Add buzz styled sequencing to Renoise

I agree - I don’t want advanced instruments, I only use VSTs and drum samples, that’s what VSTs are for - we don’t need to reinvent the wheel by trying to create super-duper instruments within Renoise, they are never going to compare to those available as VSTs.
Where is the improved sequencer? We are still stuck with the Pattern Matrix after all these years. Why ignore the basics (the sequencer) and spend so much time on things that not everybody wants?

Secondly - when are the devs going to ASK US what we want them to produce, instead of just going ahead with all this work in secret, and then acting hurt when people complain that it isn’t what we wanted? It isn’t rocket science: put up a list of what your ideas for the future are, and then let the registered users VOTE on what we want, that way the majority get what they want.

I don’t want or need Redux - who needs it?

Sorry to say that the phrases, though they look like an improvement, are not that useful - because you can’t NAME your phrases. So when you enter the notes in the main pattern editor, you have to remember what phrase C-0 was, what phrase D-0 was, etc. There is no way to LOOK at the pattern and think “Yep, that’s going to sound like so and so”, because how can you possibly remember what each note phrase sounds like?

So we now have TWO ‘blind’ sequencers - the pattern matrix, which shows us useless shrunk down views of the patterns, which could sound like anything, as you could have ten patterns that all have notes in the same place, but with different notes, and then we have the phrases, which again aren’t VISIBLE as phrases, just as notes in the pattern editor.

They couldn’t have done a worse job on those two things if they tried. Why didn’t you ASK US first? Let us see what you had planned, then people could give objections and suggest SOLUTIONS before you’d coded a line…


These are really valid ideas IMO. Even more blind number referencing won’t help making Renoise more accessible or usable.

just curious… why do you keep using renoise then? i mean there are like a gazillion daws which can get the job done for you (unless you want to mangle those drum samples a lot with commands)

some of these must have a better arranger than renoise currently has. i wouldn’t be surprised if the daw which came with your audio card would do just fine.

You can, look…

Yes, it’s a shame that the basics haven’t been addressed - the sequence editor.

The only reason you even need the phrase function is because you don’t have a Buzz Sequence Editor, which allows you to use every pattern as a ‘phrase’, as it were- except in Buzz you can actually give them NAMES and see how long they are in the sequence editor…

Okay, so if I have a phrase on one key, how do I read the name?
And that’s completely irrelevant - how do I see the name in the main pattern editor, where I need to see it?
Afta8, have you ever tried Buzz?

THIS is what we need, not more hidden, obscure representations of patterns and phrases…

You could say that to everybody who requests certain functions in any DAW that they use.
No DAW came with my audio card, would you care to elaborate? LOL.

Yes, one of them does have a better sequencer, it’s called Buzz, but apparently the Pattern Matrix is set in stone and cannot be questioned here. So while the devs spend their time producing loads of things which aren’t necessary (especially in this age of VSTs), we all work around the inherent design flaws of the pattern matrix and pretend it isn’t a problem.

Then we have people like you who want to silence dissent, rather than discuss simple aspects of the user interface. Why do they scare you so much?

No, it isn’t just you. I can’t see the point in the devs spending their time on Redux. If users of other DAWs want to use the functionality of Renoise, they should just use Renoise. Why, when we have samplers like Kontakt, have the devs spent so much time on trying to improve the instruments within Renoise? When the Pattern Matrix and the whole way you use the interface needs improvement?


I bet if the devs had actually bothered to give registered users a VOTE, you wouldn’t have ‘ten different answers’, you’d have ten or twenty possible improvements, and one or two clear winners…

However, we were never asked, so we have every right to complain.

Why are people who don’t like or know about trackers, going to suddenly want to use Redux in their non-tracker DAW? Why? Anybody know why?

The answer is - they WON’T want to use it, and they won’t want to buy it. What can it possibly give them over, for example, a sampler VST, which will have better sounds and better control, than instruments created in Renoise 3?

How is Renoise “unmatched” as a sampler? ‘Phrases and stuff’ - oh, you mean the phrases which were designed badly from the get go, so all you see in the pattern editor are note values, to represent phrases? Because implementing a Buzz sequence editor would be too simple, clear and easy, wouldn’t it…

Good grief. “you can’t visualize waveforms, or notes, or an instrument icon, all you see are numbers.” That IS the tracker approach, so yes, it IS what is keeping people away from trackers. LOL.

Redux will be an epic failure, and the devs should have tried ASKING PEOPLE FIRST.

What sort of person thinks that they can just ignore what their customers, and potential customers, want, and just try to sell them whatever the business owner wants to sell? Never heard of Windows Metro? Microsoft Surface? ‘The Ribbon’? Epic failures from the biggest software company in the world, that have lost them billions of dollars, because they thought they knew best, and didn’t bother asking their own customers what they wanted.

I’m still waiting for somebody to show me a video of them using the Pattern Matrix to write a whole song, so I can see how they do it. You’d think Renoise users would be leaping at the chance to show me how brilliant and useful it is…

So YOU’RE the one who came up with the genius idea of trying to represent umpteen different phrases by a mere NOTE in the pattern editor. That explains a lot… I would call that neither ‘dynamic’ nor ‘flexible’.

So you haven’t used the Buzz Sequence Editor either then, I take it?

Yes a long time ago but not after it’s recent resurrection.

Have you tried to make a track using phrases?

IMO you are missing the point. Phrases are like samples, you use them in the same way when sequencing.

I agree that the Buzz Sequencer does have features that would be nice to have but I think those should be implemented in the pattern matrix. Phrases are not the same as Buzz sequences.

