Ability to have sample start at random positions


(tris) #1

I like the sound of synthesisers that let me have oscillators that don’t retrigger with the envelope.

Could we have the option to have a sample restart in random places each time we trigger it?

I know it can be achieved this with a humanisation of Sxx commands but I’d much rather they just triggered like this sometimes when designing sounds.


List of feature suggestions for Renoise
(Dan P) #2

yes please!


(danoise) #3

I agree, it would be great way to add more life and character to basic waveforms.

A similar suggestion was discussed a while back:

https://forum.renoise.com/t/modulate-sample-start/40039

But one thing that I see as a challenge is that, Renoise being a tracker, we can actually control the sample offset using the Sxx command.

Something like a random offset would have to co-exist with this command - not replace it - or it wouldn’t be as interesting to use, IMO.

So how about a granular playback mode for samples? It would work completely independent of sample/effect commands, be a property of the sample itself.

If such a mode existed, we could control the starting point, perhaps as a percentage of the total size. Any Sxx command would then be added on top (depending on whether the sound is looped, it could wrap around the edges etc…I guess the actual implementation details wouldn’t be simple at all)


(fladd) #4

I agree, it would be great way to add more life and character to basic waveforms.

A similar suggestion was discussed a while back:

https://forum.renoise.com/t/modulate-sample-start/40039

But one thing that I see as a challenge is that, Renoise being a tracker, we can actually control the sample offset using the Sxx command.

Something like a random offset would have to co-exist with this command - not replace it - or it wouldn’t be as interesting to use, IMO.

So how about a granular playback mode for samples? It would work completely independent of sample/effect commands, be a property of the sample itself.

If such a mode existed, we could control the starting point, perhaps as a percentage of the total size. Any Sxx command would then be added on top (depending on whether the sound is looped, it could wrap around the edges etc…I guess the actual implementation details wouldn’t be simple at all)

Yes, setting sample start (and end) should indeed be independent of the Sxx command, since the latter cannot be modulated (which I think would be the main motivation for adding sample start and end). As I explained in the other thread you mentioned, modulating sample start is essential for creating convincing sounding sampled instruments, without relying on massive multi-sampling. In fact, hardware sampler from 20 years ago already had this basic feature, which is why even back in the days, with all the sample memory limitations, it was possible to have great sounding sampled instruments.

But reading you (being part of the Renoise team) coming up with a mere suggestion while Redux is supposed to be almost done, really reinforces some of my worries regarding the Redux release…


(danoise) #5

I think the granular suggestion is a slightly different approach than the ones previously suggested, but still relevant enough for linking to that other topic, yes…

For this specific purpose, there wouldn’t be anything like loop, start or end. Just a “granular play position”, working in a completely independent fashion… I would imagine that you could set up a given time window (perhaps only a few samples), from which the playback cursor could choose a random location. So, modulating, yes, but without direct control. After all, granular synthesis is to a great extent about randomness…


(triple zero) #6

I was thinking maybe you can use the same trick as with the autohumanizing drums trick, except with the Sxx command instead of the delay column. But that won’t work because you can’t get an FX column for every note column (can you?).

However, there’s another option. We’re just talking about small/single-cycle looping waveforms here, right? Then duplicate that sample a couple of times, and use some precise cut+paste work to create “rotated” versions of the waveform. Meaning they just differ by phase-shift. Basically you just select a random bit from the right end, cut it, then past it on the front. I suppose about five of them should be sufficient to get the effect sounding good.

Now you just layer all of them on top of eachother in the keyzones, and select Overlap:Random in the bottom right of the keyzone editor.

That should do the trick, no?


(tris) #7

good thinking triple zero! that will do nicely for now.


(pat) #8

But reading you (being part of the Renoise team) coming up with a mere suggestion while Redux is supposed to be almost done, really reinforces some of my worries regarding the Redux release…

A Renoise developer chatting with Renoise users in the ideas & suggestions forum reinforces your worries?

Have you considered using a different DAW? You seem to be pretty down on Renoise for several months, and have no problem criticizing the devs and their choices at every opportunity. It’s really petty. Almost as petty as me calling you out on it.


(danoise) #9

You seem to be pretty down on Renoise for several months, and have no problem criticizing the devs and their choices at every opportunity

Well, I think the case here is that it’s 95% useful for fladd, but the remaining 5% is a source of much frustration. At least, that’s how I interpret it.

Of course, you could switch to another DAW and use a powerful plugin such as Kontakt - but, pianolol.

I personally believe that there is a lot of catching up to do in Renoise 3.0. So much potential, so many details to get right…


(ffx) #10

A Renoise developer chatting with Renoise users in the ideas & suggestions forum reinforces your worries?

Have you considered using a different DAW? You seem to be pretty down on Renoise for several months, and have no problem criticizing the devs and their choices at every opportunity. It’s really petty. Almost as petty as me calling you out on it.

Man, you somehow starting to get on my nerves, to be honest. What’s YOUR problem? Critics aren’t allowed? Maybe these is some frustration going on here, because the lack of communication between user and developer. Some clear statements about the direction or anything would help. It’s kind of frustrating if one thinks about problems in Renoise and suggest how to make it better, and then getting this cool answers like yours.

Ok, onetime I also wrote something maybe annoying against the devs, sorry for that, but just because of some kind of frustration about the lack of information.

Besides this Renoise is the best DAW on this planet, I have no doubt about this (at least for me). But we all dream of the perfect daw :slight_smile:


(muckleby) #11

feels like just adding automatable sample start/loop points would be the most straight forward option here?

with 0SXX commands just working with the remaining sample.

this way you could just use the existing LFO, vel. tracker tools and automation to do randomised stuff, expressive stuff and of course granular madness too.


(Meef Chaloin) #12

+1 for random if possible


(fladd) #13

A Renoise developer chatting with Renoise users in the ideas & suggestions forum reinforces your worries?

Uhm, no. Him thinking about it suggests that it has not been implemented yet and might not make it into Redux. This was worrying me. But I am sure you actually got what I meant here, didn’t you :wink:

Have you considered using a different DAW?

I have, and I am.

You seem to be pretty down on Renoise for several months, and have no problem criticizing the devs and their choices at every opportunity. It’s really petty.

I am (like many others too) disappointed by SOME of the choices in 3.0. I actually would have a problem to criticise the devs at every opportunity. Thankfully, this is not what I am doing. I bring up my criticism at opportunities where it makes sense and where it is related to the shortcomings I (and we all do, that should be a common goal) want to see improved. After all, I am interested in Renoise becoming as good as it can. I am a researcher and as this, my view on criticism might be a different one than yours. It helps progress. There is nothing personal about it.

Almost as petty as me calling you out on it.

Aaaawwwww…

Well, I think the case here is that it’s 95% useful for fladd, but the remaining 5% is a source of much frustration. At least, that’s how I interpret it.
Of course, you could switch to another DAW and use a powerful plugin such as Kontakt - but, pianolol.

I personally believe that there is a lot of catching up to do in Renoise 3.0. So much potential, so many details to get right…

Exactly. Well said! I am glad that you understand the intend of my criticism.