Add buzz styled sequencing to Renoise

Which is exactly why F2 takes me to the Pattern Editor, and pressing F2 again takes me to the Phrase Editor of the chosen instrument. I’m hoping to be able to get enough LUA Api hooks to take me to the exact phrase-note the user’s cursor is on.
so then when I’m done with editing the Phrase, I press F2 again and I’m back in the pattern editor. Of course, this is just to replicate ImpulseTracker/SchismTracker behaviour… But that’s beside the point. The key-shortcut could be anything.

Cycling between Pattern Editor and Phrase Editor is stupendously important.

  1. I’m glad this can be done via scripting of the API.
  2. I wonder why it needs to be done via scripting instead of directly provided as a shortcut.

one BUG:

  • create a phrase
  • put the Phrase note in the pattern
  • play in the phrase editor
  • then go to the pattern editor and hit enter in the note or play your song

!!!the phrase plays 2 times!!!
you can see two cursos move in the phrase editor

dududez you miss something, the Phrase editor you can use VSTi or Midi or Sample!!!

and Redux is an option for users… if you dont need dont use… its simple.
is u use renoise then dont use it. but millions of potential users want something like this… use in ableton cubase or else…
Redux is a kool thing…

I must say that this is something really brilliant which I did not think myself.

Instead, I can’t really understand the use for 0Sxx with phrases. could you please enlighten me?

Hear, hear. Anybody interested in how Buzz works can view a simple tutorial I put up on Youtube, you can see it near the bottom of the following page:

im not interest about how buzz works. as i say i Use buzz more then 10 years before i start renoise. im using buzz to my work everyday in that years, now im use Renoise to my work in the last 3 years–

im still love Buzz process , the modularity and the plugins, there are lots of simple but really powerfull plugins that cant beated today…
like a simple “Jeskola Bass 4” i dont need trilli-filli Massive to create powerfull bassline… and so on…

Sure, its probably best to explain with an example, see this song file:

So you can play a phrase from a specific line by specifying the line number (in Hex) with the 0S command. In this example 0S is being used to play a phrase like its a drum sample. Before phrases you could chop up a drum loop like this but you would need to put each hit on a different track if you wanted to process hits with different eq/compression settings. Then you put them in a group for bus processing. However if afterward you wanted to chop up the programmed break you would have to copy and paste/reprogram each track. I actually made a tool that lets you do what 0Sxx can now do with phrases: New Tool (2.8): Pattern Offset

Now you can do all that by sending different hits to their own fx chains, program the drums in one phrase and then chop that phrase up in the pattern track. So its more convenient if you want to chop up drum breaks and so on. Hope that makes sense, its probably easier to understand by looking at the attached song.

There are of course other ways in which you can achieve the same effect but I’m still figuring all this out.

thanks for the demo, afta8.

I thought it worked like this but I believe I’ve did something wrong while trying it before because it didn’t work for me.

you can also use 0Bxx values to achieve the same effect while playing backward

Isn’t that their choice ?
Where does it say in the Renoise sales page that you will have a say in the companies decisions once you purchase ?
You don’t like the direction they are taking, fine, go elsewhere, there is plenty of software. (No not a “Renoise is my religion, get another DAW” attack, i hardly ever use Renoise anymore, it is not a very good DAW in 2014 in my eyes, so that argument is gone)
Some reason you think that moaning non stop will make them change their minds and do everything you want them to do, or are you just moaning non stop for fun ?
Plenty of us don’t like the direction Renoise has gone, but most of us just use other software.
And honestly the stuff i miss from Renoise will be in Redux and i can use it in my main DAW. (Still wondering who will use Redux, or are you just going to ignore this again)

By the way anything upto a 20gb library is actually about normal from a smaller developer, most of those are between $10 - $40 (Please don’t infer that they are inferior because of the lower cost, they just don’t licence the Kontakt player, so price is less)


And then I ‘go somewhere else’ and the ‘somewhere else’ also ignores what their users want, and carries on adding things that most of them don’t want.

All I want is Renoise with a Buzz Sequence Editor. I think you’ll find MOST users would want that. I can guarantee you that IF the devs had produced a Buzz Sequence Editor a few years ago, instead of the Pattern Matrix, and the Pattern Matrix had never existed, NOBODY would be criticising the Buzz Sequence Editor and demanding a ‘Pattern Matrix’-like sequencer…

So your answer is for most of us to stop buying Renoise and let it die? I’d much prefer they add the one simple thing that I want, and that most users would want, and we all keep on using it and buying it.

It’s not the size of the library that counts so much in Kontakt, it’s the extensive scripting. Those libraries aren’t going to cost $10 - $40 because the scripting is a huge amount of work.

You’re just typical of some of the people here - you can’t even DISCUSS improvements to the interface. You act like Renoise cannot be criticised - or try to silence ‘dissent’ - and then you say that you hardly use Renoise any more, and that you think it isn’t a good DAW any more! Hilarious!

hmyes i noticed that too many times now…

and the announce of redux is imho just like a confession that its not possible to improve renoise the way it needs to be! i know, hard words again but the future will proof that statement! at least you can make music with renoise, thats a fact but the differences to other daws getting bigger and bigger (less functionality!). i could cry about that, because renoise is basically such a great software…

I agree, you can still do in Renoise 3 what you used to do in 2.8, but I think the workflow is the most important thing of all, and I don’t see any improvements have been made in the actual interface.
It’s clear that there are many intelligent contributors to this forum who come up with really good ideas, new ways of laying out things in Renoise and new ways of doing things - this is where the devs should be getting their ideas from, and then asking us if we want them implemented.

