small group (or does the wording “handfull full” actually suggest we’re quite a lot!?).
Reaper will get you down to 2 beats per minute… lol. I just took a look.
Anyways… I tried to google, cause this is an interesting thread. but I couldn’t find any answer. I tried to verify how correct this statement is: “I don’t remember metronomes, before the age of digital, that went below 32 bpm”
You know? From like… the kindergarten music class… when the piano teacher brought out the thing that went tick tock tick tock. well… I don’t remember them going below 32. And I was always obsessed with time. I was always playing with these old things http://www.westfieldguitar.co.uk/westfield/hires/TP714%20Pyramid%20Metronome.jpg
Who can find a pic of one that goes below 32? I think it will be interesting to see…
Something like this… I’d need some proper software to zoom in there, and take a look at the numbers? http://techinmusiced.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/old_metronome.jpg
all ive got is music stuff. maybe somebody has the right graphic program? they can make a huge zoom in .jpeg — > http://bartoc.com/web1/metronomeandtuner/jx40.jpg
Ah well…
I just think its interesting. I’m not taking part in the, “debate.”
Cheers guys
Well he started mentioning football statistics and acting like a two faced… noob with the questions, super pro with the answers he then gets?
OK the snail slime thing was a bit out of bounds maybe. But all the rest is quite neat in my reply (in my defense) but that’s when tresher just starts summing up trying to counter every true thing I’ve said to his help as a lie.
Also, he does not want to listen to my advice of “instead of expecting people to help you over the internet while they have no idea what you are talking about exactly, go and show them what you have and then say where you want it to go”… I think it’s a shame.
When about 5 people complained, about the 512 line limit, I guess the count for complaints about 32bpm lower limit was much lower than 5. I’m just saying.
Anyway I’ll stay away from beginners questions as you like dblue.
Apologies to TS for some of the things I said.
Pot calling the kettle black at all?
Becasue it allows you to put notes/beats on divisions of 1/256th of a line.
I guess he was meaning don’t let it put you off Renoise and go to another DAW and not learn more what is good and worthwhile about this program.
I don’t get vV’s comment. As Patterns can already be of any length from 1-512, not a fixed number, extending the range should not make calculating things like Automation or Autoseek any harder. IE I agree I see no reason it shouldn’t be extended and it has been suggested multiple times.
You do realise notes/beats don’t have to go on Lines? See answer to 1.
Really don’t get what you are on about here! If they are empty they are clear aren’t they?
Limits are not necessarily a bad thing. Some amazing music has been made under serious limitations! From Beethoven being deaf, through us only having two hands to play drums/guitars/etc to some amazing music written with basic 4-track sequencers. Don’t blame limitations for your own failures.
+1
** using mobile so, can’t edit my prior post + no quote button
– really quick though…
“rewire” I can’t check right now, but doesn’t the slave follow the master? Would Renoise take to 2bpm if reaper was the rewire master?
Also…
<— don’t blame limitations… Own failures…
True, +1
Bad carpenters blame the wood, Bad salesman blame the product…
I haven’t checked this thread here for two days and was surprised about its development. A few comments on this
I understood now with the help of vV what was meant with the delay column hint, I understand that this can solve my problem, but I don’t want to take that path for the following reason. It would kill the ease of graphical presentation. Then, numbers would tell me if notes are played really in a harmonic or melodic manner and not the order of them like in a normal score. Watching the demos I am impressed how much information is stored in very little room by means that I don’t grasp right now…but you know music is complex in itself I don’t want to add another layer.
I solved the problem with your help, because you refered me to expansion. I just used expansion on the very bars that I wanted to be slower than 32 bpm and did automation on these bars to compensate. This way I didn’t reach the limits. Success ! 
It is not perfect in the sense that I have to rethink about the presentation of note lengths entering these bars, but I can deal with that.
Maybe put a list of all these limits in the manual. Don’t know if I just forgot while reading it, but a quick search on 512 was not successful.
If changes to constants are that complex to realize, than maybe there are some problems in the structure of the program code. The idea of compatibility I do understand, though thinking about Windows 98 and their compatibility issues with DOS (or Apple computers and their benefit of dedicated hardware) it seems to me that making a cut is a more elegant solution. (off-topic)
My special gratitude to vV, kazakore and dblue.
Kind regards,
Paul