Some of you guys are missing the point. Phrases are simple and powerful. Before phrases, you hit a key and the sampler played whatever was on that key, with whatever modulations. With phrases, you can still do that, but you can also play entire patterns on a single key. The phrases become complex notes themselves, and you can play them with a midi controller or sequence them in the pattern editor, same as you can with any sample-based notes. You can do this with plugin instruments as well.

You are angry because you are obviously unimpressed with the 3 Release (I do not blame you for that and have not seen a Renoise release in recent years i was impressed with)
1 If you need evidence look at any FR forum on any developers website
2 What you are talking about is the developers making a list of what they are WILLING to do and then the users voting on that list, there really is no such thing as asking your users what is needed, go on i dare you, make a forum post asking people to say what their number one needed feature is for Renoise, every single user will be different, give them a list of ten and let them vote and yes you would get a consensus, but only a consensus on the options the developer already chose, so your argument in this case is wrong.

As to all your other points i agree entirely with most of it, however why would anybody be interested in Redux, i have covered this before, if it has DFD (No idea yet , they haven’t even coded it) then please name me one other sampler outside of the very expensive Kontakt that has Round Robin/Random Robin and DFD, there actually isn’t one, and this offers a low cost entry point into high quality libraries (If soundware developers support it, no reason they wouldn’t)

Well such consensus list is already present:

Clearly internal midi routing is winning with Audio tracks as first runner up.

I knew all of that already, I’ve just written a simple song using phrases. None of that addresses any of the inherent problems with how phrases are triggered by note values… Nobody said phrases weren’t powerful, they are, but it’s no use if you can’t SEE what you have put WHERE in your pattern, because all you have is a random note value to guess at. It’s just so ridiculous I can’t comprehend it.

I’m not remotely angry.

Yes, there is a reason they wouldn’t - they can do much better creating libraries for Kontakt, it is the industry standard. Redux is not going to go anywhere. It’s a chicken and egg problem. Why would any of the developers who currently create libraries for Kontakt, and take advantage of all its features, such as scripting, redo those sample libraries for Redux, if Redux isn’t really popular? Who is going to want Redux?

Hear, hear. And yet we didn’t get either of those in Renoise 3. Why? What’s the point in the devs producing changes that aren’t the most wanted features?

They’re not powerful, but they’re useless? But you wrote a song using them? What is so ridiculous?

This list was created right after R3 beta launch :)

So because I state that the way you ACCESS phrases is bad, I don’t understand what phrases are? They are two different things.

  1. The phrases
  2. The method of accessing them, the method of viewing which phrases are being triggered where…

Two separate things.

The Buzz Sequence Editor solves all of those problems… Phrases are the same as Buzz patterns - they are a tracker within a tracker! It explicitly says so on this site!

I’m just finishing off a Buzz tutorial video which will clearly explain everything, just need to do a few more annotations, then I’ll post it up in this thread, so you can understand what I am talking about.

Ha ha… my bad…

Isn’t there an older survey then?

I remember the days when we used to have a survey from the devs, for registered users only, and we’d vote on what features we wanted most. That’s how things should work…

No, you understand what phrases are. But you’re claiming that phrases are bad because they don’t copy the feature set of another application. I think that’s wrong. Phrases fit into the renoise way of working and enable you to work a bit differently. You’ve proven that by writing music with phrases, you said it yourself. I guess I’m suggesting that you say “Hey, here’s what I’d like to see” in the suggestions forum, and continue making music in renoise the way you know how, using the new tools at your disposal. That’ll be a whole lot better than suggesting the renoise team intentionally puts out convoluted stuff for no good reason, and that the feature is of somehow no use because it doesn’t copy another piece of software.

I think the problem you have with phrases is the same one you have with samples, its inherent to the tracker design.

Say you have a sliced loop, how do you know what slice plays what when looking at your programmed sequence? How do you what instrument is playing? and so as you state how do you know what phrase is playing… This isn’t a new problem and buzz doesn’t solve this either.

At some point in a tracker things get very alphanumeric, thats why its called a tracker. I suppose in contrast to a traditional DAW you have to use your ears a lot more to know what sound is playing but IMO that is an advantage.

I didn’t suggest that PHRASES were no use. I didn’t suggest the Renoise team designs things the way I wouldn’t, for no reason - they come up with an idea and then implement it, without ASKING users.

What if I were to suddenly somehow implement the Buzz Sequence Editor in Renoise and get rid of the Pattern Matrix, without ASKING anybody, and just said ‘This is the way it is’. Wouldn’t that be wrong? How can you expect to design a user interface correctly if you don’t ask users?

“Phrases fit into the renoise way of working and enable you to work a bit differently. You’ve proven that by writing music with phrases, you said it yourself.”
Huh? I didn’t prove anything of the sort. They “enable me to work a bit differently” - is that supposed to mean it’s a good thing? They FORCE me to work different, you mean.

Representing phrases with notes in the pattern editor is a bad idea.

Somebody make a song with 50 phrases over eight instruments and then show us the patterns. Preferably using Kontakt libraries, so the lower notes and higher notes are already being used by Kontakt for keyswitching…

In a month’s time you’d come back to that song and not have a clue what note was doing what, you’d have to constantly go into and out of the phrase editor, just to see what each ‘phrase note’ actually represented.

Whereas in Buzz… Please tell me what is unclear about the picture below.

Hear, hear…


Can Buzz patterns:

  1. Be transposed and locked to a scale?
  2. Be used to create chords that are locked to a given scale?
  3. Played with 0S commands at different points in the pattern?
  4. Be played backwards using 0B commands?