LOL @ People on Renoise forums wanting it to be like Buzz, and people on Buzz forums wanting it like Renoise. :rolleyes:

I don’t know what’s your dayjob, but how would you like to be forced to ask someone of their opinions to every goddamn decision you have to take, every f’ing time? I’d quit in a few days. ;)

If I was creating a piece of software to sell to people, you’re damn right I’d be asking my customers what they wanted…

Never heard of Microsoft? The Ribbon? Windows 8? Hello?

Do you even read what you type ?
I am not saying do not discuss, i am saying moaning non stop achieves nothing, you are not being objective here, you are just saying “You should have give me a Buzz/Renoise hybrid”
I have never tried to silence dissent, i am straight up asking you why you are constantly moaning and being very very angry
to which again you ignore the large portion of these comments
Well done, i hope that attitude gets you the Buzz/Renoise hybrid you believe you richly deserve, it wont but hey lets all hope for you

Should people stop buying Renoise and let it die ?
Well yes of course, if it is not doing what you want from it then yes STOP BUYING IT , who is being all ‘renoise is my religion’ now ?
Have you ever seen a single memeber of the Renoise team say “You HAVE to buy Renoise” no you haven’t and in fact it is more common for them to say “It isn’t working for you, look elsewhere”
It is just a tool, nothing more nothing less, if your hammer stops working you move on and buy a new one
Get over yourself and your “Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong, they are biggots, they want Renoise to be a religion, no they want Renoise to die, meh meh meh” attitude

Yes, but you probably also had a lot of choices to make too and i bet if you had a large user group you would have someone who wanted it differently.
BTW i have been a sworn customer of Microsoft since MS-DOS, but i don’t like Windows 8, they didn’t ask me…or maybe i was just too lazy to answer. :lol:

Do you even care that a lot of users do like the new interface? You talk about it, that everyone is against it.
Do a poll and check if indeed the most users are frustrated as you are.

I have nothing against the new interface, some things have been moved onto different tabs, no big deal. I am complaining about the Pattern Matrix, that’s it. That’s the one thing that affects me, and plenty of other people (read the pinned thread on the Arranger and see how many people say they agree and want a Buzz sequencer…)

While I see the Phrases feature in Renoise 3.0 as more akin to an arpegiator than perhaps the way you see it, I totally agree that Renoise needs a pattern sequencer similar to the one in Buzz (perhaps also borrowing the Block feature from Reason). This would make Renoise instantly 10 times more useful and enjoyable, 100 X if the ability to layer audio tracks into the pattern sequencer is included. The pattern matrix is largely useless for the type of music I write (though I’m sure some people get a lot of use out of it), and the lack of a decent full-screen pattern sequencer in Renoise means I usually end up exporting patterns etc to another DAW to sequence the song and layer audio tracks. I’d rather do it all from within Renoise, and a decent pattern sequencer would go a long way towards that goal.

Apart from the lack of a proper pattern sequencer/arranger and audio tracks, I really like the new interface in 3.0 :D

I’d love to see improved pattern sequencing and audio tracks.

I’m also content at present to have a genuinely improved UI, some new features, and most importantly, nothing royally broken from what it was before.

As a developer myself, I know that sometimes you have to tear down the existing code and rebuild the existing features so that the program can grow in the future. Sometimes you have to re-pour the foundation before you can build a better house. And judging by the history of 2.x, I have a decent amount of faith that that is what is happening here.

I’ve never used Buzz, but I can say that I consider the underlying principle of this vitriolic but valuable thread one worth paying attention to: “More visibility to the user, without losing the essential tracker workflow.” Frame that and put it on the wall as a mission statement for all the 3.x revisions to come, because it’s a great purpose to pursue.

I don’t want Renoise to be just another DAW, but I do know that I recognize moments when using it where I am accommodating myself to the machine too much - holding things in my head because there’s no other place to put them. And in my developer day job, this is where I’d write myself a function or macro, to encapsulate that stuff in my head. Something that lets me make that opaque corner of what I am working on more transparent. And I wish for the same in my creative workflow. If or when you can find a way to make that more of a reality in Renoise, you shall hear cheering from the 4 corners of the globe.

Meanwhile, thanks for not screwing it up. :)

Finally, for what it’s worth, I am genuinely excited about Redux. Not because I want to drop Renoise into another DAW like a barnacle on the ass of a flatulent whale, but because I see a lot of opportunity to use it in places where sequencing is non-existent or highly tedious (I’m looking at you, Max/MSP). I like the idea of Redux becoming the ultimate Korg Wavestation-style sequenced wavetable oscillator and audio sample Swiss Army knife of my giddy sound design dreams. Make it so.

And maybe, if Redux hits that sweet spot I am hoping it will hit, that mission statement should be “More visibility AND flexibility to the user, without losing the essential tracker workflow.”

I’ll support that.